The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[starchief]

When the cartoons were produced, supermarkets in Egypt were proudly announcing they had no Danish products. Can't even remember why, but they later did the same thing with the Netherlands.  Belgium has also had a number of Islamic terrorist plots foiled. Islamic fundamentalists have attempted to bomb any country they can, connected or not, from China to South America, Russia to Africa, Pakistan and India, even Scotland and Canada.  If Scotland had been the source of the cartoons, my hope is that we would stand up for free speech, not worry about offending fundamentalists (illegal wars is an easier question).

 

A sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie is not what I hope for either Scotland or the UK, neither warmongers either.

[Oddquine]

 

Denmark......which also doesn't irritate the crap out of Muslim countries.

 

Oh aye? So wot about this then?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20&noredirect=1

 

and this....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/80-arrested-anti-islam-protest-denmark-172249372.html

 

And loads more.

 

Sounds like you've had another "Ireland and Iceland Arc of Prosperity" moment!

 

But DENMARK does not irritate the crap out of Muslim countries....though  individuals within Denmark manage to irritate the crap out of some Muslims. Have to say if there are loads more, you are lazy beyond belief to just stick to links about  Denmark...I do hope you are not being economical with the truth......because I can't be @rsed to check.... I didn't make the post so why should I....that's your job....you made the post!

 

Are you a Daily Mail columnist that you can equate the state terrorism we have either directly inflicted on populations (like Afghanistan and Iraq.not to mention all our now free and independent colonies) or simply condoned (like the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel)... and laugh off our actions off by citing relatively few  Muslims in foreign countries who protest as best they can because they object to those actions?  So who do you blame for the "terrorism" in London during the violent "we are really hacked off with our government's policies"  riots...or the face-offs between the two sides of the divide during the really stupid Marching season in Scotland and NI..or the violent pro and anti-fascist altercations on the streets of the UK, for example?  

 

Can you tell me, honestly, the last time Muslim terrorism was as much a problem in the West as it has now become? (Without picking up the UK equivalent of the Israeli Government Hasbara document containing instructions as how to respond to criticism (of which I have a copy ..the Israel jobbie not the UK one....though there likely isn't a lot of difference as to tone, tbh.))

 

Why would any Government with Intelligence or any ordinary punter with commonsense, think you won't spread terrorism by offering them a ready-made excuse to view us as enemies, .as we have spent ten tears or so  drastically hacking off a whole religion,  and a fair few nations....because we wander in and kill thousands of them for access to oil,the sale of armaments and the profits to be made from sorting out the mess our bombs have inflicted on the country?

 

And you know something.....the animosity to Muslims in the West is a direct result of their reaction to us going in and shooting and bombing the sh1t out of them.(plus our 60 odd years of letting Israel trash the Palestinians with impunity.)  As Lance-Corporal  Jones said..."they don't like it up 'em"........but let's be honest.....would we?  In the same circumstances....would we not kick back where and when we could   as retaliation to invasion and perceived injustices .Would an invasion of the UK not make terrorists of a lot of us?

 

We are reaping what we have been sowing since WWII.....but unfortunately, we are also inflicting the consequences of our actions, as we clutch the coat-tails of the USA, on Western countries which were less gung-ho than us...simply because they are Western and are tarred with our brush.

 

So, to answer your question, if it was a questiion,  despite it being couched in a sneer....Scotland, as long as we have twonks in the population, .and also have media twonks who will not acknowledge our responsibility for the Muslim terrorism which has blighted the Western world in the last few years and keep on blaming them for our faults.......will never be free of terrorism.....just as no country ever will be again.......but we won't get it at the same levels as the US and the UK did on 9/11 and 7/7...because we won't be kicking Muslim.....or any other  @rses for what we can get out of it to enrich ourselves.

 

Or do you still really think that the UK is as important in the world scheme of things as our politicians think....as they force us to pay to maintain their illusion of grandeur via Trident based in Scotland?.

[Yngwie]

David Milliband is trying

 

I think you might have opted for the wrong brother there! Don't worry about it, easily done, the Labour party membership made the same mistake.....

[Sneckboy]

I see Michael Moore has been ousted as Scottish Secretary in David Cameron's reshuffle. He's been replaced by Orkney & Shetland MP Alistair Carmichael (LibDem).

 

What a year ahead he's got! I'd imagine Moore won't be too displeased to be out of the front-line as he maybe isn't the best candidate to defend Scotland remaining in the Union. I say that with reference to the recent debate between Moore and Nicola Sturgeon on STV. A points 'win' for the SNP deputy! Although I didn't think she was quite so convincing against the Labour MP (forgotten his name) more recently.

 

David Cameron appears to be ducking out of a head-to-head with Alex Salmond, in favour of putting up his Scottish Secretary to do the deed instead. I'd imagine Salmond would have relished taking on Moore. However, there's a new man in place now - I confess to knowing nothing about him...but he's in for a baptism of fire!

[+DoofersDad]

 

David Milliband is trying

 

I think you might have opted for the wrong brother there! Don't worry about it, easily done, the Labour party membership made the same mistake.....

 

[Oddquine]

I see Michael Moore has been ousted as Scottish Secretary in David Cameron's reshuffle. He's been replaced by Orkney & Shetland MP Alistair Carmichael (LibDem).

 

What a year ahead he's got! I'd imagine Moore won't be too displeased to be out of the front-line as he maybe isn't the best candidate to defend Scotland remaining in the Union. I say that with reference to the recent debate between Moore and Nicola Sturgeon on STV. A points 'win' for the SNP deputy! Although I didn't think she was quite so convincing against the Labour MP (forgotten his name) more recently.

 

David Cameron appears to be ducking out of a head-to-head with Alex Salmond, in favour of putting up his Scottish Secretary to do the deed instead. I'd imagine Salmond would have relished taking on Moore. However, there's a new man in place now - I confess to knowing nothing about him...but he's in for a baptism of fire!

He's the one who is on record as having said that the position of Scottish Secretary should be abolished and one combined entity set up for Scotland, NI and Wales.

 

The reason Nicola Sturgeon wasn't so convincing against the Labour MP was because she never got to finish a reply without him interrupting her and talking over her....it was a crass display of rudeness by him..aided and abetted by a biased "referee" who obviously couldn't control a kindergarten class..or a football match!

 

Michael Moore, on the other hand, was fair enough to let her get her replies out...and I'd bet that's why he is now out.......because he isn't the type to use childish tactics to interrupt the other person being interviewed...in other words.he isn't nasty and abrasive enough!   It can't be because he isn't on Unionist message.......heck he didn't even stick up for Scotland in the UK Parliament when Scotland was being called a subsidy junkie by a Tory MP...but then the Scottish Secretary has never been Scotland's man in Westminster..but Westminster's man in Scotland.......and Moore is just too polite..he can regurgitate what he is fed as the accepted message....but seems hard pushed to be obnoxious on the hoof..like most of the rest manage.

 

I have a feeling that Carmichael will more than live up to the UK Government's expectations..

Edited October 8, 2013 by Oddquine

[+DoofersDad]

That's true enough but I sense another reason here.  We all know that there are going to be precious few Tory voters who are going yo vote "Yes" but a good number of Lib Dem voters will be in the undecided camp.  If one of their own is the Scottish Secretary getting a large amount of media coverage in promoting the Government's position of maintaining the union, then those undecided voters will be more inclinded to vote "No".  I suspect undecided Labour voters will also be more receptive to the "in your face" Carmichael than with the frightfully nice and loyal Mr Moore.

 

It also means Cameron can blame the Lib Dems if Scotland votes "yes".

[Oddquine]

That's true enough but I sense another reason here.  We all know that there are going to be precious few Tory voters who are going yo vote "Yes" but a good number of Lib Dem voters will be in the undecided camp.  If one of their own is the Scottish Secretary getting a large amount of media coverage in promoting the Government's position of maintaining the union, then those undecided voters will be more inclinded to vote "No".  I suspect undecided Labour voters will also be more receptive to the "in your face" Carmichael than with the frightfully nice and loyal Mr Moore.

 

It also means Cameron can blame the Lib Dems if Scotland votes "yes".

 

Can't disagree with that.....Cameron is desperate not to have, as his eternal legacy for posterity,  the fact that he was the PM who presided over the dissolution of the Treaty of Union so is setting up the non-Tory patsies to blame, just in case. They think we will forget they were the majority in the Coalition, and most of the policies enacted were theirs....but they should bear in mind that the Scots have long memories! 

 

Maybe, due to the LibDem influence the policies enacted were not as harsh as the Tories would have preferred.......but in the end, if not for the LibDems....how much more harsh would have been the Bedroom Tax, the alterations to Welfare benefits etc........given what we read about the Tory intentions if they get a majority next time? 

 

For sure, the association with the Tories in an administration which has not accomplished their trumpeted reduction in National Debt......and has trashed the most vulnerable to not achieve their targets.......and will,.for the Lib-Dems, not improve their electoral prospects one iota UK wide.....particularly given they are the one party which has never wavered for decades over promoting the Home Rule issue for all countries in the UK...so given their long time stance......and given a LibDem Secretary of State for Scotland........how come Devo-max isn't in the Referendum  choices if they had any real influence and input?

 

If the vote is for Independence...come 2016, I would, more than likely, have voted for the LibDems.because I am mostly centre/slightly left in my politics with centre/slightly right aberrations on specific subjects.....but frankly.....the LibDems subsuming of nearly all their principles for a taste of power...has kinda put me off that option.

[Oddquine]

Was going to comment on the  lack of intelligence of Philip Hammond......who is, today, the latest UK Government brain-dead nincompoop to insult Scotland and the Scots........but thiought Derek Bateman said it with a lot fewer swearie words than I would have,,,,,..so

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8157-london-calling

 

But I will quote  one part of his article which contains at the end, a  question which has always puzzled me, when I read all the lies, scaremongering and insults levelled at  the Scots by Unionists, including Scottish Unionists, for, it appears having the temerity to question the status quo.

 

The gist of the Hammond pre-meditated humiliation of the Scots appears to be that London will retain the ancient Scottish regiments or what is left of them since they were decimated by Unionist governments and they will not fight for the Scots in future (and, under challenge, suddenly changed his mind!)...We won't have enough money to pay for decent armed forces and we are such a basket case of a country that our own people won't want to defend it. 

We are also such a backwater, it seems, with nothing worth defending, that no potential conscripts would bother to take part in a Dad's Army and would prefer to join up to fight for Glorious Albion.

And this comes from our own government...from the people presenting a positive case for Union...from people who desperately want Scots to stay in Union...from the leadership who regard us as a family of nations united in the greatest union in the history of civilisation.

I know it's propaganda and I know its purpose just as you do...to make people feel they are exposed, insignificant, dependent and unworthy so they will be grateful to a generous overlord and know their place – firmly embedded in union. (Seems to be working).

But my question is: Where is the Unionist reaction from proud Scots to this scornful, inaccurate drivel?

Edited October 9, 2013 by Oddquine

[Oddquine]

The latest addition to Project Fear inane pronouncements.......http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/29/independent-scotland-security-theresa-may-intelligence

 

Scotland is going to be inundated with terrorists because we won't have access to anybody else in the world's intelligence services and are too poor and  stupid to upgrade our own anti-terrorist unit to cope.  I really wonder what those in England will think, when terrorists hurtle over the border to bomb English institutions, about the foot-stamping and pouting of the current UK  leaders which would have made that scenario possible?

 

I can't help wondering how we, as,an independent, peaceful country, without delusions of world importance,, without a military attack, as opposed to defence, force, without nuclear weapons and without an almost irrational compulsion to attach itself to the coat-tails of the USA as they have a go at killing innocent citizens of other countries for the benefit of US companies' profits, would be more in danger than a rUK which has reduced the border agencies to nearly a token level .and due  to the UK incursions into other countries,  make more home grown terrorists than the foreign ones we ever manage to remove in the "war on Terrorism".  Heck, given that we have, thanks to the UK cut backs, practically nothing to stop even a strong swimmer with a bomb wrapped in a waterproof jacket landing anywhere on Britain's  thousands of miles of coast....far less anything to stop Russian ships from parking offshore to empty their toilets,...we may even get better air/sea rescue and sea defence facilities when we don't have to rely on the UK to let us have them.

 

[Oddquine]

Any Better Together supporter care to interpret Blair McDougall, director of “Better Together”s remark at Dundee Uni on 30th October to make it sound less of a threat?

 

His words......" UK ministers are not going to fall into the trap of acting against Scotland until Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom"  followed by "“It’s a trap that they’re very wise not to fall into.”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgROXHjGFo0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUAi1q4QL2HZ2hErZwrziNQg  (not original link but the same with better sound)

 

So what exactly does that mean?   Given I read what is said as meaning what is said (because I'm reasonably good at most aspects of English...bar understanding sarcasm/irony and the like without an appropriate smilie (but could wish I was better at précis), I take it to mean that if we vote for Independence (how I interpret until) the rUk is going to do pouting, foot-stamping, huffing re negotiations and generally being so bliddy  difficult that we will probably have to resort to International Law in order to adjudicate and impose rules to become precedent for all other countries in the same situation  ,...but if that is what he means.....the rUK, in current economic circumstances, will frankly be cutting off the rUK nose to spite the Scottish face.

 

I have read different interpretations, which I don't quite understand, from that quote......such as .scrapping the Barnett formula (which doesn't chime with the until re leaving the UK, but until re staying in it, because there would be no Barnett formula with Independence, though).......then we have the opinions which interpret that quote as saying that the UK will clip Scotland's wings by ensuring we are never in a position to have another referendum etc (and again that doesn't chime with the quote)..... but happy to listen to Unionist interpretation of the quote....and interested to understand if they perceive it as a threat or not....and if they don't.........., just how do they interpret it?

 

 

 

 

[+DoofersDad]

I'm not in the "Better Together" camp - or any other for that matter - but the way I see it is that whilst Scotland remains within the Union the UK Government will be looking after Scotland's interests as a part of the Union and if Scotland votes "yes", then it will no longer be the Westminster Government's responsibilty.  All McDougall is saying is that in the event of a "yes" vote then the Westminster Government will not act in the interests of the Scottish people unless those interests coincide with its own. 

 

Why would anyone expect anything different?  That's not a threat - it's simply the way international politics work.  A Government's prime responsibilities are to its own people, not those of a neighbouring state.

[Oddquine]

I'm not in the "Better Together" camp - or any other for that matter - but the way I see it is that whilst Scotland remains within the Union the UK Government will be looking after Scotland's interests as a part of the Union and if Scotland votes "yes", then it will no longer be the Westminster Government's responsibilty.  All McDougall is saying is that in the event of a "yes" vote then the Westminster Government will not act in the interests of the Scottish people unless those interests coincide with its own. 

 

Why would anyone expect anything different?  That's not a threat - it's simply the way international politics work.  A Government's prime responsibilities are to its own people, not those of a neighbouring state.

Maybe I'm weird.......but I think that there is a big difference in tone and emphasis between not acting for/on behalf of Scotland (or, as you put it, "looking after Scotland's interests") if it chooses independence ....which was something to be expected......and part of the reason for the campaign, tbh, given the interests of Scotland are not always the same as those of the UK....and McDougall saying : fall into the trap of acting against Scotland until Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom. 

 

Think about it!

[Yngwie]

I'd never heard of this guy - but I see he's not part of the Westminster government, never has been, never will be, so whatever he means or even threatens, he has no influence over, so I wouldn't lose any sleep!

[+DoofersDad]

 

I'm not in the "Better Together" camp - or any other for that matter - but the way I see it is that whilst Scotland remains within the Union the UK Government will be looking after Scotland's interests as a part of the Union and if Scotland votes "yes", then it will no longer be the Westminster Government's responsibilty.  All McDougall is saying is that in the event of a "yes" vote then the Westminster Government will not act in the interests of the Scottish people unless those interests coincide with its own. 

 

Why would anyone expect anything different?  That's not a threat - it's simply the way international politics work.  A Government's prime responsibilities are to its own people, not those of a neighbouring state.

Maybe I'm weird.......but I think that there is a big difference in tone and emphasis between not acting for/on behalf of Scotland (or, as you put it, "looking after Scotland's interests") if it chooses independence ....which was something to be expected......and part of the reason for the campaign, tbh, given the interests of Scotland are not always the same as those of the UK....and McDougall saying : fall into the trap of acting against Scotland until Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom. 

 

Think about it!

 

 

I have thought about it.  He is saying that after independence you can expect the Westminster Government to act against Scotland.  By that he simply means that they would be competing against Scotland for investment etc. and presumably that will include taking a hard line in any post referendum negotiations.  That is to be expected.  Some Westminster politicians may be tempted "act against Scotland" now in favour the rest of the UK over Scotland in terms of funding rounds as a sort of punishment for daring to even think about independence.  That is the trap McDougall warns about.  To do that would only antagonise the Scottish voters and make a "Yes" vote more likely. 

 

Nothing sinister here.  Just harsh political reality and certainly nothing that should bother folk who think Scotland will be better off as an independent nation.

[Laurence]

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

[Kingsmills]

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

 

A year to go and many twists and turns yet despite the disingenuous doom momgers.

 

There indeed be a bit of a furore but the future of the SNP is assured. 

[PullMyFinger]

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

 

Are you confusing SNP with Royal Mail?

 

 

 

 

1. Pullmyfinger asked "Who has hinted it is anti-Scottish to support the UK?"

2. I gave him an answer, that it was one of Salmond's officials.

3. He then understandably asked me to post a link to a verifiable a source.

4. So I did.

 

End of.

 

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No, you didn't

[PullMyFinger]

From January archives.

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4072-defying-democratic-will-of-scots-is-anti-scottish-says-joan-mcalpine

[The Mantis]

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

You really need to get out more Laurence. Is it only London-based newspapers you read?

Never heard of a debate being dead in the water before though, thanks for that nugget!

[PullMyFinger]

For people who refuse to subscribe when they hit paywalls I found this little instruction tonight. Excellent 

 

Go to http://archive.is, put link into bottom box to see if someone has already done the link, if not insert link in top box and it will change to a new link that gives you full article.

 

Also, putting in the domain name in the top box will open up a drop down box with a shedload of links too!

[IBM]

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

[Alex MacLeod]

Tis actually illegal to park on a pavement. Also p!sses me off but if you want to do it and I want to walk by pushing a pram. I will not move onto the road. Instead I'll squeeze past and if the pram leaves scratch marks then oops!!

 

 

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

Hope your business isn't too badly affected when the privatised Royal mail put the prices up Laurence. After all they'll need to make 5% of turnover into profit to satisfy their shareholders. Just like the utility companies do.

[+Tree]

Tis actually illegal to park on a pavement. Also p!sses me off but if you want to do it and I want to walk by pushing a pram. I will not move onto the road. Instead I'll squeeze past and if the pram leaves scratch marks then oops!!

 

 

I don't know why this debate rambles on

 

The Independence debate is dead in the water

 

And I suspect so are the prospects for the furore of the SNP

Hope your business isn't too badly affected when the privatised Royal mail put the prices up Laurence. After all they'll need to make 5% of turnover into profit to satisfy their shareholders. Just like the utility companies do.

 

That'll be the same "evil" profit which pays for pensions (which rely on share dividend and transaction) and of course are taxed also (at least in theory ).

[IBM]

Tis actually illegal to park on a pavement. Also p!sses me off but if you want to do it and I want to walk by pushing a pram. I will not move onto the road. Instead I'll squeeze past and if the pram leaves scratch marks then oops!! 

Its not my car, I don't park on pavements either, I spotted it in Invergordon.