Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Labour by-election visits 'kept secret'



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 July 2008
LABOUR was accused of running scared yesterday after Gordon Brown distanced himself from the Glasgow East by-election, and it emerged that senior Cabinet ministers have been making unannounced visits to the constituency to avoid the press.



Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, visited the constituency at the end of last week with Des Browne, the joint Defence and Scottish Secretary, but both trips were kept secret.

Instead, the two Cabinet ministers went round the houses w
ith local activists, knocking on doors and talking through problems without any cameras or journalists present.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, also visited the constituency twice last week and both of these visits were unannounced, too.

The same went for David Cairns, from the Scotland Office, and Europe minister Jim Murphy, as well as a succession of whips and junior ministers, all of whom were employed canvassing but whose presence was not flagged up to the press.

A Labour spokesman said this was a deliberate ploy to make sure attention was focused on Margaret Curran, the party candidate, not on senior figures from London. He said: "John Mason (the SNP candidate] is not allowed to speak out in this campaign. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon speak on his behalf.

"Margaret is more than capable of speaking for herself and does not need others speaking for her. Government ministers have been here to listen to people on the doorsteps."

When asked whether the ministers' visits were kept secret from the press to stop journalists asking embarrassing questions, the spokesman replied: "Government ministers are asked questions constantly. I'm sure you wouldn't have any trouble tracking them down if you needed to."

The Prime Minister, however, is one minister who will not be visiting the constituency. Mr Brown made it clear yesterday that he would not be going to Glasgow East during the campaign. He also refused to get involved in speculation that a defeat next Thursday could cost him his job.

Asked whether he was planning to visit Glasgow East, Mr Brown said: "I have made that clear. It's not the tradition of prime ministers to go to by- elections."

Asked how confident he was that Labour could hold on to Glasgow East, and whether defeat would make his own position untenable, Mr Brown said: "We have got a very good candidate in Glasgow East, Margaret Curran. She is a very experienced local person who is fighting a very good local campaign and she is doing very well."

Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, said: "First, Labour are so short of activists they are ordering MPs from outwith Scotland to prop up their campaign, now they are too embarrassed to let anyone see them. This is a Labour Party and candidate so embarrassed by its own government it doesn't want anyone in Glasgow East to know they are here.

"Labour are playing hide and seek with the voters."

He added: "People in Glasgow East have the right to expect answers from the Labour Party on the policies that are causing them so much financial pain. If Harriet Harman and Des Browne can turn up, where are Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown?"





The full article contains 532 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Jimmy the Pie,

15/07/2008 00:06:14
Not really a surprise considering how New Labour Sleaze run the country, a screwed up election campaign.

Would you want photographed with the Red Harridan????

2

Rufus T. Firefly,

15/07/2008 00:06:23
No sign of this Political Earthquake happening yet.

The bookies still have Labour streets ahead.


3

Jimmy the Pie,

15/07/2008 00:07:45
Does anyone remember Comrade Broon telling us all last year, just after he bottled the general election, that he wanted time to explain his vision of the future to the electorate?

He also said he was the only man to lead Britain out of the current economic 'downturn'.
When are you going to tell us what the master plan is Comrade?

Or will we have to wait until you've had your holidays????
4

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 00:13:36
NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH

"Labour 14% lead" should have read
"Labour 2.31% lead" !!
So from the Telegraph poll the swing need for the SNP
to take Glasgow East is 1.16% :)

The full ICM poll of Labour on 47% and SNP on 33% is now available :

see - tinyurl.com/5zyad3

Very interesting to see the actual voting and the actual sample size. The sample size is 516.
The number actual mentioning
who they want to vote for was 303 see page 3 first row.
The actual votes were :
Labour - 131, SNP - 124, Conservative 29, Liberal 10, Other 10.
Which translates to 43.23% Labour and 40.92% SNP.
No wonder the unionists are in a blind panic.

It is also interesting to see how various media sources
covered the same story - I wonder if they will restate
their opinion if they bother to read the full results.

The Telegraph:

"Labour set for victory in Glasgow East"
see - tinyurl.com/68qurh

The Herald:

"Poll predicts Labour will cling on to Glasgow East"
see - tinyurl.com/5wtsqq

The Scotsman:
"Poll points to Labour by-election victory"
see - tinyurl.com/6ysk6l

The Sunday Post:

"Labour poll lead crumbles"
"A SHOCK poll in Glasgow East has seen a 15 per cent swing from Labour to the SNP in the first week of the by-election campaign."
see - tinyurl.com/yrf5nk

Ian Dale
"SNP Closing on Labour in Glasgow East"
see - tinyurl.com/5zldxp

Saor Alba
5

Vivas,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 00:13:42
The Northbritishman is slipping up badly in this edition. I can't anywhere see a Tuesday rehash of the "SNP suffers another blow to local income tax plans" (Part 227).

Heads will roll for this oversight.
6

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 00:14:44
#5 Traquir

Ever heard of poll weighting? ICM weight their samples to ensure that they as representative as possible of gender, age, working status, social class, past votes and turnout likelihood.

That last one is particularly interesting. Some 72% of those expressing an intention to vote Labour said they were certain to vote, but the SNP vote in Glasgow East is significantly softer. Only 62% of people planning to vote SNP said they would certainly vote.
7

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 00:18:06
7
I have a horrible sense of deja vu...
8

,

15/07/2008 00:20:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Vivas,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 00:23:47
#10 Number 6, I swear I can feel the heat from AM2's blushes after your passionate praise there.

Civil parntership for you boys LOL ?
10

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 15/07/2008 00:24:19
Looks like the labour party are so embarassed by their current political form that they cannot even face the electorate. Well the electorate will be facing them off on the 24th and sending their lying theiving butts back down to london. INDEPENDENCE IS THE ONLY TRUE AND HONEST ANSWER FOR SCOTLAND.
11

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 00:24:33
Leaving aside party loyalties, election funding is regulated to try and ensure a reasonably level playing field. Same goes for TV and radio exposure. But what about the number of activists and the time they devote to doorstepping and accosting people with their spin? Shouldn't their time be given some nominal hourly rate and included within spending limits?
12

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 00:26:39
8 Conan the Librarian™,

"I have a horrible sense of deja vu..."

I suspect on this thread AM2 won't repeat the
allegation that John Mason is "almost" a
"supremacist", so hopefully we will not have to
repeat all of that again. Although he does have his
buddy Number 6 in tow so you just can't tell
where this might end up :)
13

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 00:30:22
Incidentally, I'm surprised that the Scotsman didn't seek an explanation for these "secret" visits. Here's what a Labour spokesperson said about it:

"We know people in the east end of Glasgow are not easily impressed so we are not having big visits. Ministers are coming to the constituency but they are chapping doors, stuffing envelopes and handing out leaflets. The voters in Glasgow East don't want airs and graces, they don't want ministerial photo-calls, they want hard graft and that is what we are giving them."

I'm not sure that election canvassing is the kind of hard graft the East End needs, but I thought it was worth quoting anyway.
14

monkey man,

15/07/2008 00:33:53
Labour are a joke at both local and national level yet still Fatty Salmond and the wee Bravehearts have no chance of winning Glasgoe East. The SNP are in decline already.
15

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 00:35:30
#16 Traquir

You just won't let it go, will you?

Mason said that he welcomes English people to Glasgow. That's good to know, although one might think it shouldn't need to be said. Anyway, he went on to explain why, saying that "it shows they think the city is better than those in England". To some, including me, that will carry a connotation which might be construed as "supremacist".

If you still can't see it, imagine an English politician saying that he's glad Scots are moving to Sheffield, say, as "it shows they think the city is better than those in Scotland". Would you think that was a benign remark or would it raise your hackles? Honestly!
16

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 15/07/2008 00:44:42
The tooth Fairies are out and about. Sweet dreams.

Here's a shilling and a great big tax hike.

Here's tae Labour
Wha's like them?
Unionists!
Maurs the pity - can they no be a ' deid?
17

,

15/07/2008 00:52:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

,

15/07/2008 00:54:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

,

15/07/2008 00:54:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Ewan Kerr - Juans brother,

15/07/2008 00:54:41
AM2 :

"it shows they think the city is better than those in England".

EVERYONES A SUPREMACIST THEN!!!!!! Everyone has a prticular pride in their area. It is part and parcel of being the human family.

Would you say Great britain is supremacist , given they use he word GREAT. As your logic dictates above that can be the only satisfactory outcome for you.
21

Ewan Kerr - Juans brother,

15/07/2008 01:00:45
#15 - Why. IS that you admission the Labour party have no grass roots support?

Imagine them trying to get 300 ordinary folk out, they would hav e to approve it through the glasgow parks division so as the cronies can geet paid.
22

,

15/07/2008 01:01:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 15/07/2008 01:06:38
Doonhamer,
There is another problem with the weighting. Many 'undecided' and 'won't says' will be attributed to the Libs and Tories. The reality is that their vote is being squeezed as many of them will vote either Labour or SNP. My gut feeling is that a sizeable majority of squeezed Libs and Tories will vote tactically against Labour.
24

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 01:08:53
15 AM2,Scotland

"Leaving aside party loyalties, election funding is regulated to try and ensure a reasonably level playing field. Same goes for TV and radio exposure. But what about the number of activists and the time they devote to doorstepping and accosting people with their spin? Shouldn't their time be given some nominal hourly rate and included within spending limits?"

Feeling a bit outnumbered are we ?
"level playing field" has got to be the biggest
joke on this forum for some time.

The BBC from its own independent review highlighted "Anglocentricity and London-centricity"
"136 stories on Health Care, all 136 dealt
with England alone."
"too preoccupied with the interests and experiences of London"

- see tinyurl.com/6md9t5

The leading "Scottish Media" dare I say have shown
significant bias towards Labour and they
did not and have still not reported on the
weeks old major story about
Scottish Oil which was picked up copious numbers
of non-Scottish papers :

"North Sea oil 'will last for another half century'"
see - tinyurl.com/6ml3np and in fact
"'North Sea oil will last for 100 years'"
see tinyurl.com/54wl8e

Yep from a Unionist perspective the playing field
is level, or at least they are willing to
overlook the gross slanting since it is
in their favour - democracy British style.

Now AM2 wants to even up more of the
playing field to try and no doubt
compensate for the fact the nationalists
have passion and fire in their bellies
whilst the Unionists just repeat the same
jingoism and use every statistic they can to help
prove why Scotland can not thrive as
a country in her own right. We live in a democracy
and if 100's of Unionist campaigners want
to canvas Glasgow East with their stories
on the glories of the Union then go ahead
wrapped up in the Union flag whilst singing
God Save The Queen. Interestingly not
even Labour's first choice
candidate George Ryan wanted any part of that.

"But some councillors
25

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 01:09:14
cont.

"But some councillors in Glasgow claim the union flag has sectarian connotations in the west of Scotland, while the national anthem, God Save the Queen, is offensive to Scots."

"They want Glasgow ceremonies to feature the saltire and use the song Flower of Scotland instead."

"Councillor George Ryan is among those backing the alternative plan."

see - tinyurl.com/5hd5ec


Evidently AM2 would now like to control the
uncontrollable - the canvassers, the internet
and of course the newspaper forums where
equal numbers of Nationalist and Unionists
would be governed by strict quotas :)
End of the day it is a numbers games and
slowly but surely the Unionistas are losing
it and they know it.

Saor Alba
26

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 01:09:54
#26 Ewan Kerr

Your ice cream analogy makes no sense. Actually you're missing the whole point, but perhaps that's partly my fault, because I should have provided a broader context showing John Mason's attitude towards England.

This should suffice. During the 2006 World Cup finals he received a complaint from a pupil at Hillhead High School about the supposedly “excessive” number of English flags being hung at the school. He then said:

“It's all very well saying sport and politics shouldn't be linked but sport is so huge, especially football, they are linked.”

“If England is being pushed by a particular school I would consider that to be political activity” ... “I accept that for other people this is a minor issue but for me it's an extremely major issue” ... “I'd not have expected one of our schools to be favouring one country over another” ... “the World Cup is an international event and I would expect the school to dig out 32 flags.”

“I'm in politics for one reason and that is to break up the UK and so any suggestion of a strengthening of a link between Scotland and England is what I'm opposed to.”
27

,

15/07/2008 01:11:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 01:12:13
Goodnight Traquir. I'm not even going to try and unravel that nonsense.
29

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 01:18:01
34 AM2, Scotland

"Goodnight Traquir. I'm not even going to try and unravel that nonsense."

Night, night don't have too many nightmares about
the prospects for the Union as a true level playing
field emerges driven by the emerging and uncontrollable
power of technology like the internet. I bet
the Unionistas would love to follow your
suggestion and be able to control
the number of canvassers, the newspaper forums
and internet, but guess what it ain't gone happen.

Saor Alba

30

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 01:23:05
Traquir

Actually, three more quick facts before I go, because I notice that – like John Mason – you seem to place oil at the centre of your independence argument.

1. Average UK oil production in January 2008 was 1.2m barrels per day compared to the 1999 peak of 2.7m barrels per day

2. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies debunked another SNP oil myth by warning that “it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the public finances” from higher oil prices.

3. Then this month, investment bank Lehman Brothers predicted that, as OPEC increases its supply and the slowing global economy squeezes demand, the price of crude will fall back to about $93 a barrel next year.

Goodnight!
31

Cpt Incredible,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 01:24:39
Why does AM2 and No6 bother posting on these forums?
Their views are constantly shot down in flames, by other more logical,analytical and truthful posters.
It's beyond me why they constantly try,but are inevitably humiliated on a daily basis.
32

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 01:34:06
36 AM2,Scotland

Hmm, another old favourite Unionista chestnut,
if a nationalist mentions oil just dismiss it
as some irrelevance - it is not significant, the
price is too high, the price is too low,
the stuff is running out, ....

I must admire your skills though you have clearly
mastered the guide on how to "Preserve The Union",
you must be almost at Grand Master level by now,
or perhaps you are in fact the creator of
the guide ?

see - tinyurl.com/5ncw8z

I wonder if you really mean good night this time ?
Also it was interesting to note that the last
time we had a discussion on the topic of
establishing a "level playing field" you also
quickly ran away - which interestingly is
one of the top recommended tactics in the guide
on how to the "Preserve The Union". Congratulations
again on mastering the guide to such an expert level.

Saor Alba
33

,

15/07/2008 01:38:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

Iainbroch,

Moary 15/07/2008 01:38:59
I see Bendy Dougie Wendy has been rumbled again!Intersting article on rags to riches and how Liebaah really cares about all those poor Africans!
35

Iainbroch,

Moary 15/07/2008 01:42:01
I am beginning to think that Liebaaah are nothing more than Ferengi!
36

Maisie from Morningside,

15/07/2008 02:00:22
The real problem for Labour is that the SNP is putting forward policies that the Labour Party would if it had not turned Thatcherite.
37

,

15/07/2008 02:00:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Ewan Kerr - Juans brother banned for no reason,

15/07/2008 02:03:56
Anybody fancy proving the Scotsman as biased, vindictive against posters and completely against human rigfhts of free speach?

Thinking of consulting a lawyer about the Hootsmon comments policy in relation to freedom of speach.

I am sure a number of posters would appreciate a class action to show what we all know.

I may consult the Govan Law Centre......
39

frank mcbride,

lusitania 15/07/2008 02:10:15
#36, AM2.

1. Oil at it's Jan. 2008 levels produce a Scottish Budget surplus of £4.4bn.

2. Could our National finances be in a worse state?

3. At $98/barrel, Scotland would have a Budget surplus of +/-£3bn.

AM2, why, oh why, do you try to defend the indefensible with your questionable statistics?
40

FrancesP,

15/07/2008 02:15:00
"A Labour spokesman said...'John Mason (the SNP candidate) is not allowed to speak out in this campaign'."

REALLY? Thank heavens we've got 'Labour spokespeople' to point these things out to us. It would never have occurred to me in a million years that John Mason had to give his SNP minders the slip to take part in that extended Newsnight Scotland interview last night, but now I know.
41

Edward,

15/07/2008 02:45:18
BBC's Newsnight Scotland had an interview with John Mason, the SNP Candidate
Glen Campbell wasted so much time going around and around trying to trip up John Mason that it just descended into a yawn - Thanks Glen!
Instead on asking about various subjects, Glen got his needle stuck on 'break up of the uk' and knife crime, which as John Mason pointed out is actually a devolved matter, so Glen retorts to the 'So whats the point of going to Westminster' question
42

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 03:36:16
The Labour Circus just goes from farce to
farce. From the London Times :

"It must rank as one of the more bizarre by-election tactics of recent times. Labour Cabinet ministers are campaigning in the crucial by-election battle in Glasgow East - but the party does not want anyone to know they are there."

One Labour MP, who did not know of the visits until told of them by The Times, said: “I agree it looks a bit strange. Maybe they realise that Harriet is a bit twee for folk up here and that she would only have annoyed people if they'd known she was here.
So they sent her to what you might call a bijou part of the constituency to protect her."

"As far as Des Browne is concerned maybe you would have invited a lot of shouting and bawling about Iraq and Afghanistan by telling people."

see - tinyurl.com/6ndfdc

This is just getting embarrassing - senior Labour
ministers skulking around Glasgow East
too afraid to face the people. Perhaps
they are going around in disguise also - false moustache, dark glasses and a rain coat :)
Now their game is up and a new sport has just been
unleashed "spot the minister" and it looks like
all of the media will be in on it - I wonder
what the prize will be a £500,000 David Marshall
style all expenses home office or perhaps
a one million £ Maggie Curran style luxury
house in one of Glasgow's most prestigious areas ?


43

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 15/07/2008 04:43:42
What a peach from AM2
"
AM2,Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 01:23:05
Traquir

Actually, three more quick facts before I go, because I notice that – like John Mason – you seem to place oil at the centre of your independence argument.

1. Average UK oil production in January 2008 was 1.2m barrels per day compared to the 1999 peak of 2.7m barrels per day

2. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies debunked another SNP oil myth by warning that “it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the public finances” from higher oil prices.

3. Then this month, investment bank Lehman Brothers predicted that, as OPEC increases its supply and the slowing global economy squeezes demand, the price of crude will fall back to about $93 a barrel next year"

LOL - what desperation

Make your mind up - if oil prices are going to go down (3) surely that would mean that revenue would increase (2).

What utter nonsense. Oil pricing is going one place.

Up

Up

Up more

$200 a barrel - no problem.

10 years time - $400?

The people of Scotland blew it in the 70's because they swallowed the lies, they have another chance now - if they don't swallow the massive lies pushed forward by AM2 and his ilk.
44

TommyKaye,

UK 15/07/2008 04:45:04
sh AM2 - Lehman Brothers eh, wow tel me would this be the same bank that is going to collapse in the next month or so?

Good to see you are using really good research though I would suggest you try to use a better bank like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley who expect US$150 to US$200 a barrel.

Lehmans! a ha ha ha shAM2 you are such a parochial amateur better to just snipe at people as if you want serious debate we will blow you out of the water To be frank I think you have peaked already about a year ago I think - face it sonny you contribute nothing to the debate.
45

Boy Wonder,

15/07/2008 06:27:12
I can see a new TV prog coming out of this. The Secret Election! Maybe RTD can write it?
46

walter,

15/07/2008 07:10:53
Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, said: "First, Labour are so short of activists they are ordering MPs from outwith Scotland to prop up their campaign.
I do not know the mentality or IQ of Angus Robertson but I am sure that all these MPs represent Scottish constituencies.
Des Browne, Kilmarnock and Loudoun
Douglas Alexander, Paisley and Renfrewshire South
David Cairns, Greenock and Inverclyde
Jim Murphy, East Renfrewshire
47

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 07:24:11
#46 £4.4 billion sounds great until you realise that Norway has a surplus of £44 million in the current year.

The reason for this difference is not only the higher taxes and lower public expenditure that the Norwegians have but also the fact that they still have a substantial stake in the extraction of North Sea Oil through the state-owned Statoil.

Unless there were a radical overhaul in fiscal policy in Scotland as well as a major restructuring of the oil industry any talk of building up a petroleum fund on par with Norway's is pure fantasy.
48

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 07:32:14
#39 Actually Traquair - there are also some Nats who recognise that there are problems with the "It's Scotland's oil" approach - it may work politically for short-term gain but as a long-term strategy is flawed. Some have argued that the SNP should be pushing the idea that it is possible to have a vibrant Scottish economy without relying on North sea Oil.

Whether or not independence happens I personally believe that we have to restructure the Scottish Economy to make it less reliant on oil, the public sector and public finances.
49

Jimmy the Pie,

15/07/2008 07:33:20
Just read an article in the Times about Broon's new nuclear power stations. Found this in the comments section.

Seems the natives are getting restless

"The Planning Bill which will build the nuclear power stations is only relevant to England. It does not apply to Scotland - and although in theory it applies to Wales, because of the fear of upsetting Plaid, won't be implemented there, or indeed in Kirkcaldy. Time for an English Parliament."
50

Jimmy the Pie,

15/07/2008 07:36:23
#53 walter,

They won't be representing Scottish constituencies much longer!!!!!
51

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 15/07/2008 07:39:17
Why should any Glasgow East Ender vote Labour? But then why should any of them vote SNP? What practical policies have the nats to put in place after a victory, that can't be put in place today? I suspect none. 'Better the devil you know' will be the predominant motive evidenced by these voters.

(Glad to see AM2 back and on form).
52

,

15/07/2008 07:43:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 15/07/2008 07:44:02
It's pure fantasy if we the people don't allow it to happen. Continuing to vote Labour or Tory will guarantee it won't. How can an oil fund NOT work here if it works in Norway? Typical unionist arrogance & froth.
54

,

15/07/2008 07:44:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Big Red,

Aberdeen 15/07/2008 07:48:30
By all accounts Glasgow East is swarming with SNP activists who are turning up in their droves to help.

On the other hand, there's narey a Labour activist to be seen and the party are resorting to using MP's to do the nitty gritty work like handing out leaflets etc.

How embarrassing. Labour can't even drum up support in one of it's strongholds.


56

eric,

lothian 15/07/2008 08:00:11
The unionists arent fighting for the union.as its well gone .its just digging in heels holding onto poverty with their nails to save face.they just think they have the god given right to govern.no matter what the result snp are winners.Roll on general, England will have the last say.
57

jacquesmac,

In a vacuum 15/07/2008 08:00:50
If the "accused" were actually in Glasgow East, they were probably kept apart from the Great Unwashed, the journos I mean, for their own good.

All the SAS and SBS are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq so could not be avaiable for close protection dusties and 50 or so boys in blue around the "accused" would suggest to the "Great Unwashed" that arrests were imminent on expenses fiddles, oh sorry home office expenses errors.
58

,

15/07/2008 08:02:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

sam the god,

15/07/2008 08:10:01
If the constituents of Glasgow East vote in new liebour they deserve everything they get but it will have a direct knock on effect to the rest of the country as Maggie broon will think he has carte blanche to carry on as he is doing just now. The constituents of Glasgow East have basically got the future of the Country in their hands vote for anyone but new liebour for the sake of the country.
60

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 15/07/2008 08:10:19
It seems that AM2 not only is Scotlands foremost Polling Expert but he fancies himself as an Oil Analyst.

AM2 said:
"Traquir

Actually, three more quick facts before I go, because I notice that – like John Mason – you seem to place oil at the centre of your independence argument.

1. Average UK oil production in January 2008 was 1.2m barrels per day compared to the 1999 peak of 2.7m barrels per day."

BP in there World Energy Report released in June puts UK Oil production at 1.63 Million Barrells per day in 2007 a 2% increase over 2006 production.

"2. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies debunked another SNP oil myth by warning that “it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the public finances” from higher oil prices."

Considering that Oil company Profits generated 9.9 Billion in Tax Revenue in 2007 and is expected to reach 12.2 Billion in 2008 I find that argument rather wanting.

"3. Then this month, investment bank Lehman Brothers predicted that, as OPEC increases its supply and the slowing global economy squeezes demand, the price of crude will fall back to about $93 a barrel next year."

Well if Lehman new what they where doing they would not be in such financial trouble.

According to the International Energy Agencies Medium Term Oil Market Report released last week Global Oil Demand will grow 2.2% per annum (1.9 MBD) between now and 2012.

They predict that supply will grow by 1.2% per annum (1.03 MBD) between now and 2012. You will not see Oil below $100 per Barrell any time in the next 5 years.

"Goodnight!"

Goodnight AM2,
61

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 08:19:41
#60 Richard replies in his usual style without actually adressing the issue. The point I was making (and have done before) is that unless there is radical rethinking of economic policies then any thought of building up an oil fund on par with Norway's is pure pie in the sky - that's true whether or not independence happens.

Norway has a substantially higher surplus becasue of its substantial income from Statoil and becuase of its higher taxes and lower government expenditure. Scotland, whether in or out of the union cannot hope to achieve such a fund with our present surplus unless there is a radical alteration of fiscal policy, restructuring of the Scottish economy and involvement by the Scottish government not only in the distribution of oil but also its extraction.
62

jacquesmac,

Still in a vacuum 15/07/2008 08:26:37
#64

Or that former MP Marshall had been found
63

Number 6,

Germany 15/07/2008 08:38:28
So Labour back to slithering about in the Shadows , offering no visible support to their last resort Candidate. The compulsive liar Curran. She who has lived "All her life" in the East end, apart from now.

How ironic that as Labour face political annihilation in Englandshire they are still alive and lying in "One of the most deprived areas of Europe".

They and their supporters must be so proud of that legacy.
64

,

15/07/2008 08:44:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 15/07/2008 08:48:04
#68 Federalist

"Norway has a substantially higher surplus becasue of its substantial income from Statoil and becuase of its higher taxes and lower government expenditure. Scotland, whether in or out of the union cannot hope to achieve such a fund with our present surplus unless there is a radical alteration of fiscal policy, restructuring of the Scottish economy and involvement by the Scottish government not only in the distribution of oil but also its extraction."

Utter nonsense, given that the UK taxes Oil Company Profits at twice the Normal Rate (52%) then their is absolutely now need to radically overhaul anything.

It is like having a 52% stake in every oil company operating in the UK. It came to 9.9 Billion Pounds in 2007 and is expected to reach 12.2 Billion Pounds in 2008. More than enough to start an Oil Fund.
66

,

15/07/2008 08:50:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

jacquesmac,

15/07/2008 08:53:47
Nice one Alberto

Stealth Taxes
Stealth MPs

Hidden Taxes
Hidden MPs


Lying Taxes
Lying MPs

Thieving MPs
The Jail!
68

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/07/2008 08:55:57
Just a word or two on the recent poll and the misrepresentation of the result in recent articles, here and on the Scotsman.

As ratzo pointed out on the Herald's "Brown denies he is dodging Glasgow Election" thread:

"The actual votes were :
Labour - 131, SNP - 124, Conservative 29, Liberal 10, Other 10.
Which translates to 43.23% Labour and 40.92% SNP"

I would like to make some observations of my own (if you will bear with me).

For a poll with a sample size of 500, the likely margin of error is about 4.5%.

To get the required +/-3% the sample needs to be about 1,000 and for a margin of error of 1.5% the sample size needs to be about 4,000. Bear in mind these margins apply only to the proportion of the sample favouring a particular candidate (for example if 33% of respondents say they will vote for Mason and the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.5%, this means that the percentage of support for him could range from 28.5% to 37.5%).

It is a common mistake for newspapers to report the margin of error when comparing the LEAD one candidate has over another. When doing this, the margin of error is in fact greater than 4.5% (a typical multiplier being 1.7 x the overall margin of error). So 4.5% x 1.7 = 7.7%.

So to summarise, a poll of this type with a sample size of 500 will produce a margin of error of 4.5% when reporting the proportion supporting a particular candidate. When comparing the lead of one over another (as is happening here) the error rises to 7.7%.

Incidently, the way the pollster treats "non-respondents" is critical. Trying to assign a non-repondent's view to any particular candidate is a step into the unknown. The methodology used here seems deeply flawed, as has been pointed out on other threads.

My prediction, looking at the recent trends is a victory for the SNP with a majority of 2,500.
69

,

15/07/2008 09:03:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

BIG EYE,

Paisley 15/07/2008 09:09:22
I remember getting 11/2 AGAINST Jim Sillars in the last week before the Govan result so the bookies seem ripe for the taking yet again.

The ICM poll has already been devalued as inaccurate and the feeling on the ground is that a very big swing is being achieved by the SNP.

I know the results from plenty of voters in Glasgow East how many doors have the bookies knocked?

By the way some bookies are limiting the amount you can put on the SNP. I tried to put £500 on yesterday online but the bet was restricted to £200.
71

Linda,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 09:09:45
AM2 On election expenses what about adding cost of 21 days of anti SNP propaganda from Daily Record.

Also cost of Labour using North of England Call centre and Cramlington Direct Marketing company.
72

,

15/07/2008 09:17:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

,

15/07/2008 09:19:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

Wynn,

CLYDESDALE 15/07/2008 09:19:50
Jacquesmac... nice one. Nice.
Butgetting back to the article "so the press wouldn't ask awkward questions" is only the top layer of the story. If the Scottish broadsheets were up to the professionalism they grease themselves with ,they'd copy ACPO and make a friend in every street so the politicians couldn't sneak in without the press knowing.. That way the politicians couldn't escape having the deadliest questions reported, not those asked by the press, but those asked by the public. Simple questions from simple folks ...they dread them and DON"T want them reported.
a classic example was when Blair was stopped dead by the lady's NHS question and I remember one of the few occasions when Thatcher too was stopped in her tracks, Belgrano-time, again by an ordinary lady.
75

john z,

edinburgh 15/07/2008 09:32:16
It really is a sad reflection of Journalism in the whole of the UK, but especially Scotland, that all these senior government figures can come to Glasgow East and not one of the journalists had his ear to the ground.

Every political Journalist covering this story should be sacked for gross incompetence/ corruption.

LLabour really should stop getting so excited about 'winning' this seat, I mean for heavens sake, its one of Labours safer seats. I just hope the people of Glasgow East see through the Labour lies, and give them a right good Electoral kicking. For the last ten years, the Labour government have blatantly ignored Glasgow East as it is a 'safe' Labour seat. Only when the electorate of Glasgow East make this an unsafe seat for any party, will they get the investment they deserve.

People of Glasgow East, if you re-elect Labour, you will Never see a cabinet minister again. This is your one in a lifetime chane to make a difference.
76

bluehead,

edinburgh 15/07/2008 09:37:57
there is nothing secret about labour' for it is quite clear, they can be summed up in one word
Useless!!!!
77

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 15/07/2008 09:41:05
I think Labour will win this seat. It is such a safe seat for them that the mere contemplation that they could lose it is unbelievable and shows the trouble Labour are in.


78

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/07/2008 09:42:09
#59

Are you John Mason? Come on the man is typical of the lightweight thick councillor type politicians that we get in Scotland. If you are any good you do not become a councillor. PS the rest aren't much better, the reason salmond makes them look stupid is he learnt his game at Westminster debating world issues not whether the bin men should move their round from Monday to Wednesday.
79

Talorthane,

15/07/2008 09:44:06
5 Traquir , Alba

The earlier poll in the Telegraph was also a bit dubious.

This is the Scottish poll that showed SNP with a 4% lead on Labour and where 49% wanted John Mason to win.

There was then a discrepancy on the issue of independence between what the Telepgraph reported on theior web edition and what the SNP had on their website.

It turns out that the SNP got the information from the printed edition of the Telegraph. So they were saying one thing online and another thing in print.

I think it's all headed in one direction, and after John Mason's performance on Newsnight last night, I think he's going to win.
80

Border Thistle,

north of Hawick 15/07/2008 09:44:22
68 The Federalist. Norway would not have been able to build up an oil fund if it had opted for Federal status with Sweden instead of going for full Independence. It is obvious that only with full sovereign independence can Scotland benefit fully from the natural resources of our land.
81

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 15/07/2008 09:45:32
#84 Cauchy

I would agree they will most likely win this seat but the real shock is how close will it get.

Are there no safe labour seats in Scotland ?

If they the SNP win this by-election I will be delighted.

82

Talorthane,

15/07/2008 09:48:20
7 AM2,Scotland,UK

"Ever heard of poll weighting? ICM weight their samples to ensure that they as representative as possible of gender, age, working status, social class, past votes and turnout likelihood."

But one fo the problems in the weighting being used is in past voting intentions for Westminster.

As there has been such a significant change in voting intentions for Westminster, the results of even two years ago are redundant.

Weighting on this basis means that the polls fundamentally flawed.

For example, the Telegraph poll that showed independence lagging 12% behind support for the union was based on a poll that was weighted to ensure that there were more that twoce and many Labour voters than for the SNP.

If this was corrected to represent the shioft in voting intentions, it would not only have shown that support for independence was in the lead but that it almost had a majority.
83

Auckland Arab2,

15/07/2008 09:48:56
Reading the above you might be led to believe that the SNP have to win this seat. Well they don't - this is Liebour's 3RD safest seat in Scotland. If Liebour can't hold on to that they face a wipe out in the next General Election. Curran will scrape in with a low turnout and a big but not big enough swing to the SNP. Frankly it does not matter because in 2 years time Scotland will be faced with a stark choice: 10 - 20 years of Tory rule or independence. Voting Liebour will be like spoiling your ballot paper. The By election is interesting only in so far as it would be interesting to see if Brown could hang on if they lose. No doubt Liebour will claim this as some great victory, great revival but the intelligent will see through this. Liebour are finished and are doomed to years of infighting as the left tries to re-establish control over the party. They haven't gone away the looney left, they just wear flasher suits these days and they are waiting for revenge on the Blair Gang.
84

Miss H,

15/07/2008 09:48:58
I said this to a couple of people who didn't believe me.

They are using them to do the activists' work because they don't have enough activists.

85

Alan B,

15/07/2008 09:49:21
#54 and 55 The Federalist

Scotland will not have an oil fund on a par with Norway as we have squandered oil revenue for the last 30yrs. What we can do is have something starting now.

In regard to ur point about restructuring the scottish economy i do not think the snp would disagree. Salmonds target is to transform scotland from a low growth economy that we have seen in the last 30yrs and labour have done little to transform, to a high growth economy matching the best in europe. ie match the small nations known as the arc of prosperity that have averaged growth just under 4% over the last decade to our roughly 2% growth.

The point about oil is without it scotland would have large deficits due to economic mismanagement over the last 30yrs and more within the union. As such without u really should change this situation go through the pain of structural change to sort out this economic mess. Without the transition can be made easier. What is not acceptable is to keep on squandering oil so in 30yrs when it is no longer the source of revenue that it is now, we have nothing to fall back on.

You are correct about needing to restructure our economy to a fast growing one something the snp leadership want to do. The problem at the moment is the scottish parliament do not have the powers to address our economic problems. We also have had a labour government whose smart successful scotland so called economic policy has failed. Even wendy slagged it off and she was the brains :) behind it.

Without powers over fiscal policy we cannot even start the debate about how we should structure the scottish economy.

We also need an independence assessment of the impact of scotland adopting the euro. We have the ridiculous situation of labour and the lib dems in scotland apparrently supporting the euro in principle but not willing to argue for it for scotland or support an independent economic assessment of the impact on the scottish economy because of the policial impac
86

Alan B,

15/07/2008 09:49:40
cont.. policial impact on the uk.
87

Doh,

15/07/2008 09:57:06
#75 Connaughtboy


Just another word about polls and SNP misreprsentation.

Do you remember the poll in Dunfermline West?
It said the SNP were going to win.
The SNP said they were going to win.
The SNP came third.

Just a thought for you to consider during your ruminations regarding polls and misrepresentation.


88

Miss H,

15/07/2008 09:57:46
15 No. Activists are volunteers - they don't get paid so there are no expenses to declare. If the SNP has over 1000 activists out next Saturday and Labour can only scrape up 50 that is because only 50 people are prepared to go out and campaign for Labour and over 1000 are prepared to go out and campaign for the SNP. You can't regulate that. The next step would be regulating the voters!

89

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:01:18
94 Are you sure about that? I don't remember any poll saying that the SNP was going to win. And the last press release that went out for the SNP before polling day said 'It's going to be close'.

Maybe you interpreted that as meaning 'We are going to win'.

That's not what it meant.
90

,

15/07/2008 10:03:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
91

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 15/07/2008 10:08:35
There are some people who still equate Labour with concepts of social justice. There are some who still get impressed by people like Margaret Curran dropping key, little poverty buzz-words into a loud and fast speech that doesn't say an awful lot except the desire to 'understand'. As if a Labour party careerist 'understanding' this or that will ever actually lead to any change, as if 50 years of 'understanding' from Labour in Glasgow East has made the darned slightest bit of difference. The people who believe a Labour careerist when he or she talks about social justice or poverty are now moving in ever decreasing circles and that is the great thing about this by-election. People are open to the SNP message that if one wants to aim toward social justice then one needs the tools and apparatus to achieve social justice. If people in Scotland want to establish a modern social democracy then people in Scotland need the tools and apparatus to establish a modern social democracy.

When Labour ship, fly, drive, and parachute all and sundry into Glasgow East then surely this only reinforces the SNP ideal. These Labour characters have been sitting on their hands, presumably to better 'understand' poverty one must aim to do hee-haw to alleviate poverty, presumably, and so reinforces the SNP's belief that just about hee-haw can be achieved by sitting on one's hands 'understanding', presumably. I look forward to watching on the news Des Browne or Douglas Alexander, or one of the other lot, being confronted on the 50 year record of Labour in Glasgow East and, I imagine, a gentle pat on the shoulder and an understanding nod of the head will no longer suffice as a response.

I couldn't help but laugh at the Glenn Campbell interview last night with John Mason and the suggestions that people in Glasgow must vote Labour or David Cameron will become PM (I'm afraid I can't see the logic but I can see the nonsense, and that was some good nonsense from Glenn). I have no doubt
92

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 15/07/2008 10:09:12
98 (cont.)
I have no doubt that, at that very minute, a collective shout at the TV erupted from the East End, 'What'd be the difference from this bunch of Labour Tories we've got just now?' People are beginning to understand that nothing changes should either a red or blue rosette settle into the green leather of the backbenches of Westminster. Social justice will not be delivered from Westminster, presumably, because they're all too darned busy trying so hard to 'understand'.
93

,

15/07/2008 10:11:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
94

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 10:13:53
#92 I don't disagree with much that you are saying - the point I was making was that some here see North Sea Oil as somehow being a panacea to all our problems - it isn't.

#72 Maths is obviously not your strong point. You somehow assume that the entire revenue from north sea Oil can be put in to an oil fund - it can't. that's because at present the scottish goverment is running a deficit (without North Sea Oil). With North Sea Oil that deficit is turned into a surplus of £4.4 billion not the £9.9 billion that was raised in tax revenues. Norway's SURPLUS is some £44 billion - that comes not only from taxation on oil production but actually being involved directly in the extraction of North Sea Oil. Moreover,their fiscal policies have meant that they don't need to finance a deficit as we would have to.

As Alan B outlines in #92 it is an economic reality that the Scottish economy has to change - unfortuantely there are still some nats who are so blinded that they can't see the broader picture. Fortunately, apart from a few recent aberrations, the present SNP leadership have moved away from the simplistic "It's Scotland's Oil" argument. The truth is that anyone presenting the case for or against the union needs to do so in light of a post-oil economy.
95

G,

dundee 15/07/2008 10:14:18
Desperate spinning by the SNPites in evidence here!

If the Labour party want to bring in their "big hitters" to talk to people and not the press/media shouldn't that be applauded, that could be construed as listening to the people, addressing their concerns and not pandering to the demands of a media-led campaign...more evidence that the SNP bandwagon is slowing down
And as for the SNP being better able to combat the probelms of this constituency...how? What policies do they have???
Being "not labour" is a start but it is not going to win....
96

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:15:53
#46 Frank McBride

I'm not sure why you use the term "defend the indefensible". Do you regard your perspective as morally right and opposing views as ethically inferior?

The point of my three little factoids was simply this: that oil yield is currently on a downward trend, that oil prices are in no way guaranteed to keep rising indefinitely (as many nationalists like to imagine) and that even if they did head towards $200 or above, there is no guarantee that the economy either of Britain or Scotland would actually receive a net benefit.

So by all means present economic arguments for independence, but please don't expect us to accept crystal ball gazing as fact.
97

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:18:07
#51 TommyKaye

Why the vitriol? Why the personal insults?

You've missed the point of my post. See #103.
98

Senga Jean,

15/07/2008 10:18:43
#95 Labour do regulate the voters by having a stealth election during the Glasgow Fair. Disgusting.
99

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 10:22:26
#98 There already careerists in the SNP (and other parties) those who have done nothing but politics in their lives. And the longer the SNP remains in government the more careerists they will have - it is has been and always will be a political reality in this country.

Just because someone is a career politician does not make them a bad politician. Equally, just because someone has had "real life experience" does not necessarily make them better equipped to be a politician.
100

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:25:35
#75 connaughtboy
#89 talorthane

It's curious that you jump through hoops to try and discredit the ICM poll. I don't recall either of you doing likewise for previous ICM polls using similar methodologies which showed your position to be rather stronger.
101

Scottish 'N British,

15/07/2008 10:26:59
Last week it was "Margaret Curran isn't really local", now it's "Labour's big hitters are arriving unannounced". Slow news day, evidently.

What next, "Mason isn't really local either, having only lived in the area for 18 years" shocker.

Who cares. Winning on Thursday week is what counts. How that happens (as long as it's legal) is immaterial.

Looking forward to the BBC Presidential debate. Expect it to sort out the real politicians from the pretendy cooncillors.

102

brownlie,

15/07/2008 10:27:49
58 Rules etc

"Better the devil you know ..."
"Glad to see AM2 back and on form"

Says it all really!
103

,

15/07/2008 10:29:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:30:16
#97 Ewan Kerr

You said: "Note to moderator. Everytime you dissallow someones view they tell many hundreds. Inclusding hacking groups."

Is that a threat of illegal action? Would you regard that as a legitimate part of the political process?
105

brownlie,

15/07/2008 10:32:19
103 AM2

"Do you regard your perspective as morally right and opposing views as ethically inferior?" is surely a rhetorical question which applies to your good self as well as most posters on this site.
106

Talorthane,

15/07/2008 10:33:59
107 AM2,Scotland

"It's curious that you jump through hoops to try and discredit the ICM poll. I don't recall either of you doing likewise for previous ICM polls using similar methodologies which showed your position to be rather stronger."

It's curious that you haven't addressed the point I made.

The wieghting problem for these polls is not just a simple matter of people chenging their vote.

In the last two years, there has been a significant shift in much more than votes.

The SNP membership is now almost as large as the falling Labour membership, if it hasn't already overtaken it.

SO, using the last general election as a weighting base is problematic to say the least.

And while you are defending this poll, what you say about it's prediction of a turnout of over 57%?

107

,

15/07/2008 10:34:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
108

George Mackay,

Dundee 15/07/2008 10:35:35
#95 Miss H

How sad. One thousand nerdish fanatics have nothing better to do than go knocking on doors in Glasgow East. Such a pity they haven't got a life.
109

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:35:40
#110 Ewan Kerr

Why the insults? Why the conspiratorial drivel directed against me? If you are indeed being moderated, I would suspect it might be because your username is vulgar.
110

George Mackay,

Dundee 15/07/2008 10:36:56
Miss H, Miss M and AM2 must be the same person. There can't posibly be more than boring pedant who posts to this board.
111

,

15/07/2008 10:37:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
112

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:37:52
#113 Talorthane

Personally, I think you are vastly overestimating any such factors, but unlike you I'm prepared to admit that ICM know their business better than I do.
113

,

15/07/2008 10:39:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
114

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:39:41
106 That's an interesting use of the word careerist. In the SNP someone would be described as a careerist if they stood for election because they want to get elected and be a politician rather than because they believe in independence. I don't think there are any career politicians in the SNP as up until very recently you could not assume you would get elected. This is in contrast to Labour where for some people it has been seen as a job rather than a vocation. I'm not making a party political point there - there aren't many career politicians in the Tories either. When you are in opposition you do it because you believe in your cause, not because you want to be a politician. It may be that we shall have some people coming on board now who belong to the careerist school but to me that would be about what motivates them rather than what their other employment experience is.
115

,

15/07/2008 10:40:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
116

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:41:20
#114 Ewan Kerr

Re: "Being a cossetted type in hootsmon HQ you will obviously diagree."

I have no further interest in engaging with your unhinged theories.
117

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:43:10
103 Oil yield is on a downward slope and if you don't think that means that prices will go on rising you are unique.

I haven't noticed any replacement for fossil fuels yet have you?
118

,

15/07/2008 10:44:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
119

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:44:36
#124 Miss H

North Sea yield contributes little to global prices.
120

Alan B,

15/07/2008 10:45:49
#106 The Federalist

"Just because someone is a career politician does not make them a bad politician. Equally, just because someone has had "real life experience" does not necessarily make them better equipped to be a politician. "

Generally speaking it is better to have people with experience of the outside world so they can bring that experience to parliament.

eg People who worked within the nhs ie doctors bring more to a health debate than career politicians. From the recent tv debates over the infection scares on tv the best politician at discussing the issue was a tory female. Why becuase she had worked as a doctor. You could see the rest of the panel defer to her as she actually knew what she was talking about and did not sound like a empty headed politician making a politically motivated remark like Jackie Baille when she was being interviewed. You have to ask if Nicola who seems intelligent and competent really has the medical experience to run an nhs when she is a trained lawyer.

In general terms we need to have a mix in the sp with ex doctor, teachers, police and those that have run their own businesses, senior managers from big business and those that have worked in fields like economics.

Why because they are going to bring knowledge in the core areas of important to a parliament, the econony, education, health service and law and order. To a large extent westminster and some of the sp have too many lawyers and labour in sp seem to be more social workers.
121

,

15/07/2008 10:46:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:47:04
#125 Ewan

I see that your user account and all posts were removed this time. Don't you think that might have had something to do with your implied threat of illegal hacking?
123

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:47:27
120 It doesnn't actually.

What I was saying was that they are shipping people up from down south - including ministers - to do the work of activists because they have no activists on the ground. So they are using their elected members and staff to make up for the lack of volunteers.
124

Talorthane,

15/07/2008 10:47:39
119 AM2,Scotland,UK

"Personally, I think you are vastly overestimating any such factors, but unlike you I'm prepared to admit that ICM know their business better than I do"

You have no basis to say that.


Polls before by elections are frequently found to have been inaccurate. That is not grounds to say that polling organisations don't know their business, but that by elections are more unpredicatable than their normal business: "How are you likely to vote at the next GENERAL election?"

I agree that ICM know the polling business better than you or me, but they are not perfect, and like any organisation they have their ways of working that suit most situations, but may not always work.

Polling organisations in the UK are also fantastically knowledgable about UK politics, but not so much so about Scottish politics where we do not have the Labour-Tory-dominance-and-one-third-party system.

They have also overlooked the SNP membership issue, which is a big factor; a member is much more likely to vote than an ordinary voter, less likely to shift, and more likely to be an activist of some sort.

For the first time ever, Labour are being challenged on these grounds.
125

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:50:02
115 It's interesting that you describe people who do politics as sad and nerdish.

How would you describe people who only comment on other people doing politics?

Don't you feel a bit like a voyeur?
126

,

15/07/2008 10:50:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:50:28
#117 George Mackay

Miss H is a veteran SNP member and activist. I'm a non party-aligned "unionist" (for want of a better word). Quite how you can imagine that we're one and the same baffles me!

Anyway, yet again I've been dragged way off topic. Well done guys.
128

,

15/07/2008 10:51:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
129

,

15/07/2008 10:51:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
130

Matt there,

Somewhere 15/07/2008 10:51:41
Where's Wally? Er... I mean Where's Gordon?
131

Miss H,

15/07/2008 10:52:26
126 So you would say that North Sea oil prices could start to fall?

Do you want to put any figures on that?
132

,

15/07/2008 10:52:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
133

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 10:53:55
#124 Miss H

You write
"I haven't noticed any replacement for fossil fuels yet have you?"

You aren't very observant. As fossil fuels rise in price, other fuels become more competitive. The world will switch to electricity and generate it from non-fossil fuels. Israel is already experimenting with electric cars. London will have some electric taxis from next year - range 120 miles before recharge. In cities trams and light rail will take over from buses and cars.

Renewables will take us part of the way to make up the need for more electric power and nuclear the rest.

The SNP - your party - opposes trams in Edinburgh and nuclear power anywhere. It's time you woke up and smelt the coffee.
134

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 10:54:58
#138 Miss H

No, I would say that it's unpredictable. Goldman Sachs thinks up. Lehman Brothers thinks down. Isn't that disparity sufficient evidence that things aren't as clear cut as you imagine?
135

Alan B,

15/07/2008 10:56:10
#AM2

"North Sea yield contributes little to global prices"

Correct but oil prices are likely to remain high due to demand from china and india etc and the fact that gives more power to the middle east in determining price.


Both the US and EU have been poor at diversifying away from oil. However i could see a big move from the petrol car if the political will can ever be motivated. That takes the US. The UK is deviod of leadership. Labour are more interested in taking the 40billion excise duties from drivers that changing this.

But oil is some what irrelevent in the long term. It is our economic poor performance within the union that is the problem.

From a political point of view the snp are saying go independent and we will have to tools to try to match the best performing countries in europe over the last decade ie those considered the arc of prosperity which also happen to be the small north european countries.

The unionist parties currently have no economic vision for scotland. None of them are making a cohert economic argument for scotland within the union apart from fear ie we may be doing poorly relatively but it would be worse independent. There is no unionist party saying we can match the best while being within the uk.

In some way this is because labour in scotland are economically incompetent. They are more interest in spending money than generating the wealth first. McConnell personified this view. The tories have lost direction on the economy. Possibly because they do not want to open the wounds of the thatcher past. And the lib dems have lost most cutting edge on everything.
136

,

15/07/2008 10:56:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
137

George Mackay,

Dundee 15/07/2008 10:59:33
#134 AM2

You and Miss M are the same because you post boring, pedantic messages to this board. There can't be two of you.
138

,

15/07/2008 11:00:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

,

15/07/2008 11:01:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
140

,

15/07/2008 11:02:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
141

Alan B,

15/07/2008 11:02:55
#Dane Bramage SNP Insider

I am not saying everyone from a certain professional field is always going to make a good politician. What i am saying is a doctor or nurse can bring more to a medical debate about health policies that someone that has not experience in that area.

With education we all have experience having gone through education. so to an extent that is less important.

Your remarks are abit unconstructive. Turning it round on you ok lets not have anyone with medical experience commenting on the nhs just alot of lawyers. That makes sense.

Lets have a doctor running education - Galbraith. And have a teacher Deacon running health.

All i am saying it it makes sense to not have a parliament filled with people that have never had a job in areas where they can bring that experience to the parliament.

Seriously why do u think it is better to get someone straight out of uni with little work experience in areas where one can develop knowledge and understanding, and then have them run the country?

142

brownlie,

15/07/2008 11:08:30
AM2

Yesterday, Ford Transit posted that you and I, among others, wrote posts that were pathetic and boring. (Perhaps he should change his moniker to "Sic transit gloria mundi"!

So I'll do a deal with you. I will not post any pathetic and boring unionist tripe on here today if you agree to do the same.

This will allow the more sensible and entertaining posters to air their points of view - untrammeled by our nonsense.
143

,

15/07/2008 11:11:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
144

,

15/07/2008 11:14:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
145

Alan B,

15/07/2008 11:19:51
#Dane Bramage SNP Insider

What has ur dig at Salmond got to do with our previous post. I said we should try to have mix of people with experience within the scottish parliament in reponse to a post by The Fed.

You disagreed slagging of any potential contribution a doctor could have to medical debate on the nhs with the sp. Dito for other professional fields.

Now u seem to be disagreeing with yourself as you have now posted you do want people with some experience of working in positions outside politics, which was were this started.

As for Salmond, i think it is good that we have someone with economic experience in the scottish parliament and would want more politicians with economic experience and from different industrial backgrounds as the main issue scotland has is to turn round our poor performing economy.

146

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 11:25:00
#121 "I don't think there are any career politicians in the SNP"

I'd disagree - but then I think you and I have slightly different understanding of the term career politician. I think it's best to give an example to illustrate.

I'd call someone like Joe Fitzpatrick a career politician as his previous position was as an assistant to Shona Robison MSP and Stewart Hosie MP in their Dundee Constituency Office. He has also been a Dundee City councillor since 1999. Before that he was involved in student politics as a member of the FSN - I should know I worked with him. Joe lives and breathes politics - he has never done what Joe Public would consider a "real job" - but that doesn't make him any less able to do the job - in fact I know he can do the job and I'd predict he will go onto higher things.

One could also argue that the long-standing elected members of the SNP like Salmond and welsh are career politicians in that it is not only considerable time since they have done a real job but also it is unlikely they will do anything but politics in the rest of their lives.

It is not a criticism - but fact that the more entrenched any political party becomes then the more likely it is that will have career politicians (in the way that I understand it).

That being said, I'd agree with Alan's point that a breadth of experience is required in any legislature. What I don't agree with is that those without real life job experience should necessarily be debarred from political life. What matters is if they are up to the job. Some of the worst labour candidates I have seen in my life were not the career politicians but those who had in fact worked real jobs and got elected through trade union intervention - numpties promoted beyond their abilities because of who they knew not what they knew.
147

,

15/07/2008 11:28:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
148

Duncan in Edinburgh /,

15/07/2008 11:32:58
How many of the 1000+ SNP activists will actually be from teh Glasgow East constituency?

If past experience is anything to go by it will be the usual rent-a-mob of loudmouths - just the thing to pee off the average voter.

If I were Labour I'd let the SNP nutters do the job for them - some of their activists are - shall we say - a little abrasive for your average Joe or Josephine Bloggs.
149

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 11:33:43
#142 Alan B

Re: "The unionist parties currently have no economic vision for scotland ... There is no unionist party saying we can match the best while being within the uk."

In one sense you're right. Pollyannaism is the exclusive preserve of the SNP.

But for how much longer will they insult our intelligence by claiming oil revenues as a fix for every single issue?

Back in 2006 they claimed that an oil fund which would reach £90bn within 10 years could be built up. They didn't tell us that such a fund would require about £7bn/year, the lion's share of the revenues.

Then at other times they have claimed that it could be used to reduce corporation tax, again basing that "projection" on the total revenues. Or to reduce income tax. Or fuel duty. Or to build schools and hospitals without private finance. And so on.

John Mason even tried to suggest to the people of Glasgow East that their household expenses could be reduced by £48/week. That would cost about another £6bn.

But taken together and costed, the claims far exceed any available revenues. The SNP is trying to have us believe that you can pour a gallon from a pint pint. As I said, it's insulting.
150

,

15/07/2008 11:34:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
151

Alan B,

15/07/2008 11:38:27
#The Federalist

"What I don't agree with is that those without real life job experience should necessarily be debarred from political life. What matters is if they are up to the job."

Agree. Did not mean to imply that those without experience in jobs outside the political career ladder should be disbarred. Just as you say there should be a good mix.
152

,

15/07/2008 11:40:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
153

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 11:42:31
#160 Correction: "pint pint" = "pint pot".
154

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 11:43:40
159. Well said, the c.300 Labour MPs from English seats who have been ordered to the constituency will certainly fit in better - they will be able to chat with voters about their shared interests of second home allowances and which plasma TV bought from the John Lewis list expenses is best, before expounding the benefits of abolishing the 10p tax band.
155

,

15/07/2008 11:45:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
156

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 11:48:12
#161

Please explain to me the mindset required to characterise anyone presenting an argument with which you disagree as a “laughing stock”, “dishonest”, “always wrong”, a “big bairny” etc.
157

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 11:49:54
#167 Peter

I don't have time to tackle all that. So please link to Deloitte's research so that we can see how far off base your summary of it is and thereby discount the rest of your post. Thanks.
158

Carmichael, A.,

Scotland 15/07/2008 11:50:08
~106, Federalist,
Aye, I agree, that's politics. My post wasn't really regarding Curran as a careerist but about the particular history of places like Glasgow East where Labour politicians have made a fine career for themselves 'understanding' from sedentary positions on green leather back-benches. Plus, I would suggest the SNP are wee bit away from being filled with careerists simply because careers are built on seats and positions and so anyone career-minded politically in the last 20 years simply joined Labour in Scotland. Independence, too, doesn't really lend itself to political careerism until people who are seeking political careers know independence is a certainty and, even then, independence would usher in a new kind of democratic multi-party politics in Scotland. Thus no politician or party careerist could be certain of their own position after independence, particularly the London-based parties, and even in the SNP.

~120, Dane Bamage (lovely name)
With full respect, I have not even the smallest bit of a clue what it is you're trying to say. Anyway, never mind, just remember that when someone knows nothing and claims to know everything, then that points clearly to a political career, ;)
159

,

15/07/2008 11:51:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
160

Alan B,

15/07/2008 11:52:27
#160 AM2

"But for how much longer will they insult our intelligence by claiming oil revenues as a fix for every single issue?"

I do not believe they are. And i am talking about the snp and Salmond not some posters.

You have also side stepped my point that none of the unionist parties have a vision for scotland economically.

When the tories were in power in scotland, while the economy was not performing they did have a economic vision to improve the uk economy even if scotland did not buy into it or see the benefits the south of england saw. The whole Bill Hughes exercise bringing in local development agencies had a vision behind it for scotland. Now it difficult to see what the tories would do economically for scotland.

The whole area of the euro is not discussed. The north south divide that labour were going to deal with in the 80s has been dropped.

To some extent scotland is sufferring the blair dumming down of politics which means we have little real political debate other than at a high level.

"Pollyannaism is the exclusive preserve of the SNP." That is just silly. Did you never hear blair or the tories under thatcher.

Seriously why can none of the 3 unionist parties say right scotland is underperforming and put together a coherent vision and policies to rectify that.

U can slag the snp but atleast they have a vision for scotland economically and ambition.

161

brownlie,

15/07/2008 11:53:29
169 AM2

Sadly, the public perception is that us unionists give the impression of being "a laughing stock", "dishonest" etc etc!
162

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 11:57:05
#167 "The evidence over the last 300 years is that the UNION HAS HELD SCOTLAND'S ECONOMY BACK"

I'd disagree - it has been incompetent politicians of all political hues that have held not only Scotland back but the UK as a whole. Now I know some might argue the point that if the SNP had somehow gained independence 30 years ago that things would be different. My own gut feeling is that they would have squandered the oil surpluses just as Labour and the Tories have done.

But then we can all say "What if . ." when it comes to North Sea Oil - what really matters is the now and here. Whatever route we go down I want it be with confidence that the Scottish economy will cope without oil in the future generations to come.

At present I am not confident that any political party has seriously addressed a post-oil future for our economy - be it within or outwith the union or some other political structure. Most political parties - even the Tories - are by and large tax and spend parties.
163

,

15/07/2008 11:59:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
164

,

15/07/2008 11:59:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
165

Miss H,

15/07/2008 12:02:16
159 Don't confuse people who go on the Scotsman forum with activists of any party. On the basis of their comments I would say very few people here are actually active in politics including you.

Most people here talk a good game but are not actually players.
166

LEAL,

15/07/2008 12:03:36
178 Dame Bramage 11.59

How are Labour paying for their campaign?Last I heard they were struggling to pay their staff,because they had made such a mess of the parties finances.
167

brownlie,

15/07/2008 12:05:11
178 Paisley Pete

I must admit that the moniker Ciderman is more palatable than your present moniker.

Your previous contention that those in the East End of Glasgow would be bullied by SNP canvassers shows how much you know about the residents in that area.
168

Alan B,

15/07/2008 12:05:19
#176 The Federalist

It is a difficult argument to go back in the past a predict if we might have performed better (or whether we would have squandered it as u say).

You could argue that we would have avoided WW1 if we had not been in the union. A colonial based war without the right and wrong of WW2.

But post 2nd world war it is difficult to see what advantage the uk has brought to scotland.

1) The uk was in economic decline from 45 to the end of the 70s. Falling behind the competitiveness of germany and france. Italy overtook us at one point.
2)UK monetary policy has been poor until brown made the boe independent and it still is not great.
3)An independent scotland could have joined the eec earlier and benifited earlier from that market.
4)an independent scotland could have benefitted from the erm and then the euro.

The uk as a choice of union partner has not been a successful choice for most of the post ww2 period. Only over the last decade or so has england started performing better.
169

,

15/07/2008 12:06:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
170

Scottish 'N British,

15/07/2008 12:06:46
Isee

"The Union holds back Scotland" is the latest battle cry.

More Separatist scaremongering.

171

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 12:06:55
101 The Federalist

On your reply to #97:
"North Sea Oil as somehow being a panacea to all our problems - it isn't."
Well that is stating a fact, probably incontrovertible at that, however, if the revenues from North Sea Oil remain under the control of London, it most certainly will not assist the rejuvenation of the Scottish economy, but will be used to bolster bad governance emanating from the south lands.
On your reply to #72:
"You somehow assume that the entire revenue from north sea Oil can be put in to an oil fund" - funny that I didn't get that impression, the impression I got was that at £12bn , there would be more than enough money available to start an 'Oil Fund', which is correct!
And I don't mean investing ALL OF IT!!!
"Moreover, their fiscal policies have meant that they don't need to finance a deficit as we would have to"
What deficit would this be?
Your assumption is that an Independent Scotland would 'Inherit some of the 'Former UK's National Debt' that is pure conjecture and speculation. Any debt attributed to an Independent Scottish Nation, would have to be negotiated and agreed at the signing of the formal treaty dissolving the Union, there is no guarantee that Scotland would accept any of the UK's debt, but indeed Scotland may seek compensation for, the disastrous handling of the Scottish economy over the past 300 years.To quote the GERS 2005 report analysis:
The GERS report gives the figure of £2,086 Millions, whereas the actual figure is £2,110 or 8.6% Millions giving a variance of £(24) Million pounds understated. It is arguable considering that Scotland has been in surplus decade upon decade that Scotland should bear any part of this debt burden. However as this is a grey area, a population percentage has been applied.

So your hypothesis as a Null one.

Cont:/
172

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 12:08:03
Cont:/ 185
On your final paragraph:

The SNP leadership have, to my knowledge, never subscribed to the syndrome of 'Scotland's Oil' is the be all and end all of all Scotland's' problems, and to suggest such is to say the least disingenuous, and at most down right lies.

The SNP leadership have, and quite rightly so, pointed out to the people of Scotland, that over the last 50 years and more that they have been deceived, lied to and short changed, when it comes to dealing with the London Government, the most obvious one being used as an example, I could go down the road of why are the people of Scotland paying the full cost of the UK's Trident force

The GERS report gives the figure of £2,431 Millions or 9%, which also charges the entire cost of the Trident system to Scotland, when it fact it is a UK wide commitment. In actual fact the correct figure is £954 Millions or 3.5% giving a variance of £1,477 Millions.
The GERS compilers have obviously taken the population plus Trident to arrive at their figure. Most of the so called unidentifiable expenditure is amply documented as being spent in SE England and Wales. The GERS report includes the True Trident costs of £1.7 Billion pounds in the general Defence expenditures whereas the actual figure is £146 Millions per the Scottish population ratio giving a variance of £146 Millions.

173

,

15/07/2008 12:10:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
174

,

15/07/2008 12:10:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

AM2,

Scotland,UK 15/07/2008 12:10:24
#174 Alan B

The SNP has a policy of being seen to be "optimistic". In practice that means they make extravagant claims and then characterise any criticism of those claims as negativity and lack of vision. Pure spin.

Just look at their over-optimistic manifesto for May 2007 and their subsequent backtracking for solid evidence of how such claims can come unstuck.

But gross over-optimism (even for effect) doesn't constitute vision.

If the SNP really had vision, they would be able to explain to us which post-independence economic model they favour: Norway's high tax/high spending model or Ireland's low tax/low spending model. Instead, their various pronouncements try to give the false impression that tax cuts and improved public services are compatible.

If the SNP really had vision, they wouldn't be all over the place in terms of left/right policies, post-independence. So we wouldn't get Alex Salmond describing himself as a social democrat and saying that it's “part of the socialist pantheon” and then Jim Mather saying that “any notion that an independent Scotland would be a left-wing country is delusional nonsense”.

Vision? No. They'll say what it takes to try and get independence. That's not vision. It's little more than a confidence trick.
176

Miss H,

15/07/2008 12:11:27
155 Yes I understand the way in which you use the term. I would use it differently. I don't see Joe as a career politician although technically he may be. Put it this way - I could name at least one MP I know personally who could as easily have joined any other party because his aim from the start was to be a politician. So he joined Labour because that's the way to get elected in Scotland, or was until very recently. On the other hand people like Joe Fitzpatrick or Alex Salmond would only ever have joined the SNP - because they are nationalists. That's what motivates them and the career is secondary. If Alex Salmomd had joined the Labour Party he could have got quite far, conceivably he could even have ended up Prime Minister. If his goal was personal power I suggest that he would have joined Labour as that would have been the smart career move and not the SNP, which was not a smart career move at the time.
177

,

15/07/2008 12:11:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
178

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 12:11:46
180. We have already started emergency fund raising in the Channel Islands
179

,

15/07/2008 12:13:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
180

,

15/07/2008 12:14:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
181

brownlie,

15/07/2008 12:14:45
187/191

You are Paisley Pete, previously known as Ciderman and I claim my prize!!!
182

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 12:15:30
193. Well said, Gordon Brown didn't get to be the most unpopular prime minister since polling began without talent of some kind
183

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 12:16:16
194. True. But we have alreday put the stamps on the thank you letters.
184

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 12:16:50
191 Dane Bramage SNP Insider,15/07/2008 12:11:38

And your point is caller?
185

,

15/07/2008 12:20:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
186

Doh,

15/07/2008 12:21:54


If the SNP get the support of 1000 to 2000 volunteers over the next 9 days (say a couple of hundred per day) then this by-election will be very closely fought.

I am quite surprised by the sour grapes comments of some Labour supporters who would rather that politics was restricted to the paid elite.

These will be the same people that are oppossed to the public funding of election campaigns.

Anyway enough of opinion polls and election campaigns.

It is breathtaking spin that Labour are keeping secret the visits of ministers to the seat.

I imagine that could be spun to say - they want to show face to support a "feisty" candidate - but they dont want to harm her chances by association with an unpopular and incompetent government.
187

Number 6,

Germany 15/07/2008 12:23:25
Now you seem them , now you dont.

JUST VOTE LABOUR. No questions required, no questions allowed, just do as your told and vote labour. Oh mind the pot holes.
188

,

15/07/2008 12:24:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
189

,

15/07/2008 12:25:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
190

Alan B,

15/07/2008 12:28:30
#AM2

You still have avoided my question about why none of the unionist parties have a vision and a set of coherent economic policies to rectify scotlands economy.

As such it shows ur whole tactic attack the snp for what u believe there weakness are but do not compare it to what the other parties are offering.

If u take a step back and look at it. The snp u say are optimist (over so). Looking at the other parties they have given up. They are offering nothing. No hope. None of no pain no gain of the tories of the 80s or labours attack on the north south divide etc.

As for vision from the snp
1)they want fiscal autonomy so that scotland can use the levers of power to try to improve the economy.
2)following on from that they want to lower corporation tax (they have already lowered business rates in the tightest of financial settlements). 20% is their target i believe.

You yourself said in last summer if scotland was to lower corporation tax then that would be all that is necessary to transform out economy to a fast growing one.
3)they have said with the powers of independence then scotland can then take a decision regarding the euro.

Personally i believe that the euro is very important to transforming scotlands economy as sterling has been poor for scotland as interest rates tend to be too high for scotland and hence strangle scotlands growth.

4)already they have set up an economic forum to advice on scottish economic matters. A good idea and we will have to wait and see if it can deliver.
5)already they have lowered business rates. they could have done much more if they had the huge rises labour had when they were in power.
6)they have a vision for a renewable energy industry in scotland (agree or not), but lack even the power to regulate electricity transportation.
7)they also want the sp to have power in the sp so that we could respond to international competition.

Question:
1)Do you not agree the euro would be best for scotland econom
191

Alan B,

15/07/2008 12:28:57
cont..

Question:
1)Do you not agree the euro would be best for scotland economically?
2)Would u support the union even if it meant a poorer scotland? (i just seem u as someone that tries to fit their economic agruments to fit their political beliefs)
192

,

15/07/2008 12:29:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
193

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 12:30:16
#185 & #186

The GERS figures show that without oil erevnues scotland would have a deficit. With oil revenues it would have a surplus of around £2.8 billion according to the same figures. I in fact have stated taht Scotlan'd surplus would be around £4.4 billion - this is the most recent estimate made by an independent analyst. I made no mention whatsover of national debt - so I'm not sure what the hell mad eyou rasie that issu.

As for "The SNP leadership have, to my knowledge, never subscribed to the syndrome of 'Scotland's Oil' is the be all and end all of all Scotland's' problems" - you have to be joking? The SNP campaigned widely in both the February 1974 UK General Election and subsequent October 1974 UK General Election using the slogan "It's Scotland's Oil".

The point I was making was that the SNP have moved on from the narrow "It's Scotland's Oil" and widened the economic case for an independent Scotland with or without oil. The point about North Sea Oil being seen as a panacea for all out ills was more aimed at those independence supporters who still seem to be locked into some 1970s timewarp - and there quite a few of them here on these on these forums. Fortunately they are countered by more reasoned nationalist responses that do take a much broader view of the whole economic debate.
194

Miss H,

15/07/2008 12:32:51
140 Yes the world will switch - which puts Scotland in a fortunate position in having such a vast source of renewable energy off our shores doesn't it?

But the world is not going to switch tomorrow.
195

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 12:34:49
At last - the sun's come out - I' away to do some gardening - better than reading some (not all) of the tripe here . .

;)
196

,

15/07/2008 12:36:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
197

Alan B,

15/07/2008 12:38:07
#The Federalist

Having a campaign of "It's Scotland's Oil" does not mean the snp believed "it is the be all and end all of all Scotland's' problems".



198

William H,

15/07/2008 12:38:20
What an utterly unenviable situation in Scotland sandwiched between the clapped out corpse of Labour and the one tracked minded duplicitous SNP. Good luck.
199

,

15/07/2008 12:40:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
200

Alan B,

15/07/2008 12:41:33
Does any unionist actually believe any unionist party will transform scotlands economic performance in the coming decades if scotland was to remain with the current union arrangements?
201

CLX,

WayupNorth 15/07/2008 12:46:40
#214
It's amazing, the rag writers and the Liebour party having the same ideals-self preservation.

It wisnae me-honest
202

,

15/07/2008 12:47:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
203

CLX,

WayupNorth 15/07/2008 12:50:18
#220
Are you a Torry?
Trousers down etc, an orange perhaps?????????

:)
204

,

15/07/2008 12:52:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
205

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 12:55:18
#217 Hawkeye

Scotland does not have the highest rate of poverty in Western Europe. Some parts of west Scotland are very poor - but so are some parts of Portugal and southern Italy. Cornwall still qualifies for EU funds because it is the poorest area in the UK.

206

New Town Resident,

15/07/2008 13:13:50
-206. Joining the euro would be very bad for the Scottish economy. Reasons;

1. The euro is a political federal project, not an economic project. For this reasons it has been highly damaging for Italy and is becoming so now now for both Spain and Ireland. Unless economies are very highly integrated then it makes no economic sense to be in a common currency zone.

2. The only economy with which Scotland has a high degree of integration is the rest of the UK.(70% of non Scottish business). There is no way the rest of the UK is going to join the Euro.

3. If you exclude oil and gas (which is a dollar trade anyway), more than 50% of Scotlands overseas trade (excl. rest of UK) is outwith the EU.

4. The recent depreciation of the pound against the euro has been very beneficial to Scotland's exports, esp. the engineering, whisky and financial services.

We should also note that all new applicant members to the EU are required to join the Euro and the common border control zone (Schengen). Hence "Independence in Europe" means both a different currency to and border contols with England. Quite a sacrifice in exchange for a few Brussels gravy train jobs for the SNP politicos?

-224. Don't the stats show Scotland to be the richest part of the UK outside London and the South East?
207

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/07/2008 13:26:40
#107 AM2

Come on AM2, a telephone poll, with a sample size of 516.

I think it is perfectly valid to challenge the margin of error in such a poll.

If the sample size had been 1000+ with random face to face sampling then I might be less critical.

Then there is the method of weighting. One obvious area of doubt is using the 2005 election as a base for the weighting. I think that was never correct given that there was another national election in May 2007.

208

,

15/07/2008 13:29:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
209

,

15/07/2008 13:30:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
210

Alan B,

15/07/2008 13:34:08
#New Town Resident

Would have to disagree. There are 3 options to scotland.
1)scottish currency would give us the best interests rates for scottish economy but would expose us to currency fluxations both with uk market and rest of eu.

2)sterling. sterling has been dreadful for scottish economy with interest rates too high for scottish economy. As the governor of BOE pointed out a few yrs ago when he said unemployment in north was a price worth paying to control inflation in the south.

Also we have to cope with currency fluxations with euro zone.

3)euro: interest rates much more inline with scotlands interest rate needs that sterling. but disadvantage of currency fluxation with sterling.

My view therefore the euro woudl be the best compromise with none perfect. (Best for scotland if uk joins too but not going to happen but that should not stop us doing what is best for us).

Having said that i think we should start with a proper economic assessment of the euro and have the debate. We are not even having that. My feeling is it is better yours not. But that does not mean we should not have some sort of independent economic assessment.


Your point 1 "Unless economies are very highly integrated then it makes no economic sense to be in a common currency zone." basically says we should have a separate scottish currency as we do not have similar monetary needs to the uk at large largely becuase of the south housing market and the much higher growth and inflationary pressures of that area.

I have been disappointed that successive uk governments have not address the north south divide in a way so that sterling would be beneficial to the whole uk. Quite simply uk government shirk the need to address the structural problems of the uk economy.

Your point 3 and 4 miss the point.

4 is abit silly currencies go up and down. I am talking about long term.

3. is more relevent but if u look at say ireland experience the patterms of trade change over t
211

Alan B,

15/07/2008 13:34:31
cont..

3. is more relevent but if u look at say ireland experience the patterms of trade change over time. We must look to the future.

One other point about the euro. If u are a global business looking to locate in the eu many will see the euro zone as an advantage. That is one of the reasons scotland has been missing out. (off course currency is not everything).
212

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 13:36:05
#225 Hawkeye

Your abuse is rude and uncalled for. You are wrong too.

The BBC programme was a report about a report by Federation of Small Business Scotland about life in general in small European countries (not all European countries). It was not a report on poverty.

The FSB compiled an 'index of success'. Scotland came bottom of the list because of low life expectancy. Remove life expectancy from the list and Scotland would come about half way. Take Glasgow and one or two other areas out of the list and Scotland would do well on life expectancy too. In other words the report told us what we have always known - that life expectancy Glasgow and west Scotland is very poor.
213

Alan B,

15/07/2008 13:36:29
#New Town Resident

"Don't the stats show Scotland to be the richest part of the UK outside London and the South East?"

If u include oil i believe that is so. But oil masks our poor underlying economic performance with slow economic growth averaging less than 2% pr yr over the last 30yrs. And barely above 2% in the last decade.
214

Alan B,

15/07/2008 13:38:09
#Publius

Good unionis logic remove scotland biggest city and the surrounding areas from the figures and scotland looks as if it is not the worst of the performing countries. :)
215

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 13:38:34
#209 Miss H

You're wrong. The world is switching now. Even Edinburgh is getting trams despite the obstinacy of the SNP.

My guess is that the SNP will come round eventually. I can also see the SNP supporting a nuclear power station or two - eventually.
216

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 13:41:54
#234 Alan B

No. The false logic was in Hawkeye's original post. He said the report showed that Scotland was the poorest country in Europe. It didn't do that ... but it did underline the issue of life expectancy in Glasgow.
217

Alan B,

15/07/2008 13:43:15
#Publius

"Even Edinburgh is getting trams despite the obstinacy of the SNP."

They were hardly obstinant as they backed down when their position did not get majority support in parliament.

I do not have a specific view of the tram project. But part of the problem i would have is labour transport projects in general during its time in office seemed wrong.

Many of the critisms i have seem of the tram project is it is one line and not an integrated system.
218

Dandyesque,

Aberdeen 15/07/2008 13:43:16
If the price of oil drops below $100 before the end of the decade, I will personally donate a barrel to the charity of AM2's choice.

Now AM2, are you prepared to pay half a barrel if it hits $200 in the same time period?
219

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 13:53:22
#239 Hawkeye

Back off. (1) You accused me of ignoring the facts. (2) You are now accusing me of defending poverty. (3) And of abusing other Scots.
(1) You misinterpreted the report. I have it on my desk in front of me.
(2) I have not defended poverty.
(3) That is contemptible.

Again. Back off. You're wrong on all counts.
220

Publius,

London 15/07/2008 13:56:13
#241 Hawkeye

Strangely I agree with part of this post. Parts of middle class Edinburgh have sucked in much of the wealth of Scotland to the detriment of other places. Deveolution may be making this worse.
221

monkey man,

15/07/2008 13:57:28
The simple fact is that the wee parochial Bravehearts have no chance of winning Glasgow East despite Labour being a joke at both local and national level.

This shows that the SNP have peaked long ago are now in decline.
222

Number 6,

Germany 15/07/2008 13:58:37
232 Amazing, that's right parts of the West coast including Glasgow East are really ok, your not really deprived or neglected. Forget your horrifyingly low life expectancy, after all your living in a Labour run
seat, be thankful for the short time you have to spend there. Hopeless unionista logic, well just try chapping on their doors and telling them "They've never had it so good."
223

New Town Resident,

15/07/2008 13:59:28
-234

Thank you for your considered replies.

I think your point is largely about the cost of borrowing being too high in Scotland, which is largely a small scale business and domestic sector issue. This is because large international companies with Euro exposure borrow in Euros (and dollars) anyway right now.

Historically the cost of borrowing was much more local and variable of course in the days of mutuals and local banking discretion. Also the government used other fiscal tools as well, which have gone post EU.

I don't see how an independent Scottish currency could diverge significantly from sterling (the history of the Irish pound is perhaps the nearest historical pointer).

224

Miss H,

15/07/2008 14:00:43
235 Don’t be daft. One tram line in Edinburgh is not going to reduce our current reliance on fossil fuels.

Also don’t get me wrong – I am all for switching to more sustainable forms of energy as soon as can be and so is the SNP. But wishing for something does not make it so!

The point I was making is that oil prices are going to keep rising until the oil runs out.

It would be nice if the world switched to alternatives before that happens but I don’t think that is likely.
225

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/07/2008 14:06:10
#239

SNP tactic no4 if you do not support Independence then you do not care about the people or Scotland. this will trigger a tactic no6 response which is attempted justification of why only Nationalists really care about Scotland followed by a No2 telling me I am either brainwashed or indoctrinated. when you deny this they go for a no 3 that you are too stupid. Its boring.
226

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/07/2008 14:10:13
#250

Which part of Lisbon did you visit, you can walk 300 yards from C & A and be in a housing scheme that makes wester hailles look like beverly hills. paris has suburbs that you can't enter without an armoured vehicle and don't get me started on Marseille and areas of Barcelona. Scotland has nothing compared to this.
227

monkey man,

15/07/2008 14:10:22
# 251

Wee Fatty Salmond and his ilk are supposedly unstoppable on the march to independence. Unfortunately for them, they are the only ones to do so. lol
228

,

15/07/2008 14:15:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
229

,

15/07/2008 14:18:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
230

Miss H,

15/07/2008 14:27:30
On the whole Scottish poverty thing. The problem is not that everyone is poor. It is that we have a huge underclass. Not a PC term that but everyone knows what I mean. It's a problem with inter-generational poverty. Families where no-one has worked for 3 generations. It's also where you have the most serious problems with drugs.

Will independence make a difference to that? Yes because such poverty holds Scotland back more than it holds the UK back. That is why tackling that kind of poverty will be more of a priority for a Scottish Government than it ever would be for a UK Government.

Do nationalists care more than unionists? Yes - for the same reasons. That's not to say that unionists don't care about poverty but they don't care in the same way.
231

,

15/07/2008 14:28:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
232

,

15/07/2008 14:34:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
233

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 14:35:47
208 The Federalist

I am not an economist, but pray tell to me,what is the difference between a 'deficit' and 'debt', National or otherwise?

You said:-
" Moreover,their fiscal policies have meant that they don't need to finance a deficit as we would have to"

If that is not a reference to 'National Debt' WTFI.

In your reply, you then, with your normal aplomb, go on to say that Scotland with oil would have a £4.4bn surplus, well strike me down with a soggy crisp.

If we are in surplus where in the name o' the wee man does the "need to finance a deficit as we would have to" come in?

Simple if we are in surplus, we have no deficit!!!

So your reference can only mean subsidising the Rump UK National Debt, as for reasons stated previously Scotland would most likely have no contribution to make to the Rump UK ND, but could probably sue for compensation!!
234

,

15/07/2008 14:37:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
235

,

15/07/2008 14:45:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
236

Alan B,

15/07/2008 14:50:02
#Boggle fey the Bog

"what is the difference between a 'deficit' and 'debt'"

A deficit is the yr on yr balance between tax revenues and government expenditure.

National debt is the accumlated debt. ie if u run a deficit each yr it will increase the total debt. While if if u run a surplus you will decrease any debt.

237

SEUMAS,

fearn 15/07/2008 14:50:05
Here is an indisputable fact that even A.M.2 cannot refute.
Concerning bias by the E.B.C.
Curran challenged John Mason to a head to head which was refused.
Curran was then granted an individual interview with Brewer the next night which turned out to be a party political broadcast on behalf of the liebour party.
Come on A.M.2--explain that one.
238

,

15/07/2008 14:51:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
239

Sean 007,

West Lothian 15/07/2008 14:52:25
Why have there been 272 responses (including mine) to this article... has anyone out there got a life!!!
240

Sean 007,

15/07/2008 14:53:01
sorry, now 273...
241

Sean 007,

15/07/2008 14:53:31
274...
242

,

15/07/2008 14:56:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
243

,

15/07/2008 14:59:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
244

,

15/07/2008 15:02:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
245

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 15:12:05
Speaking of media bias doonhammer on The Herald
posted a great joke which will bring tears to
your eyes - unless of course you are a Unionist
and then likely you are crying already for a
different reason :)

A wee laugh.. and a little truth!!

******

Two boys are playing football in a park in Baillieston, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy picks up a stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists, breaking the dogs neck. A Herald reporter who was strolling by sees the incident, and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Celtic Supporter Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook. "But I’m not that," the little hero replied. "Sorry, since we are in Baillieston, I just assumed you were." said the reporter and starts again. "Little Rangers Lad Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook. "I’m no one of them either," the boy said. "I assumed everyone in Baillieston was either for Celtic or Rangers. "What team do you root for?" the reporter asked. "I’m an Aberdeen supporter, my dad works for Alex Salmond." the child said. The Herald reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little Nat **** from Aberdeen Kills Beloved Family Pet.
246

SEUMAS,

fearn 15/07/2008 15:32:27
#280#
Priceless, sums it up beautifully as well as being quite humerous.
247

SEUMAS,

fearn 15/07/2008 15:36:56
#280# Sorry about the spelling, the humerus is also funny.
248

GM,

15/07/2008 15:41:15
see this story at BBC -

Interesting point is the list of journals affected -
"the Sun, Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World and the Scotsman."


It seems the Scotsman is keeping good company these days and probaly should change its heading to a nice red background - simply to merge in with the other publications of a similar standard.
249

Allan(handofgod137),

15/07/2008 15:58:43
#284, So you'd rather wee eck spent the money on funding jollies for his muslim mates as stated in that artical the hootsmon won't allow comment on?
250

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 16:03:45
#267 It's like speaking to a brick wall with you.

OK - I'll repeat this in terms maybe even you can understand.

Without any oil revenues Scotland would be running a deficit. To avoid running a deficit part of the oil revenues would have to be used to finance that shortfall. The surplus would not be the £9 billion that someone earlier mentioned but nearer £4.4 billion. That surplus of £4.4 billion is not going to build up an oil fund that is the same as Norway's simply because the Norwegians have increased their fund by a factor of ten - £44 billion in the current year. It would take us possibly ten times as long to reach the Norwegian petroleum fund level. They took twenty years - so with current economic policies we would be looking at 200 years to reach the pot they currently have!!

What I am advocating is that the surplus could be increased by radically altering our fiscal policy, particulalry our reliance on the public sector, as well as taking a much greater role in the extraction of North Sea Oil as the Norwegians have done through Statoil.
251

westview,

counting down 15/07/2008 16:09:07
Are the visits secret so that the expenses can also be hidden from view? With the labour party being broke ,who pays for these sneak visits?
252

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 16:10:35
#284 My gut instinct (as I said earlier) is that the Nats would have blown our oil windfall just as the Tories and Labour did. Most of our political parties are still of the tax and spend model - even though they won't admit it.

But that is by the by - what matters is what happens to the Scottish economy in the future not the past.
253

monkey man,

15/07/2008 16:11:09
It isn't difficult, even for the wee Brigadoon Bravehearts. The separatists cannot win Glasgow East even when Labour are on the ropes. The jingoist uber-Scottish nonsense only appeals to the numb-nuts out there but not to the realists.
254

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:13:31
#monkey man

I would turn your statement round and say that the union (in its current form) would only appeal to those that are economically illiterate.

255

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:17:56
#The Federalist

As for scotland blowing oil revenues that really depends on what party the scottish electrate would have voted for.

Is norway more tax and spend that scotland?

If scotland had been independent scotland in 50s/60s we may have had a completely different political make up.

To some extent the vote labour has been encouraged becuase of the 2horse race of westminster with the tories increasingly unelectable in scotland.

You would have hoped that the scottish electrate would have voted out failing parties and hence we would have been more successful.
256

Saruman,

15/07/2008 16:18:21
#290 Alan B: I find your post almost beyond belief (and so do all major political parties in Scotland, with one exception and the press, which about says it all really!)
257

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 16:25:28
#291 The biggest problem is that there are large swathes of the Scottish electorate who want the government to throw money at them - who want the state to pay for everything. It's precisely why labour still does reasonably well in its heartlands - it throws money at them.
258

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:29:41
#292 Saruman

Care to justify your post.

Scotland has performed poorly economically over the last 30yrs with growth less that 2%. Neither labour nor the tories have transformed this situation despite being in power for long periods.

Scotland has grown more slowly than the rest of the uk who in turn has been outperformed by the small european nations known as the arc of prosperity who have averages growth over the last decade of almost 4% higher than the uk average of 2.8% and scotlands 2.2%.

Most of the small western european countries have higher gpd per capita ppp than the uk.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

So unless u think somehow scotland is somehow so fundamentally bad and we cannot expect to achieve, can u justify your remarks.

The fact remains some want to remain in union. But it is at the cost of economic prosperity for scotland. There is however an argument that by devolving the economic powers to the scottish parliament we could stay within the union and still benefit from the devolution of powers. ie a position held by The Fed.

259

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:31:51
#The Federalist

Do not disagree with you.

But i do think that position has been fostered by the union somewhat.

Anyway you are far too logical to support the union :).
260

Saruman,

15/07/2008 16:39:07
#294 Alan B: I think you know deep down that Scotland's economic performance has nothing to do with its constitutional situation. It's even harder to justify nationalist assumptions that separation would make any difference, btw.

You Nats are forever patronising Scotland: you produce all these statistics to prove how badly the economy's performing etc, but that's just the way Scotland is (and it's nothing to be ashamed of!) Unless you can accept Scotland as it is (warts and all), you do not have its best interests at heart!
261

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:40:39
#292 Saruman

If you are thinking of replying u may want to comment on this article.


"Professor Brian Ashcroft (Wendy Alexanders husband), policy director of the pro-Union economic think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, was filmed arguing that Scotland would be more prosperous as a separate country than having full tax-raising powers as part of the UK.

Addressing a private seminar in May, Ashcroft said an independent Scotland would join an “arc of prosperity”, comprising other affluent small European states. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2328078.ece

Mike Rumbles running for the leadership of the lib dems in scotland has now come out in favour of full fiscal autonomy for scotland.
262

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 16:46:17
#295 In or out of the union I honestly believe the problem would persist.

For me the problem runs much deeper than reorganisaing the political structures of our country.

How do we make our politicians truly representative?

How do we make them act in the long-term in the interests of our country instead of short-term political gain?

The sad truth is that many people are totally turned off by politics because they don't feel any of our politicians truly represent them (the voters).
263

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:49:19
#Saruman

"You Nats are forever patronising Scotland: you produce all these statistics to prove how badly the economy's performing etc, but that's just the way Scotland is (and it's nothing to be ashamed of!) Unless you can accept Scotland as it is (warts and all), you do not have its best interests at heart!"

What rubbish. So unless u accept failure and give up trying to achieve you do not have the best interests of the country at heart.

Having the best interests of the country is to transform scotland so that we can fulfill our potential. That could be in the uk or outside. Currently we can see the uk union has not worked for scotland. But why give up.

I want scotland to do well so their are more and better jobs and we can have better living standards for the country. I do not want a union at any price.

A badly performing economy with poverty is something to be ashamed of. Having low life expectancy is not a good thing.

"I think you know deep down that Scotland's economic performance has nothing to do with its constitutional situation"

Completely disagree. I think how you structure things produces different results. Having fiscal autonomy would give scotland power over fiscal policy to try to address our low growth.

I support the euro as i think sterling interest rates have been bad for scotland economically.

Also making decision for scotland by scotland i think will produce better policy decision with government kicked out when they do not perform.

If you remember the recession of the 90s england turned on the tories in the south and kicked them out. However they were quite happy to vote for the tories in the south when the north of britain was in recession.
264

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 16:50:23
#296 In my opinion the decision to change the political structure should be done because it is the right thing to do not because the economic circumstances happen to be right.

I support a very decentarlised form of federalism - not because I believe it will improve our economy but because I believe it is only right that decision-making is brought closer to where it matters.
265

Alan B,

15/07/2008 16:59:32
#The Federalist

"How do we make our politicians truly representative?"

Firstly i think we can see that the parties that scotland votes for in the scottish parliament are different from westminster.

As such together with PR it allows people to choose parties that is in tune with what scotland wants.

With regard to westminster there is little choice. Even labour had to reform to become electable in england.

With regard to trust in politicians and polical parties i think that would come when people can genuinely vote out parties that fail.

We also need to move against corrupt politicians. We have far too many. It might be low level or not even breaking the rules but playing the game for their own financial end.

Personally i would like to see referendums attached to elections like in the US. Allow the people to choose what they think on different issues.

Part of the disolutionment with political parties is down to the fact that many people think they are all the same or so similar. To a degree that is correct.

I would also consider the idea of majors for our cities. I think the london mayor concept have rejuvinated local politics and think glasgow and edinburgh could benefit too.
266

jacquesmac,

15/07/2008 17:04:18
2 Hawkeye the Noo,15/07/2008 14:28:22
Speaking of the failure of the union, here's monkey man

Nope, an example of Darwinian regression perhaps; aw sh1T. I foresee a deluge of postings from the Creative Design nuckle trailing real monkeys-R-us.
267

,

15/07/2008 17:05:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
268

Alan B,

15/07/2008 17:05:15
#The Federalist

"I support a very decentarlised form of federalism - not because I believe it will improve our economy but because I believe it is only right that decision-making is brought closer to where it matters."

Not sure i totally follow your logic. The economy is one of the most important areas of government as the economy provides us with jobs and our living standards and the money to pay for public services.

As such you want not decentralise economic decision making if you think it is going to produce a poor economy with less jobs or a poorer quality.

I would have thought u decentralise because you are of the opinion that decentralisation makes for better decision making.

ie u may support the euro or sterling despite being a centralised decsion on monetary policy becuase it produces the best results.

Where u take decisions centrally or locally is or should be determined by the results they produce.
269

,

15/07/2008 17:16:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
270

Saruman,

15/07/2008 17:17:25
#299 Alan B: your faith in the power of politicians in a separatist Scotland to turn the nation into something which it quite simply isn’t is truly touching! It’s just sad that the public at large don’t share your faith in politicians (whether in a separatist Scotland or under the status quo).

Btw, the Labour Party has traditionally been at the centre of public opinion in Scotland, and it’s a fair assumption that it would continue to hold this position following separation. Are you really trying to tell me that Scottish Labour politicians act any differently towards Scotland just now than they would if it were separate? The fact that Labour (the traditional establishment in Scotland) won’t even entertain the prospect of separatism about says it all. If there were any real case for separation, it would be a mainstream cause among all political parties, as it was in Ireland before that country’s separation from the UK.
271

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 17:22:08
Just for your benefit Hawkeye - here's my views about a referendum:

"228 The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),14/05/2008 15:37:11
#218 I have supported the idea of a multi-option referendum for some time.

However, given the inability of the Scottish electorate to complete a ballot paper correctly at the last set of elections I have altered my views as to using STV to decide the outcome. Perhaps it would be better to have a run-off system similar to the French with the top two options facing each other in a second ballot.

Some might complain that that would be tootime-consuming or costly - I'd disagree - on an issue like this it is worth spending time and money so we get a genuine reflection of voters opinions - whatever they may be.

Also I'd like there to be 4 options - I'll let the constitutional lawyers get the wording right:

1. the status quo - keep the Scottish Parliament as it is

2. independence

3. greater powers for the Scottish Parliament including Fiscal Autonomy

4. abolish the Scottish Parliament

I know some might not like option 4 - I don't either - but I do think it is right that those who don't support it have their say as well.

I also realise that my options don't include Federalism explicitly - however, if option 3 were passed I believe that the debate does not end there - that moves towards a more federal structure would be more likely. Nationalists too I suspect would not have a problem with option 3 as it would not close the door on independence forever. No doubt they would continue to campaign (as is their right) for independence."

(to be continued)
272

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/07/2008 17:25:08
(continued)

"228 The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),14/05/2008 15:37:11

What I don't want to see is a simple yes-no ballot - if independence lost it would also bring an end to any hopes of further devolved power. The hardline unionists would use it as an excuse to stymie any further decentralisation. Also the truth be said - there are many who are would not support independence but are not happy with the status quo either - I'm one of them. If it were a simple yes-no vote I honestly now don't know which way I'd vote."

273

Brian M,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 17:42:10
Unnanounced and over before anyone knew.

They spent probably 3 hours in a car and 10 minutes having to engage with their perceived scum of Glasgow East who they expect to vote labour because their fathers, etc always did
274

Brian M,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 17:48:44
Also shows that labour believe they could lose this.

Bring in their 'big guns' openly and they will be seen as being desperate to hold what was one of the most secure labour seats in the country.

Bring in their 'big guns' openly and will be seen as a verdict on Broon the buffoon

Bring in their 'big guns' openly and they might be asked about their own support for Broon the buffoon
275

,

15/07/2008 17:55:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
276

KWC,

Edinburgh 15/07/2008 18:00:14
They know they are not welcome.
277

Alan B,

15/07/2008 18:03:40
#Saruman

It is not really about having faith in politicians as such. It more about believing a different structure can produce a different outcome.

For instance a policy of low corporation tax could improve scotlands economic growth.

Part of the problem with the uk is decision are taken for the uk as a whole and that may not be in scotland interests.

Labour to a degree are the centre of scottish political life because of the union. ie vote labour or u get the tories.

A scottish labour party that does not deliver would be voted out as we saw in the last election. For democracy to work we need most people to be floating voters and vote for the party that seems in the best place to deliver. Rather than vote labour no matter what.

"Are you really trying to tell me that Scottish Labour politicians act any differently towards Scotland just now than they would if it were separate"
Labour sold most of its values and policies to get elected in england.

"If there were any real case for separation, it would be a mainstream cause among all political parties"
These parties are uk parties with uk structures. So it is not surprising they support the uk. A good thing about the scottish parliament is it is encouraging change. (note both the greens, ssp etc were also independence parties). Westminster with its first past the post system does not encourage a system that allows other parties to take hold.

The lib dems as i say have a leadership candidate who is supporting fiscal autonomy. With fiscal autonomy u are financially independent. Which is the big one.

Labour are a mixed bag. Henry McLeish the previous labour leader is so close to the snp that some senior labour mps or msps have said he should go and join them.

Wendy Alexander was calling for fiscal federalism. So i think there is a strong pull towards a much more devolved parliament.

Murdo Fraser i believe support fiscal autonomy and he is the tory number 2 in the scottish parliament.

W
278

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 18:04:44
Two boys are playing football in a park in Baillieston, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy picks up a stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists, breaking the dogs neck. A Herald reporter who was strolling by sees the incident, and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Celtic Supporter Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook. "But I’m not that," the little hero replied. "Sorry, since we are in Baillieston, I just assumed you were." said the reporter and starts again. "Little Rangers Lad Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook. "I’m no one of them either," the boy said. "I assumed everyone in Baillieston was either for Celtic or Rangers. "What team do you root for?" the reporter asked. "I’m an Aberdeen supporter, my dad works for Alex Salmond." the child said. The Herald reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little Nat **** from Aberdeen Kills Beloved Family Pet.
279

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 18:08:17
It's the first day of school and the teacher thought she'd get to know the kids by asking them their name and what their father does for a living.

The first little girl says: "My name is Mary and my daddy is a postman."

The next little boy says: "I'm Andy and my Dad is a mechanic."

Then one little boy says: "My name is Jimmy and my father is a nude dancer in a cabaret for gay men."

The teacher gasps and quickly changes the subject, but later in the school yard the teacher approaches wee Jimmy privately and asks if it was really true that his Dad dances nude in a gay bar.

He blushed and said, "I'm sorry but my dad is a Labour MP, and I was just too embarrassed to say so."
280

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 18:08:35
Doonhamer? What do you think of todays efforts at shutting down posts by SNP posters, based solely on the fact their SNP posters?

281

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 18:09:01
It's the first day of school and the teacher thought she'd get to know the kids by asking them their name and what their father does for a living.

The first little girl says: "My name is Mary and my daddy is a postman."

The next little boy says: "I'm Andy and my Dad is a mechanic."

Then one little boy says: "My name is Jimmy and my father is a nude dancer in a cabaret for gay men."

The teacher gasps and quickly changes the subject, but later in the school yard the teacher approaches wee Jimmy privately and asks if it was really true that his Dad dances nude in a gay bar.

He blushed and said, "I'm sorry but my dad is a Labour MP, and I was just too embarrassed to say so."
282

,

15/07/2008 18:10:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
283

Alan B,

15/07/2008 18:11:06
#clan_mackay lol
284

Chum of Boris,

Henley on Thames 15/07/2008 18:14:05
320 Nice one.

When I heard it in Edinburgh it was about a stranger who saved a little girl who had been grabbed by a bear in Edinburgh Zoo. The stranger killed the bear and the Scotsman headline was 'Sassenach kills child's pet'.
285

,

15/07/2008 18:15:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
286

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 18:16:32
#327 - WORD! as the Younguns say.........
287

Chum of Boris,

Henley on Thames 15/07/2008 18:16:54
323
Another nice one.

Little girl comes out of school. Car pulls up and middle aged man driving it says 'Get into the car'. Little girl 'no'.
Man 'I'll give you a sweetie if you get in the car'. Little girl 'no'.
Man ' I'll give some money if you get in the car'. Little girl 'no. You'll have to drive the Skoda home by yourself, Daddy'.
288

ruthie,

alba 15/07/2008 18:17:07
LIEbour MPs trailing the streets of Glasgow East chapping doors... Did they claim expenses for that?

Answers and donations of £995 in brown envelopes please...

Corrupt to the core.
289

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 18:19:01
#330 funnily enough. I was wondering if the Party paid the bill for travel and security as it was clearly a party duty and party business for all concerned. Nothing to do with their constituency affairs.

2. Does national express take provident?
290

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 18:23:00
324. Dane

great post - as only c. 14,000 prisoners have escaped or absconded under Labour, clearly the abscontion of 1 prisoner from a Scottish prison will devastate the SNP position. The 14,000 who escaped under Labour were not relevant anyway.
291

George Mackay,

Dundee 15/07/2008 18:23:07
Any folk know why John Michie's campaigning for Margaret Curran? A few months ago he was campaigning for the SNP.
292

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 18:29:10
324. Just wondering, how shall we describe the following prisoner escape/ absconding figures under Labour:

1997: 1003 escapes/ absconds "doing a Blunkett"?

2003: 1248 escapes/ absconds "enjoying a Straw"?
293

,

15/07/2008 18:35:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
294

Union is Best,

15/07/2008 18:39:14
336. Yes, I believe there were several hundred absconds from open prisons in England under Labour last year, but that is not relevant, nor is the fact the abscond rate is now lower in Scotland than it was in 2005/2006, we must not let facts get in the way of silly posts!
295

Saruman,

15/07/2008 18:40:00
#319 Alan B: I’d simply say to you that the UK is not that big a country in world terms as things stand and who’s to say that a separatist Scotland won’t be subjected to further division within itself: the central belt has little in common with the rural north east and it would be hard to direct economic policy towards both. All in all, Scotland’s future prettily obviously lies within the economic powerhouse that is the UK.
296

,

15/07/2008 18:40:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
297

,

15/07/2008 18:42:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
298

The Master,

15/07/2008 18:42:42
312 Federalist: but a simple yes or no ballot is the only method which would produce a robust enough decision to justify major constitutional change of the kind advocated by Alex Salmond.

The result has to be clear and unequivocal and any kind of “run off” system would be completely inappropriate and open to charges that it produced a result of a type which may be appropriate to electing a coalition government but nothing else.
299

Rodster,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 18:45:34
#338 Saruman what utter p@sh that UK economic power house you refer to is going down the cludgie at an alarming rate of knots .
It is only the future revenues from the North sea that have allowed this lot of incompetent fools to borrow on the international stage .
Why do so many of you put your own country down?
Why do you believe that of all the nations in the world only Scotland is incapable of self determination?
300

,

15/07/2008 18:48:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
301

,

15/07/2008 18:48:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
302

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 18:52:05
341
So you are suggesting that, say...40%, of the voting population have to say yes to change?
303

elizabeth the first,

15/07/2008 18:57:45
Why are the Nat’s saying that Brown's running scared,just because he wants to keep the very able Curran as the centre of attention,man the Nat’s are getting desperate,anything to distract from all the broken promise’s.Just wait till people in scotland start switching to the tory’s rather than the nat’s, the tory’s are only 16 points behind them according to the latest poll and they could easily rise to about 24% again like in the 80’s.
304

,

15/07/2008 18:59:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
305

The Master,

15/07/2008 19:03:40
#346 Conan: I’d go even further and say that a sizeable majority would have to say yes to separation on at least 3 separate occasions and that there’d have to be a sizeable turnout each time for the Nats’ separation agenda to have any credibility whatsoever.

If you Nats are so sure of yourselves, this really shouldn’t be difficult to achieve. As with Ireland at the time of its separation, there would have to be no reason to doubt the will of the people.
306

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 19:05:37
348
In a compulsory voting system, I would agree, but in our present set up, the ill, the dead and the apathetic have the deciding vote.
307

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 19:07:15
270 Alan B,15/07/2008 14:50:02

"what is the difference between a 'deficit' and 'debt'"

"A deficit is the yr on yr balance between tax revenues and government expenditure."

No not correct!

DEFICIT.
A shortfall; an excess of expenditure over revenue.

For a country, a deficit in its current account means that payments for imports, freight and so on exceed receipts from exports and services.

For governments, a deficit is the amount by which their outlay (on public works or welfare payments) exceeds their revenue from tax and other sources.
A deficit is financed by government borrowing from the general public or by printing money.

So it therefor follows that if a country/government has a more money coming in than going out it is in surplus, not 'deficit'! as you would have us believe in your explanation, as you do not differentiate between negative values and positive values.

'National debt is the accumulated debt. ie if u run a deficit each yr it will increase the total debt. While if if u run a surplus you will decrease any debt.'

So basically as I have said a deficit is a debt!
Unless, of course like the Unionist parties in the past, you decide to fund it by printing money, as opposed to borrowing money to cover the 'deficit'.

However the question was aimed at Federalist, who claims that an Independent Scotland with a surplus of £4.4 Bn would have a deficit to service, that is why I asked him/her to explain the difference between a 'deficit' and a 'debt', as s/he alluded to the fact that they never mentioned National Debt, but, however claimed that Scotland as opposed to Norway.
(from post #101) "Moreover,their(Norways) fiscal policies have meant that they don't need to finance a deficit as we (Scotland) would have to."

With a 'Surplus', we wouldn't have a 'deficit' to finance.

That is why I asked the question, if there is no deficit, the only 'Deficit' that needs to be financed is 'National Debt' i.e. previous deficits fo
308

Boggle fey the Bog,

15/07/2008 19:08:12
cont from #351

With a 'Surplus', we wouldn't have a 'deficit' to finance.

That is why I asked the question, if there is no deficit, the only 'Deficit' that needs to be financed is 'National Debt' i.e. previous deficits for which money has been borrowed to finance, (or a perceived share of UK Inc. total debt)!!!

It really isn't rocket science, if you have a 'surplus' you have no 'deficit'!!!

But just as in most things Federalist tends to go off half cocked!
309

,

15/07/2008 19:12:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
310

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 19:13:26
349
You have to draw a line somewhere(Heh! I nearly said "Master").If it's a compulsory vote 51% once is more than enough.
311

The Master,

15/07/2008 19:18:32
#354: the trouble with you Nats is that you don't live in the real world. I stand by every word that I have posted and will not let you Nats wriggle out by pointing out that, as compulsory voting does not exist in this country, there may well not be an overwhelming turnout in any referendum.

If Joe Public out there really felt as you Nats insist he does, there'd be no question of the SNP not achieving an overwheliming endorsement of separation on a massive turnout.
312

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 19:22:17
355
I'm living in a world that has a Scottish Nationalist Government. Real enough for you?
313

,

15/07/2008 19:31:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
314

,

15/07/2008 19:33:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
315

,

15/07/2008 19:40:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
316

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 15/07/2008 19:41:13
Another day, another story. Must be a by election coming shortly. Am I alone in noticing the number of articles in this publication which seem to be planted by Millbank?

Just wait and count - every day until the polls are completed.

Johnston Press appears to think its readership is as dumbed down as its journalists.
317

,

15/07/2008 19:50:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
318

,

15/07/2008 19:51:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
319

Richard Taylor,

15/07/2008 19:53:12
Doonhamer:

I'm fae Aberdeen, & I don't like Aberdeen jokes.

(copyright Scotch & Wry...Rikki Fulton/Gregor Fisher ;-) )
320

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 19:53:48
#361 - LOW
321

,

15/07/2008 19:54:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
322

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 19:58:48
Drain Roughage. That has got to be the lowest use of a girls missfortune to score a political point.

Kenny Mc Kaskill was in charge of a crumbling prsion infrastructure, cronic over crowding and shortgae of space. inherited from Labour. This incident was shortly after just taking over from the previous eejit coalition.Who had more absconds.

You should go and just be queite.
323

,

15/07/2008 19:58:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
324

Utterly Ashamed,

15/07/2008 20:00:59
Drain Roughage: Not true, not clever, not amusing. Low comment.
325

,

15/07/2008 20:05:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
326

,

15/07/2008 20:10:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
327

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 20:28:21
The Labour Circus continues -

"Every vote counts as Curran tries to
woo Nationalist rival"

"Margaret Curran, the Labour candidate in Glasgow East, appears to have gone beyond the call of duty by writing personally to John Mason, the SNP candidate, imploring him to vote for her on polling day, July 24."

"The heartfelt plea from Ms Curran came in the form of a letter despatched to all 62,000 voters in the constituency. Unfortunately, someone in the Labour campaign forgot to mention that Mr Mason, who lives in Glasgow East, was already spoken for and might be beyond persuasion"

see - http://tinyurl.com/5wz3pv

Perhaps Ms Curran was unable to comprehend that
a candidate would actually live in Glasgow
East rather than the comforts of the type high end
neighbourhood where her million £ house is
situated.

I do hope that Labour is keeping careful track
not to breach any election spending rules here -
62,000 personal letters and personal yet
covert visits from senior ministers all
sounds rather expensive :)
328

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 15/07/2008 20:30:59
#369 - Daft Dane, Labour Fannie Claiming to be an SNP insider.

How thick do you think people are? Even for a labour Troll your comments about the wee lassie being attacked most recently in #361 are sickening.

In fact I change my question. How thick are you? To think that a wee girls pain is suitable ammo in a party political point on a newspaper comments page. You make me feel sick.

It shows the total contempt people like you have for real people and their issues. They are just cannon fodder for the media machine.

The other Labour supporters should also make an effort to distance themselves from such troll scum.






329

,

15/07/2008 20:36:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
330

Traquir , Alba,

15/07/2008 20:43:54
373 Dane Bramage SNP Insider

You really are not very bright are you ?
Anyway continue the good work you clearly are
one of the experts on the guide on
how to "Preserve The Union"

see - tinyurl.com/5ncw8z

Posters like you are worth your weight in
SNP activists - keep up the good work
on the behalf of the nationalist cause.

Perhaps you could get together with the handful
of other Unionist posters and campaign on
the streets of Glasgow East - assuming of
course you are actually in Scotland, which
from your inane comments I seriously doubt.
Perhaps you and AM2 & Number 6 could
set up some Union flag festooned barricades
whilst singing God Save The Queen to
hold back the hoards of Nationalist activists :)

Slàinte mhor a h-uile là a chi 's nach fhaic
331

,

15/07/2008 20:44:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
332

,

15/07/2008 21:14:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
333

,

15/07/2008 21:16:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
334

,

15/07/2008 21:18:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
335

DouglasT,

15/07/2008 21:19:04
Here's a very interesting story from Guido ...

http://www.order-order.com/
336

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:20:30
Traquir ..My ,My ..you have had the Wee office dogsbody hard at work today ..I hope they are paid well by the Party because between doing all your research and running round the East End spouting all the usual ..have you spent as much on this campaign as the Bribe Wee Eck has given Saeed for delivering the Faithful to the Cause ???
337

,

15/07/2008 21:21:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
338

,

15/07/2008 21:25:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
339

,

15/07/2008 21:30:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
340

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:31:36
Traquir you keep pushing the Price of Maggie Currans house up .soon you`ll be spouting its 2 million ....did you know you can get a 5 bedroom house in the Mearn for £550.000..wonder what that cost 25yrs ago ??? or does the rise in valuations in recent years not count ...i doubt she has a Million £ mortgage...
341

,

15/07/2008 21:32:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
342

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:35:43
Tyrone go take the weight of those wee shoulders of yours ..did he ..he being Wee Eck not handover a couple of hundred thou to Saeed and his dodgy bunch or did he not ..and have you also noted that many other Scottish Muslim Assocations are up in arms about it too ...are they Racist ..and Tyrone ...shouting " Racist" no longer works to shut people up ..especialy from a Natz ...It just shows how weak you are .. and how sad...
343

,

15/07/2008 21:35:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
344

,

15/07/2008 21:36:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
345

,

15/07/2008 21:36:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
346

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:41:34
Tyrone ...Send it where you want to who you want ..you`ll be very busy reporting a lot of people .. .....You need a break ......and once again we see what the Natz are all about ....
347

boudica,

15/07/2008 21:43:13
Tyrone ....All party support ya diddy... That phrase says it all ....Natz to the Core ...as we say ..Is that the best you can do ....haha
348

,

15/07/2008 21:44:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
349

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:47:43
she bought her first house around 25 yrs ago ..no doubt she made a few bob on that when she sold it and then put the rest to her new house ..That is what ya do with property ..or didnt that occur to you ..so no doubt she still does have a Million £ mortgage and as I have said to Traquir Houseprices have shot up even more in the last 5 yrs and they are on their way down ..as we speak ..
350

,

15/07/2008 21:49:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
351

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 21:51:23
Tyrone as any Gambler will tell you there aint no thing as a sure bet .....and as the Bookie always say their is an Idiot born every minute ..I`ll bet your Mammy knows that one ..I`ll give you odds on favourite
352

,

15/07/2008 21:51:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
353

,

15/07/2008 21:56:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
354

,

15/07/2008 21:57:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
355

boudica,

15/07/2008 21:59:26
Tyrone ...I dont follow any Party Blindly as you seem to do ..Now get your wee list out and add the Following " Racists" as you call them
MUSLIM leaders have accused Alex Salmond of blatant cronyism after he handed hundreds of thousands of pounds in public funds to an Islamic group run by an SNP activist.
The Scottish Government has given £215,000 to the Scottish Islamic Foundation (SIF), a group run by Osama Saeed, an SNP member who is about to contest the Glasgow Central seat in the next Westminster election.
356

,

15/07/2008 22:00:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
357

boudica,

Glasgow 15/07/2008 22:02:14
Tyrone some more names to add to that list ....
SIF will spend £200,000 on the IslamFest in Glasgow next year at which Muslims and non-Muslims can enjoy displays related to Islamic culture, religion and art. The group has also received £10,152 to spend on computer and office equipment for its central Glasgow headquarters, and £5,600 for administration and volunteer and management training.

The funding has infuriated senior members of the Muslim community, including the general secretary of the Glasgow Islamic Centre, Scotland's largest Muslim organisation. It said it asked Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the MSP for Glasgow Govan, for £132,851 last year to spend on activities aimed at keeping youngsters away from extremism, but "had heard nothing".

358

,

15/07/2008 22:05:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
359

,

15/07/2008 22:08:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
360

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 15/07/2008 22:10:33
365, bad spoonerism for brain damage. If you don't know the propaganda plant stories and whether or not they are true, then I suggest you nive up your to lame
361

,

15/07/2008 22:11:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
362

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 15/07/2008 22:13:28
You're gonnie love this one : http://www.order-order.com/2008/07/exclusive-glasgow-east-labour-fakes-93.html

They did this at the Holyrood election too. Remember the 'hard working families' or members of the public in their party political broadcast all telling people how they were worried about an SNP government and what damage they would do to their families? Yes, they were all Labour party apparatchiks.

They've done it again.

How many lies can this woman get away with?
363

,

15/07/2008 22:13:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
364

,

15/07/2008 22:17:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
365

,

15/07/2008 22:19:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
366

,

15/07/2008 22:27:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
367

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 22:47:24
""real political leadership within the UK is being driven not by Westminster but from Scotland".

That sounds so good - perhaps we should change our
plans for Scottish Independence and do a reverse
takeover of England for their own good :) LOL


Read Guido Fawkes

order-order dot com

More truth about Currans lies.
368

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 22:49:31
THE LIES KEEP COMING:)

This is really stooping low and a sign of the Labour Party's total desperation to hang on to Glasgow East. This picture is taken from Labour's election propaganda (see also here). The by-election candidate Margaret Curran says

Some of the people that I have met out and about over the past 9 years as a local MSP have been absolutely inspirational. Today I met a man who was up there with the very best that the East End has to offer.

Mr McGuiness is a 93 year old - who looks not a day past 70, by the way - living in a sheltered housing complex that I went to visit today.

Mr McGuiness fought with the Desert Rats in World War II and was treated in hospital for shrapnel wounds. He also fought in Yugoslavia with the partisans against the German occupation.

He reminded me of all the sacrifices our older generation made so that we can enjoy freedom today. I hope every single voter in the East End uses their hard-fought right to vote on July 24th.

Having met Mr McGuiness today, I am reminded we owe it to people like him to use our democratic right to vote.
What more could you ask for? A smiling endorsement with the candidate from a proud medal holder and old war hero who fought for democracy. Vote Labour!

Mr McGuinness looks in good shape for 93. He looks more like 67. With good reason, he is 67. He was 4 years old when the war ended. The picture above is of the Labour activist John McGuinness who nominated Margaret Curran on her ballot papers. A lifelong Labour activist whom Downing Street got an MBE as a reward.

Did you somehow get a different impression? You don't think that was their deliberate intention?

UPDATE : The picture and the story have been up over a week, yet within minutes of this story being posted the picture was removed and the article has been drastically edited. Too late., they are also deleting the dozens of incoming mocking comments. The story now has no picture and refers to Mr John Hipson. John Hipson
369

Conan the Librarian™,

15/07/2008 23:22:51
413
Kent
I got telt aff by her on the moral high ground post yesterday, for not being able to deduce ladylike patterns of speech in her posts...
370

clan_mackay,

15/07/2008 23:58:43
LIES,LIES,LIEbour


tinyurl.co.uk/nlql
371

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 16/07/2008 00:00:31
clan_mackay,
They were caught before with party members pretending to be non-aligned members of the public who were afraid of the affects of SNP policies on their families.. This was a party political broadcast and there was a little coverage in the media but generally the media overlooked it. It was a major gaff story but it was played down!

The SNP should definately be pumping this one out. I mean they should be showing this to vets, soldiers, families of soldiers etc. I wonder what vet organisations will make of it? I mean this is cynical exploitation of ex-soldiers and their war efforts.

This should sink Labour!
372

Iainbroch,

Moray 16/07/2008 00:01:17
re 409

Spreading your bets or spread - betting? If you taken out a spread bet on Johnstone Press Shares collapsing at only £10 pound a point a bet when the Shares were over £5 a share - see yesterdays price at only 33p a share - now that is what I call a bet. Making money from the demise of a leein Unionist rag bag of a company! GLOAT!
373

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 16/07/2008 00:02:18
Hi Conan, you've only got to see the tone of the unionist letters over the last few days to know that they are sweating.

374

Conan the Librarian™,

16/07/2008 00:21:44
419
Good Morning ochone.

And some of them are getting civil in their posts:-D
375

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 16/07/2008 05:20:02
-- becuase of Norway's higher taxes and lower government expenditure

?

I think you meant higher government expenditure. This money is spent on schools, technical colleges, universities, roads, bridges, tunnels, harbours, piers, ferries, hydroschemes and electrical distribution etc. It is mostly spent in Norway, from our latitudes to beyond the arctic circle, employing Norwegians at useful jobs.

Whereas the UK spends your tax money on consultants fees, "studies", PR, advertising, interest paid to the privately owned Bank of England etc before you see any results of it. You pay 3 X the cost of new schools and hospitals by a cunning PPP financial stunt. If fact any organisation that sends a very large brown envelope to the Labour party, ditto the Tories will first call on your tax contributions so long as it's not based in Scotland.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.