Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Westminster talks to set unionist agenda for the future of Scotland

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: 15 January 2008
SHORTLY before lunchtime today, the leaders of Scotland's main unionist parties will sit down for a groundbreaking meeting at Westminster that will set the agenda for the constitutional future of the country.
But not one of the six senior politicians involved will be representing the Scottish Government.

Today's meeting – between Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians – will help create a Scottish Constitutional Commission to deliver more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

At the same time, officials in Alex Salmond's office will be planning the next stage of the Scottish Government's National Conversation on Independence.

Political experts agree that Scottish politics has now become polarised on constitutional grounds with the unionist parties and their Scottish Constitutional Commission on one side and the SNP's National Conversation on the other.

However, there is also considerable scope for confusion, with two separate debates on Scotland's constitutional future going on, one organised by the nationalists and one by the unionists, with neither side willing to get involved with the other.

Professor John Curtice, political expert at Strathclyde University, said he believed the Scottish Constitutional Commission has far more potential to change Scottish politics than its nationalist rival.

Prof Curtice said: "The National Conversation is a mechanism to encourage debate and perhaps to encourage more support for independence, but the brutal truth is that, as far as holding a referendum is concerned, the votes are not there.

"The Scottish Constitutional Commission potentially is very important because the parties involved have the votes necessary in both legislatures to pass the necessary legislation."

But he added: "Whether it will prove to be more than a talking shop will depend on the attitude of the UK Labour government."

Wendy Alexander, for Labour, Annabel Goldie, for the Tories and Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, are heading south for today's meeting, where they will discuss the commission plans with Des Browne, the Scottish Secretary, and his shadows, Tory David Mundell and Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmicheal.

A senior Liberal Democrat source said the party wanted a formal statement from Mr Browne after today's meeting, not just acknowledging the debate, but actively supporting the commission idea. "We have never had that from the UK government," the source said.

And he added: "The reason that is so important is because, at the end of this process, we would envisage a Scotland Act Amendment Bill coming through the House of Commons and that needs government support."

The Liberal Democrats believe a lot of the work of the commission will involve Treasury officials, because of the complex arguments over fiscal control and responsibility, and that will need positive support from the UK government.

The Tories are more cautious, looking for the practical details of the commission's work to be thrashed out today.

For Labour, the central issue is the difference between Ms Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, and Mr Browne. Ms Alexander has made the drive for more powers for Holyrood a central part of her leadership. She wants to see the commission discuss more fiscal autonomy for Holyrood.

The Scottish Secretary, however, is not quite so keen on this. He is having to tread a careful line between the demands of his Scottish leader for change and the cool response from the Prime Minister, who simply dismissed the question of the commission last week with the phrase: "Its a debate that should happen."

AN APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE

ALEX Salmond launched the National Conversation on Independence last year in an attempt to encourage support for independence.

It was a deliberate move to bypass parliament – where there is no majority for an independence referendum – and appeal directly to the people.

The First Minister launched a website which has attracted 269,047 hits. There have also been 22,285 call-ups of the white paper on independence and 7,342 downloads of the white paper. Ministers have also been writing blogs – in response to comments on the website – on an occasional basis and although the website has attracted thousands of responses, many have come from Nationalists.

Mr Salmond also promised nationwide roadshows, allowing members of the public to talk directly to ministers.

A spokesman for the First Minister said plans were being drawn up for this second phase of the National Conversation, and those plans would be discussed by the Scottish Cabinet in the next few weeks.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 00:22:16
If this is day one, how long before the cracks set in?

Scotland from London, Lib-dem from Labour from Tory.

This could be really good news for Scotland but not in the way these folks anticipate, especially if holding the first meeting in London is anything to go by, wonder wha tthe excuse will be?
2

Senga Jean,

15/01/2008 00:27:34
"English" pound crashes in comparison with Euro. Union dividend?
3

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 00:28:01
At last we will a have two party system in Scotland...
The Whitehall based, financed and directed Unionist Front party defending British (English) interests in Scotland...
And the SNP defending exclusively, Scottish interests in Scotland!

At least there will be no more pretending who's who.
If you want to be fully aware of British (English) duplicity read the following verbatim report produced by British (English) civil servants on how to deal with Scotland and North sea oil. This will be exactly the tenor of the discussion with our six Union Front party quislings and the British government.

State papers on Scotland: Implications for External Financing
State Papers on Scotland - Index?National Archives T319/2929 ?Scottish devolution and North Sea oil including economics of Scottish independence?1974 Jan 01 - 1975 Dec 31?_______________________
CONFIDENTIAL
MRS HEDLEY-MILLER                                        24(RMSA) 171/173/01?                                                                                   cc Mr Fogarty?                                                                                        Mr Barratt?                                                                                        Mr Littler?                                                                                        Mr Cassell?                                                                                        Mr Lavelle?                                                                                        Mr Mountfield?                                                                                        Mr Buckley?                                                                                        Mr Edwards?                                                                                        Mrs Harrop
SCOTLAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL FINANCING
You will recall that I mentioned my concern at the Scottish problem at a recent OF meeting. I undert
4

livilion,

livingston 15/01/2008 00:30:22
So just run it by me again, why are these MSP's meeting in London?

Couldn't their bosses just pick up a telephone or send an email to give them their instructions?
5

brian mcc,

the arctic 15/01/2008 00:34:11
'A debate that needs to happen.' The prime minister leads by a populist party majority. At present, that is Unionist. When the debate enters the 50-50 arena, the true contest and war of words begin.
6

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 00:35:55
You will recall that I mentioned my concern at the Scottish problem at a recent OF meeting. I undertook on that occasion to prepare a short paper setting out the problem as I see it, and the attached is the result: this draws on comments kindly contributed by Mr Mountfield and Mr Buckley.
2.    I am circulating the paper at this stage mainly for information, and I imagine you will wish to put it to Sir Derek Mitchell on this basis. But the issue seems bound to bulk significantly larger in our consciousness from now on, and I fear that the very existence of the problem, or threat, will have a wholly adverse effect on our  external debt management.
3.    I have not copied this paper to the bank: it occurred to me that the best course might be for Sir Derek Mitchell to give a copy to Mr McMahon.
D A WALKER?5 May 1975?___________
CONFIDENTIAL
SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION; EXTERNAL FINANCING ASPECTS
1.    The Government indicated in the White Paper "Democracy and Devolution Proposals for Scotland and Wales" (Cmd 5732) in September 1974 that it accepted the main conclusion of the Kilbrandon report that it is desirable that there should be a substantial measure of devolution to Scotland and Wales, and that the best way of carrying this forward would be through the creation of directly elected assemblies for Scotland and Wales. The White Paper also states that the  Government intends to legislate for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies as soon as possible.
2.    To  this end, a special Cabinet Office Constitution Unit under the Lord President is now working full steam ahead with a Devolution Bill which it is hoped to lay before Parliament by the turn of the year, though Ministers are not committed to this timetable. Assuming a period of six months for Parliamentary scrutiny and debate and a further six months for holding elections for and setting up the new assemblies, Scotland and Wales could begin 1977 with fully operative assemblies with substantial delegate
7

walter,

15/01/2008 00:40:55
This should reach about 1000 posts.
8

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 00:43:07
with substantial delegated authority in a wide range of fields.
3.    The following paragraphs briefly review possible implications of the planned devolution to Scotland for the external financing position and prospects of the United Kingdom. The implications obviously stem from the heavy concentration in Scottish offshore waters of oil discovered in the last decade. Although North Sea oil has not been mortgaged in any way in public sector borrowing to finance the external deficit, the presumption on the part of both HMG and external creditors is that the UK's prospective self-sufficiency in oil by the end of the decade, and the possibility of a nex export position thereafter, provides key underpinning for the servicing and repayment of this external debt that is now being accumulated. This presumption and the confidence associated with it, is likely to be put in question the greater and, in particular, the more overt the pressure for Scottish separation.
4.    The concept which underlies the Government's commitment to devolution is of a "firebreak" - the theory that concession of a moderate degree of devolution will contain the present pressure for full separation and, hopefully, cause the latter to wither as moderate Scottish opinion finds that reasonable demands can be met, and Scottish interests adequately furthered under the new assembly. In institutional terms, the aim is to devise arrangements which, while being of a basically Ministerial character, do not appear to give Scotland an embryo central government. There will not, for example, be a post bearing the title "Prime Minister" or, indeed, a Minister at all: the title equivalent to "Minister" is likely to be "Member of the Scottish Executive".
5.    In practice, however, even if this concept and approach is in the end validated by events, there is a serious risk that the publicity and debate that will accompany the path to devolution will call into question the viability of the United Kingdom as a deb
9

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 00:45:05
a debtor. The matter of depletion policy will in this respect be crucial. The scope for conflict here is that while present UK thinking is tentatively in terms of an annual production rate of some 120-130 million tons in the early 1980s (implying a surplus for export of the order of 20 million tons), the SNP have, on the other hand, talked of an annual production rate of only 50 million tons. Given that annual production of 100 million tons plus is required for self-sufficiency, the mere claim of a Scottish assembly  for a significant influence in depletion policy would seem bound to have an adverse effect on UK credit-worthiness: and this effect could start to be felt ahead of the establishment of the assembly if the SNP harp on the depletion theme and look likely to be the majority party in the new assembly.
6. Countering such concern about depletion policy will in itself be no easy task. But there is, beyond this, a clear possibility that the Government's tactics or strategy will misfire most substantively. This pessimistic approach would be predicated on a theory the polar opposite of that described above and on which the Government is now acting. The alternative view is that the result of the new arrangements will be to equip Scotland with institutions virtually equivalent to an independent central government which would pursue nationalistic objectives and possibly break away from the United Kingdom altogether. The assembly would give focus and public vent to the aims of the separatists and a hearing which they do not enjoy at present as a small minority party in the Westminster legislature. The assembly would, as indicated, be likely to demand a say in depletion policy and a substantial share of oil revenues (which it could use to increase public expenditure in Scotland); and it could support its demands, even without formal separation, by interfering with oil exploitation and exploration in a variety of ways, for example by withholding co-operation over on-
10

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 00:47:08
"Whether it will prove to be more than a talking shop will depend on the attitude of the UK Labour government."
Include /Tory after Labour and you have the story of Scotland's life.....depending on the UK government.

And it's that 'dependency' we want to remove by becoming like 95%(sic) of the nations on earth.

And Prof Curtice is more aware than most of the reality that if the people of Scotland demand a referendum with a Nationalist Government willing to grant one they will have it, irrespective of the wishes of the majority of MSPs who will only need to be reminded they are in parliament to represent the wishes of the people of Scotland.


11

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 00:47:24
example by withholding co-operation over on-shore support.
7.    If this pessimistic view is validated, external creditors of the UK could very quickly start to take fright. Although the external debts that have been accumulated do not involve explicit mortgaging of North Sea oil, there is clearly a general presumption that repayment will be effected out of the current account surpluses that will be generated by the elimination of, by 1980, of oil imports and possible achievement of a net oil export position thereafter . This prospect could be cast in doubt by an assembly of which the articulate leading members were all pressing hard for separation. These doubts and pressures would bear not only on the sterling balances but also on foreign currency borrowing undertaken with HMG's guarantee: there would plainly be increasing doubt about what HMG would be comprised of by the early 1980s when most of these debts fall due for repayment.
8.    If there is a moral from all this, it is that progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the Government's commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament. The longer this can be played, the better the prospect that the external deficit will have narrowed, so that dependence on ongoing external financing will be reduced or eliminated. Hopefully also, a situation by the end of the decade in which the non-oil sectors of the UK economy are in heathier shape will to some extent mitigate the drive for separation.

12

Senga Jean,

15/01/2008 00:55:11
Euro anyone? YES PLEASE. That will do nicely. (Lucky Ireland..or is it luck?)
13

Arty Facila-Arty,

15/01/2008 01:01:07
PM still backing him, but will Hain face police inquiry into £103,000 donations?
14

The Strategist,

15/01/2008 01:04:41
Holding this meeting at Westminster is politically naive. Scurrying off down south so they can discuss their proposals with their unionist colleagues first shows how little real regard they have for Scotland.

15

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 01:05:44
We should all read the as yet unfinished copy of SCOTLAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL FINANCING from the mid 70s and supplied today by Graham Simpson of Vancouver.

It clearly shows Westminster's recognition that the Oil and Gas belongs to Scotland and their fears of losing the revenue if Scotland were to become Independent.

It reiterates the Unionist view of the 'Assembly' as then was, not as a benefit to Scotland but as means of stopping the SNP following their tremendous success in the Feb and Oct '74 General Elections.

Also note how they were very keen not to have any of the trappings of an Independent country, NO Prime Minister, NO Cabinet Minister. Let's face it, these people are masters at keeping nations in their place.

They must be squirming at the renaming of the Scottish Executive to Scottish Government. Hopefully Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister is not too far off.

Thank you Graham Simpson for that very informative post.
16

,

15/01/2008 01:28:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 01:34:19
I doubt that the UK can ever be a viable economic proposition. Here's some background:

"It is time to ask searching questions about the near total reliance of modern economies upon banking. Getting the right answers can sometimes be difficult. But not asking the right questions in the first place can be a disaster. The industrialised economies are trying desperately to break the cycle of boom and bust and the Asian Tigers are counting what is left after the crash. But no-one is pointing out that modern economies are rendered inherently unstable by a financial system based almost entirely upon lending.

The exposure of industrialised nations to the banking system is no less great than that of the poorer nations, and the risk of collapse just as possible. The debts registered against the wealthy nations and their citizens speak for themselves. In the UK outstanding mortgage debts total £420 billion, commercial debts £380 billion and the National Debt stands at £400 billion. In the USA, mortgages currently in excess of $4.2 trillion and a national debt of $5 trillion make one wonder why the wealthier a nation becomes, the more its financial accounts deteriorate.

The answer to this conundrum is easy. Under the current financial system, debt is used to create money. Bank of England statistics show that a staggering 97% of the entire UK money stock consists of bank money created by the action of lending to borrowers. Government created currency the notes and coins (MO) at 3% of the money stock, is now so trivial that the entire economy functions on money created by bank lending. Globally, over 90% of all money is created by the banking system.

The ability of lending institutions to create a vast circulating money stock of bank credit is well understood by economists. In most peoples' minds, money is still the stuff you jingle in your pocket. However, most money today consists simply of numbers relayed between bank accounts via computer systems, and created out
18

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 15/01/2008 01:35:20
This is a serious business. Scottish politics is appearing more banana republic like, with each passing month.

Please Scotland. Keep pushing for the independence we so deserve.
19

brian mcc,

the arctic 15/01/2008 01:36:24
Let me caution you...wars are waged for oil. Not to sound too Braveheart, 'the trouble w/scotland, it's full of scots. if we can't drive them out, we'll breed them out.'

Unionists have failed to drive you out.

How strong is that Celtic bloodline?
20

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 01:37:52
.. out of thin air every time a loan is made." (cont.)

"In the 1980s, the Economic Research Council, under Sir Arthur Bryant, advocated that the UK government should take on the responsibility for the issuance of money, thereby obviating the need for a national debt and reducing the burden of money creation placed upon commerce and the general population. Bryan Gould, shortly before he left for New Zealand, displayed his monetary reform credentials when he declared, in the New Statesman (19 Feb.93) :

Why shouldn't a socially aware and economically responsible government create credit where it is appropriate... in order to ensure investment is made and at the same time strike a great blow for the democratic control of the economy?

Government-created credit, like the coins and notes they issue, would be created as a debt-free input into the economy, spent into circulation via public services, and contribute to a stable, circulating money stock. The monetary reformers have history on their side. In the 1950s and 1960s, the money stock consisted of about 75% bank created money and 25% cash currency, created debt-free. Inflation was lower, growth more stable and debts markedly smaller in comparison to average incomes, and related to GDP. Why should the declining use of cash mean that the difference is made up by bank created money and the debt it entails? Just because the economy needs less cash doesn't mean it needs more debt. "
21

The Strategist,

15/01/2008 01:46:07
#17

Given the current state of the UK economy it really surprises me is that the Scottish unionist parties still can't see the wood for the trees.

I still can't get over the effort being put in to save Northern Rock. If NR built cars or ships it would have been cast aside by now. The level of political support for the financial services sector over everything else is just astonishing but the commitment of £50bn of tax payers money to save a two bit mortgage company with a flawed business model is just mind boggling.

I don't think many people will forget this and if all goes to hell in a handbag Labour will be so deep in political poo that I can't see it recovering for 20 years.
22

TommyKaye,

UK 15/01/2008 01:46:52
This looks like the typical imperialist colonial tactics Divide and Conquer and these three puppets have fallen for it.

You know if this were Africa or Latin America there would be an outcry that an elected government was being usurped by those who lost and were trying to regain control.

As I read on another site it said if Labour, The Tories and the Lib Dems got into bed together the result would not be nice - that is correct the result will be a bas t ard child.

In the photograph they laugh and drink tea (provided by you and I the tax payer of course)

What heathens they are they would not know the meaning of the word freedom and independence.

Look at Singapore, no oil, no gas, no agriculture, no water, no hinterland for industrial use, yet tops all surveys for wealth, efficiency, why cant these muggles look at Scotland’s interest instead of THEIR OWN.WHy not vist somewhere succesful and bring us back ideas instead of your imperialist CRAP.

Trough – Snouts – Pigs- in any order you wish that is what I see when I look at that photograph.

Did our previous generations fight for these people to creep, slink and SLITHER to London again paid by you and I in order that they may keep Scotland from achieving its place in the world – look at that photograph no doubt they will SLITHER back to Scotland with a piece of paper and say trust us for we have the answer even although for 10 years we ruled you and made you poorer and less secure, trust us this time as we now have learned from our mistakes.

If you trust and believe these three colonial puppets then god help you Scotland.

Remember – ONLY A FOOL LIKES A LONDON RULE
23

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 01:51:34
3, 6, 8, 9 & 11: Another SNP-ite living on the other side of the planet? How is Vancouver? That really is a loooong loooong way from here!

So of the nationalist element on this board, we have regulars in Canada, USA, Australia, NZ and Switzerland!

And of those living in SCOTLAND (and who would actually be affected by leaving the UK!), we have but a small number who are forced to use multiple usernames to exaggerate their numbers.

Well, one more reminder for the children:

The SNP is a minority government by just one marginal seat, with minority support in the polls (and not even the most popular party in the latest poll) and minority support for its raison d'etre. And is close to being abandoned by the only other party that also backs independence.

And we have the SNP ramming independence down everyone's throat in the National 'Conversation' and with daily mentions in the media....and then having to admit that barely one per cent of Scotland have even bothered to read their much-publicised keystone White Paper on the matter, in the several months since it was published (and I'm one of them!)

Yet how dare Labour, LD and the Tories, representing the majority of the electorate, actually get together to discuss the future of unionism, which by the way, is the preference of the majority. How daaaaaare they!
24

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 02:03:57
Wow! The SNP activists have hit this thread with a vengance!

Of course, there is the usual bland and predictable rhetoric about the UK and a "crumbling economy" naturally omitting any substantiation, as per usual!

Just to remind you all, the UK is one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a 'GDP per capita' above such industrial giants as France, Japan, Germany, Italy and now the USA.

The World Bank has also revealed that the UK's GDP itself is actually still larger than China's.

Unemployment in Scotland (and the rest of the UK), is the lowest since 1974.

The UK is the leading destination for foreign investment into Europe. And second in the world to the USA.

The UK is the largest EU investor overseas. Second in the world only to the USA again. UK investments overseas currently total £800bn+, quadruple what it was in 2000.

That'll do for now. These are what are known as FACTS.

That is F-A-C-T-S.

Maybe the SNP sheep could actually check what other posters have told them instead of displaying such astonishing gullibility!

Blahblahblah, "if you don't support independence then I'm not a true Scot!"

The SNP is a joke who's political honeymoon seems to be coming to an abrupt end.
25

Edward,

15/01/2008 02:06:37
How strange, Wendy Alexander, when annointed as leader of the Labour group in Holyrood, promised to 'reconnect' with the people. So far no reconnection, in fact its strange that instead of actually connecting with the Scottish people and making a point of having open discussion with them, she decides instead to only connect with Westminster!
Does she and the other Unionist parties not trust the Scottish people? evidently NOT!!!
26

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 02:19:43
Salmond promised Scotland a 'priority fully costed pledge' of 1000 NEW police yet then delivered only half that.

Salmond had promised to regulate Scotland's buses but then Souter came along with £630,000 and suddenly that promise went away too.

Salmond promised to fight Scotland's corner and then could only manage a limp comment about a Norwegian chess set which the rightful owner had sold to the British Museum....oh, don't forget his whinge about immigration reforms which are preventing him from getting his twice-nightly Chicken Madras.

Where was the promised public holiday for St Andrews Day?!

Where are the promised class size reductions, another 'priority'?

Where are the promised student grants, another 'priority'?

The shame.
27

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 02:23:15
Hey, but at least we don't have to pay £1 to cross the bridges anymore!

Wahey!
28

Edward,

15/01/2008 02:23:44
#24 Highland Mighty
Quoting half truthes does not justify keeping the United Kingdom
Some facts that you have glazed over
It is Scotland that has a better GDP than Germany
The Strength of the UK Pound is at an all time low against the Euro and the US Dollar
You forget that the UK is made up of 3 countries, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, collectively they provide the wealth. Scotland holds its own when providing a large slice of the wealth
GDP per capita, annual growth rate in 2005 for China was 9.5, while the UK was 1.2
These are facts

Its idiots like you that live in the past, wrapped up in the union jack. Its time you woke up to reality and the ever changing world. Scotland does not need to have the UK, neither does England. Its becoming an irrelevance. Consider this - Gordon Brown has signed away a chunk of what was not devolved to Scotland, to the EU, such things as foreign policy. All that is left to discuss in Westminster is Health, Education and Justice, all devolved
29

Edward,

15/01/2008 02:27:17
#26 Highland Mighty
You need reminding
Labour and the Libdems repeatedly promised over the last eight YEARS to reduce class sizes, yet this never happened, in fact the grew!
The SNP have been in government, how long? eight MONTHS
and they, along with the teaching unions are tackling class sizes
30

FrancesP,

15/01/2008 02:48:40
Highland Mighty, if you want to address the children, start by looking in the mirror. Who over the age of seven would spot a nationalist posting from Vancouver and then proceed to start jumping up and down screaming "that's a loooong loooong way from here!" It is, isn't it, son? And can you tell me what continent it's in?

It goes without saying that the thrust of your argument is what is known as GARBAGE (yes, that's G-A-R-B-A-G-E), but given your zeal for full substantiation of the claims people make, could you perhaps apply that principle to some of your own? I'd be interested, for example, in discovering where you got the information about the World Bank listing the UK's economy as larger than China's. The only thing I can find any sign of is that they've downgraded China's GDP when calculated by Purchasing Power Parity, but on that method China remains well ahead of the UK anyway. On nominal GDP, there appears to have been no change made, with China remaining slightly ahead. In any event, it's a wholly academic point, because China is almost certain to steam way ahead of the UK in years to come - and India will follow suit. I also don't see that the UK's GDP being very marginally higher than France's (a country of roughly similar population) is something worth reading great significance into either.
31

FrancesP,

15/01/2008 02:55:09
Strike what I said in #30, I've just noticed the Financial Times reported last week that the UK has slipped into SIXTH place in the GDP rankings behind both China AND France!
32

Guga II,

Rockall 15/01/2008 02:57:03
Not only do the unionist parties have to run to Westminster for their instructions, but they even have to meet in London so that their political masters can keep close control over them. No doubt they'll all be seated round a table with their masters, and the Butcher's Apron will be on the wall behind them.

In the words of Burns, "sic a parcel of rogues in a nation".
33

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 15/01/2008 03:02:50
This thread started out with posters sharing thoughts and important information, but it is starting to sink into ignominty. Thank you Graham and Yok for VERY good posts - informing reading indeed.

I noticed a glaring inaccuracy in this piece:

"However, there is also considerable scope for confusion, with two separate debates on Scotland's constitutional future going on, one organised by the nationalists and one by the unionists, with neither side willing to get involved with the other."

Not true - the "Conversation" is open to all while the SNP have not been invited to participate in the "Commission".

There you have it in a nutshell - Unionists will not talk to Nationalists. Much better to adopt a cringe. I posted yesterday as a unionist just to see how it felt. It was easy - almost liberating - no real views - just anti-whatever the SNP propose - no vision - no ambition - no need to believe in anything really - just posture.

Aye - it's hard being a Scot.
34

W Smith,

Middle East 15/01/2008 03:12:15
So the SNP were 'standing up for Scotland' outside the US Consulate in Edinburgh recently?

Standing up for terrorism more like!

BTW
Alaska has access to its oil revenue within its union with the other 49 states, even with 'dictator' Bush as President!

Alaska has a different kind of 'union' and the Alaskans don't have to refer to the US flag as the Butchers Apron to make a point.

Funny how Graham Simpson in Vancouver missed that one considering he's so close to that oil rich state.

35

An Beal Bacht,

15/01/2008 03:16:52
Eddie - has Wales already declared their independence then?

"You forget that the UK is made up of 3 countries, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland."

LOL
36

roboypg4,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 03:18:09
History is repeating itself the Labour party along with Tory's and the Liberals are about to sell the Scottish People for English Gold..."Such a parcel of rouges in a Nation"
37

FrancesP,

15/01/2008 03:26:44
#34. W Smith, I'm trying very hard to follow your argument but the bottom line is that Scotland doesn't have access to its own oil revenues. I mean, I'm delighted for all those lucky people in Alaska, but unless you're suggesting we all move there, I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Also, given the second snide remark about Graham Simpson's location, could the rest of us perhaps stand up for his right to post from Vancouver, Ulaanbataar, the moon or wherever else he pleases? There's certainly no shortage of SNP-bashers posting from outside Scotland (An English Voice and the one and only Galactic Cannibal spring to mind) so I don't see why it should be any different for those on the other side of the debate.
38

TommyKaye,

UK 15/01/2008 03:40:42
Notice Mr.Brown is saying he will deep clean the hospitals again - how about DEEP CLEANING your party and the WESTMINSTER before you clean the hospitals Mr. Brown?

Wonder what the three stooges are getting for their trip gold silver and CBE's?

Did the London Imperialist Colonialists say get down here right away and they said YES SIR right away sir.

Certainly looks like that from here.

Remember three's a crowd one of you is going to satb the other two and then well we know what will happen Scotland will be left in the corner as the three of you argue poor poor Scotland.
39

An Beal Bacht,

john Smith House 15/01/2008 03:51:32
FrancesP, 15/01/2008 03:26:44 asks:

"... could the rest of us perhaps stand up for his right to post from Vancouver, Ulaanbataar, the moon or wherever else he pleases?"

Certainly - Scots no matter where they are in the world are still Scots, while Highland Mighty and W.Smith - will still be R S's.
40

,

15/01/2008 04:20:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

Please London 15/01/2008 04:24:59
"can I have some more"

As long as they don't allow us to compete, take our revenues, set our taxes and then redistribute them to continue our lack of progress, then the unionists will be happy.

Thats progress
42

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 04:32:47
the 'Highland Mighty' Troll criticises Graham Simpson, Vancouver for participating in the national debate.
He bleats

'So of the nationalist element on this board, we have regulars in Canada, USA, Australia, NZ and Switzerland!
...And of those living in SCOTLAND (and who would actually be affected by leaving the UK!), we have but a small number who are forced to use multiple usernames to exaggerate their numbers'.

So who is 'Highland Mighty', where does he live, what is his 'nationality' = is he/she Scottish? WHo else are they?

Who are English Voice, Galactic Cannibal, Walter Smith, Maltese Falcon, Leah (and her legion personas) - surely because they side with you 'HM2', but do not live in Scotland is their viewpoint any more/less legitimate?

This is nought but a discussion board - there are some who attempt to broaden the debate (Such as Graham, Vancouver), and those like yourself who are here to solely make mischief.

I for one welcome input from ex-pat Scots who have experience of living overseas. They are still Scots after all.

I also welcome input from 'incomers' who have chosen to make Scotland their home. However, their choice is to live here, but if Scotland goes its own way they are welcome to stay and make it work, or leave if they prefer not to.

Back on topic - it's Westminster who's calling the shots and their Governor General Des Browne who is the driving force. The Unionist Party sub-agents in Scotland (whom Salmond wipes the floor with Holyrood) are bit players.

Is Salmond Scotland's Gough Whitlam - such an irritant that Westminster will seek to use it's constitutional powers to dissolve his SNP government if all else fails?

Let's say that I would not put this past them.

If Browne and his boss Broon had any cojones they would open dialogue with Salmond as they are the real players in this game.

An independence referendum is in the interests of ALL parties. The Londonistas would do well to engage their brains and
43

,

15/01/2008 04:34:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 04:39:04
This was written in 1964:

"It is the claim of Socialist leaders that theirs is not the Party of the Big Money Men. The test is this: will Labour understand that the 'nationalization' of the power of coinage (emission) is the supreme necessity? And not the confiscation of the fruits of many peoples' labour and invention. If the Socialist Party does not pass this test and continues to protect parasitical finance, if only by its silence, then it will lay itself open to an attack which it could never repulse, however long it may postpone the show-down."

The nature of the show-down is that the Labour party no longer represents the working people of Scotland and for the SNP to handle this big enough task it needs the economic means to do so.
45

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 04:39:27
truncated....realise this.

Goodnight from Dundee (which is not in Fife, Highland Mighty)
46

Alan Reid,

NZ small Independent country doing well, unlike Sc 15/01/2008 04:43:41

Check out the following link
Some of you might find it interesting.

England betrayed!


On Tuesday 23 March 1999, England gave away an estimated 30% of attributable oil revenue to the Scottish Parliament on the orders of a former First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmstand/deleg3/st990323/90323s01.htm


47

,

15/01/2008 04:51:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

,

15/01/2008 04:53:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

,

15/01/2008 04:57:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta... ..a captured Mexican territory 1845 15/01/2008 05:02:36
Without financial support from England, Scotland would be another third world place.

If the Scots want to keep their prosperity in tact they will reject independence.

Independence for Scotland will put the majority of Scots out on the dole.

The SNP will lead Scotland into a financial disaster and ruin.
But if that's what the Scots want 'Have at it"

GC

51

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

15/01/2008 05:25:52
bloody Scots think that they can run themselves now - what what
52

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

15/01/2008 05:28:21
is this the thingy where the unionist parties admit that they are incapable of running a country.
53

Gordon Macdonald,

Glasgow 15/01/2008 05:31:38
I suggest that we integrate Rangers & Celtic into a new British football league, this is where the votes are. This would undermine the SNP, with all other Scottish football teams eligible to enter British leagues subject to their own results. A master stroke for Gordon Brown to pull off, giving the old firm a level (annual £40million tv rights)playing field. Now who in there right mind would not like to see this? Just ask the fans via a newspaper polls?
54

,

15/01/2008 05:34:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

S MacLeod,

15/01/2008 05:48:57
24 Highland Mighty

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=F.A.C.T

I have a few ideas as what the "S" is for!

lol
56

Pilrig.,

Livingston 15/01/2008 05:53:38
The most significant thing about these talks is that they are being held in London.
57

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 15/01/2008 05:57:40
Thank you all for your comments on the postings #3,6,8,9,11,... The British government's previously secret discussion paper: 'Scotland: Implications for external financing'. It was so germane to the thread, that I thought that even the Unionists could witness the devious nature of the establishments dialogue about Scottish Independence. Given that all six members of the so called deputation to Whitehall are all embarassedly and painfullly aware of this document, it is a wonder that they can hold their heads up without shame, to so deceive further the Scottish people that their masters in Whitehall are honest brokers. I can't help viewing this scenario... as a Micro Act of Union 1707... as this pathetic, cringing little pack, sneak off to London to give away their country!

The real thanks however should go to www.scotsgait.uk.co, who provide a wealth of material and dialogue on things Scottish and from whom I borrowed the paper. They need and deserve your support to keep their website going.

#46 Alan Reid... thanks Alan for your contribution which covers order 1999 relative to Scotlands control, or lack thereof of it's adjacent seas. Unfortunately I could not find the 'illustrated map' which was allegedly attached and would have explained all, I think. Perhaps you can help me on this.If you are in Auckland then I know it's only about 6.45pm Tuesday so you'll still be up. Thanks again!




58

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 06:07:12
From an English point of view:

With many media and publishing empires hopelessly mortgaged to the banks its no surprise that the issue of money creation is never discussed. Yet when the banking fraternity decides it wants Britain in the single currency, the media can be mobilised to disseminate "newspeak" tirelessly to that end. And if it ever fails in the face of the publics instinctive mistrust of the press, interest rates can always be used to tip the economy into another recession so as to confuse and demoralise us a little more.

Our fight is not to "keep the pound" in the sense that we cannot keep something that we do not yet own! Anything that is borrowed is in ones possession but temporarily and by permission of the lender who still has the ultimate claim of ownership upon it. Neither should we be duped into believing that the pound is merely a "symbol" of our sovereignty. The significance of our currency is far more than symbolic. It is an essential ingredient of our sovereignty
59

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 06:08:41
In the EU controversy the vital point that our freedom has already been taken from us is obscured, which in turn obscures the real objective of the foe, which is not to remove our freedom but to simply remove it further and to take from us any hope of ever getting it back! We are not therefore fighting to avoid loss of freedom, we are fighting to achieve freedom! To do so we must address those factors which caused freedom to be lost to us in the first place the assumption by international financiers of the right to create and lend virtually our entire money supply.

The solution is to restore to our elected government the right to create and spend into existence our currency.
60

,

15/01/2008 06:32:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

Andrew D,

15/01/2008 06:47:26
#60

I'd have thought going with the Euro would make a lot of sense personally. No messy exchange rates to live or die by, except en masse with the rest of Europe.
62

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 15/01/2008 06:47:47
Yok - this system of perpetual indebtedness is self-perpetuating and very lucrative. Capitalism is based on continuous growth - when growth stops the system crashes. We don't create ships any longer - we create debt. The cost of debt is what generates wealth for the few and drives growth in the economy.

In the west, most new jobs are in call centres - either selling debt - (You have been pre-approved to apply for our new credit card) - or collecting debt -(Unless we receive payment by ...etc).

The ability to control the supply of money must be retained by a the nation if that nation wants to retain sovereignty. I think we agree on this?
63

Logan,

Ashfield, Sydney. 15/01/2008 07:23:38
Dear Mr. Highland Man,
Most of us who left the UK, did so to get away from westminster crawlers like you.

Logan.
64

McNasty,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 07:30:07
They should head south and stay there. Their time is past, but they cannot see it.

Perhaps they can attend the Lottery vote today when Westminster will snatch another £675,000,000 for the London Olympics.
65

Calum Crubag,

15/01/2008 07:30:32
Unionist agenda? Wonder why that sounds a bit sinister. Will the BNP and Orange Order be involved as fellow enthusiastic unionists/ Brit Nats?
66

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

Highland man 15/01/2008 07:41:11
Personally I left Moray after reading that we had the lowest standard of living in Europe of any county/district.

That was after looking at Oilrigs in Nigg and ardesier for most of my life.
67

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 15/01/2008 07:44:28
When asked what was the public response to The Money Bomb, James Gibb Stuart replied:

The public at large saw very little of it, because the book trade and the media went out of their way to give it zero publicity. When it was first published in March 1983, a journalist of the London Evening Standard was disciplined for getting it on to the front page of an afternoon edition, a bookseller in the Barbican was threatened with loss of profitable franchises if he put it on window display, and a major bookshop in Glasgow, who had placed an initial stock order, subsequently wrote and asked me not to advertise the fact that they were carrying it. However, a small group of Tories under Margaret Thatcher did take it up as a means of stabilising the National Debt by using government-created money to fund the annual interest. Siren voices intervened, however, and she went instead for privatisation of our national assets -- selling off the family silver".
68

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 15/01/2008 08:11:46
Rulesbutnotrulers has a psychotic break with reality:

"Scotland is not, and never has been, a nation."

You forgot to mention:

"Rabbie Burns was a British patriot who kept slaves on his Mauchline cotton plantation."
69

Drum Major,

Australia 15/01/2008 08:15:00
Our constitution allows for NZ to be another state but we will never exercise it as there are to many Pomes (English) there.

It is time for the British and English parliaments to be separated. Combine that with voting an even number of Lords from England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales to the Upper House. You might come close to some form of demoracy then
70

Senga Jean,

15/01/2008 08:21:00
Gosh golly the Euro is doing so much better than the "English" pound. How I wish the SNP could take us into the Euro Zone.
71

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 08:22:27
Loads of vitrol flying round today. The opposition is doing its job and opposing the Government yet there incompetence knows no bounds and they offend everyone by going to London to do it.
72

Cadgers,

15/01/2008 08:22:57
#71 Rules...a nation called Briton? Do all your history books still have most of the maps coloured pink? Even then you'd have a a hard time finding the "Briton nation"!

On topic I find it rather distasteful that 3 party leaders elected to the Scottish Parliament feel the need to scurry down to London to hold a debate on (what should be)Scottish matters. Or do they just not get a good cuppa in Holyrood?
73

Senga Jean,

15/01/2008 08:23:41
#71 the infamous propagandists of the past insist you say a lie three times before it has a chance of being believed.
74

Senga Jean,

Scotland 15/01/2008 08:26:23
Good photograph. The funeral tea of Unionism
75

Hugo of Garven,

15/01/2008 08:33:58
www.scotsgait.uk.co

This sems incorrect as I cannot access it.

Does anyone know what it should be?
76

eric,

Lothian 15/01/2008 08:35:05
The arrogance of them just holding the meeting in London only just confirms they dont value the Scottish Peples opinions.Its a Win win situation for SNP ,Im so glad i dumped labour,Cant wait till England does the same.
77

BK,

Cyberspace 15/01/2008 08:44:26
Appropriate for the season, Burns' words come to mind.

"We're bought and sold for English gold
Sic a parcel o rogues in a nation."

The parcel are pictured here.
78

Mikey,

15/01/2008 08:46:40
It's time to stop the political correctness and start calling a spade a spade! These people (and their lackeys), members of the SCOTTISH parliament, go to another country to discuss how to keep their country ruled by another. There are various words for people like this but the most apt one is TRAITORS!

Yes, traitors! Anyone who sells out their own country, or advocates selling out, is a traitor not only to their own country, but to themselves!

They couldn't even meet in Scotland to plan their perfidy! Why is this? Is it because they can't think for themselves?

Scotland, unfortunately, has a nest of vipers at it's heart and these scum must be excised before this country can move much further forward. They remind me of the old Soviet puppets in various Eastern European states who were called to Moscow to reinforce the party line.

The battle lines are being drawn folks. Are you on the Scottish side or the westmonster side? There is no more fence sitting. You're either for Scotland or against it.

Where are you?
79

Belter 3,

london 15/01/2008 08:49:27
So they are back looking for English support and they call themselves Scots. I can tell you they will get no sympathy here, obviously not wanted in Scotland here they come crawling again. The unionists are finished they just dont have the political know how to realise it and how to use it as a platform for the future.
80

1745,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 08:53:35
Since the Unionist leaders are all south of the border what an opportunity to rid ourselves of this "Parcel of Rogues"...raise the barricades!!
81

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 08:53:59
The longer the U.K. remains a Member State then, ultimately, more and more powers will be transferred to the E.U. until eventually the Westminster parliament will serve no purpose!

The U.K.'s post-War record of military, political and economic decline will leave it no choice, and eventually it will adopt the Euro and join an E.U. Defence Force. Afterwards, Westminster will simply become another devolved parliament, responsible for English affairs.

Devolving more and more powers to Holyrood with the likely approval of the E.U. will be the only way of keeping the Nationalist wolf from the door.

Otherwise, any reckless attempt to withdraw from the E.U. or return to a centralised British State can only have one inevitable outcome!
82

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 15/01/2008 08:56:16
They should just stay down there with their puppetmasters. scotland has no need for these treasonable wretches.
83

Belter 3,

london 15/01/2008 09:01:38
So they are back looking for English support and they call themselves Scots. I can tell you they will get no sympathy here, obviously not wanted in Scotland here they come crawling again. The unionists are finished they just dont have the political know how to realise it and how to use it as a platform for the future.
84

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 09:02:57
#85

Unfortunately for you Mikey we live in a democracy and the vast majority of the country voted for the partied led by your "traitors". they aslo between them have a majority vote in Holyrood.
85

Linda,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 09:04:03
This Unionist cabal won't come up with any significant financial powers for the Scottish Parliament as Gordon Brown says no.

THey should note the latest YouGov Poll in to-day's Daily Express
Scottish Constituency Vote
SNP 38
Labour 29
Conservative 14
Lib Dem 14
Other 6

Scottish Regional Vote
SNP 30
Labour 27
Conservative 13
Lib Dem 12
Other 18
86

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 09:17:00
#93

The same poll also showed only 27 percent in favour of independence with the majority favouring the retention of the Scottish parliamnet in the same or similiar form.
87

Melly,

West Sussex 15/01/2008 09:18:54
Off to London with the begging bowl. Err - anything new there?
88

walter,

15/01/2008 09:19:19
The leaders of the unionist parties in Scotland (who represent the majority of the Scottish people)travel to Westminster (the seat of the union parliament) to hold talks on the future roll of Scotland with in the union.
Yet what do we read on here? The FEIGNED INDIGNATION of the nationalists who try to insinuate they speak for all the people of Scotland.
I do not know what schools they went to but they do not seem to be able to count.
The nationalist government in Scotland has one (1) seat more than one (1) of the unionist parties.
89

Mikey,

15/01/2008 09:19:49
#92, the vast majority of Soviet citizens voted for Stalin! Look where that got them!

People like you are the 'jam tomorrow' brigade! Vote for me today and I'll give you jam tomorrow. Never mind that you're voting for a party that can't rule Scotland without consulting Westmonster at every turn! Your type of party will lie and con at every opportunity and yes, there are substantial amounts of people who will fall for it, but your time is coming. We'll soon consign your lot to the midden!

Watch the next election and see your unionist pals go down the tubes.
90

mr angry,

ayrshire 15/01/2008 09:20:00
#82 http://www.scotsgait.co.uk/
91

Fairfax,

15/01/2008 09:20:40
Yok Finney (70): "a bookseller in the Barbican was threatened with loss of profitable franchises if he put it on window display,"

At that point, there was a specialist financial bookshop on the edge of the Barbican, quite near Moorgate tube station, and I suspect this is the one referred to by Stuart. I can remember seeing "The Money Bomb" displayed in its front windown for some time in the early 1980s. Stuart's belief in some dark financial establishment censorship is probably much easier for him to accept than the less appertising possibility that his book was not selling well because it wasn't very good. It's still available in university libraries, of course, and is mildly interesting reading for anyone who enjoys reading economic disaster predictions. I'm mildly surprised it still has its advocates though.
92

conservative,

Fife 15/01/2008 09:21:51
It's good to see some sort of Unionist collaboration on the way forwards for when the SNP vanishes back into the woodwork. Let it be soon. We don't need agreement on fine detail, just agreement on maintaining the Union.
93

Mikey,

15/01/2008 09:22:07
Walter, that means, in this democracy you so treasure, that they form the government, courtesy of that one seat. Or are you telling us that the vote is now so polarised that the unionists should be campaigning under one banner?
94

Number 6,

Germany 15/01/2008 09:23:50
Excellent news, let's here what the "Unionists" have to say in defence of the status quo. How pathetic and ironic that they choose to meet in London. Salmond should push for a series of televised debates on the subject wether the unionists like it or not. Let the young decide, it's their future, but give them the facts and they will make the decision.
95

JimC,

Kilmarnock 15/01/2008 09:27:44
#24
Unemployment in Scotland (and the rest of the UK), is the lowest since 1974.

What a load of bull, you need to look at the national statistics mate and get a grip.
96

DanB,

15/01/2008 09:28:49
The constitutional commission looks just as legitimate as the national conversation, which is after all the attempt of a weak government to bypass parliament. Collectively the unionist parties enjoy rather more popular support than the SNP, so if they can thrash out a united front on the issue it'd carry a lot of weight. Nationalists might not like it, but they shouldn't read too much into it; it's hardly a craven conspiracy. It's just good politics. It's a debate that needs to happen.
97

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 09:34:07
Scotland doesnt need the 'Union' any longer.

The European Union is where its at.

I'd settle for that - everything else is duplication.

Clearly where there is common cause we would vote with England, just as Ireland and Denmark currently do.

The United Kingdom is a dead duck.
98

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 09:36:57
106.
http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2007/12/14/in-brief-jobless-total-lowest-in-33-years-97298-20248436/

You were saying?

What IS a load of bull is the endless predictable and baseless crap coming from.......ah, just noticed that most of these contributions are from the usual multiple usernames of the boards more ridiculous SNP supporters.

No change there then.

95. Can't find that but this does seem to suggest that the "40%" was a freak poll...
99

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 09:42:35
#112 Your name is 'Legion' for you are many!

:)
100

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 09:42:42
105. Totally agree with FAR greater devolution with greater powers and the option to change CT and VAT as well as income tax.

However, while a codified constitution will divide powers between UK and national as today's environment demands, other written constitutions have demonstrated the inflexibility of the system and has hampered countries adapting to change. Germany and the US are examples.
101

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 09:43:47
113. And the inevitable response from a multiple.

What are YOUR other names?
102

Highland Mighty,

UK 15/01/2008 09:45:58
106. I found this report from 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/644841.stm

Unemployment was the lowest in 23 years then.

Looks like the economy is improving all the time, doesn't it.
103

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 09:46:10
#98

Mikey stalin didn't actually have elections he simply declared the results. I never advocated support for one party or another. I was simply trying to point out that the level of support for Independence is not really consistent with the emotional rhetoric of your #85 post.
104

Miss H,

15/01/2008 09:47:48
It's all very interesting.

There is actually a perfectly valid reason why they need to involve Westminster in this. The position of Labour (in Scotland), the Tories and Lib Dems is that the Scotland Act should be re-opened and the powers of the Scottish Parliament expanded.

We have yet to see which powers they wish to take on - whether they will be significant or whether they will be cosmetic only. If it is up to Gordon Brown it will be the latter. But whatever the case they need to secure the cooperation of Westminster and they have more of a chance of achieving this than we (the SNP) do.

So far from being perturbed as MacAlba suggests I am quite cheerful about this.

Look at it this way - less than a year on from the election of an SNP Government and not only has the sky failed to fall in but all the unionist parties accept that the Union in fact does not currently work in Scotland's interests and are seeking to extend the Scottish Parliament's powers and Scotland's autonomous identity.

They do not of course support independence. Well you can't expect miracles - but it is all progress.
105

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 09:50:33
103. YES! All be it from yet another expat nationalist (so that's SNP supporters in Canada, USA, Australia, NZ, Switzerland and now Germany).

Lets have the FACTS from the SNP about the 'state of the union' and let the people decide!

YES!
106

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 09:50:35
103. YES! All be it from yet another expat nationalist (so that's SNP supporters in Canada, USA, Australia, NZ, Switzerland and now Germany).

Lets have the FACTS from the SNP about the 'state of the union' and let the people decide!

YES!
107

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 09:51:37
119. You are new around here, aren't you!

(Where's this new one in the Express?)
108

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 09:57:30
#115 Seumas mac Padraig Ó Conchúir
109

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 09:59:00
#115 Now what is your name , and what is your quest?
110

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 10:08:01
Ah-ha Found it!

Today's YouGov Poll, Ladies and Gents:

"Only 27% of respondents said they would vote in favour of independence in a referendum."

Back down into the 20's again then!
111

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 10:11:15
127. 'Highland Mighty' and the just destruction of this tedious, pointless, divisive, deceitful, hateful independence campaign?
112

Proud2Be,

Scotland 15/01/2008 10:12:15
I am continually amused when imbeciles like Highland Mighty point out that the SNP is a minority government, who do not have control of the parliament.

Then in the next wasted breath they demand to know why the Scottish Government under the SNP has not been able to deliver all their promises.

Where do these idiots find their brain cells? in the dog food bowl perhaps!!

The SNP is not in a position to force its policy on the country unlike the LibLab(Tory) coalition of previous parliaments.

However if these westminister puppets had any respect for the SCOTTISH electorate they would be voting to support the funding necessary to deliver smaller class sizes, Students Grants etc.

No doubt when elections come they will promise to deliver the same things!! So why not support it now!! Because they are more concerned with making the SNP look bad than helping the Scottish people.

Their ill advised jaunt to LibLabTory HQ to recieve their orders proves this!!
113

Highland Mighty,

UK and will be for a loooong time yet! 15/01/2008 10:15:30
I'm sorry but that poll has made my day!

After all the ranting by Salmond and his virtual army, their precious independence campaign has as much support as before the last elections!

They have not made the slightest impact on the people!

Brilliant!
114

subrosa,

15/01/2008 10:15:43
# 112

You continue to repeat yourself and it's becoming rather boring. This insult of holding this meeting in London will come back to haunt the unionists. How short sighted of them to act in this way but then we shouldn't really be surprised should we?

I tend to agree with another poster earlier who said Alex Salmond should take the argument to the unionists and ensure the debate is televised. This would ensure openness and accountability. Not just an hour of debate, make it an hour every three months until our next election. Let the people see the argument from every angle.

It's astonishing how lacking in critical judgement the unionists are.
115

walter,

15/01/2008 10:18:15
#102
Mickey you say "that they form the government, courtesy of that one seat".
I do not argue that fact, what I am saying is that the nationalist continually talk of the unionists as if they are talking of one party.
They are not, when they talk of unionist they speak of three parties and those three parties represent the majority of the Scottish people.
Linda #93 is the perfect example, she talks of unionist yet produces poll findings separating them into their parties.
Why does she not amalgamate them for poll findings? could it be them totals would read very differently, I think it might.

Also you say "Or are you telling us that the vote is now so polarised that the unionists should be campaigning under one banner?"
The wishes of the majority of the Scottish people is to remain in the union under one form or another so when it comes to campaigning in favour of the union then yes they should stand together.
That does not mean they have to give up their separate party identities.
116

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 10:20:56
130. The other parties have already mentioned how the SNP have submitted a budget that is not much more than a request for a blank cheque.

Do you expect our representatives to just sign off on this? Give the SNP, as naive as it clearly is of government, public services and finance in general(didn't Swinney recently claim that the GDP was £160bn? Where the hell did he get that from?!), do you really expect Holyrood to just let them get on with it?

And the SNP also want to control all taxes and have access to unlimited borrowing! I don't damn will think so!
117

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 10:22:18
134. All I can find is:
http://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/latest-scottish-news/SNP-receives-poll-boost.3671549.jp

Am waiting for 'UK polling report' to pick it up for the full results.
118

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

15/01/2008 10:25:56
Have you been de-colonised in Scotland yet?
119

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:28:36
116 AM2

how odd I find your postings have become of late. So you are saying that for over a year more than 50% of Scots wanted greater powers for Holyrood but Labour and the Tories opposed this. Now Labour and the Tories want this (but London Labour refuses to budge on matters like airguns, police administration or full fiscal powers).

What do you think catalysed this significant policy shift from the Unionists? Do you think it was the SNP victory and fear of further SNP progress?

How charming I find the spectacle of AM2 and his ilk scurrying around claiming support for Devo Mark 2 (as yet non defined) - clearly the SNP is dominating the political agenda via a dynamic government programme and even has the unionist parties dancing to its constitutional tune.
120

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 10:28:53
The more reactionary Nats on this forum is pretty predictable.

At least some Nats like Miss H recognise this is a shift - the unionist parties are now dealing with the Nats agenda - - Nats (and all those who support a real decentralisation of power) should be gently pushing them to make substantial changes in the constitutional arrangements - a genuine Devolution Max - and not just cosmetic changes.
121

frank mcbride,

lusitania 15/01/2008 10:29:12
Sorry for the paraphrase:

The MILD geese flee,
That small Nations might NOT be free.
122

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 10:29:17
* "are pretty predictable"
123

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:29:18
140 AM2

No comment on today's yougov/ Express poll?
124

James,

Dundee 15/01/2008 10:30:52
#136 - You may not think so, but I know somebody who does :)
125

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

15/01/2008 10:30:56
138

Whats the point of that though AM2, when Westminster has already said no to either Scotland, Wales, NI being allowed to set their own tax rates to compete with the city state of London.

What serves Scotland, Wales and NI best is the ability to attract higher quality jobs, and the only way they will come, is by offering much better terms than those set for London by London. Anything else is a joke and an affront to the intelligence of the people of these regions. Free market in the EU but not within the Kingdom
126

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 10:31:56
For those getting worked up that Westminster MPs are involved - would they not also be involved in any discussions on a independence settlement?
127

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:32:28
136 Blank Cheque? You know how confused Wendy gets about cheques. She can't be taken seriously about cheques. Was it a blank cheque? Was it from a Glasgow company? Was it from Jersey? Did Salmond post it to her?
128

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:35:02
148 Feddy

no one is worked up about Westminster MPs being involved. People are understanably confused by a Labour party which cannot make policy, or even appoint a General Secretary in Scotland, without approval from its UK/London NEC. Perhaps Labour might be taken more seriously if it practised what it preaches and devolved it own recruitemnt and admin to its Scottish sub-branch?
129

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:37:25
151 Sorry AM2, should have asked if you had a coherent or worthwhile comment on the poll.

Why do you compare to April 2007 and not say the election result, or note the consistency with other recent polls all showing the SNP about 5-6 points further up on a spectacular performance in May 2007?
130

Stephen101,

Who cares??? 15/01/2008 10:37:38
Who cares about these 'yesterday men' traipsing off to London touching their forelocks.

Wee Wendy and the lovely Nicol are both busted flushes, and nobody has the slightest interest in what they say, unless of course it is about the frauds and money laundering that Wendy was involved with. They may as well include Mike Watson in the group, just to make Wendy look honest and trustworthy in comparison.

Nicol and Wendy are just like a couple of student politicians who have been dropped onto the big stage. Totally out of their depth.



131

Alfie the OK,

England - a land that democracy forgot... 15/01/2008 10:38:12
"Today's meeting – between Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians – will help create a Scottish Constitutional Commission to deliver more powers for the Scottish Parliament".....

Hey - got a great idea! Why not have a meeting between Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians today to help create an ENGLISH Constitutional Commission to deliver powers for an ENGLISH Parliament".....

Tssk. Silly me. What am I thinking about? I mean, democracy for the English? We'll be asking for 'no taxation without representation' next!

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT NOW!!!!!!!!
132

G,

dndy 15/01/2008 10:38:46
Why shouldn't they meet and why is it important where they meet?

This whole story assumes an importance more than is relevant...the Scotsman seems to be anything but anti-SNP today....
133

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 10:39:39
#156 You could do that if you want but I doubt you'd get anyone but the EDP and the Tories involved.
134

The Strategist,

15/01/2008 10:39:46
So what people appear to be saying in these polls is that they are happy to live with low growth, increasingly higher taxation, low investment levels, massive house price inflation, an increasing divide between rich and poor, record trade deficits and a currency that's loosing its value.

135

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 10:40:33
156 Quite right. The needs and views of English democracy are shambolically over looked by the Lab/Tory/ Lib rabble.
136

Miss H,

15/01/2008 10:41:22
As an SNP member I certainly don’t claim that there is a huge upsurge in support for independence. The reasons for this are quite complex in my opinion. Firstly, independence used to be a theoretical question. It was almost like asking people in principle whether they supported independence. Well it is not a theory any more, it’s something that is very real. So it is natural that people will say OK I need to think about this.

But I can tell you this –when we are out canvassing we don’t just ask people whether they support independence, we also ask them if they support the Scottish Parliament having more powers. When you ask that supplementary question do you get about 90% of people saying yes. That is across the parties – whether they are Labour, Lib Dem or Tory supporters they all want to see the Scottish Parliament taking on more responsibilities.

What is even more interesting is if you go into that in a bit more detail with folk and ask well, which powers would you like the Scottish Parliament to take on from Westminster and it is amazing the number of people who say all of them – yet they have just told you they don’t believe in independence. So what does independence mean to these people? It’s a very interesting question. If the Scottish Parliament takes control of all the powers which are currently reserved to Westminster Scotland will, in fact, be an independent country.

From an SNP perspective that is the point that we need to emphasise. It’s not about separation. It is about having all decision making about Scotland happening in Scotland, not in Westminster. Very few people would argue against that. The unionists don’t. They don’t make the argument that Westminster is better placed to take decisions about Scotland than the Scottish Parliament is. Their argument is entirely about the dangers of separation.

From the unionist perspective, they have to keep hammering the dangers of separation argument, it is the only one they have
137

Gothic Rose,

15/01/2008 10:41:42
Edward 28# And where exactly,do you place the country named Wales, in your "three countries"?
138

Vigilant Watcher,

Bo'ness 15/01/2008 10:41:47
Why is it we can't comment on the Peter Hain story? What is the editorial rationale for it?
139

Miss H,

15/01/2008 10:41:54
Part 2: But as decision-making in Scotland and the rest of the UK continues to diverge – and that is what this unionist summit is actually all about, enabling Scotland to take an increasingly divergent, indeed separate path – those arguments have less and less resonance. They are undermining their own case in other words. When they took the decision to support devolution, to set up a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government, they were setting up the infrastructure for independence and the further the devolution process is extended, the closer we get to independence. This may be a unionist initiative to gain more powers for Scotland from Westminster but they are doing our work for us and I wonder how many of them secretly know it.
140

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 10:42:21
Proffessor Curtice said he believed the Scottish Constitutional Commission has far more potential to change Scottish politics than its nationalist rival.
That may be the case since the Unholy Alliance is in fact the British establishmnet and in power in Westminster (currently called Nu Labour but essentially three of the same right of centre almost identical parties),but there can be no doubt that they are all dancing to an SNP driven agenda.The simple fact is devolution is an ongoing process ,it was originally designed to halt independence ,and so far its been an abysmal failure.Now we are trying a Mk II version, in the hope that the numpties will at least swallow this again and secure another few years of oil revenues for Westmonster. If you think its anything else,then I dont know what to say (well not that could be shown here).There is no doubt this is what is happening,the debate is whether we should entertain this crap any longer or be what all normal nations are,and thats controlling their own affairs,ie INDEPENDENT.

141

Highland Mighty,

15/01/2008 10:46:10
Ayrshire Scot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaGS3Uts704

27% support for independence, eh?

The same as March 2007, eh?

"Snowballing", "soaring" and "intensifying" support for independence, eh?
142

bluehead,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 10:53:35
let scotland set it's own agenda the thought of brown and his mob setting anything for scotland is enough to make one's flesh creep
what terrible damage has been done to this country by the the labour lot,each day more orders pour in from brussels.so much that we have lost our identity
143

glassbenmhor,

15/01/2008 10:54:58
W (h)Smith more crap from you I see,Alaska/USA is totally different to Scotland rape/robbed/1707 the Federations are completely different,Alex Salmond could only dream of the power of the Gorgeous Governor of Alaskans at the present moment in time,well we will not go into Looks for AS has not a chance,so *uck-off into your Shanklin Road Dustbin and await Westmonsters money running out!
144

David MacVicar,

web 15/01/2008 11:00:15
#3 etc Graham Simpson

Thankyou for a wonderfully apt post reminding us all of the duplicity of real unionist agenda.

I have posted your comments to the Herald site to help these relevant truths reach a wider audience. People is Scotland are finally waking up to the concequence of events that has lead Scotland to where it now is.

Unionists are now forced to ensure the Scotland act is changed to encompass more powers. They try and trumpet opinion polls which are based on opinion formed from decades of lies, obfuscation and a concentrated effort from Westminster to thwart democracy on a national scale and backed by confict of interest from the unionist run media.

That is now changing and people are increasingly demanding large scale movement of power from Westminster to Scotland. Finally, the ability for the unionist cabal to limit Scotlands potential and work against our national intersts are numbered!
145

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 11:05:47
168 so many ehs? so little sense. eh?
146

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 11:07:52
That picture at the top is like a scene from MacBeth!

These three party's owe an apoligy and an explanation to all who voted for them at last Mays election.

None of them talked about 'getting together',then, never even mentioned the possibility, in fact Labour were running around saying the parliament didn't need any extra powers.

It is going to be very interesting to see how they square the circle of the differences in Labour thinking towards this matter, giveneven the unionist press is saying quite clearly that Gordon Brown is cool on the idea of increased powers for Edinburgh (however much unionists on here might claim otherwise),
and that up till now all three party's have had to do what they are told by their Head Offices in London.
anyone doubting this should just ask themselves where the final decision on who gets the job of Scottish Labours General secretary.

I also like the way the federalist assumes that even if they see off the SNP that either of the 'big two' will have any truck with federalism.

I'm with Fletcher of Saltoun on this one, you'll know who he was of course Federalist.

BTW, unionists and that includes you too Federalist, here's aquestion that I have asked before and it never got a single answer, now it's more relevant than ever, how far do you think these party should be prepaired to go in their little adventure, joint candidates under a save the union banner, come on now, the people have a right to know.

Over to you lot.
147

rothay,

England 15/01/2008 11:09:30
Let's get this straight. We have a party of Scots representing Scottish political groups meeting in London to discuss their plans for the continuation of the union. Do you think it is remotely possible that they will taken into consideration the views of the English. Any possibility of a simultaneous referendum being considered before all this becomes dangerously messy. Or are they too worried about the political mood of the English.
148

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:20:09
"165 Vigilant Watcher,Bo'ness 15/01/2008 10:41:47

Why is it we can't comment on the Peter Hain story? What is the editorial rationale for it?"

Probbaly done for legal reasons as some posts would almost ceratinly be seen as subjudicial - this case has the potential to end up in court - therefore the editors are not risking any comment that could be sen as prejudicing the case.

In any case if there had been a thread to comment on I suspect it would have been pulled by now because some posters cannot help themsleves and would have made comments that were at worst libelous or at least subjudicial.
149

David MacVicar,

web 15/01/2008 11:20:15
166 Miss H.

Good posts. Of course they know it. This is nothing but an urgent damage limitation exercise.

a) They will dance round each other trying to estimate what is the Minimum that can be passed to Scotland that fits with their UK policies and where all 3 can be made to agree upon.
b) The discussions in a) will have to be enough to slow any moves to independence by convincing the More Powers voters that the propositions are serious.

Only the Lib Dums really believe in federating the UK to any extent and they have little power in this Cabal so Labour and Tories will be setting the stage, with the Dums only able to swing something where LAB/Torys remain stuck.

Are the Scottish Electorate stupid enough to fall for the whole process and the eventual propositions?
Unfortunately, the weight of past evidence is that they are likely to be taken in by it. However in my opinion it still all depends on whether the unionists guage correctly what needs to be newly devolved.
150

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 11:21:01
Alfie, you won't find a scot Nat who disagrees.

BTW, fellow Nats, this is an opportune time for us to enquire just what kind of unionists post on here, they rarely if ever mention if they want the Scottish Parliament to have extra powers and if so what?

We need to keep asking, they try and appear as one undivided band, we need to find out just what kind of union they want to keep Scotland in.

That's something else they never mention except, for Federalist, and nobody takes him seriously anyway.

BTW, has anybody said why the meeting has to be held in London anyway?
151

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:26:06
~ 67 Agree with the first part of your analysis - that devolution ceratinly is not "the settled will of the people" as Donald Dewar once said. I'd disagree with the second part - in my experience I would argue that nothing is inevitable - just because more powers are devolved - or decentralised as I would prefer - it does not follow that independence is the inevitable outcome. That's not to say it won't happen - I don't think anyone can seriously say either way that it will or won't.

In the meantime, it make sense for those who genuinely believe in decentralising power to welcome this move - it is our duty to make sure our elected representatives bring forward real changes from the Scottish Constitutional Commission - not just cosmetic ones.
152

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 11:26:16
166

"This may be a Unionist initiative to gain more powers for Scotland."I understand where you are coming from and on the surface that is certainly the case,but I am afraid it merely manifests itself as such, and the real reason is much more devious.

Devolution has been on the drawing board for at least 100 years,and it quickly beacme clear to Labour founder member George Cunningham, Graham that it would never happen (and he also helped form what became the SNP) ,and it was always intended as a safety valve which would kick in, to counter any rise in nationalist sentiment.It was actually on the election card of Keir HARDIE in DUNDEE in 1936 I believe, and was seen as a "Scottish credential" which could be used to gain votes,but only ever delivered if absolutely unavoidable.It is in fact POWER RETAINED rather than power devolved ,and that has always been its purpose,design,intention whatever word you care to use.The essential point is you can devolve in stages, and delay the inevitable break up as long as humanly possible.Why ? Thats easily answered.There are 236 billion reasons which have accrued to Westmonster from Scotland's North Sea sector, but Scotland got absolutley zero of course. They want the rest also, before the Scots come to their senses ,and finally realise Labour Tory and Liberal have conned them. The McCrone Report confirms this.

I agree that it is however, as you say, heading toward SNP's objective of independence, and it should be given a cautious welcome as such, but only in the sense that to oppose it, clearly serves no useful purpose. The saying Rome was not built in a day holds water here probably.A slippery slope exists alright and one thing thats guaranteed is whilst you might not slide down as fast as you would like,you certainly will never climb back up!

We are in agreement here,but the Unionists are not seeking more powers for Scotland for the benefit of Scotland ,or her people, who quite honestly they don't give a monkeys a
153

BMeister,

15/01/2008 11:27:53
150 AM2
'I'm unaware of any poll prior to 25 March 2007 which actually asked people about greater devolved powers. '

How about the Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys (includes one of your favourite questions about 'More Scottish than British etc.)
They appear to ask the question. from 2001:

The Scottish parliament should be given more powers.

Agree strongly 328 20.4%
Agree 769 47.9%
Neither agree nor disagree 224 14.0%
Disagree 199 12.4%
Disagree strongly 62 3.9%
Don't know 23 1.4%
Not answered 0 0.0%

So more than 2/3 think that in 2001. Were the parties unaware or did they just ignore it because they weren't being forced to look at the issue as they are now?


http://www.devolution.ac.uk/Final%20Conf/Devolution%20in%20Scotland.pdf
154

Riley Hamish,

Edina 15/01/2008 11:27:56
#131 AM2 (Mr. Mackay)

Arguments about lies, damn lies, and statistics are sterile.
However, the one given in all of this is that as the Unionists continue to surrender more and more power to the Independence Movement, it'll be quickly swallowed up by a voracious scottish public.....Such that the process will go through the loop all over again, with Quislings seeking FURTHER approval from the big bosses in London for even MORE abject surrender terms........in short.....it's why we DESPISE these morons more and more as the weeks and months pass. Bluster all you will but whether you approve of Independence or not at a personal level, I can't believe that you recognise this as the vehicle for (as you might observe it) "paying Danegeld"...and these particular "Danes" just are NOT going to go away while Labour crumbles and decays as in recent years.
Abandon hope all ye who think this can even HOPE to stem the tide.
155

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:28:11
#177 Thanks for the back-handed compliment . . .
156

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 11:31:00
179 cont
monkeys about!
They seek more powers because they have no choice,the SNP has got them by the ballot box and they have a simple choice,devolve again or capitulate. The SNP are growing ,not going away!
157

BMeister,

15/01/2008 11:31:46
Here's the link to the actual question for #180

http://nesstar.esds.ac.uk/webview/index.jsp?v=2&mode=documentation&submode=abstract&study=http%3A%2F%2Fnesstar.esds.ac.uk%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2F4804&top=yes
158

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 11:31:56
182. I occassionally take you a wee bit seriously.
159

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:32:32
#181 Are you Hen Broon in disguise?
160

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 11:33:19
My, Charlie Gordon has lost some weight:

http://www.frball-insurance.co.uk/img/moneyshoplefttop.jpg
161

BMeister,

15/01/2008 11:35:17
#182
I think it was a bit harsh myself
162

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 11:35:40
#179

So no Oil money has been spent in Scotland? The posters on here get more and more hysterical. I keep waiting for the protesters to take to the streets because to listen to some posters on here we have suffered more tha Poland during WW2.
163

Number 6,

Germany 15/01/2008 11:38:50
Yes I am an ex-pat nationalist and proud of it !. The reason so many of us are abroad is that we could no longer stomach living in a Labour dominated Scotland. When I left, in the late 70's Labour could have advocated free heroin in Scotland and the electorate would still have voted for them . Thankfully, a more sophisticated, educated scottish society have seen through the "Party of the working man " garbage that their parents fell for. They see the Labour party for what they are, Liars, Theives and incompitents. Institutionally corrupt, ignorant and arrogant. So many more Scots have been abroad and have seen how better things should be in their country. A series of televised national debates would give the Scottish people a clearer picture and an even clearer choice.

I am prepared to cover any wager that the Labour Party
would back out of any debate that would leave them exposed to the people. This is a patience game and just as the Nats may not win a huge majority at the next election, you can be sure the results will bring the end of the "Union " that little bit closer.
164

Geoff,

South Africa 15/01/2008 11:40:07
Morning all-hot as hell here!
178 The Federalist-as always,good comment and I find myself more and more in the same territory as yourself. I hope that a Federal solution that can satisfy all/some of the people all/some of the time can be found. There is no going back now - the current setup is fatally flawed so the two options that will 'settle' the matter are either full Independence and the resulting breakup of the rest of the UK as an inevitable by-product or a Federal Kingdom properly and more equitably structured. The latter is beyond any doubt,first prize.

I still firmly believe that in these dangerous times it makes no sense to split apart the United Kingdom.
165

Scotsman in Dublin,

15/01/2008 11:40:09
Brilliant! The opposition parties meet to discuss the future of Scotland, and where do they meet? England!!! And who is not invited? The goverment of Scotland? How very colonial...

You couldnt make this stuff up.
166

malkster,

SCOTLAND 15/01/2008 11:40:12
#190

AM2 can be a bit pompous sometimes but he is certainly not anti-scottish. Only fervent Nats like yourself label those who disagree with them anti-scottish. We live in a democracy. PS that means people are entitled to an opinion and to air it.
167

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 11:41:54
178

I suspect that countries like the USA who came together in a union might opt for a federalist solution,where the degree of centralisation was in fact decided by the constituent states, and they retain financial control. Fair enough,it is an option.
We,however are in the opposite process to centralisation and seek to take power FROM the centralist one size fits all WESTMONSTER.
In that process the objective is invariably total seperation,and that is the only one that you can enforce probably,and that explains why a federalist solution would not be seen as a preffered option in Scotland.
IN ITSELF it is worthy of consideration, but its never going to be a starter never mind the outcome and I think deep donw you realise this.
Pusrue it by all means as is yourdemocratic right,but dont excpect anybody to listen for very long.
168

The Strategist,

15/01/2008 11:42:18
#162 AM2 ....

I'm a realist. Nothing to do with cups half full or empty.. Nobody in their right minds could possibly look at the UK economy and say that it was in any sense either healthy or properly balanced.
169

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 11:43:05
195 well said. AM2 can be a bit pompous (by that I suppose you mean a big bit) but his views are not "anti-Scottish" - his political views are just not very good for Scotland and tend to place Scottish interests subsidiary to those he perceives as the "greater" interests of the UK. He is probably kind to animals and children though.
170

David MacVicar,

web 15/01/2008 11:43:45
#179 morris, "Power Retained"

Too true. That is the real agenda. Goal: What is the absolute maximum they can hold onto while pereventing Scotland choosing self determination.

Q. Is it possible to get minutes of these meetings through FOI? Are they even minuted?
171

camster,

Glasgow 15/01/2008 11:44:01
177 Most unionists dont bother to post on this site because rather than sensible discussion it is dominated by so called Global Scots whose views mean nothing to the majority of us peacefully living our lives in Scotland.

The move to decentralisation of decision making in the UK is a ncessary process and not just for Scotland. I am certain most English want more say over their local hospitals.

The one area where decentralisation would be disastorous is with the exchange rate. Our business would have gone bust last week if our cost base was in Euros and not £.













172

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:46:00
#181 Labelling people who don't support independence as quislings, traitors and takers of danegeld - as you do - is infantile crap of the first degree.

There are many who do not support full independence but who are not happy with the status quo either. To label them as you do quite frankly is crazy in my opinion - you are pissing off the very people you need to convince to support your cause.

You are as bad as the hardline unionists who labelled people like myself as Trot Nats because we supported a greater devolution/decentralisation of power than that proposed by the original Act to create the Scottish Parliament.

I, or rather we, on our part did not react in kind because we recognise that, although the Act was not as decentralising as we would like, it was far more preferable than the status quo ie no Scottish Parliament. Similarly, most moderate Nats took the same viewpoint - that a change in the right direction was better than no change at all.

It is just fortunate that you and your ilk are a minority within the nationalist movement - just as the real hardline unionists are a minority within the unionist parties.

173

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 11:48:47
195

Let us be clear that whilst opposing Scottish Nationalism (and having a perfect right to do so), that is NOT the same as opposing Scotlands undeniable right to self determination. The majority decide and it works both on retention of the Status Quo,further devolution and seperation.
I would never suggest that Am2 should be prevented from airing his point of view,but that does not mean that I will allow anyone to prevent me airing mine of course.The content of your views determine the response,and in that respect I think am2 is more than given a fair crack of the whip.
Jackie Priest does not agree with him.Plain and simple as that.Neither do I.
174

David MacVicar,

web 15/01/2008 11:49:01
#199 Ayrshire Scot™,

AM2 "is probably kind to animals and children though".

Probably, but only if that does not conflict with what "he perceives as the "greater" interests of the UK." ;)
175

Alfie the OK,

England 15/01/2008 11:49:47
159 The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),15/01/2008 10:39:39
#156 You could do that if you want but I doubt you'd get anyone but the EDP and the Tories involved.

Hmmm, The Federalist, have you ever heard of turkeys voting for Christmas? No, neither have I. An English Parliament would, at a stroke immediately render the bloated machinery of the Westminster Piggery completely redundent. An English Parliament would mean smaller more responsible government for 80% of the UK - and an English Parliament would deliver national democracy to the people of England after a gap of over 300 years.

The 3 main parties are completely and utterly obsessed by their own self interests - and what's new about that?
176

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 11:53:34
202 "#181 Labelling people who don't support independence as quislings, traitors and takers of danegeld - as you do - is infantile crap of the first degree."

Quite right and well said. See, sometimes you do make a reasonable point.
177

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 11:56:18
#200 Perhaps this is explained by the difference in how sovereignty is defined in England and in Scotland. In England the notion is that sovereignty lies with the Monarch and ultimately our elected representatives. In Scotland is was never the case - sovereignty lay with the people.

I am therefore with the second viewpoint, that it is the Scottish people who will decide the political structure of this country ie the Scottish people should take back power from Westminster not receive power from Westminster. That is not to say that there should not be discussion with Westminster - even the Nats know this is necessary if there were a Yes vote in an independence referendum.
178

malkster,

SCOTLAND 15/01/2008 11:59:12
#209
You don't get it. Your opinion is that Scotlands future is best served by Independence, AM2 disagrees so while you see him as anti scottish he can equally claim that you are. the point being that none of you are anti scottish both of you have what you beleive to be the countries best interests at heart.
179

Sanny,

Upwey 15/01/2008 12:03:53
23 Highland Mighty,
To put it at its simplest You are a congenital liar.You have no basis for your statement. Yes a lot of TRUE Scots are outside of Scotland - The question you need to address is Why? They have been driven out to seek opportunity denied these by these Westminster controlled puppets. I can only imagine that the only Higland part of you is in the assumed name. You probably live in Peckham!
180

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 12:07:53
To be fair what is being debated in LONDON is not the "future of the Scots" (for the well being of the same).

What is being debated is the "future of the United Kingdom ",(for the benefit of the majority who are ouwith Scotland of course)and the retention of Scotlands oil in WESTMINSTER's hands.Ths Scots can only be invited if they are Unionists and agree that Westminster dictates what is right for Scotland.No input from the Scottish Government or those horrid nasty nats can be allowed! They want whats best for Scotland ,and that of course is not whats in the UKS best interests ! They both want the oil !

This is almost exactly the same as the Constitutional Convention.A window dressing excersise whose sole purpose is to legitimise/democratise what is in fact dictated from central control.

There are other terms which would adequately describe this process,but they are not allowed on the Hootsmon apparently !The CONservative party are well named.The three are pretty much the same party anyway.
181

Alfie Bett,

15/01/2008 12:09:26
At least this action is now showing things as they really are in Scotland, Labour,Tories and Lib/Dems are one and the same party no question,so I dont expect any more of the tartan tory jibes at the SNP from some halfwit labour supporters anymore, their prime objective is to try and thwart the Scottish people of the right to the choice to be an independent country.
The fact they dont even have the guts to have their wee meeting in their own country just epitomises their fawning devotion to their Westminster masters,My God what a nauseating bunch they are!
182

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:16:28
216. Do you cash cheques?
183

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 12:17:29
Rulesbutnotrulers, yes but there not ll on the Nat side, there was someone on here the other day who wanted Alex Salmond assasinated, and it's you who is using the word chancers.

BTW, just a thought before going for lunch playmates, When some of us were commenting onth eMcCrone report issue and mentioned the word conspiricey, there were thos ewho tried to pour scorn on the idea, now, is a conspiricey something that is only done in secret and is it only called that when it is seem to be against someone else's interests?

Put it another way, is this a conspiricey?

184

BMeister,

15/01/2008 12:20:30
#209 'an opinion that is specifically intended to stop Scotland being a nation is an anti-Scottish opinion'

I would agree with that but that isn't what what AM2 and other unionists want. They do not want Scotland to cease to exist. They want to stop Scotland being an independent nation and breaking from the UK. They want the same for England, doesn't make them anti-English either, or
185

BK,

Cyberspace 15/01/2008 12:21:03
As the man in the song "The Lairds prayer" said

"But should the Gaels return again
And we are forced to flee
Let me be down in London town
Nearer my God to Thee"

Obviously the Unholy Trinity think likewise.
186

morris,

edinburgh 15/01/2008 12:21:57
189

Read the figures of money allocated to regions as disclosed under the Barnet formula! All regiions are net losers and subsidise LONDON, who receive 114% of the national average ,and remember these are per capita and LONDON accounts for 150% of Scotlands population on her own,(but I have not included Northern Ireland who also recieves more than they contribute into the UK).
These are government figures and if you cannot work out that the Barnett formula guarantees that SCOTLAND cannot possibly have gained from any of the 236 billion paid in oil revenues when she does not even get back her pro rata contribution on taxes ,then you should be able to.
187

Highland Mighty,

UK - so, only 27% in favour of independence then? 15/01/2008 12:21:59
179. Why do the nats persist in throwing around this £236bn number? That is ONE estimate of total SALES from ALL UK oil fields, north, south, land and sea.

Which is totally separate from the TAX INCOME which is a fraction of that! Unless the SNP now wants to nationalise all the oil companies?

And to say Scotland has seen none of that is just too pathetically ridiculous to comment on.

177. I think most 'unionists' have stated their own preferences for government several times over, ranging from devolution plus, to devolution max to full federation. Can you read, ochane?

211. Remember the NE Assembly referendum?

212. And ANOTHER expat nationalist for the list - Ireland is now added to the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Germany and Switzerland. And I love their defence especially "I moved overseas because I couldn't stomach living under Labour". You couldn't make it up.
188

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 12:29:01
221. I'll take this one!

London receives NO SUBSIDY, idiot. London pays more in taxes than it receives in public spending. In fact, London paid approx £20bn more in taxes last year than it spent (incl the entire public sector).

Next!
189

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:29:48
224 AM2

an alpha male? half a something alright.
190

Miss H,

15/01/2008 12:30:17
207

The problem with federalism is what powers would be retained by Westminster. Logically it would have to include the constitution itself, defence and foreign affairs. Those are among the most contentious issues. If we imagine a scenario where Scotland is financially independent, where we manage our own economy, tax, benefits, pensions - all of these things which are currently reserved. How does it work with regards to Trident for example? Does Scotland still have to pay towards Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent? Do we still have to have the missiles sited here? Not likely is it? The Scottish Parliament has already voted against that. There is no reason to suppose that more self government is going to teach us to love the bomb or accept Whitehall's right to impose nuclear weapons on us. The opposite is true.

Likewise with foreign affairs. Are we likely to be satisfied with managing our own economy but continuing to allow Westminster to send out troops to war, without the Scottish Parliament having the final say? Absolutely not. Those reserved areas which would remain with Westminster in a federal structure are, you see, the strongest arguments for independence.
191

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:30:21
225. So?
192

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:31:36
230 Gamma Gael?
193

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 12:32:37
You have to laugh. The Unionists think they are being clever by linking up with their Unionist masters in Westminster.....not a bad strategy in itself you might think but for the Scottish opposition parties to be then seen to scurry down to 'aunty' in London is simply making the SNP's case for them.

London coming to Edinburgh would have shown some respect for Scotland and its parliament, Edinburgh running to London has more than a touch of master and servant about it.
194

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:34:29
233. a beta wail.
195

snecked,

Argyll 15/01/2008 12:35:08
The important thing here in terms of the passage of history is that the three unionist parties are foolishly initiating the exact polarisation that the SNP needs ie nationalists v unionists and ensuring that the central issue in Scottish politics from now on will be the Independence question.
I have seen nothing on this series of postings or the many others I have followed recently that suggests to me anything other than the process towards independence is irreversible and in fact I am dissappointed that here are no serious reasons presented for a maintenance of the union other than the usual airy-fairy stuff like "stronger together" and so on which cannot survive any serious scrutiny.
The three unionsits are all damaging themselves and each other by their association.
The wholly predictable production of a "more powers for the Scottish Parliament" as an attempt to delay independence momentum unravels when people begin to understand that the powers they most want are only available to them with Independence. The Federal "solution" is patently less sensible than the uncomplicated Independence solution and is only ever raised when the LLibDems are getting tanked by the SNP.
As a final retort to some really silly stuff in earlier posts an Independent Scottish nation with its line of kings from the 13th century onwards until the start of the 18th century lasted much longer than the life of the British State has till present and I bet this will still be the case when the British state is finally dismantled.
196

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:35:13
234. there was Suez too. Iraq IS recent British military history.
197

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 15/01/2008 12:37:00
if you lift your eyes from polls and percentages, and study the long-term trend for more than a century, a clear pattern becomes evident. That trend towards autonomy for Scotland has accelerated within recent decades, and it is wishful thinking to image that it can be stopped now.

It is important to recognise that it is not a linear trend, but that it is happening in a series of waves, with each surge after a trough reaching a higher point than the one before. The two major landmarks to date were the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament as a result of diplomatic action by the Scotland-UN Committee, and the election of the SNP Government.

Even if the SNP were to fall at the next election - and on present trends that is as unlikely as it could be - it would be merely a trough before the next wave gathered force. The present circus performance by the unionist parties is a complete waste of time, and is merely diverting energy and resources from more urgent matters.

198

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 12:38:23
228. Wasn't it SCOTTISH politicians that took us into Iraq in the first place? Wasn't Blair born in Edinburgh and Brown born in Glasgow?

Don't blame just the English for the war.
199

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:38:56
I think it is a disgrace the Unionists are off in London debating the constitution of the UK when there are vulnerable 2 year olds and trams to be considered. They did not have in their manifestoes anything about free-wheeling London jamborees. Hehehe
200

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:39:28
239 What? I blame the UK government and parliament for the Iraq war.
201

Highland Mighty,

so, only 27% in favour of independence then? 15/01/2008 12:44:19
238. Note to self: Add Austria to the list after finding out just who this Scotland-UN Committee was.
202

Miss H,

15/01/2008 12:45:44
233

But the majority of voters in Scotland don't think that. And the majority of MSPs don't think that. And the majority of Scottish MPs don't think that. I don't see why that situation would change. So we have to imagine a scenario where the Scottish Parliament is going to voluntarily hand over Scottish taxpayers money for something which it fundamentally does not agree with for the sake of retaining the Union when it is able to set its own priorities on almost everything else.

Don't get me wrong - I think there would be services which could and should continue to be shared between UK nations even after independence. But defence is not one of them and neither is foreign affairs or the constitution. And without that you do not have a state.
203

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 12:45:50
AM2

Could you help me please?

I'm trying to locate a poll from late last year that identified the different factors that may bring non-independence voters to consider changing their mind.

Do you remember such a poll, and if so, could you point me in its direction?
204

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 12:50:44
#238

So the opposition should simply sit idly by or better yet even support Independence?

205

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 15/01/2008 12:50:46
#243. There is no need to conceal anything. The Scotland-UN Committee papers are lodged in the National Library of Scotland. Have a look at the S-UN story, and the text of the 1993 Memorandum to the Council of Europe that forced the issue, at www.realmofscotland.com

206

Miss H,

15/01/2008 12:51:26
234

No - it is typical of recent US military history and foreign policy which now determines what the UK does.
207

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 15/01/2008 12:52:53
#246. The opposition are free to do anything they like, but it will avail them nothing. The trend is unstoppable.

208

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 12:57:32
#244
The you gov poll in todays express showed an even split on the nuclear detterent.
209

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 12:58:09
252 AM2

when the SNP launched the national conversation, or asked for airgun legislation to be devolved, you an dother Unionists said they were not focussing on education, transport etc, were wasting time and were picking fights.

Why is it now Ok for unionists to stop focussing on "vulnerable 2 year olds" and trams etc for this London jamboree?

Where in any Unionist party manifesto this jamboree set out?
210

Sanny,

Glasgow 15/01/2008 13:02:11
238 Dr. James Wilkie
Dr. Wilkie,

I did at one time read a limited account of the work of the Scotland-UN Committee, unfortunately due to PC problems I have since lost both the information and the reference. It would be appreciated if you could furnish a link to the appropriate documents.

At the time I believe some of the information was still classified and could not be released into the public domain. Is this still the case? Personally I believe the work done by you and the committee should receive greater recognition.

Finally, since the Election in May there seems to be a total silence from the SEP, is the party still in existence?

Sanny
211

westview,

east of Rockall 15/01/2008 13:02:55
Perhaps they were call down to London so they could all get their stories straight about clandestine funding, comparing excuses, and deciding on new ways to circumvent the law on donations to political parties. Thats why the SNP has been left out of the old boys club. They are still fresh and clean ,a rare thing in UK politics.
212

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 13:07:19
AM2 249 & 250

"“I am proud to be a Scot. I am proud to be British. The two are not mutually exclusive – indeed, they happily co-exist."

The trouble is they do not happily co-exist. There are many occassions where the interests of Scotland and the interests of the UK are at odds. This is the crux of the matter.

At these times (and I am not presuming that all unioonists are a homogenous group) individual unionists have to decide what they give opriority to, the interests of Scotland (at the expense of the UK) or the interests of the UK (at the expense of Scotland). Most voal unionists will have us believe that every other unionist would give precedence to the UK's interests (at Scotland's expense) and still try to claim they are as patriotically Scottish as someone who's patriotism is more clearly defined and who does not have split loyalties.

However, as I said, not all unionists are of the same view. The are those who see the union as convenient and the best current solution in practical terms, but who would never demote the interests of Scotland behind that of the UK. Some of the "fundamental unionists" on here would have us believe that these people do not exist.

It is the "pragmatic unionists" who are more likely to vote for more devolved powers than the status quo, and who will continue to move gradually to an eventual position of favouring independence.
213

Senga Jean,

15/01/2008 13:08:21
Scotland would be so much nicer if only it were Independent. Would'nt it? Yes,by all that is . I think therefore I am Scottish?
214

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 13:08:36
122 Highland Mighty, I canread fine thank's even rants like yours.

I can only assume that your deliberatly missing the point because you cannot address it.

As you said yourself most ( which isn't the same as 'all') unionists have have stated what they want , but it's easy tcalim that , none, including you have been specific and another thing, this union you want us to continue in, what party should lead it?
215

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:09:30
252

I doubt it matters. I wish it did.
216

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 13:09:52
sorry should read claim.
217

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 13:11:40
#242 Self-determination and independence or not one and the same thing. Self-determination means that the people have the right to choose the political structure that they wish to have and not one forced on them from above. That structure does not have to be independence (although it can be one of the choices) - what matters is that it is the people who have the final say - not politicians.

For example, although the SNP's preferred choice is indpenedence within the EU there are many who would prefer independence outwith the EU. Those who genuinely believe in self-determination would recognise that not only is it right for the people to decide the relationship has with the rest of the UK but also its relationship with the EU.
218

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 13:12:26
248. Your credibility is fading fast and your true colours as another of the rant-and-rave wing of the SNP is shining through.

Let's examine "recent" UK military intervention:

Falklands - Any US influence? No, the US actually wanted us to negotiate.
Stopping war in The Balkans - Any US influence? No but instead UK influence getting US involvement.
Stopping war in Sierra Leone - no US influence here either.
Iraq - I (along with many others) believe Blair was in favour of toppling Saddam.
Afghanistan - Blair very much in favour.....Was the SNP actually against hunting down the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in history, inflicted on our greatest ally? Would the SNP have not wanted to assist?

So, your accusation that the US influences UK military policy is, surprise surprise, unsubstantiated by the facts.
219

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:13:52
264 Scotland can only decide its relationship with the EU and other international bodies when it is independent. A referendum on EU membership would be appropriate.
220

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 13:14:23
#264 should read "SCOTLAND has with the rest of the UK"
221

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:15:18
265. Fascinating. Do you think he is available for after dinner speacking?
222

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:16:09
268 Alpha Dog growls.....
223

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 13:17:07
Sometimes the interests of Scotland and some areas of England will clash yet other regions will be affected in a similar manner to Scotland. This is due to the social and economic make up of areas more than geographical. By your arguement Edinburgh and Glasgow will often clash so one had better secceed.
224

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:17:32
268 Alot of people find divorce to be in their best interests. When the relationship is one sided for example, or one partner abusive or negligent of the opinion of the other, or where there are financial problems...
225

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 13:18:28
#266 The point I was making is that only the people should have the power to decide - that's why I support a multi-option referendum on our country's constitutional future.

PS If Scotland were independent or not I believe that it would be appropriate time to have referndum on Scotland's/the UK's continued membership of the EU. It is over 30 years since we last voted and such a referendum would in my opinion be more appropriate than a referendum on the EU Treaty.
226

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:19:00
271 In what way? Was there some sneaking relevance to the Unionist Jamboree in London contained in the Voice's post I missed? Is it contained in unionist code?
227

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 13:23:32
259. Utter crap! Jeez, do you nats think before you post?!

Just because your opinion differs from the government of the day does not mean the UK is flawed. It's called democracy where the majority decide.

As an Englishman, do you think I agree with everything that comes out of Westminster? Bearing in mind that my views are more right-wing regarding law and order, perferring lower taxes, less government regulation in the private sector etc, you can rest assured that there are considerable policies I am against.

How do you think I feel about the continued lack of an English Parliament?

But we live in a free democracy (despite the nat mobs more immature claims) and so that is life. I look forward to the day when the majority of the population shares my view and so my party gets in power. I may not agree with everything my party stands for but that is the nature of party politics, you choose the one that is closest to your beliefs.

However, the SNP clearly believe independence is owed to them regardless of the fact that barely a quarter of the population want that.
228

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:23:35
277. No it didn't. Only an eejit would say UK military and foreign policy is not and has not been heavily influenced by the USA.

From the book "DC Confidential", the UK ambassador to the USA was told to "get up the ar-e of the White House and stay there" by Blair. Doesn't smack of a proud independent policy to me.
229

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:24:40
265 EV

Not quite sure what your point is. Sure you have not understood mine.

Iraq, as I see it, is the latest in a line of disastrous US military interventions. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq. Next - Iran?

Previous UK governments had the good sense to keep the UK out of such involvements. Blair did not and I see no indication that Brown has any more sense than Blair did. Ironically enough the English may have to rely on a Tory leader to re-assert the UK's independence in such matters as the current crop of Labour leaders are useless.

My perspective is very simple. No Scottish troops should be committed to war without the authority of the Scottish Parliament.

Clearly an independent Scotland, particularly under an SNP government but I believe under any government, would not take its orders from Washington. Brussels perhaps, but not Washington.

230

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:25:38
278. I wish the Voice Against Choice could calmly express an opinion without all his pompous rudeness and over excitement just once. Is he available for youth club motivational speaking do you think?
231

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 15/01/2008 13:26:28
I wonder how many unionists realise that this is a public admission by the leaders of these party’s both north and south of the border that they no longer believe that any one of them or even any two of them together can defeat the SNP.

Let’s face it there not doing this out of love for one another’s opinions on anything, and that says more than any opinion poll ever can.

Even the one's in favour of the SNP.
232

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 13:27:09
#275

I think the point is that even the SNP supported all those operations except Iraq.
233

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:27:13
277

No it didn't.
234

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 13:29:21
#253 AM2

Thanks for that.

Looking at that poll, http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/scottish.pdf

23% said they supported independence.

Of the remaining 77%:

39% (51% of 77%) said that they would never consider independence.


However, of the rest:


10% (13% of 77%) would consider voting for independence if Alex Salmond was to impress as First Minister.

With currently 67% saying he is the best Scottish party leader, this seems to have been easily achieved.


7% (10% of 77%) would consider voting for independence if Gordon Brown reduced the Scottish share of the budget.

With the tightest budget since devolution, this must also be prominent in people's minds.


9% (12% of 77%) said they would consider voting for independence if the Conservatives won the next Westminster election.

How must these people feel about the unionist conspiracy? If, at least, this group of people place their political values higher than their Britishness, then they must feel a sense of betrayal right now.

A further 1.5% (2% of 77%) would consider voting for independence if Labour won the next Westminster election. This group must feel equally betrayed by the Tories.


Additionally, 10% (13% of 77%) would consider voting for independence for other reasons.


I think that however cynical this move by the unionist parties is, the SNP will be delighted for them to proceed.
235

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:29:23
286 Never met Mr Bush, AM2 so can't say. How does this relate to Blair telling the UK ambassador to USA to "get up the ar-e of the White House and stay there?"
236

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:31:17
284

Actually we rather famously did not support the Kosovo bombing campaign.
237

Scotsman in Dublin,

15/01/2008 13:35:29
#71/110, Rulesbutnotrulers,
"Scotland is not, and never has been, a nation. It is, and always has been, a proud part of a nation called Briton." "I can find no point in our history when we have been a nation"

Rules, this is just fanatical unionism at its worst, are you now trying to pretend that Scotland doesnt exist? How many times to you have to tell a lie before it becomes the truth?

Scotland was developing into a Nation at the time of Kenneth MacAlpine in the early 9th century and was certainly defined as a nation by the time of the declaration of arbroath and although subdued is still a nation today. Britain is not a nation, at best it is a geographical area or a political entity. By all means have a political opinion about the union, but creating lies and stating that 'Scotland has never been a nation' is just subversive.
238

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:35:36
292 AM2. So the chief of staff of the UK government told the UK ambassador to the USA to "get up the ar-e of the White House and stay there". Well in that case I stand corrected, clearly the UK does indeed have a proud and independent foreign policy not overly influenced by the USA.
239

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:37:15
294. Did they not drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy and a civilian convoy fleeing the devastation during that little campaign? Probably a folly for those civilians I would think. Can't ask them of course because they are dead, much like the 700,000 civilians killed by the destruction of Iraq.
240

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:39:04
298. What proud independent UK foreign policy do you think is found "up the ar-e of the WHite House" AM2?
241

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 13:39:27
#268 AM2

"Are you married? If so, do you ever yield to your wife's wishes or she to yours? Do you consider it, nonetheless, to be a mutually beneficial arrangement?"

It is a good analogy, as I presume you are comparing the union of Scotland and England to that of marriage.

The problem is that you are forgetting about the people.

The union that matters is that between the people and its government.

In the pre-devolution UK the union would be between the UK Government and the homogenous UK public. But hat was obviously no a very satisfactory relationship, hence the various attempts at reconcilliation.

If Scotland was independent, then the union would be between the Scottish Government and the Scottish public.

What we have in the post-devloution UK is a very strange relationship with multiple partners. The Scottish government vying for the public's attentions with the UK Government, while it tries to satisfy its other partners.
242

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 13:41:23
281. All Scottish troops have voluntarily joined the UK armed forces swearing allegiance to the Queen and 'her government' (ie Whitehall).

So just what mandate do you think the SNP has in the UK military?

And of the six military operations of the last 25 years (I forgot the Gulf War which was a UN Chapter VII operation), the US possibly demonstrated influence over UK military policy in a MAXIMUM of just ONE. And even that's debatable as Blair has never said he was against the war.

And the SNP voted for all but the Iraq war too...so is the USA influencing the SNP as well?
243

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:41:24
299. Probably not AM2. But Iraq, with its destruction of infrastructure, no planning for post invasion, cholera epdiemic and large parts of teh country now under control of fundamentalist militias executing women is disgrace, a scar on humanity, an abrogation of human rights and disgusting - and doesn't make me proud to be British. Clearly a policy found up "the ar-e of the White house"
244

mr chips,

15/01/2008 13:41:27
Why was the labour sleaze and corruption party [scot div] not asking for more powers previous to being kicked out on their incompetant erses by the SNP in may.
Shower of feckin hypocrites.
Bent wendy has to go.
This whole stupid exercise by the unionist parasites is a total waste of time.
245

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:42:19
302 I though Blair and Brown took us into those wars? You said so above. What have the SNP got do with them?
246

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:43:25
294

So you accept my point.

Let's get to the nub of the matter. You asked if Iraq was typical of recent British military history. I answered that it is typical of recent US military history which now determines UK policy.

Someone else answered with the Falklands War.

Hallo - let's get real here. Are we seriously comparing the Falklands with Iraq?

That is just a silly comparison.

So the answer to your question is no, Iraq is not altogether typical of recent British military history by which I assume we mean post WW2. Harold Wilson had the good sense to keep the UK out of Vietnam. Tony Blair did not have the good sense to keep the UK out of Iraq. I personally have no faith that Gordon Brown would have the good sense to keep the UK out of any military intervention in Iran. I think it slightly more possible that the Tories would but I don't actually have any faith in them as they are just as susceptible to the 'special relationship' nonsense as the Labourites are.

Either way I know one thing - we should have nothing to do with it and if you don't think that is also the opinion of the Scottish people you are kidding yourself.
247

BMeister,

15/01/2008 13:44:25
AM2 - In your posts at 116 and 150 where you claim to be 'unaware of any poll prior to 25 March 2007 which actually asked people about greater devolved powers' and argue that the unionist parties are reasonably responding to the sudden discovery of this opinion. Given the results of , for instance the Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys (includes one of your favourite questions about 'More Scottish than British etc.)which ask that very question e.g. from 2001:

The Scottish parliament should be given more powers.

Agree strongly 328 20.4%
Agree 769 47.9%
Neither agree nor disagree 224 14.0%
Disagree 199 12.4%
Disagree strongly 62 3.9%
Don't know 23 1.4%
Not answered 0 0.0%

i.e. more than 2/3 favoured more powers, and the results were pretty much the same in 1999 and 2003.
Summary:
http://www.devolution.ac.uk/Final%20Conf/Devolution%20in%20Scotland.pdf

2001 Question:
http://nesstar.esds.ac.uk/webview/index.jsp?v=2&mode=documentation&submode=abstract&study=http%3A%2F%2Fnesstar.esds.ac.uk%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2F4804&top=yes

Do you accept that the unionist parties are not responding to a change in public opinion but have known that this aws the case all along and are responding now because they are being forced into action by the SNP?
248

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 13:47:08
300. I think it is quite clear (as in 'very') that Blair wanted our ambassador to get very close to the US government and be well and truly in the loop. The UK has considerable involvement with US intelligence, US trade and US military technology (among others) so surely it is important that the UK has a representative that works very closely with the US government. No?

That is my understanding of the term "get up their a--e".

I have never heard that term being used to suggest some kind of subservience! Have you?
249

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:47:22
306 Not an answer. So you acccept the UK ambassador to the USA was told by the UK government chief of staff to get up the bottom of the White House and stay there, and you also expect me to accept that the UK foreign policy has not been overly influenced but the USA. How odd. The "ar-e" of the White House must be capacious indeed to allow independent and proud policies to be found there.

As for repetition ad naseum, you are hardly in a position to cast stones, cut'n'paste.
250

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:49:54
309. "Get up the ar-e of the WHite House and stay there" must indeed mean the UK adopting a proud, fiercely independent foreign policy not influenced by the USA. I must have misunderstood. Glad your interpretation of how the UK wanted to insert itself up the bottom of the USA was in fact a statement of defiance has cleared up the matter.
251

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 13:50:12
#303

Iraq had been royally screwed up by the politicians. The military went in and with minimal casualties defeated the Iraqi forced and deposed saddam. The advice to the politicians was leave the Iraqi forces and police in place give them money to rebuild and get out but then all the American companied wouldn't be making billions.
252

Number 6,

Germany 15/01/2008 13:50:37
Ref Iraq, BLIAR and his cabinet knew the Iraq invasion was about regime change and that "Intelligence was being fitted round policy". This admission came from the head of the CIA. Yet, still Bliar and the rest of LABOUR continued to lie to the face of the whole country , this has resulted in what the Nuremburg trials called "The supreme international crime" ie a war of aggression. It has also caused the deaths of untold thousands of innocent civillians and far too many british soldiers.

Dam them ,and everything they stand for. Especially Maggie Brown who bank-rolled this atrocity.
253

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:51:08
309. Do you think Wendy, having many dealings with Gordon Brown, shared programmes, shared secret polling data, will be "getting up his ar-e"?
254

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:52:06
312. I am sure that is a comforting thought to 2.1 million refugees and 700,000 civilian casualties.
255

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 13:52:31
293. The SNP didn't support intervention in the Balkans despite a genocide going on?

That actually makes me feel a little nauseous. How cowardly are they!

Thousands were being massacred by Milosevic and the SNP didn't want to help?

Wow, now I despise this worthless bunch of spineless money-grabbing, power-hungry, lying whingers even more....didn't think it was possible but such cowardice is sickening.
256

,

15/01/2008 13:53:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
257

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:55:04
316 Our troops, along side the USA, caused the destruction of infrastructure and loss of law and order that has led to cholera and militias killing women. The 700,000 dead civilians is the death toll directly caused by this disastrous intervention. 700,000 dead is the shame, the disgrace. Calling those responsible to account is not "opportunism".
258

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:56:29
319. There speaks the Voice of the Union,

Calm down old crocus, you are getting your self all over excited and will no doubt be spraying spittle all over your screen there.

Are you available for children's parties by the way?
259

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:56:50
318

Oh dear. Time for your medication I think.
260

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:57:15
318 And the UK intervention in Darfur and Rwanda happened when exactly?
261

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 13:58:05
323 AM2

what do you make of EV's post at 319? Is he having a breakdown? Can you not help in some way?
262

Eve,

Scotland 15/01/2008 13:59:33
#3 Graham Simpson: Whats with the list of names?

Do they have any importance in this story?

I'm intregect why you'd write 9 peoples surnames?

Do you may be have a web site adress to where you found this information? That would be great if you could. Thanks.
263

Eve,

Scotland 15/01/2008 13:59:38
#3 Graham Simpson: Whats with the list of names?

Do they have any importance in this story?

I'm intregect why you'd write 9 peoples surnames?

Do you may be have a web site adress to where you found this information? That would be great if you could. Thanks.
264

Miss H,

15/01/2008 13:59:55
316

Tell you what AM2 why don't you conduct your own poll? You are so fond of quoting them.

Go out and stop 100 people on the street.

One question. 'The people who sent our soldiers to Iraq. Warmongering criminals or what?'

Then come back and tell us the results if you dare.
265

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:01:37
330 and when military action takes out civilian electricity and water supplies, who do you blame?
266

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:02:15
Is there anything the SNP can offer the debate that bland and oft-repeated rhetoric without a microgram of substance.

Claim after claim made by this tedious minority are disproven and discredited. They claim the US has influence over the UK yet conveniently omit that the SNP voted in favour too....maybe Bush is up the a--e of Salmond? That would make far more sense.

27% was it? Not even close to a majority, are you.

You're a joke, a cartoon, a tragic stereotype and a self-created parody.

Keep it coming. What's next?
267

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:02:19
332 AM2. No comment on 319?
268

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 14:02:34
#318 An English Voice

You are wrong.

The SNP did not oppose intervention in the Balkans, they opposed the approach chosen by NATO.

Salmond argued that any intervention had to weaken Milosovic and protect Kosovo, but that the bombing campaign of Serbia would do neither.
269

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:03:09
333 Some kind of apoplectic foaming fit it would seem. How much you charge for kiddies parties?
270

Aeternum Vale,

Wellingborough 15/01/2008 14:03:30
Independence for Scotland from the UK now is little than a platitude since a transfer of sovereignty has already been granted to the EU with the signing of the so called Lisbon Treaty. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/guide.pdf

It is inevitable that the 'regions' of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will in time become fully 'independent' in their relationship with the EU from what was UK when, over a forthcoming generation, the Lisbon Treaty comes fully into force. What is not so categorical is if Westminster will remain with a role of any kind at all since England is being divided into nine similarly autonomous 'regions' that will also, in time, control all aspects their local administration, reporting directly to Brussels, who will in return grant them ever more authority and power. http://www.gos.gov.uk/national/

Whilst you kick around the fettered haggis of Scottish independence your attention is far removed from the 'ball' in the main game. All you are doing is serving the agenda of helping to break-up the United Kingdom before the EU takes over control - so to save it any embarrassment of being seen as force responsible. And the reason why it would be better for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales to remain unified is simply because in any final negotiations we will at least be able to act with more force for longer and ensure the best resolutions as this process of assimilation inevitably ensues.

Divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
271

lia,

15/01/2008 14:04:41
The scots are like a bunch of whinging kids,who will not shut up until they have their own way,this time you can scream and scream the answer is still,NO.
272

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:04:59
338 "Whilst you kick around the fettered haggis "

How and why does one go about fettering a haggis?
273

Miss Jean Brodie,

15/01/2008 14:05:16
It’s the official all parties against the right to choose if you wish to be completely free from London Governing meeting ! Ha ha ha !

Or are these the World Unionist parties - ? Hmmm - didn’t think so !

We’ll have a wee bit union here - but none with the rest o the world - and no control from ootside of England went the meeting ! ha ha ha - the biggest joke of the day !
274

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:05:56
339 AM2. I think 319 is a useful post. It shows a somewhat rabid and abusive character to unionist contributions.
275

Eve,

Scotland 15/01/2008 14:06:37
#85 Mikey: Love the way you call Westminster, Westmonster!!!!

Instantly is Westminster (i.e. London) NOT in the South East of England, so they are theoretically deceiving us with the name of the place.
276

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:08:56
345. And the Iraqi people welcomed US and UK troops as liberators and and the country was not ruined.
277

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:09:05
324. The UK has been fighting to get a UN force in Darfur for years or didn't you bother to research before you posted again? Maybe you should read up on the UNSCRs.

And what is the SNP's stance on Darfur? Are they brave enough to actually want to do something this time?
278

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:09:46
345 And Afghanistan is under democratic rule and not warlords and opium production has ceased.
279

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:10:07
343. It also states to the world what everyone on this board thinks of you.
280

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:11:37
347 Has the UK actually gone into Darfur, Rwanda, Burma? What sickening cowardice to stand by while genocide occurs (quote from Mr Raving Voice above) - does it make you nauseous, or are your gastric conditions in relation to genocide as inconsistent as the rest of your childish political outlook?
281

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:12:18
349 Ah, so you speak for everyone on this board now? How did this come about?
282

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:14:01
336. Salmond beautifully demonstrating his grasp of matters then!

The fool actually thought he knew more about the region and the conflict than everyone else...and was proven spectacularly wrong.

Outstanding!
283

lia,

15/01/2008 14:14:53
Eve-what are you on about.
284

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:15:15
352 It doesn't, or no more than the ones you quote? Which?
285

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:15:58
353. Yes, if only we could all have the planning and foresight of the UK as demonstrated in Iraq
286

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 14:16:04
#316

The troops fought a taxtbook military campaign but were then left hanging out to dry in a role that they are not equipped otr trained for just so American companies can make money.

#336

As Kosovo was saved and Milosevic removed then Salmonds superior military and international relations skill are revealed to all.

#316 Rob gibson was my modern studies teacher at school he has always been unhinged.
287

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:16:57
356 Having no electricty, water, hospitals, food, medicine or police soured things a bit quicker, no?

And how did the militias and terrorists get in there - they weren't looting and killing pre invasion.
288

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:17:35
350. Your dimwittedness knows no limits.

So first you complain about UK involvement in wars outside the UN...and then you complain that the UK has not gone in but is seeking a UN solution instead.

You are going to have to pick one, you marginalised minority.
289

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:17:38
359. So you are saying post 319 is as rabid and weird as the ones you quoted?
290

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 15/01/2008 14:18:22
#256 AM2. The whole gist of my comment was that we should not restrict ourselves to short-term analyses, and a year is far too short in this context - it could fall entirely within a wave or a trough. Take it from the 19th-century Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, via the Home Rule bill of 1914 (?), the political parties that amalgamated to form the SNP in the 1920s, the National Covenant of 1950, the 34 home rule bills that were rejected by Westminster, the increasing electoral success of the SNP since 1945, and all the other aspects of the Scottish national revival. It is perfectly obvious that this trend has been gathering momentum for a century and a half, and that the rising graph line is now shooting up far more steeply. No, this movement is not going to be put into reverse.

#257 Sanny. You are right - the 12 files of Scotland-UN Committee papers in the National Library do not include some material that is still diplomatically sensitive, but that will also be added to the collection in due course. For the meantime, one or two of the key papers have been put on the internet, and can be read at www.realmofscotland.com

As regards the SEP, I believe negotiations are still going on regarding amalgamation with other centre-right groups, but I am not up to date on the situation with the others. For the meantime it is functioning as a think tank. It is basically a post-independence project, since Scotland will require more than one home-grown party right across the political spectrum, but it will still have to be organised in advance. www.scottishenterpriseparty.org

291

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:18:35
361. No old crocus. You said that standing by while genocide occurred was cowardice and made you sick. I just asked if the UK not intrevening in Rwanda and Darfur was cowardice and made you sick?
292

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:19:19
360. LOL!
293

BMeister,

15/01/2008 14:20:59
326 AM2

'Yes, apologies. I had forgotten about that one.'

Presumably the response of the unionist parties when asked the same question.

I could take a cheap shot about it being a common response by Labour politicians to questions about donations , but I won't. Oh, I did, ah well.
294

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:21:07
365 what is amusing about there being no water, electricty or police in post invasion Iraq?

295

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:21:37
366 but it wasn't intentional, so we'll let you off
296

Eve,

Scotland 15/01/2008 14:21:58
#340 lia: What a low opinion you have of Scots, why are you reading a Scottish News paper, are the English wans to boring for you?

It would seems that you fancy yer self as a wee bit of an autocratic leader!!!! With a two or three tear level of importance and different level of human rights and no freedom of speech for those who disagree with yer self.

Or should I say yer aspiring to be some who perches the famous phrase of: "do as I say NOT as I do"!!!


297

Talorthane,

15/01/2008 14:22:03
#345 AM2

Are you sure about that?

Salmond argued that the bombing campaign of Serbia would create chaos that could be detrimental to the Kosovans, who NATO were trying to help.

Within weeks of the start of the campaign, 850,000 Kosovans had fled their homes.

Salmond also argued that it was madness to bomb a built up city because it was impossible to target the enemy rather than the public.

Bombs hit a refuge truck, the Chinese embassy, and a prison.

NATO expected Milosovic to surrender within days. Instead he held out for months.

It is arguable that he did so because it was looking increasingly likely that NATO were going to lauch a ground campaign.

In all of this, I would say that Salmond was pretty spot on.
298

Katty,

Bannockburn 15/01/2008 14:22:11


So they are off to see the Wizard. Good, lets hope they never come back. Hope they have their cap in hand, and an off-shore doner to pay the trip for them.

Pity they could not find room for english voice
299

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:24:43
Busy looking up some other Salmondisms...."bombing Serbia will not stop the war" is going to be a tough one to beat though!
300

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:25:49
373 He did once threaten to attack me. Dead sheep savaging as he dribbled comes to mind. But shows the precarious state of his erdoing faculties none the less.

372 - Katty, how odd that you don't like English Voice? He said just a bit further up that everyone on this board agrees with him. He will be gutted now.
301

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:25:55
371. Source for all that?
302

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:26:42
373 So are you saying English voice is somehwhat less rabid and fruit cake than some of the posts you quoted?
303

malkster,

Scotland 15/01/2008 14:27:04
Lots of the militias and banditts were initially disaffected members of the police and army that were demobbed despite the advice from all military commanders to leave them in place. thsi led to a lack of rule of law which in turn allowed the hard line shia terrorists into the country. The coalition forces in place were never numerous enough to police the state. The invasion used speed, manouvre and precision it would have taken 6 times as many troops to occupy the country but Bush didn't tell anyone they would have to.
304

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:27:23
377. The "ar-e of the White House" where UK foreign policy is made, perhaps?
305

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:28:01
376. Jeez, are you STILL sulking because I called you a "whiney little runt"?

Suck it up, little one. That is precisely what you are.
306

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:29:50
379. I wouldn't bother. These are from the same gene pool as that 'great military strategist', Mr. Salmond (ex-RBS).

They won't understand. They just won't.
307

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:31:05
371. Ahem.....SOURCE FOR ALL THAT?
308

Eve,

Scotland 15/01/2008 14:31:05
#354 lia: It was a double posting, it wasn't Internationale and it's really none of yer business why I'm intrigued by Graham Simpson comment.
309

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:31:06
382. English Voice repeats himself for emphasis. Do you do the balloon twisting when you work children's parties old bean, or would that seem like cannibalism to you?
310

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:32:40
372. An off-shore doner?

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/311746.jpg
311

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:35:04
388. How odd, he told me everyone agreed with him. I am thinking now he lied and may be unstable. How can we help him?
312

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:38:18
Didn't Salmond refer to the Kosovo intervention as an "unpardonable folly"?

The very same intervention that stopped the war, the genocide and the ethnic cleansing?

Don't give up your day job....jobs (seriously, Salmond has only attended 4 of the past 180 votes in Westminster? And he continues to draw his MP salary?)
313

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:38:26
388. Meths. what was that website you had to set up an opinion poll?
314

Mikey,

15/01/2008 14:40:49
The fact still remains to be addressed. A substantial as yet, minority, wish to have this nation governing itself. I have yet to see any FACTS from any of you wannabes to establish once and for all that Scotland cannot run it's own affairs!

All I see are cons, lies and smears! Con the people, lie about policies and smear the REAL Scots!

When are the unionists gonna come clean and give the Scots an arguement they can shoot down? Or is it that you just don't have an argument?
315

lia,

15/01/2008 14:41:50
Eve-you really are a rude individual.
316

Number 6,

Germany 15/01/2008 14:43:35
391#,englandshire voice, If Alex is "Parlimentarian of the year" what does that say about the unionist shower in terms of compitence. Salmond spoke out against the Gulf war from the start and has been proven right, or maybe you think the Gulf war has been a roaring success. Attacking him with such vitriol makes you come across as plain scared at the thought of "Where's Wendy" trying to upstage him at the despatch box.

If we can ever drag LABOUR , kicking and screaming into a televised debate it's clear who would leave who in a pile of political wreckage.
317

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:45:26
"Self-determination"?

Where the majority decides whether they want to stay or go?

Wait a second....are you...are you trying to draw a parallel between Scotland in the UK and Kosovo in Serbia? Why you sneaky...!

(27% in favour of independence in the latest poll, wasn't it?)
318

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:45:28
English Voice has stated above that everyone on the board agrees with him.

Please take a second to complete our on line poll as to whether he is a kn-b or not.

http://www.votevote.org/dcballot.php?poll=EV10001
319

BMeister,

15/01/2008 14:47:09
#392 AS

It's http://www.snappoll.com/
320

Aeternum Vale,

Wellingborough 15/01/2008 14:47:54
341 Ayrshire Scot - Correct, it should have read somthing like - discussing Scottish Independence is like kicking around a fetid haggis - but it may as well been like a 'fettered haggis' in so much as it's like 'like a ball and chain around logical thinking' (just without the smell).
321

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:47:59
Two people have voted in our on line poll as to whether English Voice is a kn-b. On an STV ranking, so far boths votes go for him being a total kn-b.

Still time to vote

http://www.votevote.org/dcballot.php?poll=EV10001
322

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:48:36
Hey, why don't I set one up for opinions on you....oh, right. I'm a grown-up.

Y'tw@t.
323

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:49:06
402 I see. I thought perhaps you fettered haggi as a past time.
324

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:49:55
404. I wasn't the one who said that "everyone on this board agrees with me" - that would be you.

With 4 votes in, I have to say is not backing up for case of universal support
325

BMeister,

15/01/2008 14:50:33
#391 EV
'And he continues to draw his MP salary?'

He shoots, he misses, like a Chris Waddle penalty.

He continues to draw one third of his Westminster salary as he is forced to do by the Scotland Act. This third is then paid into a charitable trust.

I thought people had given up on that one a while ago.
326

lia,

15/01/2008 14:51:04
English voice-Did you hear about Salmond and his asian fancy.
327

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:53:20
Results of our on line poll on English Voice can be seen at

http://www.votevote.org/dcresults.php?poll=EV10001#Round1
328

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 15/01/2008 14:54:43
Crabbit unionists posting rabid condecention - that's their style - it's all they know. They have nothing to offer Scotland but spleen. They will try to goad you into engaging in "debate" - don't fall for it - they are all fakies and trolls.

We don't have to go to London to talk seriously about Scotland's future. Join the National Conversation and have your views heard.

http://www.snp.org/independence/join-in-the-debate
329

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:54:51
407. So he doesn't vote and he doesn't debate, not massively anyway. So why doesn't he stand down and let Gordon have an real MP then?

Let's have a by-election!
330

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:55:07
408 fancy what?
331

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 15/01/2008 14:55:51
Iraq, kosova, I turn my back for a little while and this thread has gone all round the globe!

however this i think has little to do with the matter that was under discussion.

As no unionist has replied to my post at 283, we can take it I am right.

Now can we get back to the article?
332

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:56:07
409. What a jolly wheeze that was then!

Well worth the effort!

Y'twonk!
333

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:57:09
415 was that you that voted for you only being a bit of kn-b? I saw that got one vote?
334

lia,

15/01/2008 14:57:14
not at all meths,just a observation.
335

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:57:32
498. Go on then, tell me.
336

Ayrshire Scot.™,

15/01/2008 14:57:45
Without the National Conversation, there’d have been no Constitutional Commission. Who says the public at large is only interested in our non independence policies? It’s time!
337

An English Voice™,

15/01/2008 14:58:17
I mean 408........wait until 498 comes around though, it's a beaut!
338

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/01/2008 14:59:01
420 yo fakey (full stop)
339

BMeister,

15/01/2008 14:59:37
#412 EV

'Let's have a by-election!'

Why not, maybe Nicol Stephen could stand to gauge how popular his attempts to wreck the Trump deal have made him in that area.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
340

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 15/01/2008 14:59:50
Ayrshire Scot™, 15/01/2008 14:53:20
Results of our on line poll on English Voice can be seen at

http://www.votevote.org/dcresults.php?poll=EV10001#Round1

Great Link - LOL
341

FrancesP,

15/01/2008 14:59:57
#412. I wholeheartedly agree that Gordon needs a real Westminster MP - but unfortunately it's the Lib Dem Malcolm Bruce who needs to stand down to allow that to happen. It's in the Scottish Parliament that Gordon has the good fortune to be represented by Alex Salmond.
342

lia,

15/01/2008 15:00:26
411-It's folk like you that causes England to resent Scotland.
343

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA GU BRATH 15/01/2008 15:02:50
Article 3 of the Treaty of Union and its two enabling acts - which, unlike Article 1, is a non-entrenched clause which can be altered at any time - created the new joint Parliament to legislate for the affairs of the new United Kingdom. Like the legendary but in reality non-existent “Union of the Crowns” in 1603, the so-called “Union of Parliaments” in 1707 is pure mythology. What Article 3 did was to set up a totally new legislature. It is certainly not the English Parliament continuing. Just as important is that fact that neither the Scottish nor the English Parliament was formally abolished; there is not a single word in the treaty and the acts to this effect. They both simply stopped meeting after the new Union Parliament at Westminster started legislating for the Union. In modern terms, therefore, there would be no constitutional obstacle to recalling the Scottish Parliament to deal with exclusively Scottish affairs, as distinct from those of the Union. This could be done without one word of alteration to the union agreement - if the will were there!

The will is now there as we are seeing. The unionist trolls on here only reinforce that will and harden the resolve of the Scottish nation in their march to inevitable independence. All Alex Salmond needs to do is re convene the Scottish Parliament and the deed is done. We can even hold a coronation for Auld Lizzie I'm sure that would really please her, as she is a Scot at heart like her mother.

The ugly gang of traitors now plotting in Westminster are driven by panic and desperation, they can see what is coming they are just trying to find some way, any way to save their po faces, they are facing oblivion and they know it.

ALBA GU BRATH.

GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH THE IST. QUEEN OF SCOTS, AND ALEX SALMOND AND HIS SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, LONG TO REIGN OVER US.
344

Ayrshire Scot.™,

15/01/2008 15:04:10
#426: quite right a real MP wouldn't pay lip service to an independence agenda which neither he nor his party truly believes in. Enough of having fanatics as MPs.
345

Miss H,

15/01/2008 15:04:56
I just voted that EV is not one of those things on a door. I think he's a real gentleman. Kind, courteous and considerate to others. I like to imagine him playing cricket on the village green being applauded with cries of 'jolly well done old chap' which he shrugs off with a modest chuckle. He's like a cross between Lord Peter Wimsey, Leslie Howard and Tommy Trinder if you can imagine that. If you try really hard you will be able to.

His astute political judgements are always couched in elegant and sophisticated language. I imagine he likes to drink vintage port and wears cardigans with those patchy things on the elbows when he is in the country.
He may be a scriptwriter for the Archers in his spare time.

Of course I realise he is actually a complete loony who lives in a shed, eats dog food and resembles a cross between Jeffrey Archer, Ross Kemp and Arthur Askey but I am a glass half full kind of a gal. God bless.
346

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/01/2008 15:05:15
#428 HB - I sometimes wonder if you are a unionist posing as an extreme nationalist - there can't be any other explanation why you go out of your way to insult the majority of the present electorate - can there?
347

lia,

15/01/2008 15:06:40
<