Berwick votes to become Scottish!

Niall · Berwick votes to become Scottish!

In a poll, organised by the local newspaper the 'Berwick Advertiser', 77% of all those who voted said they would like to be governed by Scotland once more.

http://www.berwick-advertiser.co....-Berwick-be-better-off.3702809.jp

Keith Hamblin, deputy editor, said: "I was surprised by the result. I am a Berwick man born and bred and I regard myself very much as English.
"I think, though, that people feel the quality of life is better in Scotland since devolution.

"Also, we are losing our borough council next year. It's being replaced by a new unitary authority, so all our administration wil be run 60 miles away further south. So people feel they're going to be left out even further on the frozen north."

The town already has Scottish loyalties when it comes to football. Its team, Berwick Rangers FC, has played in the Scottish league for years.

It would pay Berwick to return to Scotland. Its perfectly placed to become the economic powerhouse of the borders. The fact that the council is being abolished and Berwick will shortly be ruled by a faceless over centralised unitary council 60 miles further south is actually playing into our hands. All power to the Citizens of Berwick, I hope that before long they are reunited with the rest of Scotland where they should have been all along.

'S mise le meas
Niall.
_________________

iainmhor

Welcome / Failte to Berwick returning to Scotland.

The demand for a recognised and formal referendum on readmission to Scotland of the people of Berwick this side of independence is imo a worthy and correct demand.

Aventinian · Re: Berwick votes to become Scottish!

Dave Coull

The Sunday Post 10th February 2008

SCOTS PLAN TO CAPTURE 20 MILES OF ENGLAND

By Campbell Gunn

A politician has called for the Scottish border to be moved 20 miles south.

Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis says current calls for Berwick to be transferred back to Scotland are not ambitious enough. He wants to see the border moved 20 miles to take in a large area of Northumberland. Mr Purvis claims it could be done quite simply, with two “statutory instruments”, one each at Holyrood and Westminster. One is already going through Westminster as the Government is set to abolish Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council. So a simple order at Holyrood could see a massive land grab by Scotland go ahead. The move comes as a television poll for ITV’s Tonight programme, carried out in Berwick, is expected to show a majority in the town in favour of a shift to Scotland.

“There’s a strong feeling that Berwick should be in Scotland,” said Mr Purvis, who was born in the town. “Until recently, I had a gran in Berwick and another in Kelso, and they could see that there were better public services in Scotland.” Mr Purvis continued, “Berwick as a borough council is going to be abolished and it would then be run from Morpeth, more than 30 miles away. “All that would be required would be two statutory instruments, and one of them is already going through the House of Commons. “So it would only need a statutory instrument at Holyrood and then all that would be required would be an adjustment of the Borders Council area to take in part of England. “Scotland would then go down almost as far as Alnwick, as the Berwick Borough Council area extends 20 miles south into England.”

Mr Purvis claims it isn’t all a dream. “There’s a real debate going on about this and Borders Council want Berwick, as its population is one of the smallest in Scotland.” The result of the ITV poll is expected to be announced in a couple of weeks. But Mr Purvis says simply moving the border to the River Tweed wouldn’t be enough. “The big debate in Scotland shouldn’t be about independence, it should be about Scotland being bigger. Alex Salmond’s ambitions are too low.”

A spokesperson for the First Minister said, “The Scottish Government has no territorial demands on our friends and neighbours in England. “Indeed, we look forward to building a new, 21st Century relationship of equality as two independent nations with the Queen as our common head of state — united kingdoms rather than the United Kingdom. “The future of Berwick is best left to the views of the people who live there.” Baker Graeme Trotter from Seahouses has premises there and in Wooler, both of which could become part of Scotland — which might be appropriate as he is a regular entrant in the World Scotch Pie Championships.

“I was born in Berwick on the north side of the Tweed, so I do feel a little bit Scottish. I also have three shops in Duns, Coldstream and Eyemouth and I know there’s a lot of money being pumped into the Scottish Borders compared to north Northumberland. I think a lot of people in the area might want to be part of Scotland for the financial benefits.”

Andrew Cowan is owner of the 18th Century Ship Inn on Holy Island. “I love Scotland and to be part of Scotland wouldn’t be a problem for me but I might be in a minority on the island. Holy Islanders are proud of their history and for historical and geographical reasons there might be objections to it.”

Dave Coull

IainMohr wrote "Welcome / Failte to Berwick returning to Scotland".

Hmmmmm.............

Just imagine for a minute that you are some sort of UK dirty tricks agent who has been given responsibility for disrupting what is beginning to look like Scotland's unstoppable march to independence. What would you do? Okay, maybe I have a suspicious mind, but I know what I would do if this was my job. I would invent a totally nonsensical "border dispute". The United Nations rules on self-determination state that if a clearly defined people have a clearly defined territory and a significant percentage of them want self-determinationm then they must be permitted a self-determination referendum. But what if there _isn't_ a "clearly defined territory"? What if there is dispute about exactly what the territory is? That would delay matters, wouldn't it? With any luck, it might even delay matters indefinitely.

Iainmohr also wrote "The demand for a recognised and formal referendum on readmission to Scotland of the people of Berwick THIS SIDE OF INDEPENDENCE is imo a worthy and correct demand".

So, Ianmohr, you are in favour of DELAYING independence until the status of Berwick (and all of the rest of the Berwick council territory, extending a full 20 miles into England) has been settled? A big mistake, in my view. Also, let's not forget that the very first person to post on this topic, Niall, is in favour of having a referendum on the European Union BEFORE independence. If we add both of these referendums together, the UK-wide one on Europe, and the one on the status of Berwick, I know when Independence Day will be. The Twelfth of Never.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

So a Liberal Democrat MSP, Jeremy Purvis, is saying “The big debate in Scotland shouldn’t be about independence, it should be about Scotland being bigger. Alex Salmond’s ambitions are too low.” This Lib Dem MSP is in one sense beating an ultra-Nationalist drum, while nevertheless talking about Scotland being bigger within the context of a federal United Kingdom. Now where have I heard that sort of thing before? In federal Yugoslavia. That's where.

We have a border with England. It is long established. While the original port and fortress of Berwick was on the north side of the River Tweed, and while that river, all the way to the sea, might seem like a more "natural" boundary to some, the present day town of Berwick includes bits on both sides of the river, and re-establishing the old boundary would mean cutting the town in half. If you extend Scotland by acquiring the present extent of Berwick Council, as this Lib Dem MSP wants to do, that would mean going 20 miles into England, which is certain to be highly controversial.

The big debate in Scotland SHOULD be about independence. Not about extending the country's boundaries. Independence should come first. An independence referendum should take priority over all other referendums. Anything else is a distraction, and, in some cases, it looks very much like a deliberate distraction.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

Aventinian

William_Cleland

I suspect many people south of the Tweed will find Purvis's proposal difficult to swallow. He's probably motivated by the fact that a Lib Dem stronghold with minimal SNP presence would be introduced into the Borders where the Lib Dem fortunes are in decline right now.

Dave Coull

Aventinian quoted several paragraphs of mine then commented "So, in other words, 'I was wrong'".

Well since you quoted several paragraphs it's not clear exactly which bit it is that you are saying I was wrong about. Are you saying that I was wrong in saying that the big debate in Scotland should be about independence? If so, there would be no surprise in you not _wanting_ the big debate in Scotland to be about independence, but nevertheless there appears to be considerable evidence that is what the big debate in Scotland is about. What I'm saying, on this particular topic, about Berwick, is that this Liberal Democrat suggestion of extending Scotland twenty miles southwards into England is essentially just a distraction from the main debate, which is about the independence of Scotland within its present borders. Of course we all know that you are on a different side from me on that question, and of course (provided you are on the electoral roll here in Scotland) you should have the opportunity to vote against independence in a referendum.

Aventinian

mairead

Dave and Aventinian,
Could you two put away the handbags for a wee while and settle down? you are like a pair of squabbling fish wives, each trying to outsmart the other and impressing no-one.
Honest, your attitudes to each other are just awful and neither of you scores any points. Argument for the sake of argument doesn't do any forum any good. Evil or Very Mad

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "As I think is quite clearly implied, I am suggesting 'I was wrong' would be a good substitute for the entirety of the quoted post".

Are you suggesting that, when I quoted a Liberal Democrat MSP, Jeremy Purvis, as saying “The big debate in Scotland shouldn’t be about independence, it should be about Scotland being bigger. Alex Salmond’s ambitions are too low” I was wrong? Well, I read that in the Sunday Post. Mind you, I know (from experience of another Sunday paper mis-quoting absolutely EVERYTHING I had said) just how inaccurate newspaper reporting can sometimes be. So maybe what he actually said was a bit different. However, providing he was correctly quoted, then I would suggest my description of this Lib Dem's statement as "in one sense beating an ultra-Nationalist drum" might not be so far wrong.

What about my statement that "We have a border with England". Are you saying that was also wrong? If so, what would you call the point at which Scots Law ceases to apply and English Law starts? What about my statement that this border "is long established"? Are you suggesting it was just invented yesterday? What about my statement that extending this border 20 miles into England "is certain to be highly controversial"? Do you also disagree with that?

If you don't actually totally disagree with every single one of these statements of mine, then it doesn't make sense for you to say that what you quoted from me was wrong in its entirety.

"I say this chiefly because it has gone off on a rather irrelevant tangent from what I was responding to"

But there was no mention of you in that post of mine. You only consider the post an "irrelevant tangent" because you were mistakenly imagining it to be, in some sense, a "reply" to you. It wasn't. It was a contribution to the discussion about Berwick and the Border. Yes, I was thinking I might write a reply to you at some point, but the reply I might write wasn't that particular post. Therefore, you considering it "irrelevant" to what you wrote is itself irrelevant.

Dave Coull

Mairead, addressing "Dave and Aventinian", wrote "you are like a pair of squabbling fish wives"

Have you got something against the wives of fishermen, who sell the produce of the sea, Mairead? Both of my grandmothers were fishwives! Even my mother had to gut and clean fish and help with selling them, when she was young. Mind you, that put her off eating fish for life.

"Honest, your attitudes to each other are just awful" - Before your message, Mairead, I had written just ONE post commenting on what Aventinian wrote. Since you have accused me of being "awful" to Aventinian, it is now up to YOU to show me what is so "awful" about that post. Here, to refresh your memory, is how I responded to Aventinian:

"since you quoted several paragraphs it's not clear exactly which bit it is that you are saying I was wrong about. Are you saying that I was wrong in saying that the big debate in Scotland should be about independence? If so, there would be no surprise in you not _wanting_ the big debate in Scotland to be about independence, but nevertheless there appears to be considerable evidence that is what the big debate in Scotland is about. What I'm saying, on this particular topic, about Berwick, is that this Liberal Democrat suggestion of extending Scotland twenty miles southwards into England is essentially just a distraction from the main debate, which is about the independence of Scotland within its present borders. Of course we all know that you are on a different side from me on that question, and of course (provided you are on the electoral roll here in Scotland) you should have the opportunity to vote against independence in a referendum."

Now, what's "awful" about that?

Dave Coull

I wrote " The United Nations rules on self-determination state that if a clearly defined people have a clearly defined territory and a significant percentage of them want self-determination then they must be permitted a self-determination referendum".

Aventinian calls this "Absolute, raving, load-of-rubbish lunacy".

Mind you, I would actually be quite surprised if he had agreed!

The United Nations was founded by the victorious powers of the Second World War. The principle of self-determination was written into its founding basis. European powers with large empires (such as Britain and France) were not too keen on this, but the two BIG "winners" from World War Two were the USA and the USSR, and for once they were in agreement. Since then, there have been various official UN documents and initiatives over the years developing this principle of self-determination. It is a fact that the UN lays down three requirements for self-determination to be considered mandatory for a territory administered by any member-state. Admittedly, what I wrote was a very brief summary of these principles, but describing my summary as ""Absolute, raving, load-of-rubbish lunacy" is going a bit far!

"there has never been something so categorically wrong uttered in the entire history of amateur international lawyering" - okay, so I'm not a lawyer, and have never claimed to be one. But folk who ARE lawyers, folk who have studied international law, have looked at the relevant UN documents, and consider that the United Kingdom could have a case to answer where Scotland is concerned. Personally, I am very dubious about going down the international legality road. It could take many years. The outcome could be determined as much by the international political situation at the time as by the actual rules. If the campaign for self-determination for Scotland could win enough international support to get UN backing, then it would have enough international support to win _without_ a favourable international legal ruling. So far as I'm concerned, the UN's self-determination principles are just something to use in the POLITICAL (but not party-political) campaign for self-determination.

mairead

Sorry Dave,
but I am not being drawn into an argument about fishwives and need no information on the work they do either.
It seems, at least to me anyway, that with every post you make, Aventinian comes back at you and every post he makes you go back at him. It becomes a two way converstion and I use the word conversation loosely, but it also becomes boring watching both of you trying to get the better of each other.
I've almost given up reading either of your posts and I don't think I am alone in that either.
Why don't you both squabble by PM and give the rest of us a break.

Aventinian

Aventinian

azzuri

[quote="Aventinian"]

Dave Coull

Mairead wrote "It seems, at least to me anyway, that with every post you make, Aventinian comes back at you and every post he makes you go back at him. It becomes a two way conversation and I use the word conversation loosely, but it also becomes boring watching both of you trying to get the better of each other. I've almost given up reading either of your posts and I don't think I am alone in that either. Why don't you both squabble by PM and give the rest of us a break".

No.

That's the short answer.

Here is the longer answer: it is completely pointless telling me to "squabble by PM" with Aventinian. I have no wish to exchange private messages with Aventinian, now or ever. I'm not really trying to convince him, what I am doing in arguing with him is seeking to communicate with _other people_ who may read the messages. Here on this Our Scotland forum, my style of arguing is to put forward the points I want to make, so far as possible, without making personal comments regarding other folk. Now of course other folk may respond to me in a different way, and THEN it might get more personal, but that's not my choice. I continue to try, so far as possible, to argue calmly for my point of view. This can be difficult sometimes, but I do try. You say "I've almost given up reading either of your posts and I don't think I am alone in that either". Perhaps you're not, but "you can't speak for everybody". I happen to know for certain that it's not only Aventinian who reads what I have to say. I don't have to please everybody, I don't even have to please a majority (I'm not a candidate for any kind of office). If there could be the chance of communicating with even one other person, then it's worth doing. I know for certain that sometimes I can get my point of view across. Some years ago I got into an argument with a woman who I didn't know, on an internet forum. Reader, I married her.

Aventinian

RadgeJougal

He ordered his bride off the Internet.

(So that he could spend all his time on it instead)

Dave Coull

Discussions can often become wider than the original topic, and this can quite often be a good thing, provided that the widening is actually _related_ to the original topic. However, if a discussion descends into mere personal taunts and abuse, then that is not a "widening", but rather a narrowing, of the discussion. (For an example of this sort of thing, see the discussion on "Is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland".)

This discussion started off being about Berwick. My first post was simply to send, from the front page of the "Sunday Post", an article in which a Liberal Democrat MSP wanted to move the Border twenty miles south into England. I later went on to say I thought this a very bad idea, and also that I thought the priority should be a referendum on independence for Scotland within its present borders.

Aventinian expressed vigorous disagreement with something I'd said regarding an independence referendum. No surprise there, but at least Aventinian did stick to talking about things genuinely related to the subject under discussion.

The first person to send a post completely unrelated to the subject matter of the topic was Mairead.

Now Radge Jougal has come in with a post which is clearly, and only, a personal taunt. This thread now appears to be heading the same way as other threads which have narrowed down into mere abuse.

Note that Aventinian, with whom I have a genuine disagreement about the subject matter, is completely blameless in this.

Let's try to get back on topic. My view is that the top priority should be a referendum on independence for Scotland within its present borders, and that any attempts to alter the border can only be a distraction, causing delay to what should be the top priority. Does anybody want to express a view on that?

carol

George

RadgeJougal

Cranks never have a sense of humour. Irony's lost on them...

We all know Dave really got his missus offline, so that he could use the computer on his own.

Dave Coull

I wrote "Let's try to get back on topic. My view is that the top priority should be a referendum on independence for Scotland within its present borders, and that any attempts to alter the border can only be a distraction, causing delay to what should be the top priority. Does anybody want to express a view on that?"

I'm glad to see some folk do want to discuss that.

Carol asked “So what if for instance the residents of Berwick see being part of Scotland their priority do?”

As I understand it, there was a sort-of unofficial poll conducted by a local paper. I'm not sure exactly who was allowed to vote in that poll - was it residents of both sides of the Tweed, for instance? Anyway, however it was conducted, apparently a majority of folk associated with Berwick did vote to be part of Scotland under the present constitutional arrangements. That is to say, they voted that they would like to be included in the Borders region of Scotland, under the laws of the devolved Scottish Parliament, as part of the United Kingdom. But a lot of local folk stated the reasons for wanting to make this choice were essentially economic. Like a lot of folk in every part of England, they felt that the Scots "got a better deal". Nobody has asked the people of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne if they want to be part of Scotland. Quite a lot of them might also take the view that they would be better off under the devolved Scottish Parliament. The Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis has advocated moving the border, not as far as Newcastle, but nevertheless twenty miles into England. And yes, there does seem to be some support amongst at least some of the people of that area for such a move, again essentially for "the Scots get a better deal" reasons. But many of them are probably seeing this as a purely administrative change within the present devolved constitutional settlement. Some of them might take a different view if the question related to an independent Scotland. Some of them, in fact, possibly with some encouragement from both English Nationalists and elements within the British state apparatus, might get quite vehement about campaigning to be returned to England in the event of Scottish independence. This could lead to a border dispute which could delay independence.

Carol asks "would you completely disregard their views?" - well maybe not "completely", but this could complicate and delay the process of independence, so I would say, until after independence, yes, I think we have to. I think it should be independence first, other questions afterwards.

RadgeJougal

Blackleaf

If what one reader of the Daily Mail says is right, then Scotland wants to annex Berwick and 20 miles of Northumberland just to extend its economic zone in the North Sea.

Who says the English are silly in saying the Scots are greedy?

RadgeJougal

The Lib Dems want the border 20 miles south, not Scots in general.

carol

Dave Coull

Carol asks "How realistic do you think your 'REFERENDUM NOW is?"

It wasn't actually me that came up with the slogan "REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO", and like all slogans it is a simplification into a few words of something that is actually considerably more complex. Nevertheless, as slogans go, I think it's quite a useful one. Saying "referendum now" stresses both that a referendum would be justified now, and that we would in some sense be "ready" for one now. Of course in practice a referendum can't happen literally "now", right this minute, it could take a few months to arrange, and both sides would be using that time to get better organised, but nevertheless saying "now" stresses there should be no undue delay. A referendum would be justified "now" because Scotland already meets, better than any other territory on Earth which is not already an independent country, all of the criteria which the United Nations lays down for requiring a member state (such as the UK, for example) to permit a self-determination referendum in a territory under its control. The three UN criteria being (and like the slogan this is a summary in fewer words of something more complex) a definable “community”, with a clearly definable territory, and significant demand for self-determination within this community/territory. That last point is already beyond dispute, the mere existence of organised independence-oriented political groupings with significant support proves it, even without the Independence Convention's petition. The petition should be supported, but it will just be the icing on the cake, and not the cake itself.

"what are you doing to make it happen?" - my own part in this will probably be quite small, but nevertheless I have already made literally hundreds of contributions to the "national conversation", and I have reason to think some of these have actually had some effect. Also, I am in fact supporting the Independence Convention's Petition. Last week's meeting of Determination decided that we would organise street petitioning in the Murraygate, Dundee, from 12 noon on Saturday the 23rd of February. I will be there taking part in that. Although this will be happening on the initiative of Determination, we welcome other supporters of a referendum on independence joining us in petitioning.

Cymro

Shagpile

carol

Aventinian

RadgeJougal

"It wasn't actually me that came up with the slogan "REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO""

No of course not, but I'm sure you criticised it, even though you use it all the time.

You love to criticise other people but can't take any yourself.

Dave Coull

I wrote "It wasn't actually me that came up with the slogan 'REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO' "

Radge Jougal comments "No of course not, but I'm sure you criticised it, even though you use it " - wrong, I didn't.

Dave Coull

Shagpile wrote “I believe that if the people of Berwick were to be consulted in an official referendum on whether or not they wanted to be part of an independent Scotland, I very much doubt that they would say yes. Either way, it bothers me not.” - my feelings exactly. The present half-baked proposal, for some sort of administrative re-arrangement of local council boundaries which effectively ignores the question of a possible international boundary, just confuses things so far as independence is concerned. If, after independence for Scotland, the people of Berwick were to be consulted on which “nation” they want to be in, like Shagpile, I rather doubt if they would vote to be part of independent Scotland. But if they did, I have no problem with that. Like Shagpile, either way, it bothers me not.

Shagpile

Shagpile

Dave Coull

Carol asks "Regards the street petitioning are you going under the Determination Banner, or the Let Scotland Decide (SIC) one?"

I don't think we will actually have a banner as such. The decision to organise this activity was taken at a meeting of Determination. We decided not to wait for anybody else to organise something like this, we would just go ahead and do it and invite any other supporters of the Independence Convention's petition to join in with us if they wanted to. We figured even if nobody else wanted to do it, well, we would go ahead anyway. But, as it happens, several other folk who are not members of our group have already indicated their intention to join with us in the street petitioning in Dundee on Saturday 23rd.

"what support advice if any are you getting from the convention?" - immediately after our meeting we contacted the SIC Secretary David McCann, who was very pleased to hear about this initiative. Also, as you yourself have pointed out, one of our members is on the SIC's petition working group/committee, and, as I understand it, he is involved in drafting the SIC's guidelines. He has advised us, for instance, that we should make sure we get at least the post code and house number of anybody who signs. This will be sufficient, the full address is not actually necessary. He has also advised us that we should ask people "so far as you know, are you on the electoral roll in Scotland?". He is also hoping to produce by the 23rd "business cards" to give to folk who say they are in to much of a hurry to sign. These will give details of the SIC petition website, specify the two things already mentioned above, and ask the recipient to pass the card on to a friend after signing. Oh, one other thing, we have to make sure that nobody accidentally signs the same petition twice!

carol

at least some progress Dave, although guidelines would've been useful from the beginning as there may already be duplicate signatures, as well as those not on the electoral list, also note I think there's a third petition down the line, possibly an e-petiton on the SP website, although to 'petition' the SP it's not necessarily the case that you have to do it through an e-petition, the online one and the paper one should be sufficient.

In it's existing format ie the way it's being 'distributed'' is open to abuse and SIC will need to be careful that they're not breaching the data protection act

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote, regarding the slogan “referendum now - independence - yes or no” , that he was sure I had criticised it, even though I use it. I said no, he continues to insist otherwise. So here’s what I actually wrote:

“like all slogans it is a simplification into a few words of something that is actually considerably more complex. Nevertheless, AS SLOGANS GO, I THINK IT’S QUITE A USEFUL ONE. Saying ‘referendum now’ stresses both that a referendum would be justified now, and that we would in some sense be ‘ready’ for one now. Of course in practice a referendum can't happen literally ‘now’, right this minute, it could take a few months to arrange, and both sides would be using that time to get better organised, but nevertheless saying ‘now’ stresses there should be no undue delay. A referendum would be justified ‘now’ because Scotland already meets, better than any other territory on Earth which is not already an independent country, all of the criteria which the United Nations lays down for requiring a member state (such as the UK, for example) to permit a self-determination referendum in a territory under its control.”

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "guidelines would've been useful from the beginning" - I agree.

carol

Dave the slogan comes across as a demand or could easily be perceived that way 'referendum now - independence - yes or no'

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Dave the slogan comes across as a demand".

What's wrong with that? It would be a fully justified demand. Like I said, Scotland already fulfills all of the criteria laid down by the United Nations which make a self-determination referendum mandatory. Let's just suppose for one minute that the Scottish Parliament should decide on Monday to press ahead with a referendum on independence within the shortest space of time possible legally and organisationally. Let's suppose there has been some sort of scandal involving Alex Salmond and/or other senior members of the SNP, and the Labour Party has decided in these circumstances they think they could win a referendum and squash the demand for independence. And let’s suppose they get the support of other parties in this. What are we going to say - no, no we're not ready? We still have to collect loads of signatures on our petition? We don't want a referendum now? OF COURSE we want a referendum now! And of course we could win one now! Yes, we should support the SIC petition, but yes, we want a referendum as soon as possible and will be ready when the time comes. And of course it will come. And when it comes, it will be “now”.

carol

Take the supposes out of your conclusion, Dave this is reality we can't have a referendum now. I still can't grasp why a group with a slogan such as that is inolved in a drawn out process such as this petition, surely you should be taking your 'demand' on to the streets, if anything to rally up support

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Take the supposes out" - well, as Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics. A month or a year is a very long time indeed. An awful lot can change. We have to consider even what seem unlikely scenarios. Sooner or later the demand for a referendum will be conceded. It is just possible this might be at a time when it happens to suit opponents of independence to concede the referendum. If that should happen suddenly, we can't say "we're not ready". We have to be ready "now". Whenever "now" happens to be. And we have to show that we will be ready "now". We have to show that we welcome a referendum as soon as possible. That is the message that "referendum now" conveys.

carol

Referendum Now is a demand, it's rubbish to say that it conveys the message that we're ready now.

Aventinian

carol

Dave If a self-determination referendum was mandatory, then why are you participating in collecting 100k signatures for the petition?

RadgeJougal

I'd also point something else out to anyone involved in this campaign, that got said to me by a fence sitter -

Are you campaigning for a yes vote in such a referendum or just a referendum?

The two are not one and the same, and some unionists want the referendum and a no vote.

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal asked "Are you campaigning for a yes vote in such a referendum or just a referendum? The two are not one and the same"

The group of which I am a member is campaigning for a referendum, and, when we achieve that referendum, we will campaign vigorously for a vote in favour of independence.

"some unionists want the referendum and a no vote" - then they might be on the same side as us in campaigning for a referendum, but we would part company and campaign on opposite sides in the actual referendum.

I wrote "Scotland already fulfills all of the criteria laid down by the United Nations which make a self-determination referendum mandatory".

Aventinian says "You've said it, but it's still a lie".

I suppose it's possible I could be mistaken, but I'm not lying. Hundreds of years ago, many people would say "The Earth is flat". It wasn't true, but they weren't lying. If a senior churchman had reason to believe the Earth could be round, yet kept insisting it was flat because that suited then church doctrine, then that would have been a lie, but most ordinary folk were not lying because they believed what they said. I think it's true that the UN lays down three conditions for a self-determination referendum being mandatory on a member state, even a founder member like the UK. It's only a lie if it's not true AND you know it's not true. If it's not true but you don't know that, it's merely a mistake.

Carol asks "If a self-determination referendum was mandatory, then why are you participating in collecting 100k signatures for the petition?"

Believe it or not, because that is the faster route! I think if enough folk get involved in collecting signatures on the petition it could just take a matter of months, but going through the United Nations could take YEARS. The process would be extremely long and would probably involve expensive international lawyers. It would, of course, be opposed by the British government, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council (the UN's "government"). As with many legal matters, the reality of the current political situation can greatly influence the way leagalities are interpreted. Nevertheless, yes, I think there is a very good chance we could be successful in the end. However, going down that route might just give unscrupulous politicians the excuse to delay a referendum on independence. "Oh, we can't do that now, it's all sub-judice".

carol

Radge I'd say similar to Dave, the campaign at present is for a referendum, once we get the referendum then it's down to pro independence supporters including political parties to campaign for a yes vote.

Dave I've no reason to think that this petition will take a matter of months, the fact that SIC have no guidelines in place at present for collecting signatures shows they are not as well organised as they should be. Regardless for a bill or whatever to be passed for a referendum it could still be a long drawn out process.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Dave I've no reason to think that this petition will take a matter of months"

Well, I did say "if enough folk get involved"...........

I will do my bit, and expect others to do theirs.

"the fact that SIC have no guidelines in place at present for collecting signatures shows they are not as well organised as they should be" - well, neither you nor I have been involved in the organising. Mind you, there might have been more arguments if we had been........but the absence of argument is not necessarily a good thing.

Unfortunately, the only member of Determination who has been involved in the organising was restricted in how involved he could be due to being in the process of moving house.

"it could still be a long drawn out process" - I personally am willing to support this SIC petition but I am not willing to go on petitioning indefinitely. So far as I'm concerned, the demand for a referendum is already justified now, and this Independence Convention initiative is just one way of pushing that demand.

Bringing the topic back to the original subject, if it is true that the campaign for a referendum on independence still has quite a considerable way to go, all the more reason for not getting distracted by side-issues like seeking to move the border twenty miles further south.

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

I wrote "The group of which I am a member is campaigning for a referendum, and, when we achieve that referendum, we will campaign vigorously for a vote in favour of independence".

Radge Jougal says "the two issues are not one and the same, and I think they've been confused".

Not by me they haven't, and not by the group of which I am a member. We are in favour of a referendum. We say that even unionists who claim to be democrats have really no excuse for not supporting that demand. My bet is that the unionists would lose a referendum on independence, but, if they think otherwise, let's have the referendum and see who is right.

I wrote "all the more reason for not getting distracted by side-issues like seeking to move the border twenty miles further south".

Radge Jougal comments "Dave, you bring in distractions galore yourself. Please practice what you preach."

"Distractions galore"? I can think of only one "side issue" connected with me to which this could possibly refer, and that is my attitude towards the so-called "Angus flag". As with Berwick, or anywhere else for that matter, local people have the right to campaign on local issues. However, there is really no comparison, for a couple of reasons. (1) the "Angus flag" issue is one which doesn't have much effect on anybody outside the county of Angus, and (2) while I have tried to keep folk informed about it, I have not sought to involve anybody outside of the county of Angus in doing anything about this. The question of extending the border southwards by a few miles, or by twenty miles, is a completely different matter. Because it could involve a very messy "border dispute" with the neighbours, it potentially affects everybody in every part of Scotland. And yes, a Liberal Democrat MSP has sought support from the Scots in general for his "border raid" into England.

So, like I said, bringing the topic back to the original subject, if it is true that the campaign for a referendum on independence still has quite a considerable way to go, all the more reason for not getting distracted by side-issues like seeking to move the border twenty miles further south.

RadgeJougal

"My bet is that the unionists would lose a referendum on independence, but, if they think otherwise, let's have the referendum and see who is right."

Well, I hope they will too. But you have to think of some way of getting them to support it. There are plenty who would support a referendum but not independence, and it's going to need them to get through parliament probably.

"I can think of only one "side issue" connected with me to which this could possibly refer"

I wasn't thinking of the flag business actually, but there are others, as you've said on the forum. For one, there's your left wing politics, which is fine enough in itself, but alienates right wingers. How will you get Tories and Lib Dems to support such a thing, when you claim to be working class (despite a university education and lots of money) and call middle/upper class people scum? You've been going on at me, like I've got a huge salary - and I'm not the only one. All I can say is that if I do have a huge salary, it's getting paid into the wrong bank account. Laughing

carol

Radge I don't think there's been enough done ie literature circulated and any other means of communication to encourage the 'no' ones to come on board with the existing petition never mind a yes campaign, and unlike Dave I do not feel the ground is fertile enough for a referendum at this present point in time. Like Dave though I do not wish a long drawn out process. I also believe unity is the key and I'm in a good sitting position to know how fragmented the independence movement is.

Dave Coull

For a brief moment it seemed like we might actually be able to discuss things on a more rational level here on this forum. I suppose it was too good to last. It comes as no surprise that it is Radge Jougal who has sought to talk about personalities, not principles. RJ wrote "you claim to be working class (despite a university education and lots of money)".

None of this has in actual fact been mentioned, here on this discussion about possible adjustments to the "Border", except by RJ, but the facts are these: I will be sixty seven this year. I left school and started full time work FIFTY TWO YEARS AGO. Although I could still lay bricks, my bones are very creaky, and I would be doing so extremely slowly, so in practice my working life is effectively over. During my entire working life, if I had a job, I was working for a weekly wage. I never once had a job at which I was paid a monthly "salary". If the term "working class" means anything at all, then yes, it applies to me. The "university education" came when I was approaching retirement age anyway, it was an attractive alternative to unemployment, and, while it is always a good thing to learn, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever on my economic status. "Lots of money" is complete nonsense by RJ.

I wrote, regarding the topic supposedly under discussion here in this thread, "all the more reason for not getting distracted by side-issues like seeking to move the border twenty miles further south".

Radge Jougal commented "Dave, you bring in distractions galore".

It turns out that what Radge Jougal was referring to was things said in the course of heated personal exchanges between himself and me. Since these heated personal exchanges were initiated by RJ, not by me, the responsibility for anything that was "brought in" through them is entirely his, not mine.

So far as I'm aware, the only campaign which I have sought to get people in general to support, here on this Our Scotland forum, is the campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland. I have brought in no distractions from that. Other people (RJ for instance) may have brought in "distractions" of a personal nature relating to me, but that was their/his doing, not mine.

"there's your left wing politics" - note that RJ is referring here to me personally, and NOT to the non-party-political campaign of which I am a member, which includes some members of very different political views from myself.

"alienates right wingers" - whether my individual opinions alienate some people or not is IRRELEVANT. The campaign as such is non-party-political, I'm not any kind of "official" of the campaign, and anyway I'm not a politician, I'm not a candidate for political office of any kind, never have been and never will be, so it doesn't matter what they think of my individual political views.

"How will you get Tories and Lib Dems to support such a thing" - it's not up to me as an individual to get more Tories or Lib Dems to support the demand for a referendum. From my point of view, they ought to support this democratic demand, or their pretensions to be democrats are exposed as false. If they want their "democratic" pretensions to be exposed as false, that is up to them. Realistically speaking the number of Tories and Lib Dems who come round to supporting a referendum on independence may be limited, but after all we don't actually NEED the support of everybody. However, I do believe that some of them will be genuine democrats. For instance, one member of the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrat peer the Earl of Mar and Kellie, has expressed his support for a referendum on independence.

carol

Dave Coull

I wrote "whether my individual opinions alienate some people or not is IRRELEVANT"

Carol says "It would be relevant if you were doing street campaigning for the petition Dave, although you wouldn't be there as an individual but 'representing' SIC".

As you are probably aware, Carol, our colleague Raymond sometimes wears SNP badges, he has a cap with "SNP" on it, he has a rucksack with "SNP" on it, etc etc. I have advised him that, any time we are taking part in non-party-political activities (such as, for instance, collecting signatures on a petition) he should not wear anything which identifies with a particular political view, as this might put off folk who do not share that view. Now, of course, having given this advice to Raymond (advice which he has accepted, by the way) I would not be so daft as to myself wear anything identifying with a particular political view. Also, as it so happens, I'm not a supporter of any football team, but if I was , I wouldn't wear any football supporter stuff either, for the same reason, that it might put some folk off. Oh, and by the way, I have taken part in street petitioning before, and one thing I have learned is that I should not get into political arguments with anybody while doing this. If some passer-by wants to get into a political argument, they won't get an argument from me, they can argue with somebody else, I won't waste my time, if they don't appear to want to sign the petition I will just move on to the next passer-by.

Apart from taking reasonable precautions such as these, in order not to put some folk off, there will be people of many different political views collecting signatures for the referendum petition, and, like I said, their individual opinions on political matters are irrelevant.

carol

It shows you can behave Wink

my personal opinion is that door canvassing may be more productive for the petition. Although HVP's are a must in the High St, I don't think the uptake of signatures would be the same moreso nearer the tourist season.

carol

Dave I should've added that SIC are going to have to watch that this petition isn't 'politicised' through parties using their own platform to canvass for signatures, it would go for organisations as well. We should all be united under 'the Let Scotland Decide' banner, under the auspice of SIC.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "I should've added that SIC are going to have to watch that this petition isn't 'politicised' through parties using their own platform to canvass for signatures" - I agree.

"it would go for organisations as well" - this particular activity this coming Saturday in Dundee was decided on at a meeting of Determination, but there is no Determination "platform" involved.

"We should all be united under 'the Let Scotland Decide' banner, under the auspice of SIC" - I have just spoken on the phone with the secretary of the SIC, this Saturday's activity in Dundee is under the 'Let Scotland Decide' thingmy of the SIC. Anybody who supports the aim of a referendum on independence and who can manage to get there on Saturday is invited to take part.

iainmhor

Laudadable work comrades. I wish you well. I will be available for similar activity in the Central Belt.

carol

thanks Iain

excellent stuff Dave, I've been trying to get some constructive feedback out of SIC for months. Surprising what a little bit of nudging does.

re data protection act etc and the sensitivity of those signatures, you are probably better knowing who your canvassers are also a letter (email) of authorisation from SIC secretary stating you are working on their behalf may be useful.

best of luck

Carol

kevin04

According to the hootsman today Salmond is planning on launch a campaign to get Berwick back in Scotland, I'm a SNP voter but think he should back right off on this, It's hardly a huge issue to the Scottish public at moment and can we not concentrate on getting a referendum first on Independence before him worrying about Berwick or the SNP worrying about Berwick, Silly move by the SNP as it'll probably play into the hands of the Unionists and the Unionist media.

carol

If the people of Berwick wish to be part of Scotland let them stand up and take the lead. Strange how the media move their butts on a Berwick campaign, but an petition for a referendum falls on deaf ears Confused

William_Cleland

What's he supposed to say? "Naw. We widnae want them back. They're English not Scottish and can just get stuffed." Smile

The idea that the true border is at the Tweed even if the maps say different has always been widespread in Scotland so it isn't exactly a controversial concept, in my opinion. What would be truly mental would be to demand Berwick back regardless of what the people living there think about it.

George

RadgeJougal

"whether my individual opinions alienate some people or not is IRRELEVANT."

The fact is that you go on about other folk talking about Berwick, but it's okay for you to "alienate some people". One's irrelevant, the other's not. Because you're doing on, and other folk are doing the other. You've got one lot that thinks independence is a commie plot, and the other which thinks it is a Tartan Tory plot. Others think it is something to do with Rangers or Celtic.

The campaign is "non party political", but what happens if you alienate people from independence by your "non party" politics? Independence needs the votes of people you hate too.

However, I'd recommend that all canvassers look decent and wash properly. There's nothing like the stink of unwashed hair/clothes and stale sweat to drive folk away from your table. Laughing

Dave Coull

William Cleland wrote "The idea that the true border is at the Tweed even if the maps say different has always been widespread in Scotland".

If only it were that simple. Yes, historically, the town of Berwick-Upon-Tweed was on the north side of the Tweed. But the present day town of Berwick includes within its boundaries a couple of thousand folk living on the south side of the Tweed, which, according to that "widespread idea", is the English side. As if that weren't enough of a complication, Berwick District Council (currently in the process of being abolished, and the administration moved to Morpeth, that's what started all this re-drawing of boundaries off in the first place) extends TWENTY MILES into England, and yes, some hare-brained Scots, specifically, a Liberal Democrat MSP, have claimed all of THAT for Scotland. So before you can say whether or not Berwick should be in Scotland, you first of all have to define exactly what you mean by "Berwick". Which could be a very messy business indeed. And extremely time-consuming. And terribly distracting. And it could seriously delay independence for Scotland. Which is why I say, keep it simple. We want a referendum on independence for Scotland, with the people entitled to vote in that referendum being the people on the electoral roll in present-day Scotland, within its present boundaries.

carol

Ugh do we have to be battling each other all the time.

once you alienate people it's difficult to get them back round to your way of thinking, or on the same footing as yourself (and that's talking from experience!). We should all be focussing on uniting behind a campaign for a referendum, not bloody bickering all the time (or back stabbing).

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "you go on about other folk talking about Berwick".

No, I don't.

I have no problem with folk saying whatever they want to say about Berwick, and I'll say what I want to say.

The rest of what RJ wrote is so trivial it isn't even worth commenting on.

RadgeJougal

"The rest of what RJ wrote is so trivial it isn't even worth commenting on."

Thank you Lord.

It's just so trivial, that it might just put folk off.

"the present day town of Berwick includes within its boundaries a couple of thousand folk living on the south side of the Tweed, which, according to that "widespread idea", is the English side."

So what. There's plenty of towns that straddle national borders. Few are as lucky as Berwick, Chester or Hay on Wye to have a big river in the middle, which makes that boundary clear.

Shagpile

RadgeJougal

Just as long as certain independence campaigners remember to wash now and then, we might win a few more people over!!! Laughing

It helps if your hair doesn't look like this either.

kevin04

Dave Coull

Kevin04 asked "Do you think a majority of people from Berwick consider themselves Scottish?"

I've only known two folk from Berwick. One man who said he was definitely English, and one young woman who was a bit ambiguous about it. I met her at my niece's wedding. She said that sometimes she thought she was English, but, looking round at all the men wearing kilts (well, it was a wedding), she said she felt very Scottish tonight.... Wink

RadgeJougal

"looking round at all the men wearing kilts (well, it was a wedding), she said she felt very Scottish tonight...."

Did you feel very Scottish that night, looking at the men? Smile

Dave Coull

I wrote ""looking round at all the men wearing kilts (well, it was a wedding), she said she felt very Scottish tonight...."

and Radge Jougal asks "Did you feel very Scottish that night, looking at the men?" - I always feel very Scottish. And like the new adverts that have started appearing on billboards, aimed at bigots like yourself, say "Some folk are gay. Get over it".

RadgeJougal

Who said there was anything wrong with being gay? Why did you think I was being anti-gay when I asked that?

p.s. Talking of gays - there was a gay football international between Scotland and England today, and Scotland won. afro

Berwick votes to become Scottish!

Re: Berwick votes to become Scottish!