Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


My ministers will explain themselves to Holyrood, says Cameron

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 September 2008
MINISTERS in a future Tory government would be compelled to appear before Holyrood committees to explain their policies to Scotland, David Cameron pledged yesterday.
The Tory leader hopes to build a relationship of "respect" with the Scottish Parliament as he knows that he is likely to have few Conservative MPs north of the Border after the next general election.

This would involve UK ministers opening themsel
ves up to scrutiny from MSPs on a wide range of issues if it is considered "appropriate".

When Labour controlled the Scottish Parliament, ministers such as Peter Hain, then Minister for Europe, and Elliot Morley, then fisheries minister, did appear – though Gordon Brown, when Chancellor, and more senior trade ministers refused.

The Tories claim that Labour's period in office was marked by far more refusals than acceptances, a position they are determined to reverse.

Mr Cameron, in an interview with BBC Scotland at the Tory party conference, said: "I want to make devolution work better. I would like to see ministers in any government I lead actually appearing in front of committees in Holyrood if that was appropriate."

Despite appearing to leave open the possibility of ministers still being able to refuse demands to appear in Edinburgh, a senior Scottish Tory source indicated that Mr Cameron was effectively rewriting current convention.

The source said: "It's the 'respect' agenda in action. There will be an expectation that they will appear rather than an expectation that they won't. It's a reversal of the last nine years."

In the interview, Mr Cameron admitted that his party would struggle to add to the sole MP it has in Scotland. But he rejected suggestions that a Tory government at Westminster would merely build support for the SNP if the party in power in London had little support in Scotland.

Mr Cameron said: "Of course, I want us to win more seats in Scotland but I'm a realist. I know that however well we do, we will still face challenges in Scotland. If I become prime minister, people in Scotland should know I will reach out to anyone and everyone in Scotland who wants to make the United Kingdom work.

"Working with the First Minister, whoever that is, because if Alex Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative government will somehow help him break up the Union, he has got another think coming. I'm a passionate believer in the United Kingdom and I want Scotland and England to stay in the United Kingdom together and I will do what is necessary to see that happen."

Mr Cameron, who will make his main address to the conference tomorrow, said he had supported cross-party working in Westminster over schooling and the Trident nuclear missiles, and "we have got to have that sort of grown-up attitude to working together in Scotland".

He went on: "Devolution working means that you, as the British prime minister, have to accept that there are people with different political views who might be running the assembly in Wales, who might be running the parliament in Scotland, and you have to work with them."

Despite the Tories polling above 20 per cent in opinion polls in Scotland, election experts think they will struggle to turn that into constituencies. The seats thought most likely to fall to the party are Edinburgh South, East Renfrewshire and Dumfries and Galloway, all currently held by Labour. But the party expected to make the biggest gains in the event of a Labour collapse is the SNP.

Mr Cameron said: "At heart what I believe in is giving people more power and responsibility over their lives. I think that chimes in very much with what people in Scotland would like to see. They have had too much big bossy interfering Labour government and I think they would like a change."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 September 2008 10:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Conservative Party
 
1

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 30/09/2008 01:15:44
I think it would be a wonderful idea for the British ambassador to meet with the Scottish prime minister. Present his credentials, all that horse's @ass stuff.
If he wants to bring along a few Westminster ministers the more the merrier.
Just as it is always done among civilized sovereign nations.
At least wee Cameron is thinking ahead.
2

Weegiewarbler,

Docked 30/09/2008 01:44:35
Interesting statements:

Why did the interviewer not ask for definitions of these comments in particular:
+++++++
"Scotland should know I will reach out to anyone and everyone in Scotland who wants to make the United Kingdom work."

So if Scotland elects to dissolve the union, or elect or retain an SNP government - you won't work with them?
+++++++
if Alex Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative government will somehow help him break up the Union, he has got another think coming.

Mr. Cameron - How exactly do you intend to thwart what may very well be the wishes of the Scottish electorate?
This doesn't sound very democratic to say the least now does it?
+++++++++
I'm a passionate believer in the United Kingdom and I want Scotland and England to stay in the United Kingdom together and I will do what is necessary to see that happen."

Does that include putting the army on the streets? Attempting to arrest the democratically elected government - attempting to dissolve Holyrood - using secret service personell to undermine and influence elections - blatant warping of a supposedly free media - can you explain EXACTLY the meaning of this statement?
++++++
That'll do - but nice of a reporter had the integrity to ask for an explanation.
3

Guga II,

Rockall 30/09/2008 03:52:15
#2 Weegiewarbler.

"Does that include putting the army on the streets?"

It wouldn't be the first time. The last time the English government did that, they confined all Scottish troops to barracks, and sent in 10,000 English troops, and tanks.
4

somerferg,

perth 30/09/2008 04:57:31

Blah, blah, blah - the usual nonsense from the tory party which all adds up to "crumbs from the master's table" - NO THANKS.
5

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 30/09/2008 04:59:14
Cameron reminds me of that old chestnut.....

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"


"It's when his lips are moving!"
6

Bejjy,

30/09/2008 07:01:08
#3 Gaga

More misinformed tripe from you; British troops and tanks maybe but not English troops and tanks.
7

Royster,

30/09/2008 07:20:03
Oh perh...leeeese. Of course the Tories will do this once they are in power. I'm a tory by nature and I can assure you this is horsesh#t.
8

Patrick O'Reilly,

Coatbridge 30/09/2008 07:28:08
If only Salmond and his "cabinet secretaries" would do the same and explain their numerous broken promises to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland deserves far better.
9

Patrick O'Reilly,

Coatbridge 30/09/2008 07:29:03
7

And most nationalists are "Tory by nature".
10

Hugo of Garven,

30/09/2008 07:31:48
" . . if it is considered "appropriate"."

Who decides if it is appropriate?

11

eric,

30/09/2008 07:33:11
pass
12

donald,

glasgow 30/09/2008 07:36:35
Cameron shows more concern for Scotland than Broon the Brit, which would not be hard.
13

Macuistean,

Isle of Tiree 30/09/2008 07:37:16
.......if Alex Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative government will somehow help him break up the Union, he has got another think coming.

Alex Salmond won't break up the Union, that will be done by voting tory. Cameron just doesn't get it; The tories are detested in Scotland and when England votes tory Scotland will start the journey to independence.
14

Nell,

30/09/2008 07:50:12
"MINISTERS in a future Tory government would be compelled to appear before Holyrood committees to explain their policies to Scotland, David Cameron pledged yesterday."
Will that include explaining their previous policies from tory governments past?
Now that would be very interesting to hear someone trying to explain total neglect of a country.
15

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 07:55:29
13 Macuistean
Apart from the poll tax which the Tories removed anyway, which specific Tory acts/policies would or should an independent Scotland repeal?
16

Macuistean,

Isle of Tiree 30/09/2008 08:05:10
16 Ugly George

You are joking.
17

Guga II,

Rockall 30/09/2008 08:07:53
#6.

You are showing your ignorance of history. Check up on what happened when the Red Clydesiders were around. It was English troops and tank, and all the Scottish troops were cnfined to barracks.

With a name like yours, I can see why you are ignorant.
18

Nell,

30/09/2008 08:19:47
No. 6:- Troops based in the city's Maryhill barracks were locked inside their post, with English troops and tanks sent into the city to control unrest and extinguish any revolution that should break out. No Scottish troops were deployed, with the government fearing that fellow Scots, soldiers or otherwise, would go over to the workers' side if a revolutionary situation developed in Glasgow. English troops were transported from England and stationed in Glasgow specifically to combat this possible scenario.
19

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 08:26:17
And going by past experiances what exactly is a Tory pre election promise worth these days?
20

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 08:27:43
"if Alex Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative government will somehow help him break up the Union, he has got another think coming"

If Cameron thinks Scottish constitutional matters have anything to do with him, other than as an observer, he's in for a shock! One MP don't make a mandate!
21

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 08:28:17
9

Yes of course they are and you have a list to prove it dont you?
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 08:28:18
So in summary, Cameron said nothing, committed to nothing, and got positive press. Hmm.
23

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 08:44:25
24

Nothing new there then from the unionist press.
And yet another indication of the similarities between New Labour and the Conservatives.
You couldnt squeeze the edge of an American express card between their ideals.
24

Boy Wonder,

30/09/2008 08:44:32
The only Tory I have any time for is long dead ... and that's all of them who've had the decency to die!

And my former party of choice isn't far behind them.

Cameron's "ministers" will have nothing to answer for in Scotland .... cos they'll have nothing to do with our government.
25

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 08:45:13
#24 Duncan

I think Cameron's comments were meant to be a broadside. Albeit a halfhearted anally clipped effort bereft of conviction.

BTW apologies for calling you a t*rd yesterday. Your own particular nastiness came out of nowhere and took me by surprise. I know it's just part of your character and I shouldn't have risen to it.
26

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 08:50:23
16

Well we could reverse the growing trend towards privatising the NHS.
We can renationalise Dental surgeries
We can reduce VAT or even abolish VAT altogether.
We can renationalise the utility companies.
Get rid of PFI.
Cut back on defence spending in line with our european neighbours.
Abolish Nukes.

Thats just a few no doubt others can add to this all day.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 08:59:49
#27 Delightful - even when apologising for insulting me you insult me. I'm sorry that you think it is "nasty" to ask you to bring forward evidence for an unfounded claim that you made (which inevitably you failed to do). Perhaps the lesson is not to make unfounded claims.
28

JayJay,

Right here 30/09/2008 09:00:16
I wonder if anyone in the mainstream press might take Lord Snooty Cameron to task over his brass neck on party funding? Last night's Dispatches Programme on Channel 4 managed to expose the same old bogeymen bankrolling the Conservative party from offshore tax havens. £50k buys you a seat at the table with Dave and "policymakers" apparantly.
So much for openness and transparancy. This eejit is getting a free run at number 10 with no substantial policies, no real track record with the strings being pulled by the likes of Michael Ashcroft.
Dave, the old etonian, has made much of his everyman credentials and, like past eejits of the ilk of Jonathan Aitken, he is quick to claim the moral high ground. I won't be holding my breath waiting for the press to nail him on this issue.
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:09:03
#31 90 years is nothing - most of that lot (Guga and his mates) are obsessed with things that happened 300 years ago...
30

brownlie,

30/09/2008 09:15:58
32 Duncan

Do you think that Guga and his mates are not concerned about the dreadful state the UK Government has left this country in in the present day?

What they are pointing out is that there is a precedent for heavy-handed treatment of all those who oppose government policies.
31

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:17:24
30

Thats nothing new the Tories and New labour are both backed by undisclosed and hidden funding sometimes backed by the same sources. All their policies are bought and paid for in advance and that isnt new.
Why do you think new Labour chose to abolish the 10p tax rate instead of going for a higher tax bracket for the super rich to raise more cash?
Why do you think New Labour introduced IR35 in order to curb small companies to the advantage of bigger corporations?
And this will continue until political parties are funded by the public purse ONLY.
32

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:19:01
#34 Yep. And there's a precedent for the burning of Catholics, the ruling of the country by the French and a whole host of other things. Do you expect them all to recur?
33

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:19:38
32

We are exactly where we are today because of events which happened over 300 years ago.
Pivotal moments in history ripple out over millenia.
34

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:22:04
36

Well yes actually dont you keep up with events in Iraq and Afganistan?
For the burning of catholics you can substitute the burning of Muslims and for the country ruled by the French you can substitute the Americans and British.
Same ol same ol.
35

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:22:06
#35 Hmm, can we think of an example of this closer to home? What about a donation of £750,000 from a homophobic businessman which was directly followed by the dropping of bus re-regulation from a Scottish party's manifesto against the wishes of its party conference?

I completely agree, by the way. Political parties should be funded by the public purse. But there is NO major party in Scotland or elsewhere which can criticise the current arrangements without criticising itself. Especially not the party currently in power.
36

brownlie,

30/09/2008 09:22:59
31 Janis B

As a reporter at the miners' strike I can assure you that the police were used against miners. Miners, and other journalists, were often subjected to heavy-handed treatment when they were nowhere near strike breakers. Motorists travelling in the area were turned back and refused entry into the vicinity even though they had legitimate reasons for being there. TV cameras were refused entry into areas where this brutality took place.
37

john z,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 09:24:34
Does anybody in Scotland fall for this guff?? Never forget, the Tories vehemently opposed the setting up of the second Scottish parliament.

What is most frighteneing is Camerons determination to use all available means to keep the united kingdom together. What will that entail?? MI5 spooks 'fixing' elections, planting 'stories in the media', doing another McCrae, with a bullet to the head of anybody who believes in Scottish independence.

Oh, Mr.Cameron, please spell out how you will work to defy the democratic will of the Scottish people. Will we have internment for SNP supporters?? Do you want civil war??

For three hundred years the people of Scotland have been fighting to get rid of the abusive english government, and no english Tory is going to tell scotland what it can and cannot do.

Where is his mandate (except in an old colonial tory philosophy) to do anything in Scotland. How many MP's would he expect in Scotland 1, 2. Hardly the authority to do anything.

I suggest Cameron should really focus on England. He will have NO MANDATE from Scotland to do anything up here. Cameron will have no authority in Scotland. Period.

Unless he wants a war.......
38

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:28:27
39

Total garbage the policy of dropping the bus re-regulation was policy long before the donation was given.

All the parties can and should critise the present funding arrangement and give themselves much needed credibility with the public.
But of course some parties benefit much much more than other from illegal dodgy and hidden donations than others do. And it shows in there policies.
And in the number of Police investigations.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:31:03
#37 The great danger is the misappropriation of history for purposes like yours - the stirring up of nationalist sentiment. The ripples which reach us today are illusory. There was never a moment when England oppressed Scotland, and the dishonesty of Nationalist representations of history is one of the reasons I dismiss nationalist politics. Even if there is a core of logic, it is dressed up with so much false rhetoric as to make it indistinguishable from a lie.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:32:33
#42 No it wasn't! As a matter of fact it has never stopped being SNP party policy! It was just dropped from the manifesto - AFTER Souter's donation.
41

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:34:25
43

the misappropriation of history??

How is that even possible the same sources of history are available to all to read and interpret for themselves. You cant force anybody else to believe something you believe especially if they can judge the matter for themselves.
Hence when you try to spin yer posts with "Historical facts" we can jump down yer throat and correct you.
42

Alan B,

30/09/2008 09:35:19
Camerons comments should be welcomed. Given the immature and condesending approach of labour in londons to the Scottish parliament and Brown in particular, it is good to see that Cameron showing some respect to the Scottish parliament. Given the tories poor record in relation to Scotland we will have to see whether he lives up to his words.

By compelling mininsters in westminster to explain decisions to the devolved parliaments it will forse these ministers to understand the different arrangements in different parts of the UK.

The home office in particular under Charles Clarke seems to have a particularly contemputous and ignorant attitude to the fact that his department had implication in Scotland. Part of the problem off course was the poor devolution arrangements that fudge many areas of power.
43

Alan B,

30/09/2008 09:36:22
sorry "Charles Clarke seemed" i know he is gone now.
44

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:36:36
44

And if the SNP hadnt kept that particular manifesto promise wouldnt you be all over the blogs crying about it as another broken promise?
45

Micropacer,

30/09/2008 09:36:42
Reading views from clueless hysterical Nationlists on these forums would almost make me NOT vote for independence should I get the chance. I wouldnt let that stop me voting yes but I really do despair. Do some of you acutally believe the utter garbage you post?

I expect it of rabib Unionists by why are there Nationalists that are on the opposite extreme?

Cameron is trying to engage with Scotland again - no more or less. So many people trying to read into something that isnt there. The Tories are irrelevant and so is Cameron but there is nothing underhand about what he is proposing. Yet so many twisted and warped minds cannot see the woods for the trees.

Troops on the streets?

I give up I really do. Why dont some of you get out and interact with real people in the real world? You certainly need a healthy does of reality.
46

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:37:41
47

Whoa are you forgetting Belfast? Troops on the streets at every riot?
47

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:39:56
50

There have been "troops on the streets" of NI for the last couple of decades because some of the population desired Independence.
48

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:43:06
53

In what way? British troops on British streets during riots and armed to the teeth with live ammo.
49

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:44:34
#45 Of course it's possible! It happens every day. People choose who to trust, they do not go running for reference works. And anyway, much as you do, if it suits someone to believe a falsehood they will happily deny the truth of even the most reliable of sources - your bizarre assertions about oil reserves in the UK versus Norway yesterday was an example of that. The facts were clearly set against you, but you maintained your position on the basis of a fundamental mistrust of the factual information.

Religious belief is based on exactly the same thing. Historical facts are brushed aside when they do not gel with the tenets of faith.

And here we have Nationalists claiming oppression by the English - when in fact the union of Scotland and England came with far less oppression for real Scots than the decades and centuries preceding it!
50

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:47:18
55

"if it suits someone to believe a falsehood they will happily deny the truth of even the most reliable of sources"

I certainly cant argue with that FACT I see the evidence every day in your posts.

But then that is your personal choice it isnt being forced upon you by denying you access to your own sources.

51

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:49:10
55

Religious beliefs are based on faith not the interpretation of historical documentation.
PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THEY CANT BE FORCED TO BELIEVE.
52

Alan B,

30/09/2008 09:49:23
#Duncan in Edinburgh

"There was never a moment when England oppressed Scotland"

That maybe depends on how you define oppressed. And yes when people say England to a large degree they are talking about the political leaders.

The act of union was against the popular will of the scottish people, brought about by threats and bribes.

If a country brings in economic sanctionts to another is that oppression or is that the right of a country to trade with whoever it wants. Given that the empire was build on military force and Scotland was told it could not trade with that empire outwith the union is that oppression.

However that is distant history and really show not matter to todays decisions. Look at more recent areas of oppression would be
-the hiding of the McCrone report: this was the deliberate sepression of an economic document by the uk government at the time to prevent Scotland walking away for the union. The labour government at the time were talking about economic disaster for scotland if we walked away while their own report suggested economic disaster for england and the transformation of scotland into one of the richest countries in the world.
- following on from that would be the general propoganda and control of the news. Even recently labour pulled the devolution of broadcasting as a Scottish news might play into the hands of nats. off course that was not really England but labours Scots. We critise the governemtn propoganda of the news by say Russia but we all know the BBC is very southern union with a centre left political agenda.
-the undemocratic referendum of 79. As it was completely and utterly undemocratic and a complete disgrace (something i will never forgive the labour party and s*** that imposed that).
- the 17yrs of tory rule preventing a scottish parliament despite the yes vote in 79.
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:51:01
#56 So you agree with me that history is misappropriated on a regular basis then? Think it through next time before leaping in like you did in #45. I'm unsurprised that you think people you disagree with are responsible for it, while I think people I disagree with are responsible for it.

However, with regard to the act of union, I know I'm right that nationalists misappropriate and misrepresent that period in history on an almost daily basis, simply to further their contemporary ends.
54

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:52:13
#58 The alternative to the act of union was rule by France. Was that the will of the Scottish people? Prove it.
55

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:52:50
New Duncan

"There was never a moment when England oppressed Scotland"

So Duncan denies the entire existance of Edward the First "The hammer of the Scots".

You see New Duncan you cant force historical facts onto people.
56

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 09:55:08
59

"56 So you agree with me that history is misappropriated on a regular basis then"

No I dont many people may try like yourself for instance but they dont get away with it as has been amply displayed this morning.

57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:55:30
#62 Oh dear. I didn't say there weren't wars between Scotland and England. Do try to keep up.
58

Alan B,

30/09/2008 09:55:59
#Micropacer

I welcome what Cameron says. But I think you have to realise that many still do not trust the tories due to what happened previously.

When is a politician genuine and when will they actually do what they say?
59

Alan B,

30/09/2008 09:57:29
#64 Duncan in Edinburgh

If you say there were wars between Scotland and England. If they were started by the larger neighbour then that is oppression. A big nation bullying a small one is oppression.
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 09:59:48
#63 You are a little premature in announcing your victory - it's a common trait for you I notice. You have won no argument here.

Even if you consider the regular attempts at misappropriation of history to be failures, they still happen.
61

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:01:12
60

So that is the history of NI in a nutshell is it?
That is what you are going to use to justify the precence of armed British troops in NI for over 20 years suppressing riots?
completely ignoring the historical fact that the troops were called in to NI in the first place to protect the Catholic minority from the Protestant majority? the IRA reformed to become the Provisional IRA in order to protect Catholic communities from protestant terrorists trying to burn them out before the troops were called in.
Lets not even get into the "GERRYMANDERING" of the 6 counties in the first place.
62

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:02:26
#66 Oh for pity's sake! THAT is precisely the misappropriation of history I'm talking about. At the time of the "hammer of the Scots" Scotland was an ally/puppet state of France! Of course France itself had been the ruler of England just a few centuries beforehand. This notion that Scotland stood alone against the terrible English is PRECISELY the sort of history re-writing about which I have been talking.
63

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:03:56
67

"Even if you consider the regular attempts at misappropriation of history to be failures, they still happen"

When a misappropriation fails then it doesnt occur does it? or are you now going to get into 20 to 30 posts of semantics to cover your bullsh*t again?
64

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:05:10
64

And wars dont oppress who exactly?
65

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:06:16
#70 STOP. For once, just stop, and instead of screaming and bawling, look at what I have written and try to respond rationally to it.
66

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:08:00
72 New Duncan.

You post irrational garbage and cry foul when its pointed out rationally?
Not a troll then?
67

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:10:26
72

I am just waiting for you to switch over to a rational new logon account.
68

WL,

livingston 30/09/2008 10:15:08
Scotland will be independent before there will be a Conservative & Unionist Party government in Westminster!
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:15:17
#73 I am not being irrational, and for the umpteenth time, I have only one login.

Your assertion that "when a misappropriation fails then it doesn't occur" is mistaken, because failure is judged only by each individual's response to it. There will be many people taken in by the misrepresentation of English "oppression" of Scots in the 16 and 1700s, despite the wide availability of historical texts describing the period accurately.
70

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:20:32
What truly cracks me about this New Labour approach to propaganda using cybertrolls on the blogs is their cybertrolls are arguing and insulting ordinary voters when they should be trying to persuade them to vote for new labour and not the SNP.
They are supposed to be presenting reasonable argument and trying to expose where they think the SNP are going wrong but instead they have taken upon themselves to try and wind up as many ordinary voters as they can by getting involved in slanging matches.
Do they think this is what the New Labour party had in mind when they kicked this off?
I think they need a whole rethink rehash and recruitment drive to get new cybertrolls above the age of 15.
71

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:22:14
#78 More diversion. I am not being paid by the Labour party or anyone else. Indeed, it would be a very very odd thing for Labour to pay for, as you yourself say. So let's drop this whole ridiculous set of allegations please. They are baseless.
72

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:23:30
#Duncan

Scotland aligned itself with France partially to protect itself from England.

You seem to be denial about anything to do with anything that does not fit in to your views that the union is good and England have always been a good neighbour to us.

73

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:23:32
77

The point is Duncan if they are "taken in" its because the choose to be "taken in" we are back to belief again and faith.
I prefer to look at it as convinced not taken in.
Which is where you go wrong every time you obviously mistake "taking in" with "convincing" which shows in every post.
74

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:24:56
79

Then its very very strange why you post as if you are instead of as a hardworking IT something in Edinburgh would post.
75

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:26:15
#Duncan

So you are saying it was ok for England to attack Scotland becuase Scotland for protectionist and religious reasons allied itself to France.

Is that not the bush doctrine if you are not with us you are against us.

76

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:27:22
#80 I don't deny that. It would be ridiculous to suggest that England was always a good neighbour to Scotland, and I never have.

Please review what specifically I have said before criticising me for what I haven't said.
77

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:28:11
#Duncan

Do you think the British empire going round the world and running them by force and killing them if they resisted was also a good thing.

You are a colonialist and imperialist at heart.

Rule Britainia
78

Yr Awel,

Here & There 30/09/2008 10:29:44
Alan B 58

When talking about the McCrone report, why not mention pp. 16-17 (available on the Net for everyone to see and ponder!). They make very interesting reading: they simply explain that while the economic case for independence could be made, there still remained to make the social and political case - NO LESS! - for the
breaking up of the Union.
Frankly, after all these years, I still cannot understand why the then Labour government opposed the publication; indeed, it would have helped us focus on the real issue: independence = improved democracy or not? Which is precisely a question of a POLITICAL nature. Put differently, it would read: how much benefit can WE, not Scotland the territory, but each and every individual in real life inhabiting the said territory (long live diversity!), possibly derive from it. Now this is a question you cannot answer unless you go for consensus (a halfway-house, a compromise, call whatever you will), which rules out any move supported by just a section of the population, however big...
The hiding of the McCrone report? A missed opportunity for Unionists!
79

Ewan M,

30/09/2008 10:30:30
More Nationalist rantings.....a sensible policy by Cameron, good on him.
80

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:31:07
#84 Duncan

Off course i review what you say. I just disagree with it.

You ask me to review but then you come out with things I did not say in post in #69. Accusing me of WRONGLY misrepresenting history.
81

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:31:42
75

And what if a democratic vote for independence is denied? what if a democratic referendum is denied?
What if the SNP win more than 30 Scottish seats in Westminster and declare a mandate to negotiate independence is denied?
Do you think the Tories or New Labour would hesitate to put troops on the streets if the people being denied their democratic rights decide to riot?
And do you think the US would object when they themselves regularly put troops on their streets during riots?
82

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 10:34:06
#76

"Scotland will be independent before there will be a Conservative & Unionist Party government in Westminster!"

So you think labour are going to win the general election in 2010 then?

Even if there is a referendum in 2010 and that referendum votes yes to independence, it will take at least 3-5 years for Scotland to become fully independent after that, so I think its safe to say you are wrong, unless labour somehow manage to win the next election.
83

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:34:11
Just Like I predicted New Duncan wants to argue semantics rathar than issues or facts.
Of course he is not a Labour party political troll.
Soon to be replaced again because he doesnt understand his remit.
84

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:34:29
#83 and #85 No and no. I am a realist. That is what differentiates me from you, and from suchaparcel. I am not taken in by nationalist sentiment, whether British nationalist or Scottish nationalist.

In #83 you refer to England attacking Scotland. Are you familiar with the fact that Scotland also attacked England? Why do you persist in presenting the history of those two nations in such one-sided terms?
85

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 10:35:13
Duncan in Edinburgh.

From the 26th June
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Oilobsessed-SNP-figures-simply-do.4223673.jp

Here is where Gray claims that even with control over oil revenues, an independent Scotland would run a serious fiscal defecit. Which we all know is complete tosh.
Forgive me for presuming that a serious unionist such as yourself would have seen this, or at least be aware of Gray's spin on the matter.
I now await your apology for your accusation that I fabricated this.
Apologies to everyone else for going off subject.
86

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:36:25
#91 I've asked you before to stop trying to close down discussions with this tactic of misrepresenting me. Stop it please.
87

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:36:37
87 Ewan
Many people seem to think that the Tories will set upon some sort of vendetta against Scotland if they are elected. I think that they might be surprised. I think their approach is more likely to be a hands off appraoch along the lines of if you want to do that go ahead and take responsibility for your own actions.
88

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:36:52
......if Alex Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative government will somehow help him break up the Union, he has got another thing coming.

This sounds like a threat to me!You could interpret this in many ways and I dont like the one that keeps on rearing its ugly head!

There is no doubt that our village idiots will waken up and to their surprise find Cameron in no 10.
His majority will be at least 100 seats and maybe could stretch to between 150 and 200 as things look currently.
Labour are finished that is a certainty.

We will hear the usual "The Tories got in because of SNP votes" and all those one brain cell Labour voters will nod in agreement and go back to looking at the pictures in the Daily Retard.

There is no doubt that once it has penetrated their thick skulls that THEY elected Cameron into Scotland that the UK will break in two.
The real question is when will it get into their thick skulls?
They did exactly this for 18 years and got Thatcher into the bargain.

Stupid is a compliment!

At least Tory voters elected a government. Labour voters go to elect an opposition ONLY.

What's really sad is that half of Scotland cannot work this out!
VOTE LABOUR (or Lib Dem) GUARANTEE A TORY GOVERNMENT imposes itself on Scotland.

Any body who backs a horse with no legs ( e.g New Labour) really needs to waken up.

LABOUR CANNOT WIN
Why do we have to go there to know it exists?

Remove the Tories permanently VOTE SNP and remove SCOTLAND from their reach.The ONLY answer.
89

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:36:55
92

If yer not taken in by sentiment then where does your convictions come from? a box?
90

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:37:20
#Yr Awel

My regarding the McCrone report was it suppression for political expediency.

The supression of information in the 70 by the civil service and thier political masters was quite rife. eg Bernard Ingam etc.

The McCrone report did say Scotland would be better of economically becuase of oil if we went independent. The problem was labour publically said the very opposite. As for social and political issues that is not really the scope of an economic report. They are things the public should balance up when deciding independence.

The fact was the atmosphere at the time suggested Scotland could go independent. Labour and whitehall supressed info to try to swing the debate. A undemocratic referendum also was used with promises of a scottish assembly.

Was it not Tony Benn labour enegy minister who said scotland could not be trusted with oil and would just squander it.
91

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:39:20
95

Thats always a possibility but that possiblity belays their past record which also shows they are willing to say and promise anything pre election and deliver none of it.
92

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:43:47
94

Ok done. Now lets see you get back on topic as a hard working IT something in Edinburgh as opposed to a New Labour party cyber troll which of course youre not.
93

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:44:13
#Ugly George

Do you really think people think that scots think the tories will run a vendetta against Scotland?

More likely they think tory piorities are not Scotlands priorities. That having the tories run scotland with very little representation in Scotland will be difficult to democratically justify.

Labour have also botched the arrangments for the scottish parliament. It will be interesting how Cameron deals with the fudging of so many powers.

94

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:46:15
98 Alan B
I know that the report was suppressed but the information on which it was based was readily available and their was nothing to stop other groups(eg SNP) commissioning their own analysis.

I remember at the time (I'm old enough) there was much speculation on the issues dealt with in the report and people were expressing similar views to McCrone over possible outcomes. I do think, therefore, that the suppression of the report is not as important as many consider.

One has to remember also, that the report was a projection. It was not a analysis of a current situation. Did McCrone foresee the collapse of oil price in the late eighties/early nineties?
95

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:47:44
101

I would like to see the difference between the Tory new powers for Scotland proposals compared to New Labours proposals. Are they advocating the same power transfers or do they have different versions?
96

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:48:50
#Duncan in Edinburgh

A realist is not someone that denies history for political expediency.

The fact is England did oppress Scotland historically. The British empire did oppress much of the rest of the world. Imperialism and colonialism were wrong and they were at the heart of most expansionism with the British being the worst.

However these days have gone now. And it is all pretty irrelevent to today. However going into denial. Or like the unionist parties making sure real scottish history is not taught in scottish schools. Just to try to manipulate people politcal views is wrong.
97

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 10:49:14
#96

"VOTE LABOUR (or Lib Dem) GUARANTEE A TORY GOVERNMENT imposes itself on Scotland."

What a stupid thing to say - voting SNP will guarantee a tory government, not the other way round.

If everyone in Scotland voted labour there is a good chance labour would still win the election.

According to the Electoral Calculus, the tories will have a majority of 86 after the next election. If all 59 Scottish seats went to labour this majority would be significantly cut, and it would only take a slight swing for there to be a hung parliament, or even labour to win.

So no, voting labour or lib dem will not guarantee a tory government, voting SNP will.

98

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:50:10
101 Alan B
I don't think that it is a widely held view but I do think that some people think that. You only have to read some of the posts on Scotsman threads but perhaps more pertinently Tory measures may be portrayed as being ant-Scottish.
99

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:51:57
102

" know that the report was suppressed but the information on which it was based was readily available and their was nothing to stop other groups(eg SNP) commissioning their own analysis."

You are of course referring to the compiled data which is only gathered and compiled by the UK govt for taxation and revenue purposes?
So where else were the SNP supposed to find this compiled data which was only compiled by the UK government and suppressed as you agreed??????
The McCrone report took everybody but the Govt by surprise it was a bombshell which would have had atomic proportions if it had come out in the 70s.

100

subrosa,

30/09/2008 10:52:44
# 35

I'm sick to death hearing you call Brian Soutar homophobic. Do you do it because he tried to stop certain sex education being taught to very young children in our schools? If you do then you should be ashamed of yourself. Make an effort and find out about the material taught in our schools to our innocent children. You may then decide Brian Soutar and his lot were right. I've seen it and I can fully understand why he wanted to protect our children.
101

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:54:29
105

What a stupid thing to say - voting SNP will guarantee a tory government, not the other way round

What a stupid thing to say voting SNP will guarantee never getting a British Tory government again ever.
102

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:55:35
102

Suppressed in this case means unavailable until it became public domain under the Freedom of Information Act a few years ago, and was discovered by an SNP researcher a few years ago!
Had he been less vigilant we possibly would never have known it existed.
THAT'S HOW SUPPRESSED IT WAS!

Independent studies were compiled ,notably by Fraser of Allander Institute which generally supported the conclusions of the SNP research department who compiled information from independent surveys newspapers United Nations handbook etc.Any source which was clearly independent of the SNP was considered a source of information.That why the SNP flourished.They published what was factually correct whilst Unionist parties broadcast a hazt mist of lies and deception.
It was a decpetion then ITS a deception NOW!

There is still 51% of oil reserves in the North Sea and SCOTLAND WAS CONNED FACT!

103

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:55:54
#93 Two things:

1. I never accused you of fabricating anything. I said I had not seen Iain Gray describe Scotland as "too poor and too wee" to go it alone, and asked you to either show evidence or shut up. It was the "shut up" bit that got your back up, I realise. It's not an insult, just a direct turn of phrase.

2. I'm afraid that link does not show Iain Gray saying that Scotland is too poor and too wee to go it alone. So you have failed to back up your assertion with evidence.

What Iain does say in that piece is that the SNP needs to stop banging on about oil, and that Scotland has a bright future even once the oil reserves are gone.

"If the Scottish Government is truly committed to growing Scotland's economy, it should ditch the complacent, clichéd claptrap about "Scotland's oil" and instead focus its attention on Scotland's infrastructure, its universities, schools and in skills and apprenticeships.

Our future will be built on knowledge, learning, skills and innovation."

This doesn't sound to me like someone talking down Scotland - quite the opposite.
104

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:56:00
102

And if this data was available to anybody what was the point in suppressing the report in the first place?
105

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:56:57
104 Alan B

"A realist is not someone that denies history for political expediency."

The problem is there are often many different versions of historywith different slants, different emphasis and selective information.
106

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:57:04
#Ugly George

There was a difference between a government commission report and a party political report.

What we had in the 70s was the governments economic analysis supressed. What we then had was the same government coming out and publically saying Scotland would be an economic basket case.

Brian Wilson recently came out and said everyone new scotland, Scotland would be wealthier if we walked away with oil, but scotland did not becuase of our sense of fair play. But the point is labour lied as they said the opposite.

There was quite alot of suppression of info. The london based civil servents like Ingam has such statements linked to him. ie how to deal with the issue that the rest of the uk which was almost bankrupt in the 70s could cope if scots walked away with the oil.

Barnett which was introduced at the time was to give scotland a higher share of public spending in order to bribe scots into staying. The result of Barnett meant that scotland a poorer country massively subsidised England over the next period.

A hoc question to the tory treasury in the mid 90s repied that scotland had subsidised England to the tune of 27billion over the period from 79 to 95. (did not mention the oil of the 70s)

That is huge. Abit like England giving the US 270billion. Abit like Scotland giving away 15p in the pound tax for 10yrs (90s prices).
107

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 10:58:08
#108 Well then you're an idiot and you have already been proved wrong. You have bought to "protect our children" lies hook, line and sinker. Section 28, and its defence, was built entirely on the basis of homophobia, and those who excuse or defend it, especially on the basis of the materials now used in schools which are utterly non-judgemental, is quite wrong.
108

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 10:59:01
111

There you go arguing semantics again when are you going to start posting as a hardworking IT something in Edinburgh and not a New Labour party cyber troll which of course youre not?
109

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:59:02
112 Parcel
Because it did not match the rhetoric of the current govt. They could hardly publish a report that did not agree with what they were saying. There is no great mystery about that.
110

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 10:59:10
#102 Ugly George

McCrone himself said that his projections were probably conservative, which they were. He also said that, thankfully, the Scottish general public were unaware of the enormity of the surplus an independent Scottish economy would generate, and that the information should be surpressed.
111

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 10:59:57
05
Yeah1,



How could 59 Scottish seats possibly influence the Tory victory when they are guaranteed a majority of at least 100 and possibly twice that on current opinion polls.England has almost 600 seats ?

We already had 18 years of Tory government because people like you cant do arithmetic !
112

Alan B,

30/09/2008 10:59:57
#113 Ugly George

Agreed. But to say England has not oppressed Scotland as our much larger neighbour hundreds of yrs ago is silly.

Why have we had unionist suppression of Scottish history in schools?

However it is irrelevent to the merits of independence or the union today.

The fact is the union should stand on its own 2 feet and we should not hide history, deny history, and allow uk government to misrepresent Scotlands position for its own political ends.

113

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:01:55
117

Ah so Data statistics and reports will only ever show the rhetoric of the present govt? didnt I argue that very point last night with you in yer various guises?
Didnt I make the point that you cannot trust govt data and stats because they wont show any data and stats which show them in a bad light?
114

suchaparcelofrogues,

30/09/2008 11:03:49
117

So why do you use govt data and stats and reports to back up your arguments knowing full well the data stats and reports are doctored in order to agree with the rhetoric of the present govt?
115

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:04:25
#119

"How could 59 Scottish seats possibly influence the Tory victory when they are guaranteed a majority of at least 100 and possibly twice that on current opinion polls.England has almost 600 seats ?"

Have a look at the latest predictions from the Electoral Calculus - it currently predicts the tories will have a majority of 86 after the next election.

That means if there is a slight swing back towards labour the 59 Scottish seats could become very important.

Current opinion polls can change very quickly - only a year ago Gordon Brown was riding high. The tories are not 'guaranteed' to win any amount of seats.
116

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:04:33
117

I may have to cut and paste that post to you often.
117

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:06:20
#117 Ugly George

Thing is labour knew one out to be the case ie Scotland would be richer independent. Their own report showed that. They then lied to the people in order to get people to remain in the union.

If the union is so weak the uk government have to lie to Scotland then it surely is not a union worth having.
118

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:07:40
#116

"There you go arguing semantics again when are you going to start posting as a hardworking IT something in Edinburgh and not a New Labour party cyber troll which of course youre not?"

As far as I can see he isn't arguing semantics, he is merely asking someone to back up what they have said with evidence, to prove it is true.

I think thats a perfectly fair thing to do, don't you?

Or do you think people should be allowed to 'quote' statements from politicians without any evidence that they actually said it?

I'm sure if someone quoted Salmond as saying something you didn't believe you too would be asking for evidence to prove he said it?
119

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:07:56
117

Come on Ugly dont run away you have opened a can of worms for yourself with that little admission.
You have put all the unionist logons at risk now they wont be able to use Govt data stats and reports without you having to disagree with them.
120

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:09:39
#Ugly George

Do you seriously question given the state of the uk in the 70s that Scotland would not have been significantly richer if we had gone our own way in the 70s?

Off course we could be as the government minister Tony Benn said no capable of managing our oil wealth and just squander it. But given the huge wealth while mistakes would surely have made we would have done far better than we have done today. We would have been able to use that wealth to deal with the problems of the 70s and 80s. We would have had a much stronger economt that today.
121

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:10:21
126

I'm sure if someone quoted Salmond as saying something you didn't believe you too would be asking for evidence to prove he said it?

That happens every day on these blogs and they never come back with the proof so whats yer point again?
122

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:11:39
114 Alan B
"A hoc question to the tory treasury in the mid 90s replied that scotland had subsidised England to the tune of 27billion over the period from 79 to 95. (did not mention the oil of the 70s)"

This is the problem - selective information. The reason the figures start at 1979 is that that is the first year of oil revenues oil production started in 1976 but was only a small amount till 1979. There were no oil revenues prior to 1979 - only gas revenues from fields (many off the East coast of England) gas revenues started in 1964/65 when the first licences were sold so why start the analysis in 1979. That is what I mean by selective info. - choose the years that best suit your argument and ignore others.

Take the whole picture (not just selected years) of North Sea oil/gas production from when it started (1964/65) to the present and you get a different picture.
123

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:12:03
#Yeah1

While i cannot comment on what Gray said. As he has been very low profile till now. how can you post links to interviews we here on Newsnight or the other political shows.
124

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:12:44
123

So the SNP only require to win 30 Scottish seats in Westminster in order to win a mandate to begin the negotiations for Independence.
And that in a Parliament which gives a mandate for a party to govern the UK with a 35% minority.
125

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:13:09
114

Just thought I would confirm the accuracy of what you say regarding Brian Wilson.I witnessed that statement by him on TV.
Apparently Labour think it is the hallmark of good governance to lie through your teeth,and then deny that you lied (which is another bunch of lies of course).

You have to admire the capacity of some Unionists to live on this planet as long as they have and successfully give the facts a body swerve !
That should have been greeted with absolute condemnation when he made that claim.
Our electorate don't even know it happened!
126

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 11:14:16
111 Duncan
"1. I never accused you of fabricating anything."

"Accept that you made this up", is an accusation of fabrication. That's what got my back up.

Gray said that even with control over oil revenues, Scotland would run a deficit of £2.? billion. He is most certainly "talking Scotland down". He is also saying that Scotland's future is dependent upon remaining in the union. Which infers "too wee, too poor, too weak". Which was my point in the first place.

All we need now is for you to start slinging around accusations of Anglophobia to confirm your status as the Ubertroll. A real trolls troll!
127

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:14:40
#Ugly George

The 79 to 95 figures were for the period of the tory government. (question was asked in 95).

It completely demolished the lies that during this time that scotland was being subsidised by England as they were uk tory treasury government figures.
128

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:15:20
#129

"That happens every day on these blogs and they never come back with the proof so whats yer point again?"

My point is that they should come back with proof. If someone quotes something as fact they should have the proof to back it up, whether they are quoting Salmond, Gray or anyone else.

And people like you shouldn't criticise others for asking for that proof.
129

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:17:29
#morris

thanks
130

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:17:37
#131

"how can you post links to interviews we here on Newsnight or the other political shows."

Most of those shows are nowadays available to view again on the internet on things like i-player.
131

Yr Awel,

Here & There 30/09/2008 11:18:27
Alan B 98

You say: 'As for social and political issues that is not really the scope of an economic report.' ??
It all sounds as if independence was a mere technicality. It can't be, because in Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, and basically the world over, the word 'We', which you have used repeatedly in your answers to other posters on this thread, is problematic (your 'we' e.g. cannot include me and quite a few of 'us'). So political expediency or not, Labour did shoot themselves in the foot back in the early 1970s as I think 'we' were thwarted of the crucial debate (about solidarity, the nature of democracy and plenty more interesting subjects) 'we' could and should have had.
Otherwise, you seem to suggest that politics is a dirty business sometimes (lies, broken promises, etc.)... Sorry, but: Big deal!
132

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:19:26
We were lied to in the 70s and had tanks on the street in 1919, that is the sume of the Nats arguement! It is 2008 and we need to look at the best way forward not at the past.
133

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:19:28
136

Oh come on New Duncan you werent even asking for proof you were arguing semantics again.
You yourself never provide a shred of evidence to any opinion you present when asked but then as a troll yer not supposed to presumably.
134

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:20:10
123

I visit England often and I KNOW your goose is cooked! Labour will lose seats all over the place.Even Labour strongholds have made it clear LABOUR ARE OUT!

Its exactly this claim that Labour can win which elected Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government.

Why take the chance?

An independent Scotland guarantees that there will be no Tory government in Scotland.
You guarantee that there probably will be one!

Come back the day after the General Election please (when Cameron has been elected) so we can all tell you what a remarkable insight into reality you are.
135

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:20:22
140

Na theres loads and loads more up there you only have to look before you post not the other way around.
136

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:25:55
#Yr Awel

You may think it is acceptable for the uk government to lie to Scotland for their own political benefit. but i do not. We are not talking about party politics but the constitutuion.

It also goes to the heart of the unionist creditibility and particularly labour.

Have labour admitted lying and asked scotland to forgive it. Can we really trust anything labour say?
137

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 11:26:50
#134 "He is also saying that Scotland's future is dependent upon remaining in the union."

Where? Quite frankly I think you have read into this far more than what was said. Iain Gray is the leader of a party which believes the union is the best future for Scotland, and he is right and justified in taking that argument to the people offering the opposite point of view. If he were to start saying that Scotland were *dependent* on the union for its future, then he would lose my respect and that of many other people, because that is as untrue as suggesting that Scotland can *only* succeed outwith the union.

You have utterly, completely failed to back up your assertions with evidence. Iain Gray did not say anything you claimed he said.
138

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:27:38
140

Do you know what the purpose of history is ? Its not academic only!

We don't know what the way forward is, unless we learn from mistakes of the past.That requires study and that is why we teach history.

The past is our guide to a stable and prosperous future.
If we can take anything positive from our mistakes it must surely be that we recognise them and do not repeat them.


There is a big difference between dwelling in the past and being aware of the past.

We teach history for a reason!

Its quoted for a reason also.

I agree that th3e future is what matters,but ignore the past guarantees the wrong answers!
139

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:28:45
123

"How could 59 Scottish seats possibly influence the Tory victory when they are guaranteed a majority of at least 100 and possibly twice that on current opinion polls.England has almost 600 seats"

Are you trying to post one of the major "union benefits" for Scotland?
140

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 11:29:13
#136 Yeah 1

I have no problem with DiE or any one asking for corroboration. I have just done that. I do have a problem with certain posters immediately launching into insults and bilious jibes. This is a public forum for people to exchange views and share information. Unfortunately, usually because of trolling, it descends into a bun fight which completely ruins the thread for the majority. Which I'm sure is regarded as a job well done by the trolls.
141

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:29:17
#142

And as I have already said, things can change very quickly in politics. Just because the tories would win an election if it was held tomorrow does not mean they would win one when it is likely to be held in 2010.

Voting labour in 2010 might stop a tory government, voting SNP in 2010 will guarantee a tory government.

Even if the whole of Scotland votes SNP in 2010 that doesn't mean Scotland will automatically become independent. It just means the SNP will have more of a mandate to claim independence - Scotland would still have to put up with a tory government, at least for a few years.

"Come back the day after the General Election please (when Cameron has been elected) so we can all tell you what a remarkable insight into reality you are."

What I am saying is that if the whole of Scotland voted labour then the tories might not win the next election. Since that isn't going to happen however, the tories will win, so not sure what your point is?
142

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:32:24
#148

"I have no problem with DiE or any one asking for corroboration. I have just done that."

Thats good to know, its a shame people like 'suchaparcelofrogues' don't share your point of view.

"I do have a problem with certain posters immediately launching into insults and bilious jibes."

Yes unfortunately there is too much of that on these forums. Posters from both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it.
143

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:34:22
30 SNP MPs is not a mandate for Independence as they are the natural opposition party in the current protest vote climate. Will Salmond declare that he sees it as a mandate to let people know what they are voting for?
144

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:34:54
145

"because that is as untrue as suggesting that Scotland can *only* succeed outwith the union."

So what can Scotland succeed as within the union?
What exactly is a nation that isnt independent?

Are the Labour party suggesting that the UK can equally succeed as a fully integrated federal state of the EU?
Would it be fair to say that the UK can in fact equally succeed as a small part of a greater union of nations dominated by a single larger nation for example Russia or China?
145

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:35:35
#Duncan

So what is labour message to scotland regarding the economy and the union. (seriously and not just party political guff).

It must be something like:

We have done badly in scotland economically relative to the rest of the uk and many of the small north western european coutries. Or econimic growth has been less that 2% over the past 30yrs. Or economic growth has been 2.2% over the last decade during a good global economic climate while the uk achieved 2.8% and the group of small european countries achieved 3.6%.

Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium

all have higher gpd per capita ppp than the uk as a whole.

However despite all this evidence and scotlands poor economic performance within the union Scotland would do worse standing on her own 2 feet.

If it sounds like "too wee and too poor and too stupid" and smells like "too wee and too poor and too stupid" why do you think it is not.

146

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:36:38
149

"Voting labour in 2010 might stop a tory government, voting SNP in 2010 will guarantee a tory government."

Voting SNP in 2010 will guarantee an end to ever having a British tory government in charge of Scotland again ever.
147

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:37:52
135 Alan B
To get an accurate picture of oil and gas reveues go to the BERR oil/gas website. In the "information" you can find total revenues since 1964/65.

You will see there quite clearly that the very large revenues projected by McCrone and used to deal with the question you referred to were only a feature for a few years in the mid eighties. Yes, if you allocate a "geograhical" share of revenues to Scotland then Scotland did subsidise the rest of the UK in 1984/85 but if you go 10 years back or 10 years forward from there you get a very different picture. That is why I say you have to look at the whole picture - not just a few selected years.

Analysis done on behalf of the taxpayers association states that, even with oil revenues, Scotland has only been in surplus for 5 or 6 out of all of these years.

Also consider this. The Barnett formula which gives Scotland a higher per capita allocation of public expenditue came into effect in 1978 as a method of dealing with proposed devolution. Prior to that the Goschrn formula was used. The Goschen formula was actually more generous to Scotland as it allocated a higher proportion. It was replace by the Barnett formula to take into account the smaller rise in Scotland's population over the years. The Goschen formula started in 1888. So for 120 years Scotland has been allocated a substantially larger per capita level of spending. Aginst this Scotland's "geographical" share of oil revenues produced a surplus for 5/6 years.
148

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:39:57
#Ugly George

I did not use a few selected yrs I used a period of about 17yrs. I used it because it was not snp figures but tory uk treasury figures.
149

Ananurhing,

30/09/2008 11:40:46
#145 Dunc

Methinks though dost protest too much Duncan. He uses dubious figures to state that even with control of oil revenues, Scotland would run a serious deficit. Do you believe that?
That infers that Scotland is dependent on the union, which is "talking Scotland down". It doesn't surprise me. He's westminsters man in Scotland, it's his remit. He's simply doing his job! Which is to sell the union to Scotland by doing "whatever it takes". And I for one am not buying it.
150

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:41:08
152

It only took a majority of Scottish MPs to vote Scotland into the union therefore it only requires a majority of Scottish votes to get them out.
Besides for the SNP to win 30 of the 59 seats they will have to win over 50% of the population hence the mandate. And we all know what happens when Westminster denies the democratic rights to its people dont we?
151

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:41:51
#155

"Voting SNP in 2010 will guarantee an end to ever having a British tory government in charge of Scotland again ever."

As I have already pointed out, even if everyone in Scotland votes SNP in 2010 that does not guarantee Scotland will automatically become independent.
152

Alan B,

30/09/2008 11:43:53
Independence will only come with a referendum (as it should).
153

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:45:40
#159

"Besides for the SNP to win 30 of the 59 seats they will have to win over 50% of the population hence the mandate. And we all know what happens when Westminster denies the democratic rights to its people dont we?"

Not everyone who votes SNP wants independence.

Some people will vote for the SNP as a protest vote against labour, others will vote for them because they like some of their policies.

There would still have to be a referendum on independence, and then a process lasting several years and costing billions of pounds before Scotland became fully independent.
154

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:46:28
149 Yeah1 (New Duncan etc)

How does your post at 123

"How could 59 Scottish seats possibly influence the Tory victory when they are guaranteed a majority of at least 100 and possibly twice that on current opinion polls.England has almost 600 seats"

tie in with your post at 149

"Voting labour in 2010 might stop a tory government, voting SNP in 2010 will guarantee a tory government."



155

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:48:59
162

Everybody voting SNP will end up getting Independence and they know it so to claim that is just garbage.
Everybody and his dog knows that the SNPs main policy is independence they are informed of this often by the media and the press.
156

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:49:04
147

Yes I suppose I am!

We should be eternally grateful to the bright sparks who elected four successive Tory governments into Scotland(including Thatcher) whilst voting Labour and trying to achieve what they believed to be the opposite.
If those are the actions of intelligent human beings then I am from the planet ZOB.

Now they want to do it a fifth time!

Vote Labour You know you they cannot win.
Declare your numpty credentials to the world !

The Union dividend will be paid in full.Cameron will make sure of that!
One example of history teaching some of us a lesson,but the Unionist Labour idiots learn nothing and repeat the same dross again and again.

At least Tory voters get what they wanted.These idiots get the opposite (well in their eyes anyway)and have already screwed it up four times!
ITS WELL PAST TIME.
Glenrothes
Kick Westmonster into touch!
157

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:51:30
162

There will not be any legal nor constitutional requirement for a referendum if the SNP win over 30 Westminster seats its an automatic mandate as it was when the union was formed in the first place unless you now want to claim the union is in fact illegal and unconstitutional?
158

Ugly George,

Ediburgh 30/09/2008 11:51:41
157 Alan B
Yes but one could choose the the 17 years from 1989/90 to 2006/07 (the last year for which all info is available) and get a very different picture. As I keep saying look at the whole picture.
159

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:53:44
165

Eh Morris your telling us you posted as YEAH 1 at 123.
160

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:56:03
165

Its a pity your werent posting as New Duncan at the time but never mind a troll outed is a troll for awe that.
161

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:56:11
#164

You cannot be that stupid! People vote SNP as a protest against labour as they cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative. They trust the SNP to run the devolved assembly and represent their interests at westminster but do not actually want Independence. They can do thsi as the SNP have stated that they will hold a referendum, that is why SNP support polls higher than Independence.
162

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 11:57:16
162

Which is why a referendum asking a specific question will be unequivocal and Scotland's claim will be internationally recognised according to Agreements which the UK is a signatory to.
The position is quite straight forward.We establish what is the true position.

If a majority favour independence then it happens.
If a majority favour the retention of the Union in some form then that also should be what happens.

Unionists have nothing to fear from a democratic party like the SNP.
Can Nationalists say the same for Labour and Tory I wonder? Previous Tory leaders have said Of course we would recognise Scotlands wishes.John Biffen even admitted that he favoured the Union because England benefited from it and he was elected into an English seat.Had he been a Scot he would not have been in the Tory party,and hinted that he recognised the strength of the SNP claims and might well have become one!
163

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 11:57:54
#163

"How does your post at 123 tie in with your post at 149"

Do you know what quotation marks are? The quote in I used in #123 was from Morris in his #119 post.

I did not say that myself - I was quoting what Morris said and then answering his quote, just as I have quoted you above and am answering your quote.

Is that clear enough for you to understand?
164

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 11:59:26
170

You cannot be that stupid! People vote SNP as a protest against labour as they cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative.

I dont and neither does my wife.

And people in Scotland can no longer distinguish between New Labour and the Conservatives can you?

"They trust the SNP"

And that is it in a nutshell.
165

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:04:40
suchaparcelofrogues:

It appears you are a little out of your depth on this forum.

Perhaps you should find out what quotation marks are and learn to recognise when people are using them first, before you post anything else?
166

Yr Awel,

Here & There 30/09/2008 12:05:35
Alan B 144

I am actually glad you are now talking about the constitution, though I don't quite understand what this has to do with politicians (who, you insist, only represent themselves, since they - only some Labour politicians? - keep lying to us).
Indeed, the constitution is for EVERYONE, not just for 'us' but for 'them' as well. So I may now safely say: thanks for making my point for me!
167

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:06:38
168

No
I am just confirming the Union Dividend is get what England voted for and in this case, you did NOT vote for .
There can be no greater stupidity than achieve the opposite of your intentions ! Even an own goal looks good compared to Labours tactics!

In 123 he claims that a majority of 89 is possible.
Even if that were correct(I say differently) it still means a Tory government if Labour took all 59 Scottish seats. The majority might be less but he would still elect a Tory government which he does not want.

When you know your horse has no legs the last thing you do is put money on it!
168

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:06:55
#173

many people do though which is why we must have either a refernedum or a declatarion that a vote for the SNP is a vote for Independence. this gives the people who like their social policies but not Independence.
169

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:08:53
#171

"Which is why a referendum asking a specific question will be unequivocal and Scotland's claim will be internationally recognised according to Agreements which the UK is a signatory to."

Exactly. Perhaps you could point that out to suchaparcelofrogues so he stops saying things like "There will not be any legal nor constitutional requirement for a referendum if the SNP win over 30 Westminster seats its an automatic mandate".

And for the benefit of suchaparcelofrogues:

The writing above that is surrounded by " on one end and " on the other is not from me - its quotes from other people.
170

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:14:56
170 If what you say is true of some people, (and I will concede this is possible), then many people vote for the Unionist parties but favour an independent Scotland is just as logical as what you have claimed.Maybe the Tory Labour and Lib Dem vote is a protest against an independent Scotland? Maybe its not in some bizarre cases. I have actually canvassed a woman in Warrender Park Road in Edinburgh(where I lived at the time)who intended voting Tory because she believed they would give Scotland independence!IM DEADLY SERIOUS BY THE WAY.
The matter is easily dealt with to the satisfaction of all. MEASURE IT! If its close measure it again when a change is likely.

Unionists would do well to takea simple fact on board:
The SNP is a democratic party and will never do anything without the consent of the people.
Unionists have nothing to fear from democracy.
171

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:17:05
172

I do apologise old boy my mistake.

When yer wading through a mountain of sh*te its sometimes difficult to distinguish between the different shades of brown.
172

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:17:07
#176

"In 123 he claims that a majority of 89 is possible.
Even if that were correct(I say differently) it still means a Tory government if Labour took all 59 Scottish seats. The majority might be less but he would still elect a Tory government which he does not want."

Actually I said a majority of 86. That majority is based on the prediction of the electoral calculus website.

Personally I am more inclined to believe the electoral calculus' prediction that yours.

Yes it would still mean a tory government even if labour took all 59 Scottish seats, but as I have already said, it would only require a slight swing from the tories to labour in the next 2 years (which is perfectly possible) for the majority to be much tighter.

"When you know your horse has no legs the last thing you do is put money on it!"

In terms of the Westminster election the SNP 'horse' has no legs either - they cannot win the election, just as you believe labour cannot, so why are you advocating that people vote for them but not for labour?
173

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:18:42
174

I dont even want to consider what it means to get out of ones depth in this mountain of garbage I really dont.
174

brownlie,

30/09/2008 12:19:44
140 All politicians etc

"We were lied to in 1970 and had troops on the streets in 1919, that is the sume(sic) of the Nationalist argument"

We were lied to much more recently than that and we have had troops on the streets as a result.

You may recall that just prior to the Iraqi invasion the UK government had troops and tanks on the streets of London to convince the public of an imminent threat. This was coupled with the complete fabrication regarding the threat being imminent within 45 minutes.

Whilst I don't believe even the most right wing of Conservatism would dare to use troops to try and subjugate the Scots I have no doubt, short of that, that all means at their disposal will be used to thwart independence. I believe that the current UK Government are attempting to do so and indeed, Cameron has used words to that effect.
175

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:20:02
178 If the level of support in a FTTP election was adequate then a referendum would be unneccessary.
Im sure this is what Parcel refers to.

You can argue what that figure should be ,but clearly there are figures which are beyond debate,although what Westminster would claim remains to be seen. My personal view is whilst I AGREE with P of R it may prove neccessary to have a referendum to destroy what claims are left . TIME WILL TELL
176

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:20:26
#180

"When yer wading through a mountain of sh*te its sometimes difficult to distinguish between the different shades of brown."

I hardly think you are qualified to describe anyone else's contributions to this forum as sh*te when you can't even tell the difference between what someone is saying themselves and what they are quoting from other people.
177

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:21:31
177

I am not saying there wont be a referendum or that its not a good idea what I am stating as a fact is that there is no legal nor constitutional need for one if the SNP win 30 or more Westminster seats.
It is an automatic mandate to begin Independence negotiations and the UN will back that up.
Its the Act of union pure and simple.
178

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:23:06
185

I am more qualified than most as most of the sh*te is posted at me take the post at 185 for example.
179

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:23:16
#179

Neither do nationalists
180

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:30:40
188

Problem is democracy is as scarce as unionist convictions in this country.
If Ireland had a treaty of union with the UK why did it take an armed insurrection in order for them to leave? and even then they had to give up the North in order to do so.
Westminster doesnt do democracy it never has.
181

European Scot,

30/09/2008 12:30:57
162 Yeah1

" Not everyone who votes SNP wants independence."

That is a fair point, but it might be a good idea to remember that there are many New Labour, Tory, and Liberal voters who are not Unionists, and who do support Independence.

" There would still have to be a referendum on independence, and then a process lasting several years and costing billions of pounds before Scotland became fully independent."

Billions of pounds ?
Are these the legal fees involved ? !
Or is this a reference to the revenue 'UK' plc is going to lose from Scotland's oil deposits ?
182

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:32:04
#186

I concur with you but I would like the SNP to state this clearly, something they are remarkably shy about doing. It would be interesting if it was vetoed by runp Uk or the US in the security council though. Then we would have a constitutional criscis.

183

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:32:48
#187

"I am more qualified than most as most of the sh*te is posted at me take the post at 185 for example."

I merely pointed out that since you cannot even tell the difference between when someone is saying something themselves or quoting other people you are not really qualified to criticise other people as talking 'sh*te'.
184

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:35:18
181


Because the SNP only contest 59 seats in Scotland!
They can in theory win a majority of them!

Recent tests in Scotland would give them around 30 seats on average.

They can not only win.The Glasgow East result did exactly that and left Labour with 2 seats!Lets see what swing is eveident at Glenrothes shall we?

Labour however will lose around 100 seats in the South of England.How they fare in the Midlands and North may decide their fate.The scale of Labours defeat is debatable I agree,but they will be defeated!
THAT IS A RACING CERTAINTY.

Glenrothes will be at best a seriously reduced Labour majority.I do not however say that the SNP are certain winners.Fife has always been unpredictable in my experience.
It will be misrepresented by the Press of course (The Hootsmon have probably got the LABOUR FIGHT BACK HAS BEGUN report ready now),or maybe its still on Gordons desk .The overall result of Glasgow East and Glenrothes will give a truer picture of where Scotland is going, but its certainly not a Labour government.

185

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:35:30
191

I am just an ordinary joe shmo voter so if I understand it then so does the vast majority of folk in Scotland it shouldnt need to be explained to them in big letters any more than the fact that the SNP are trying to gain independence for Scotland.
186

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:38:05
191

The question you want to ask is why dont the UK government explain to the people of Scotland that all they require to do to gain independence is to vote overwhelmingly for the SNP at the Westminster elections?
What are they afraid of?
187

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:41:56
#193

"Because the SNP only contest 59 seats in Scotland!
They can in theory win a majority of them!"

Yes but the SNP winning a majority of seats in Scotland would not stop a tory government would it.

However, if labour won a majority of seats in Scotland and there was a slight swing towards them in the opinion polls it could well stop a tory government.

In terms of the Westminster election the SNP are far more of a legless horse than labour.

Labour at least have a chance (however small) of stopping a tory government, the SNP have no chance whatsoever.
188

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:44:08
188
I agree .I said this already more than once.


I said that the SNP are A DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I also said that we accept the decision on any given day provided it is measured and/or unequivocal.

I have never claimed anything else is even desirable let alone possible.
The declared wishes of the people will be heard,that's as it should be.
I accept the outcome.If a majority favour the UK then it remains until such time as there is clearly a change worthy of measuring.Again the majority view is rightly upheld.

That has always been our position as far as I am aware.
189

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:45:31
"Labour at least have a chance (however small) of stopping a tory government, the SNP have no chance whatsoever."

But of course that's why you are saying people shouldn't vote labour at the next election and everyone should vote SNP.

You know voting SNP would guarantee a tory government but thats what you want.

You could then use your arguments of the tories having no mandate in Scotland to push for independence.

Of course you can't openly say you want a tory government because that wouldn't go down well in Scotland, so you pretend that voting SNP would stop the tories, rather than the other way round.
190

daveydees,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:46:07
SCOTTISH TORY REVIVAL

The Scottish Conservatives in Holyrood seem to have accepted the devolved settlement better than the other parties. Their reponses to issues presented have been pragmatic and free of the dogma that binds the other 3 significant parties. They have established a healthy relationship with their associates at the UK parliament, with enough distance to avoid the stifling 'Quisling' character of Scottish Labour.

Annabel Goldie can be relied on to provide the most clear analysis of contentious issues and I suspect that when voters start to listen to the different parties at election time, we are in for a significant Tory revival here as well as in England.
191

Alan B,

30/09/2008 12:50:06
#Yeah1

"Labour at least have a chance (however small) of stopping a tory government, the SNP have no chance whatsoever."

That is a silly argument. If people vote for independence then you would not have a tory government.

Scotland will get tory government and has had tory governments becuase England votes tory. Only if england is split does it really matter what scotland votes. The voting system means that generally speaking one side or the other has a clear majority,
192

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 12:50:23
196

The SNP are not in politics in order to keep the Labour party in power they are in politics to get them out of power and the same applies to the Tories.
The Westminster election will always be decided by the voters of England not Scotland.
If the SNP won all 59 seats then its still possible for either Labour or the Tories or indeed the Lib Dems to win a Westminster election.
Your posting spinning waffling tripe.
Its one of the main reason why I myself want to see an independent Scotland because we never get the governments we vote for we only ever get the Governments England votes for and that was true when there were 72 Scottish seats.
193

Alan B,

30/09/2008 12:52:38
#Yeah1

Given how appalling labour are why would anyone vote labour?

Any vote for labour will be dinnae like the tories. Who are the lib dems? etc
194

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 12:57:13
196


The SNP with a majority of seats in Scotland could in theory still be defeated in a referendum.It is possible that the combined Unionsist vote might still exceed that of the SNP and other nationalist parties (although few of them can be taken seriously in terms of votes cast I agree).The SNP vote is it lets be realistic here.

This is why a referendum has a purpose.It declares unequivocally what the majority held view is.
However it is the case that the SNP could (in theory but a tall order I agree)obtain over 50% of the vote in a General Election. What purpose a referendum would then have would be a matter for debate.I would excpect it to be of academic interest only where we already can guarantee a victory. Nevertheless I am sure LONDON will hang on to Scotland's OIL for as long as we are willing to let them.Any tactics are good tactics when you are already lost!

These are bridges which will be crossed when we get to them.
Glenrothes is what matters at the moment.
Do they join the rest of Scotland who have been returning SNP councillors and MP/MSPs or do they confuse the issue by doing something completely unpredictable like they did with Willie Rennie. What that achieved apart from confirm that Fifers rarely do what everybody else thinks they should, God only knows!
195

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 12:57:56
#201

"Its one of the main reason why I myself want to see an independent Scotland because we never get the governments we vote for we only ever get the Governments England votes for."

Didn't the majority of Scottish seats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 go to labour, the party who won the election?

Surely that means Scotland did get the government it voted for in those elections?
196

Alan B,

30/09/2008 12:58:57
#daveydees

I agree Goldie has done well and performed well. However while the tories in scotland are acting more maturely in the sp that say labour. They still have not given anyone a reason to vote for them.

1)no economic vision despite that being the core of a centre right party.
2)constitution: just following with labour. Unlike say the lib dems they have not expressed their opinion. Not being anti the sp anymore and sitting on the fence on changes to the consitution of sp despite the mess labour made of it does not really give you any reason to support them.
3)What is their position with regards europe. Are they just sheep following the tories in south to their anti european agenda despite the tories being a pro european party in the 70s. Are they just trying to sell a british nationalism. If they believe so much in unions with others with an international outlook they really have to be pro eu.

All in all the tories in scotland lack vision but do come across in person as more intelligent than labour and as such better managers.
197

Alan B,

30/09/2008 13:02:11
#204 Yeah1

You are trying to be obtuse. The point is it does not matter what Scotland votes much of the time.

If Scotland vote labour (god knows why) but if it does, and England vote tory. The uk will be run by the tories.

We say that for 17yrs of tory rule. You would have to be an extreme brit nat to think that was an exceptable position.

The sp will help reduce the problems that makes but it is still far to weak with labour fudging so many powers it is a mess.
198

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:02:27
203

If the SNP win 65 seats in the Scottish Parliament then they have full control and dont have to worry about the other parties blocking legislation.
And to do so the SNP require to win over 65% of the voters thats the way its set up.
So if they win over 65% of the voters then a referendum is going to be a formality.
199

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:02:49
200 Alan B
But what happens if the result in any 2010 referendum on independence is a no note. Then people in Scotland will have to consider which party they would rather have in Westminster.
Nationalists who will vote yes in any referendum might think that if they don't get a yes result they would rather have a Labour govt in Westminster than a Tory. Some might prefer a Tory one. In this case a I don't see why they cannot vote Tory/Labour as they feel appropriate and then vote yes in a referendum if they wish to. All they are doing is hedging their bets.
200

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:05:22
204

Yes and wasnt it all irrelevant without the majority of English voters going along with it????
Christ the labour party won the last election with 35% of the UK vote what does that tell ye?
201

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:07:46
209

Most people cant distinguish between the two no matter which one of the parties wins the Westminster elections Scotland loses unless the SNP get their mandate to go Independent.
202

Alan B,

30/09/2008 13:10:32
#Ugly George

They can do whatever they want.

However the point being made was labour of the 70/80s where it said vote snp and get the tories and we got the tories anyway.

If someone wants independence they are better voting snp and if they want the union they are better voting for a unionist party of choice at westminster.

You can see the labour campaign at the next election vote snp and you will get tories. It is fundamentally dishonest as we saw what happened before.

Part of the problem with saying just leave it to a referendum is union parties simply cannot be trusted to have a referendum.

If alot of snp supporters vote labour to stop the tories. Depite it being very unlikely it would make any difference as uk elections are based on swing seats and what england votes. But if it did make a difference all we would see after the election is labour saying scotland rejected the snp and independence.

The big thing really is, is to hold a referendum so people can choose. It is unfortunate labour did not hold a fair referendum in 79. It is unfortunate when having the referendum for the sp a quesion on independence was not asked.

203

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:11:42
Ugly

The choice for Scotland is as clear as day either they vote for Independence or they vote for Conservative policies for the foreseeable future.
Simple and stark. The English of course are screwed they will be stuck with conservatism until they get rid of the first past the post election system.
204

Alan B,

30/09/2008 13:14:36
#Ugly George

Part of the other big problem is we do not know what Calman will say. We do not know if either labour or tories will adopt his recommendations. Labour have form at rejecting its own reviews recommendations with the rejection of the commission into the sp election fiasco.

If Calman comes up with say fiscal autonomy. Will it matter who leads in Westmister?

Even now so much of public services is run from the sp education, health, roads, bits of trains, part of the legal system, councils that most of the next eleciton will be on English issues.

We can see that from Browns speach. So much of it was irrelevant to Scotland.
205

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:15:57
213 parcel
Not necesarily. Just one year ago Gordon Brown thought of calling a general Election as he thought he might win. Also 2 years before the 1992 General Election the Tories were in a similar position to that in which Labour is at present in the polls and they won reasonbly comfortably.
206

Alan B,

30/09/2008 13:20:15
#Ugly George

Labour lost the popular vote in England last time. It was the uneven distribution of seats that meant labour got a majority of the seats. This unfairness has been rectified somewhat.

Do you seriously think labour with Brown will win the election?

Might have a change with a new leader with some sort of bounce. But they do not have anyone popular to give the leadership too.
207

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:23:11
214 Alan B
That could add another aspect. Either of Labour or Tories may put the Calman proposals in their election manifestos and the other may not. Alternatively one or other may include some of it. People will have to decide accordingly.

Also, even if Calman proposes fiscal autonomy and it is accepted, it may take some time to set up a Scottish Inland Revenue, Scottish Customs and Excise and it would take some time for companies to split their accounts into a separate Scottish part for corporation tax. So for some period Scotland would have to manage with the current arrangements until all of this comes into force. That would be another factor to consider.
208

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:26:16
216 Alan B
I don't think they will win but I woudn't rule it out. As I said, the Tories recovered from a similar dire position to win an overall majority in 1992. Labour may recover enough to form a govt with Libdem support.
209

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:28:33
215

Gordon Brown thought about calling an election because it would minimise their losses. If he thought he could have won he would have gone to the polls (unless he is crazy).
He knew victory was out of the question,what was debated was the scale of defeat.
Public Opinion was already showing Labour as losing seats and since by the hundred.
Whether Labour could have survived is academic at best and extremely unlikely.He ran away from an election because he feared losing not only power but his own seat! He still does !
The two English by(e) elections and the
Glasgow East result put Mr Bean on the reading situations vacant lists! He would not even be an MP never mind a PM !

If Glenrothes repeats his humiliation (which it should)then he will surely be replaced,as the gravy train tries to save their jobs and mortgages.
Personally I hope GLENROTHES puts herself on the map by wiping Labour out, and joining the rest of Scotland who are increasingly ready to leave.

210

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:29:58
215 Ugly

Vote Tory get conservatism
Vote New Labour get conservatism
Vote Lib Dem get ????????????????????? who knows?
Vote SNP get Independence

The choices are simple and plain as day except in the case of the Lib Dems of course.

211

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:34:19
217

Thats a point Ugly do you think the Calman commission will reveal its conclusions before or after the election and make it clear which new powers if any it would recommend to pass over to the Scottish government?
And if they reveal them before do you think we will see these recommendations promised in full in both Labour and Tory manifestos?
And if they dont reveal them before the elections then neither Labour nor the Tories will be able to use the new powers to Scotland card in their manifestos will they?
212

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:35:24
219 Morris
For decades now by elections and general elections have been entirely different. The Tories lost loads of by elections in the past with huge swings against them but still managed to hold on to power for 18 years.

During the eighties the SDP/Lib alliance was winning virtually every by election by a mile to such an extent that David Steel said at a party conference "go back to your constituencies and prepare for power" but come the general election the Tories won again and the SDP/Lib alliance made little impact.
213

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:37:48
217 parcel
Calman is due to make apreliminary report before the end of 2008 and a final report during 2009. It shoild be available well before a general election unless Labour call a snap election (hardly likely)
214

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:41:50
223

Excellent so we should all be fully aware of exactly what it will mean to remain with devolution before the election. I find it odd though that this is timed to come out so close to an election.
I mean doesnt this force the Calman committee to recommend more powers than the Unionists would normally be comfortable with just to make it more attractive to voters?
215

GM,

30/09/2008 13:43:12
@223

but like the last major review commissioned by Labour (the Burt Review of local government finance)...

this one is likely to be ignored completely by the very people who commissioned it.
216

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:44:04
223

I suspect that the more votes the SNP polls before the election the more powers the Calman commission will recommend.
217

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 13:44:29
#219

"Gordon Brown thought about calling an election because it would minimise their losses. If he thought he could have won he would have gone to the polls (unless he is crazy).
He knew victory was out of the question,what was debated was the scale of defeat."

You are talking utter garbage. Just over a year ago, when he contemplated holding an election, Brown and labour were leading the polls, thats why he thought about having one.

Why would any party call an election if they knew 'victory was out of the question'?
218

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:45:25
225

There is a fair chance of that right enough especially if its a Labour or Tory manifesto promise.
219

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:46:35
222

I agree but there have been a string of SNP victories at council level also and they are all SNP victories to some degree. The change is there in Scotland,but to what degree is what we should debate.Glenrothes will do one of two things.a) confirm that the UK is no longer secure or B) show that Glasgow East was indeed a by election result which will not be produced all over Scotland to the same extent, the question being to what extent will it repeat?
Glenrothes will give a much clearer picture when aggregated to Glasgow East figures.
I accept however that by elections usually do produce crazy departures from the General Election .The difference is when they repeatagain and again in successive by elections they become a BYE election !
Roll on Glenrothes.

One thing is clear. Labour cannot win.
Sensible people will take that on board at a General Election in Scottish seats.What is debatable is how many are realists and how man still live in Labour Lala Land.
220

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:47:02
227

Which is why the next election will occur at the very last possible minute.
221

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 13:49:42
news just out

Cameron has stated he will not work with Alex Salmond at holyrood only unionist's, well he has certainly stuck his union jack to the mast now
222

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:49:49
230

OH Smee Ugly has dropped you right in the poo have you seen his post at 117 yet?
Ugly now agrees with me that all yer dodgy data fae the government is all rhetoric cos nae govt would produce data that would make em look bad.
223

Ugly George,

30/09/2008 13:49:51
216 Alan B

Latest gen election odds from William Hill

To be largest party Tories 1/4
Labour 11/4

If a Tory win is a sure fire certainty put £400 to win a £100 (total returns £500). That is probably a better move than putting your maney into the finacial markets these days.
224

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:51:18
232

Well he,s won my vote. wit a tube.
225

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 13:52:05
sm753

yes just like the last time we had a referendum when labour cheated death by using dead people as no votes, we know their ways now and wont stand for it, 50%+1 is the only way to hold these referendums
226

Ugly George,

30/09/2008 13:52:59
233 parcel
That is not what I said. There is a difference between data and rhetoric and I did not imply otherwise.
227

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 13:55:44
230

We never expected anything else I did state above that Westminster doesnt do democracy theyre not very good at doing legal either.
228

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 13:56:09
- legal challenges to any attempt by the SNP to hold a non-legal referendum with a slanted question


do you actually think for one minute that the elected government of Scotland and the brains/talent of the ministers responsible would do something of this significance illegaly, you must be getting confused about the SNP and as Alex neil would say the last shower of useless B*st*rds
229

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 13:59:33
#229

"Glenrothes will give a much clearer picture when aggregated to Glasgow East figures."

Er no. Glenrothes is a by-election just like Glasgow East, it can not be taken as any indication of how things will go in a general election.

"I accept however that by elections usually do produce crazy departures from the General Election .The difference is when they repeatagain and again in successive by elections they become a BYE election!"

You are wrong I'm afraid. The tories lost 5 by-elections in a row by massive margins in 1990-91 but they still won the general election in 1992.

Successive defeats in by-elections are not an indication of what a result will definitely be in a general election.
230

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 13:59:33
239 dude
If the referendum is held before 2011 the wording will have to be agreed by current MSPs and as the SNP does not have a majority they cannot force a slanted question.
231

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:00:37
#236

We could let the EU run it like they did in Montenegro they wanted a 55% yes vote with at least a 40% turn out.
232

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:00:41
237

117 Ugly.

"Because it did not match the rhetoric of the current govt. They could hardly publish a report that did not agree with what they were saying. There is no great mystery about that."

Not much difference between data and reports though is there? ya wee spinning dervish. The point and meaning is as clear as day and is a wee gem of a doo doo.

Governments dont put out data or reports which doesnt comply with their rhetoric.
233

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 14:03:58
that is true but the question that is proposed is very clear in its intentions and it is the only legal question that can be put before holyrood also this debate will be going on in the aftermath of a tory westminster government and anyway if it is voted out which i expect it to, then the holyrood election is only a year way, the people will have there say
234

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:07:26
227 Because Labours popularity was already going down and it since sank like a brick! Thats why!Its called thinking ahead.

Public Opinion varies but the parties monitor trends and Labour knew that they could have been reduced to new lows. You think ahead if you want to stay in power.


Why would any party call an election if they knew 'victory was out of the question'?

What I said was he did NOT call an election for this reason,but he will presumably have considered whether it was better to go and cut your losses or hang on and sing Things can only get better. The latter is precisely what he did because he had no confidence in the outcome of any election held then.

Things have got worse.He got it wrong!
Could Labour come back? I travel down to England (Merseyside and West Midlands mostly)regularly and the answer is NO WAY .
The size of Camerons majority can change, and no one can say with certainty what it will be exactly,but the victorious party were way ahead in the polls and it needs divine intervention for Labour to even stay within touching distance.They may improve I accept ,but retain power NO CHANCE.
235

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 14:07:55
244 smeagle

dont know the numbers but if you read the news you will be aware that the reserves of Scottish oil that are known about may last up to 100 years at current production levels, will no doubt be even more when you think about what we have not found yet.
236

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:08:45
243 parcel
There is a difference between not publishing data and publishing deliberately false data. That is my point and why there is no contradiction in what I have said.
237

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:11:16
243 parcel
PS
Anyway the McCrone report was not data - it was a projection/forecast. In that sense it is not the same as information which is meant to describe accurately something that has actually happened
238

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:25:29
244

700000 barrels of crude a day through Grangemouth alone Smee.
Now where is your proof that Governments dont publish misleading reports and data?
My proof that they do is the McCrone report and the megas of media stories covering the false unemployment figure reports, immigration figure reports and the inflation figure reports where is yours?
239

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:26:13
240

The day after Cameron is elected Scotland will have a democratic deficit. We will NOT have elected him.
We have had Tory governments before which we did not want, thanks to people like you.
I think people have stopped listening to Labour claims of victory.We shall see.


We are slowly learning that this goes on forever until we break with Westminster.
That will throw a king size spanner into Labour in Scotland and Id love to see how Labour activists respond. I think they will be forced to oppose Cameron and will be increasingly under pressure to oppose Westminster.
Labour are not interested in what happens to Scotland, but they care passionately about their own well being,and when half of them are no longer employed the sparks will fly.

We shall see
240

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:27:09
241

A slanted question being a question which actually includes the option of independence you mean?
241

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:29:10
251

From an unimpeachable unionist source as they all are.

"Because it did not match the rhetoric of the current govt. They could hardly publish a report that did not agree with what they were saying. There is no great mystery about that."
242

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:31:02
251

Stats are not from BP smee the stats are from the DTI you know the ones that Ugly claims are rhetoric.
BP made the report but took the data from the DTI yes the DTI not the new version out today.
243

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:32:47
250

Keep it up Ugly I love a worm that wriggles.
244

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 14:34:37
251 sm753,30/09/2008 14:25:00
248

"dont know the numbers but if you read the news you will be aware that the reserves of Scottish oil that are known about may last up to 100 years at current production levels"

Well my advice to you would be

- DO know the numbers

- DON'T believe everything in the news.

UK proven oil reserves = 6.2 bn bbls
UK oil production = 1.636 m bbls per day

Divide reserves by production -> 3790 days production left at current rates

Divide by 365 = 10.4 years.

So even if a bit more is discovered (and no doubt it well) there is no way that number is going back up to 100 years.

Sorry, but there you go.

Stats from BP.

so by your reckoning the oil will run out in a little over 10 years.

are you doing this deliberately, making yourself out a total imbicile, did you not see the oil program on the BBC and all those industry reports thereafter, i suppose you are working on the tried and discredited if you keep repeating it lark everyone will start to believe you.

you actually make out you are a very intellegent poster but to come away with that nonsense above you are no better than your comrade Alexander Mckay who gets away with printing this on the herald letters page.

shame on you you plastic Scotsman
245

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:35:07
249

But Ugly they did publish misleading data different from the data in the McCrone report which is why it was suppressed.
And why? well you said it yourself they did it because it matched their rhetoric and they are still doing it.
246

Yeah1,

30/09/2008 14:35:12
#253

"The day after Cameron is elected Scotland will have a democratic deficit. We will NOT have elected him."

Northern England won't have elected him either, neither will Wales - Based on your argument perhaps they should get independence too?

"I think people have stopped listening to Labour claims of victory."

I have certainly stopped listening to your numerous incorrect statements. First you advocate voting SNP and say voting labour will guarantee a tory government, when it is the other way round.

Then you say that defeats in successive by-elections mean a party is guaranteed to lose the next election - when the tories lost 5 by-elections in a row in 1990-91 and still won the general election in 1992.
247

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:36:51
257 parcel
No wriggling - just self-evident facts.

251 parcel
False distortion of what I said as anyone can see. If anything I emphasised the differnce between data and rhetoric.
248

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:37:40
251

Here muppet fit yer rhetoric into this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024205/North-Sea-oil-half-century.html
249

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:38:52
261

Yes Ugly everybody can see for themselves they dont need neither your version nor mine to make up their own minds.
250

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:38:58
259 parcel
Did they. Where is it? Please enlighten us by naming the govt report which was published instead of McCrone.
251

brownlie,

30/09/2008 14:39:52
230 sm753

You do realise that "aonaicthe" can also mean lonely.

I must admit that "The Lonely Kingdom Forever" has a certain ring to it especially in view of the UK Government's foreign policy!
252

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:40:25
263 parcel
Absolutely. That is what I have been saying all along. I'm glad that you have come round to agreeing with me.
253

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:45:48
251

10.4 years? what a tube.
254

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:49:26
251

I particularly like this part about the credibility of BP.

"The Scottish National Party believes oil companies such as BP and Shell have covered up the extent of reserves for fear of being hit with new taxes.

They have raked in multi-billion pound windfalls in the last few years as oil has risen in price.
Mr Salmond, a former oil economist, said: 'If oil companies said,'Look, we've got lots of reserves in the future', the immediate response of Government would be to stick taxation up. So there was a kind of incentive for the big companies to underplay the significance.'"
255

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:51:32
251

Hey Smee didnt you promise to post yer drivel everytime I mentioned oil and gas?
256

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 14:52:37
252 parcel
As I have said to you before, if you have proof that the govt has deliberately falsified oil production figures go to the media with it. I am sure that any investigative journalist worth his salt would pounce on a story such as this which would embarrass a govt. Why don't you do that?
257

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:54:11
269

GTF ya lying troll the 100 year estimate is the latest and greatest and takes into account todays production rates i.e 700000 barrels a day through Grangemouth alone.
258

Alan B,

30/09/2008 14:55:19
Any comments on the fact that Cameron has announced plans to have high speed trains from london to the north of england (leeds) but not as far as Scotland.
259

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 14:56:43
272

Funny that I have seen reports which state everything from 25% 30% 32% and now 43%????? I guess it all depends on which government based lies you want to believe eh? But it might help to know that the only oil comming into grangemouth only comes from the Forties field by pipline and by other fields by truck.
260

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:01:39
276 parcel
Wrong again I'm afraid. There are loads of oil fields which feed into the Forties pipeline common knowledge.
261

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:02:55
276 parcel
PS How do they bring oil from North Sea oil fields to Grangmouth by truck. Can these trucks swim?
262

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:03:21
250 Prof McCrone was commissioned to report on the strength of the economic case for an independent Scotland. The report was indeed about what would happen in the future should Scotland decide to go it alone.The report confirmed the accuracy of SNP claims and concluded that an independent Scotland would fare better than one within the United Kingdom.That was true then ,and since we have only used 49% of known oil reserves,it will still be true NOW (unless Westminster have changed things dramatically or produce figures which have been doctored).

The real question is why did they need the McCrone Report anyway? Surely if the figures being produced for Scotland at the time were accurate then they already knew the answer!
This suggests that Government figures were unreliable for whatever reason !
The SNP claims and figures , notably the studies done by Fraser of Allander were confirmed beyond any doubt as pretty accurate assessments by McCrone's Report.
This was suppressed and Scotland LIED to.Those are indisputible facts.
Brian Wilson even claimed Labour told us how wealthy a country we were, and we rejected this.AYE THAT WILL BE RICHT!

This is no mickey mouse document and your "prediction" label is hardly appropriate.It was an economically sound study by a University Proffessor and commissioned by Westminster government.
It only came to light under Freedom of INformation and sterling work by an SNP researcher in Edinburgh.
The accuracy of the SNP claims have been proven again and again. There may be arguments for staying in the United Kingdom but not on economics .That was won a long time ago.
As I am constantly saying ,John Biffen( Very senior Conservative) even confirmed that the SNP position was the true one .Quite an admission when you think about it.
Scotland has been conned.Thats not an opinion Thats recorded in history now. What we do about it is what is debateable,but not whether it happened or not.

If Scotland chooses to remain in the Un
263

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:04:22
278

Thats HILIARIOUS or is it HILARIOUS I may have to go back to your post last night to check.
264

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 15:06:48
280 sm753,30/09/2008 15:02:20
276 Spanners

"Funny that I have seen reports which state everything from 25% 30% 32% and now 43%?"

Simple.

Produce these "reports". Lay them out before us.

Please.

please provide your proof that scotlands oil will run out in 10 years, you still seem a bit clueless to me even though you sound the part
265

Ugly George,

30/09/2008 15:06:51
268 parcel
BP have sold many of their assets in the North sea. So you and Alex Salmond are telling us that a company deliberately downplays its assets before selling them. That is a novel approach to business. It would be like trying to sell a house with 3 bedrooms by saying that it only has 2. That shows the nature of the claim.
266

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 15:07:32
whats good for the goose and all that
267

morris,

edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:08:11
282 cont
If Scotland chooses to remain in the United Kingdom I respect that decision.
BUT...................................................
I am not encouraged by knowing we have been conned for these last few decades and even the Governments own figures confirm it is so.

Scotland should decide but she should know the truth before doing so. This has never been allowed and this is no democracy!
Westminster is exactly the same as we are.They want the Oil revenues too!They are prepared to sink to any length to keep them.We have already seen that.
268

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:10:21
284

I aint the one claiming Scotland oil will run out in 10 years thats Smee the tube's claim.
And he has the government data to prove it too.
269

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:13:46
273 parcel
You are claiming that North Sea oil will last for another 100 years.

That is strange. Yesterday you said that the oil production was 16million barrels per day. About two hours later you said it was 2.8 million barrels per day. That is an alarming rate of fall - over 80% in two hours. At that rate of decline the oil must have run out at about 4:30 pm yesterday and now it is going to last 100 years bizarre.
270

dude,

wishaw 30/09/2008 15:14:15
288

yes it was him that i posted about your name was just mentioned after his

same old unionist lies, when will they learn that sorry part of history when we all rolled over to our imperial masters down south are well and truely over

well smeagle
271

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:16:21
285

I bet you would be even more shocked to know that BP ran down all of their assets and didnt invest a penny into them 2 to 3 years prior to selling them.
BP sold their southern North sea assets to Perenco including the 27A the Trent Tyne and Pickerills which were in a sh*te state when Perenco took em over.
They had to invest millions just to bring them up to HSE standards. How BP got away with operating them below HSE standards is anybodies guess.
And the same happened to Apache when they took over the forties. The forties of course are old platforms from the 70s anyway but BP ignored their upkeep 2 years prior to selling them off.
272

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:17:33
289

I aint claiming that I only said there is reports stating that HTF am I personally supposed to know these things I am not a unionist troll.
273

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:19:25
289

Now yer telling porkies by taking the whole arguement way out of context and playing semantics.
How trollish. And lets face it the 1.6 figure is yours to start with you know the RHETORICAL GOVERNMENT ONE.
Not mine.
274

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:19:53
292

That should say there are reports of course.
275

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:20:50
284 dude
The issue is not when it is going to run out. The issue is what is the rate of production going to be. Romania has been producing oil for 70 years but is not, by any stretch of the imagination, wealthy. Oil has been extracted from fields in the Midlands and South of England since before the war. These are not considered significant as the rate of production is low.

The rate of production from the North Sea has been in decline since 1999/2000 and all projections from variuos sources say that the decline will continue in the coming years. So the issue is what will be the rate of production in 5 or 10 years time.There may be oil extracted in 100 years time but if it is only at a rate comparable to Wytch Farm in Dorset, it won't be significant.

276

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:22:29
295

No the issue is an Independent Scotland can determine what the rate of production should be as every other oil producing nation does eh Like Norway for example.
277

Ugly George,

30/09/2008 15:22:48
293 parcel
Somedody quoted the figure of 1.6 million and you replied that that has to be multiplied by a factor of 10 - that gives 16 million.
278

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:28:16
293 parcel
A figure cannot be, by definition, rhetorical. It is clear from your posts that you do not know what the word rhetoric means.

PS I've just realised why you feel that oil production will last 100 years. It will probably take 100 years to locate and salvage all the oil trucks that must have sank trying to bring oil from the North Sea to Grangemouth.
279

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:28:50
297

So why dont you cut and paste the relevant bits.
Then we can see exactly what I said and why.
280

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:30:07
296 parcel
It is the oil commanies hat extract the oil. How would a Scottish govt force them to extract more?
281

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:30:11
298

OOOh semantics again Ugly your starting to sound awfie like New Duncie the hardworking IT something fae Edinburgh who isnie a cyber troll either.
282

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:31:46
300

Its government who determine the global oil production limits no the oil companies they just make the profits.
The natural resource belongs to the nation not the oil companies exploting it.
283

ThomasP,

30/09/2008 15:32:07
Suchaparcelofrogues and Ugly George.

The level of oil production is not important, we should really focus on how much the remainder of oil is worth which has been estimated to be up to 750 billion pounds.

284

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:33:39
303

And how is that information going to help Ugly etc troll these blogs?
285

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 30/09/2008 15:36:55
Thomas P
The level of production is crucial if you want revenue.
286

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 15:54:23
305

Ugly an Independent Scotland will require 1/10 of the oil and gas the UK requires so the production would have to fall by over a factor of 10 for an Independent Scotland to lose out. Now who is predicting a fall by a factor of 10 in oil and gas production anywhere in the world over the next 10 20 30 40 50 60 years?
287

ThomasP,

30/09/2008 16:04:18
#305

To an extent, but there is oil there, no matter how low or high the oil production is. It won't walk away.

It's more important to use the same resources to invest in another area of business so there is an alternative to the oil industry.
288

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:30:12
310

I will do just that when you have answered every single question you have avoided on the blog today and yesterday.
289

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:31:45
312

Ugly thinks yer telling porkies cos he believes yer data and stats are simply supporting present govt rhetoric.
290

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:34:13
312

Seems Ugly was right for a change you have managed to prove the 6.2bn figure is wrong.
Thats what happens when you take yer data from corrupted sources.
291

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:35:03
315

No unless its included in the consultation process.
292

ThomasP,

30/09/2008 16:37:21
#312

I never wrote about the 'remaining proved reserves' but I went on a guess of the potential that many oil companies have (hence the investment in the north east).
293

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:40:36
319

I will when you prove a single statement you have made with reliable untainted sources and answer the questions put to you.
Now put up or shut up.
294

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:44:42
319

"We have twice as much oil and gas as Norway"????????
And not twice as much "resources" now is it????
The UK consumes 13 times more than they do if we want to have a chance of "having twice as much oil as they do" Scotland would have to be independent and consume only a comparable amount.
Simple arithmetic even for the infirm like yersel.

You cant even quote me accurately.
295

brownlie,

30/09/2008 16:57:15
277 SM753

"Insignificant little places" - like Qatar, for instance, you were doing a lot of "tossing" over it yesterday, as I recall!
296

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 16:58:22
Smee

If the UK is consuming over 13 times more oil and gas than Norway how come Norway is producing double what the UK does?
The UK does import oil and gas from external sources but 13 times????? do you no think there is something wrong with the UK government only allowing 1.6bn barrels a year to be produced???
Lets face it, It needs the revenue it needs the product for domestic consumtion 13 times more than Norway but only produces half of Norways?

Even logic mathematics arithmetic and common sense is against you.
297

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 17:06:31
324

Yes we know and no doubt you are about to get them wrong again.
298

brownlie,

30/09/2008 17:09:17
278 sm753

One of mine??? I thought he was a bit ambivalent like yourself. You know what I mean - you constantly defend and stick up for a Labour party that you do not vote for?
299

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 30/09/2008 17:12:00
328

He spews out nothing but Labour party rhetoric and propaganda and claims he doesnt even vote for them?
He has govt stats and figures at his finger tips and he doesnt even vote for them????
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhaha

Wit a tube.
300

European Scot,

30/09/2008 17:21:56
303 Thomas P

" The level of oil production is not important, we should really focus on how much the remainder of oil is worth which has been estimated to be up to 750 billion pounds."

That is quite correct, and to back that comment up, here is what Malcolm Webb, Oil & Gas UK's chief executive stated :-

" "It is estimated that somewhere between 16 and 25 billion barrels of oil and gas remain to be recovered."

" Plans currently in place should reach about 10 billion of those barrels so the challenge in the hands of the government and industry is how to achieve the remaining 15 billion barrels.

"While realising this goal will require massive further investment from the industry, at 100 dollars per barrel it is worth 1.5 trillion dollars to the British economy and this is a prize which the country should not contemplate losing.

The last few words are the really significant ones of course, 'the country' being the 'UK', which 'should not contemplate losing' that 'prize'.
Unionists, quite happy to accept the above in 'UK' terms, refuse to even contemplate such a scenario for an Independent Scotland.
Which is why we have various Unionist posters talking down the remaining value of what is Scotland's veritable black gold mine.
Sorry Unionists, but there is still a huge reserve of oil wealth sitting out there, and at least 10 billion barrels of it are currently recoverable.
301

Saxon Yolk,

30/09/2008 17:24:20
327 Robin Brown

That is excellent news.

For the UNITED KINGDOM, it is our North Sea and it is our OIL.

Scotland is not, shall not and cannot become independent, unnless we say-so, so don't hold your breath.

It aint gonna happen.

Not now not ever.
302

brownlie,

30/09/2008 17:27:45
331 Saxon Yolk

Why so, wise one?
303

brownlie,

30/09/2008 17:29:43
324 sm753

Please don't apologise to me - I was not interested in your numbers anyway.
304

brownlie,

30/09/2008 17:43:16
335 Robin Brown

Quite so, Robin, in a few sentences he has destroyed all hopes of independence for Scotland.
305

European Scot,

30/09/2008 17:46:19
332 Brownlie

A yolk usually involves something being cracked.
Claiming a Saxon identity seems to confirm that !
306

Saxon Yolk,

30/09/2008 17:52:07
332 brownlie

You don't have the money or the skills or the technology to dig the Oil out of the sea.

Without the no-how of the English you would wither and die.



307

Saxon Yolk,

30/09/2008 17:57:44
341 danielrober

Don't forget the historical stuff, it was the Tories who set up the Scottish Grand Committee.

Generous to a fault, shear folly - give them an inch and they will try to take a Oil well.
308

Saxon Yolk,

30/09/2008 18:00:18

Robin Brown

well who was it then?

It couldn't have been you workshy subsidy junkies.
309

Masterpiece,

30/09/2008 18:01:32
The Scots really do suffer from the colonial brainwashing that has been going on in Scotland for centuries. Indeed, few seem to see just how well it is being done on a daily basis through broadcasting and our Scottish education system.

Mr Cameron and his team will not want to let up on this front in the years to come and will do everything in his power to pile on the pressure in different ways that make the Scots feel ashamed of who they are and can achieve once the colonial mindset has been taken away.
310

Masterpiece,

30/09/2008 18:05:13
It is true that the Scots were masters at promoting the Empire all round the world on behalf of Britain but do we still need to do it today.

Self respect or self worth will never come about by thinking you are less worthy than others.
311

The Master,

30/09/2008 18:20:35
Question: if the Nats are so convinced that the electorate will be driven to support their separation agenda as a result of the election of a Tory Government, how voters seem only too happy to support their tartan counterparts just now?

The truth of the matter is that the very strength of the nationalists shows that support for a soft centre right alternative to Labour is already present in Scotland and that Cameron will be pushing on an open door when he adopts his "softly softly" attitude to Scotland.

If you don't believe me about the Nats' "Tartan Tory" credentials, then may I start by pointing to the CT freeze and the much vaunted wish for drive for growth and cuts in corporation tax in a separatist Scotland. Indeed, vital local authority services are already feeling the pinch as a result of the Nats' ability to talk left and act right.

As for the Nats' assertions that the Tories will have no legitimacy in Scotland, that will be easily countered by pointing to the vagaries of the electoral system and the fact that the Nats themselves have had negligible representation at Westminster for many years as a result of this (whatever sharp increase in representation the next general election may bring them).
312

brownlie,

30/09/2008 18:21:56
342 Saxon Yolk

Me, personally, no! - but I know a few folk in Qatar who do!!


Your comment regarding the English says more about you than anything I could say.
313

European Scot,

30/09/2008 18:42:04
334 Independent like everyone else

" Of course. But that's consistent with the unionist point of view, which is entirely founded on hypocrisy."

I'm sure in some cases you are right about some Unionists having an element of hypocrisy, but I think with many others that is not the case.
Some don't want to question the status quo, feeling safer the way things are, others perhaps have a nostalgic feeling for a 'UK' from the past, and others do not have enough confidence to believe in the future of an Independent Scotland, so prefer to let things lie.
I certainly couldn't believe that all Unionists are hypocrites, if only from a statistical point of view !
There does however seem to be a blindness with quite a few Unionists when it comes to accepting figures relating to the 'UK', and yet not being able to accept those same figures when used in the context of an Independent Scotland.
You are quite right about those countries that have joined the EU,
Scotland with its strategically important geography alone would maintain its position within the EU.
314

brownlie,

30/09/2008 18:50:41
352 sm753

I really was not being facetious when I said I was not interested in your oil figures.

Having travelled all over the world and having visited other small nations my personal point of view regarding independence is that I am confident that Scotland,and its inhabitants, irrespective of origin, are quite capable of thriving, with or without oil revenue.
315

brownlie,

30/09/2008 19:45:39
357 sm753

Has it occurred to you - maybe this is a long-shot - that they have not pointed out your mistake because

A: they are not interested in your posts.

B: they have become accustomed to you being wrong and it is no longer worthy of comment.

316

Eve,

Scotland 30/09/2008 20:56:03
#9 Patrick O'Reilly: "And most nationalists are "Tory by nature"."

What nationalist are you talking about any way?

Cause if yer refering to the Scot Nats then yer talk keech!!! Cause most Scot nats are Socialist of one kind or another. (Note there are more than one type and spectrum of socilism) Theres an odd tory but they are few and far between (I'm yet to meet one). Most/ or should I say all Scot Nats I've met have either been Socilists or come across as politicaly balanced.
317

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 22:08:23
#364 Good, strong, well researched retort. No wonder the Nationalists are doing well in the polls - they don't have to rely on facts, they just hurl insults around.
318

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/09/2008 22:12:17
#363 Eve, the SNP is an umbrella organisation incorporating a wide range of political viewpoints. The impression of being a centre-left, Europhile party has been carefully designed to make them electable but at the core the only thing tying the various strands of the party together is the policy of independence. It's a pressure group which has disastrously ended up running the country. You can guarantee that when they next come under electoral pressure the divisions will come to the surface just like those of the Tories and Labour.
319

ThomasP,

30/09/2008 23:53:21
#366

You pretty much described all parties. There are divisions in all parties over many issues. In Labour some support the referendum some not. Some are Nationalists themselves and support Independence, others are not. Some are against the EU while others accept it.

The SNP are like the rest of them, they are not a pressure group, they had there problems but they have won power, why give it up?
320

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 01/10/2008 06:22:59
364

Interesting how ye managed tae get the F word through the censorship.
321

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 01/10/2008 06:29:05
361

So its doon tae 6 years now Smeagal no 10.4 wie yer last effort? 6 years o oil left in the UK sector of the North sea according to "BP" and your maths?
your posts are the equivilant of a snails trail through the blog.
Youre no even making any effort not to appear like a 15 year old hacker.
322

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 01/10/2008 06:37:37
366

So what are New Labour doing to make themselves electable? apart fae getting mired in illegal activity, sleaze, corruption, illegal wars, high taxation, financial incompetance, low public sector pay awards, High inflation, selling Scottish assets, lying about oil production, oil revenues, inflation, immigration, unemployment, party donations, indivdual donations, cash for honours, breaking manifesto promises, retaining the house of lords,
and finally lets now forget employing cyber trolls.

If the SNP were to get itself with the program above would they be more to your taste then Duncie the hard working IT something fae Edinburgh who is not of course a cyber troll posting as SM/Ugly/etc??
323

Duncan in Edinburgh,

01/10/2008 07:57:59
#370 As ever, concise, on-topic and free of ad hominem attacks - well done you.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.