| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| October1974 |
Allan Massie has a change of hearthttp://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3101923.ecean article in today's Independent Allan Massie: I was wrong, Salmond was right - this is a more contented country Published: 27 October 2007 Some of us who opposed devolution 10 years ago are feeling a bit foolish today, and should have the grace to admit it. The Scottish Parliament hasn't of course delivered all that its advocates promised, but it hasn't been the disaster we feared either. Scotland may not have been been transformed into a land flowing with milk and honey, but it's a more contented place than it was and we seem a people more at ease with ourselves. We have a SNP minority government and the roof hasn't fallen in. Instead, Alex Salmond is proving himself a First Minister we can admire. Few of our social and economic problems have been solved, but that could be said of most countries in the Western world. Some of the old defensiveness is disappearing. We may not class banks among our favourite institutions, but the sight of the Royal Bank of Scotland mounting from its Edinburgh headquarters the biggest takeover in banking history was invigorating. A quarter of a century ago a rearguard action was necessary to prevent that bank from being swallowed up by the Standard Chartered or taken over by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank; now here it is displaying the acquisitive aggression that characterised 19th-century Scottish capitalism. Scottish culture is confident and outward looking. Even our national football team is doing well, after years of being a matter for lugubrious comedy rather than pride. If our rugby XV didn't set the World Cup alight, it maintained our record of never failing to reach the quarter-final and did better than the Welsh and Irish. Indeed, we are seemingly so relaxed about ourselves that we were even able to applaud England's heroic recovery in the tournament – something inconceivable a few years back. Attitudes have changed since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999. Previously, many Scots resented England, while the English were generally indifferent to Scotland. Now the resentment is simmering south of the border. Devolution, it seems, suits us well enough, while raising hackles within the M25. Nothing will persuade the English that the Scottish Parliament doesn't indulge in high public spending at their expense. It is true that Holyrood's budget has doubled since 1999, but the greater part of it goes on health and education, and UK spending on these things has also risen sharply. Recent figures suggest that revenue raised in Scotland and public expenditure here are more or less in balance – and this is without taking into account North Sea oil revenues. The areas of the UK heavily dependent on the south-east of England are Northern Ireland, Wales, and the north-east and north-west of England; not Scotland. In these matters, however, perception weighs more heavily than fact, and the English perception is that Scotland flourishes at their expense. No wonder resentment festers, especially when the Prime Minister is a Scot and the man in charge of the money is another one, Alistair Darling. Of course the Scottish Government tries to extract as much from the Treasury as it can, just as every government department and local authority does. Scottish demands may infuriate the English, all the more so because of the Scottish predominance in the British Government. The day may come when England says "no". Perhaps a Tory government would do so. What then? The Scottish National Party has its answer ready: a fair share of the oil revenues and full fiscal autonomy – that is to say, money spent in Scotland to be raised in Scotland. The prospect alarms many Scots, but a diminishing number of us. Some of younger Scottish Tories rather like the idea, though it frightens the Labour Party. Is Scotland heading for independence or, if you prefer, the UK for partition? It's too early to say. There's been a strange development north of the border. Support for independence used to run ahead of support for the SNP. This position, too, has been reversed. Opinion polls now show more support for the SNP than for the party's goal of independence. People are happy with devolution – although perhaps with more powers for Holyrood. Granting Holyrood full fiscal autonomy might be good for Scotland; and it would be good for England because it would remove one of their grievances. But another, unquestionably legitimate, grievance would remain. The Labour Government enacted devolution for Scotland (and for Wales and Northern Ireland) without any consideration being given to its consequences for England and, in particular, for the House of Commons. The West Lothian Question, which allows Scottish MPs to vote on English measures relating to matters for which Westminster has ceded responsibility in Scotland to the Scottish parliament, was blithely ignored. Yet the present situation is manifestly unfair to the English; it is wrong that Scots MPs should have a say in legislation concerning the NHS and schools in English, while English ones are debarred from any involvement in these matters in Scotland. Britain has been transformed by constitutional change. It need not lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. That may of course come about. Scotland may opt for independence. England may decide it would prefer that the Scots go their own way. But with good will and good sense, a looser Union may be preserved, one which might satisfy us all by removing English grievances and allowing or, if you like, compelling Scotland to take responsibility for raising its own revenue to fund its |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| garye |
I don't think I've seen a week where the English press have given as much attention to the growing grievances in England relating to so called Scottish "priviledges". If you take this article advicating Fiscal Autonomy and others combined with "English votes for English laws" rhetoric then it's easy to see that the Union is over, it's only a matter of time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Eh? I'm afraid I don't see it. England has a very justifiable complaint and our constitution is an absolute mess. It needs reformed. When this happens, people complain. It's actually not far from the present situation with the EU: it needs reforming, yet nobody is quite sure how it should be brought about. It's hardly dying on its feet, however. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
Re: Allan Massie has a change of heart
No, it hasn't been the disaster you said it would be in an attempt to scare people out of voting for it.
Told you so.
Well, there's a surprise...
Told you so.
Independence, maybe...
Told you so.
You know all about, don't you?
Independence, actually.
No, it doesn't.
No, it hasn't. Support for independence, as opposed to the staus quo is around 55%.
Never going to happen while Scotland remains in the UK.
That's because it had nothing to do with a genuine desire to improve the government of Scotland and everything to do with appeasing the nationalists and preserving the integrity of the UK. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I see he's still perpetuating the myth that the S.E. of England somehow subsidises other regions when the reality is that the S.E. is the most heavily subsidised part of the UK. It sucks vast amounts of wealth out of the rest of the state and distorts the entire economy. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
I was watching BBC News 24 today (there was nothing else on!) and they were interviewing Alex Salmond from the conference in Aviemore. The first question the interviewer asked him was along the lines of "how does it feel to lead a country that is being subsidised by England?"
And I thought the BBC were supposed to take a neutral standpoint regarding the news 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
No, the BBC are supposed to ask politicians awkward questions. It's how Jeremy Paxman justifies his seven-figure paycheque. There seems to be a great deal of people in the Nationalist movement who think Salmond walks on water and that any criticism or questioning of Our Almighty Liberators is tantamount to treason. It's deeply disturbing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I enjoyed Salmond's interview on the Andrew Marr show on BBC1 yesterday morning. He ended by saying something like "there are many who seem to believe that England couldn't survive economically without Scotland but I'm sure England will prosper as an independent country". There was a wee twinkle in his eye as he said it, but it went unchallenged by A. Marr. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Yeah, I seen that too. Pretty sure Marr had a little snigger at it before carrying on. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Yes that is right, the BBC are supposed to ask awkward questions. But those awkward questions are supposed to be based on factual information and not pure fiction. Secondly, I don't see Salmond as the Messiah. In the end all politicians will use power to push their own objectives. Power should be devolved to the people and into communities. But, he is the best electable person that Scotland has at the moment to stand up for its rights. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Scotland doesn't have rights. Scotland is an abstract political concept and convention. Only people have rights. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
Meaningless psuedo twaddle. A failed attempt at demonstrating a superiority of one poster over another. Completely fails to address the point made by the Reluctant Hero, instead attempts to belittle this poster. Result: Point made by Reluctant Hero not addressed or even challenged, reason unknown. However a degree of pomposity is evident in Mancuso's post. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
That's a bit harsh! I made no attempt to belittle anyone. I merely pointed out that, as Scotland has no existence beyond the conceptual, it cannot logically have rights.
Maybe that doesn't make much sense to you George, but if you have trouble following what I say then either ask me or ignore it. Otherwise it appears that you're just having a go because you know I don't share your political convictions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
George will say anything in other to be as offensive as possible. I just ignore him - he's not got an original idea in his head and his understanding of those of others is extremely sub-par.
It's a fair point, the idea of something like Scotland having rights is ridiculous. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Isn't he the one who used to think that all non-nationalists must be the same person because they disagreed with him? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
It reads to me like you were being deliberately obtuse. You know that RH refers to the people of Scotland. You might disagree with his reasoning for grouping those people together, but those people do exist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Not obtuse, critical. Nationalism is a house built on sand; one of its many inherent structural weaknesses is the reliance on sleight-of-hand anthropomorphism of the kind implied in 'Scotland's rights'. I repeat; abstract concepts do not have rights. Furthermore, despite the frequency with which such slack logic is employed, groupings of people do not in any meaningful sense have rights either. Only individuals have rights; the possession of rights is a by definition a function of human individuality. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
No it's accurate, you made a failed attempt. You and Aventinian still haven't addressed the man's point. I rarely reply to anything you two say anymore, the debate has long since moved on, but I have made an exception due to your pomposity.
I am under your skin my good friend, the annoying thing for you is we both know it ..........and completely witless as you are, you have no defence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I'm not sure what you base that on. Care to enlighten us?
His main point was perfectly sensible, and required no comment. His secondary point was much more questionable, because it was based on a demonstrably false premise. So I questioned it. If you have anything to add to my comment, or have any objection to it, please feel free to state it. Assuming you even understand what I'm talking about, and are capable of following the discussion.
I've been called worse things than 'pompous' for daring to challenge nationalist assumptions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well, here you seem to be acusing RH of some sort of deliberate deception via 'sleight-of-hand' rather than simply using an expression that is commonly used in reference to the 'people' of Scotland. Maybe that is how you read it though.
Ok, individuals have rights, if every individual in a group has the same right, I think it is perfectly adequate to suggest that that group of individuals collectively have rights. If someone leaves the group, then they no longer have those rights. However interesting that argument is, perhaps you should start a new thread on the subject of anthropomorphism and the influence it has in the debate over Scottish independence. Back on topic, do you have anything to say regarding RH's actual point? RH said "But, he is the best electable person that Scotland has at the moment to stand up for its rights." To translate, in case you are still slightly confused... "Do you disagree that Salmond is the best electable person that the individuals of Scotland, as a collective, at the moment, have to stand up for their individual rights?" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
While, as usual, we are all very much stung by your rapier wit, but I feel a little bit of perspective is necessary here. You are, fundamentally, a miserable and rather unpleasant crank on an internet forum. You're certainly not the first and you definitely won't be the last; and thousands have played the grouch character better than yourself. While I firmly believe bitterness its its own punishment, as a reasonably good-natured and genial sort of chap I wouldn't ever bring myself to wish ill on you. These attributes in a person are truly to be more pitied than scorned, to my mind. Like I've said, I do basically ignore you now. I remember the days when you actually made sensible attempts at debate and you were fairly poor at it. As such, there's not really a lot more to be said.
Oh, I was under the illusion that I was considered the pompous one here. My coronet has been usurped! Polis! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
My answer to that would be an undoubted no. He's as bad as Labour and worse than every other political leader at that. Fundamentally, Salmond is a populist and he would usurp nearly any right from any person if it suited his popularity ratings and worked towards his lifelong "independence" fetish. That sort of person is absolutely no good for standing up for anybody's rights. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No, I doubt very much that RH is attempting to deceive anyone. The expression may be commonly used, but it is used in error.
I don't think so. The possession of rights is a function of membership of the human group; if you leave that group, you have no rights.
I already have. I think "I don't see Salmond as the Messiah. In the end all politicians will use power to push their own objectives. Power should be devolved to the people and into communities" is a perfectly sensible point.
In no way.
No. He's an astute populist, no more, no less. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
No my friend, it is just you alone...........unless of course............no, let's not go there. Anyway, you again fail to appreciate that rapier wit isn't required to sting you, merely a sensible and honest riposte. As far as the rest of your comment is concerned I'm not too bothered by your opinion.
Feel free, I wasn't kidding when I said that I generally ignore you two. Oh, as far as the question of who is the best political leader to stand up for Scotland or it's people is concerned then it is a no brainer........Salmond, unless of course you are unable to use reason. Feel free to make a case for the alternatives if you can, now that would be worth reading. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I am rendered practically speechless. Aventinian undoubtedly does not disagree that Salmond is the best electable person, etc. This is an historic moment at Our-Scotland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Bugger. You're quite right. I'm sure I can trust the Our Scotlanders to make the suitable mental amendment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Whilst most people would have realised when I said, "But, he is the best electable person that Scotland has at the moment to stand up for its rights", that I meant he is the best person to stand up for the rights of the majority of people in Scotland, fair play to Agent.
Society (or should that be people Agent?) is being dumbed down so much these days and perhaps my comment was just another example of it. Therefore Agent’s comment “despite the frequency with which such slack logic is employed,”is perhaps valid. However he seems to have employed slack logic himself by associating me with the Nationalist movement. My support for an independent Scotland stems from my believe that power should be devolved as far as possible. So, for Scotland to become and independent nation, that would be the first stepping stone. Does that make me a nationalist? I don’t think so, because I would like to see it go further than that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Standing up for the rights of certain groups, the majority included, instead of the rights of all debases the entire concept. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Wouldn't you have been better replacing 'rights' with 'interests' or 'best interests'? I agree with Avt & AgentM that Scotland doesn't have 'rights' as such, but it does have interests which Salmond - in his role as First Minister - should be pursuing or defending. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Aye, that would have probably been better! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I don't believe that this (or any other) majority has any particular rights. Rights belong to everyone, by definition. If it belongs to a subset (group, tribe, majority whatever) it is a privilege, not a right.
Possibly, yes 
If you could convince me that an independent Scotland would devolve a significant degree of power downwards then I'd be much more sympathetic to the idea. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Rights belong to everyone? I'm sure we've all seen a few police dramas from the United States. I'm sure we all know that everyone in the United States has certain rights under their constitution. Did you know those rights only belong to citizens of the United States? If you, as a foreign national, were suspected of a crime in the United States you would have no right to legal counsel, or protection from unwarranted search or any of the other protections of the US constitution, even though you were on US territory. Rights are not as universal as you may think. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Those are privileges dependent on US citizenship, not rights. No matter what TJ Hooker says. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Rubbish. There are, of course, some rights expressly limited to US citizens, but save for those qualifications the document applies to everyone within US jurisdiction. Of course, you're likely one of those people who believe the UN Charter gives Scotland some sort of right to secede from the UK...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Care to back that up, Aventinian? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
So is there such a thing, IYO, as rights? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
There have been literally countless celebrated cases involving resident aliens (as I believe they call them) in the United States - whether there legally or otherwise. How about the enormously famous Plyler v. Doe [457 US 202]? "the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory." So there. An example rather shooting down your theory. Nice doing business with you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, we all have rights - both of action and recipience - by virtue of being human. Normally, the possession of a right is correspondent with an obligation of duty. For example: I have a right to life, correspondent with your duty not to kill me. Rights, strictly speaking are moral or natural rights; often these can be coded into a legal framework, and become legal rights, but the two categories don't necessarily overlap. 'Legal rights' are a privilege conferred by state, enshrining legal observation of a moral right, and specifying legal punishment for infringement of the moral right. (To be fair to Holebender, the 'rights' he refers to above are 'legal rights', which is a perfectly acceptable usage.) Seen in this light, 'Scotland' cannot have any rights, as it is a conceptualisation. Nor can 'Scotland's people' have any rights qua 'Scotland's people'. Either we have the rights by virtue of our humanity, or we don't have them at all, making the 'Scotland' bit redundant. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
So you believe that there are 'natural' rights and 'moral' rights that extend across all humanity - beyond those that particular societies choose to respect? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well we shall have to disagree on that one. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You mean our rights are determined by the state or society we live in? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
What I mean is that I think we as individuals choose what rights we afford others. Most people might share a common opinion on what constitutes someone's human rights, but it is only in a society, and more formally, by a state, that these rights become truly apparent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Does a person's right to life become any less apparent if a state or society decides to take it away from them? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
I believe that someone's right to life is fundamental. Others don't. Is my belief the truth? Surely it is only those rights that we - in our state/society - come to some consensus on and act on, that actually mean anything real. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes.
I agree that it is a good thing that legal rights be created to mirror and force respect for moral rights. But I do not accept that a moral right ceases to exist because the state or society decides to ignore it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Sure, but what I am trying to say is that moral right it based on a personal morality not something that is common to all. It is clear that there are many people do not believe in the right to life for example. I don't think any of us is able to say that our particularly morality is the correct one as fact. And in practice, no matter whether the rights advocated by the society you live in mirror your own, of greater importance are those rights we agree as a community to share. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, that is clear. But our moral right to life remains valid no matter how many people disbelieve it.
We can establish certain basic principles though.
True. But unless we have established the basic principles of moral law, we are in no position to begin formalising them into a shared code i.e. legal framework. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Why?
Aye, but the process of establishing the 'basic principles of moral law' is involves coming to some consensus within a community. It's not about finding an underlying truth, but finding a common understanding in that particular community. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It's one of the things that separates us from the animals.
I disagree. The truth, being the truth, is ineffable. But we can, and must, attempt to approximate it as much as possible. The truth remains the truth, no matter how many or few people believe it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Perhaps there is less that separates us from the animals than we'd like to believe.
Well, I'm not so sure there is a truth to be found in the first place and I have no idea whether what I think that truth could/should be, is in fact the case. I'm not sure it helps matters to look at things on that basis. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, you're right. All the more reason to keep an eye on the things that do.
I agree that it can't be found as such; I was being quite literal when I said it was ineffable. But we can certainly approximate it. I think it is our duty to do so as much as possible.
What choice do we have? The only alternative is surrender to moral relativism, which is despotism and the triumph of the strongest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
You can proclaim all the moral rights you like but if they're not backed by the legal system they are unenforceable. Only legal rights have any value are they are they only ones we can actually have any hope of enjoying.
And as different states have different laws there is really no such thing as a meaningful universal human right. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'm rather sure that getting into the great Positivism vs. Natural Law debate here would be fairly useless, suffice to say that it is far more complex than you put forward. Moreover, all effective states share very similar central laws and a similar understanding of human rights. It is rather telling that only the Soviet Union and its associated states, apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia abstained from a commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course declares civilisation requires a respect for the "inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights" of people. Of course, any state can adopt any law (although at least nominally within the framework of the peremptory norms of international law). However a civilised state does not have that absolute power within the confines of its civilised label. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I see one of Labour's policy analysts, Gerry Hassan, has defected to the cause of independence now, too. Alas, it was in the Sunday Times, so I don't know what he wrote - only the SNP seem to have picked up on it:
http://www.snp.org/press-releases...an2019s-independence-endorsement/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True. But being unenforceable does not make a right any less extant.
I disagree. My right to life would be no less valuable should the state pass a law attempting to deprive me of it.
Rights do not depend on laws. Laws are bureaucratic interpretations of rights. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||