| 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. |
| scotlandrules |
Scottish independence on AlJazeera TV (28-Dec-07)Here is the link for Scottish independence on AlJazeera TV.http://youtube.com/watch?v=qseSR3dgc1M The UK Government must be getting very worried about this. The Scottish independence debate has been shown in many countries such as the US and now Iraq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I get a sense of déjà vue watching that as we have clearly been down this road before only for it all to fizzle away and for international interest to disappear like snaw aff a dyke. Why is it different this time is maybe the key question? I think there is a difference in that it isn't all based on an ephemeral protest vote at a by-election but based on a national election victory driven by a desire for a different governing party. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I think it is also based on the fact that irrespective of their different opinions on the issue, people are now talking a great deal more about independence than at any time in the last generation. That is generally (but I don't think exclusively) based on the election of a pro-independence Scottish Government. Independence is now the central axis of Scottish politics - and that isn't going to change soon, even if the SNP are eventually removed from power.
I wasn't around in the late 1970s, so perhaps it was the same then, even though I'd guess the issue was deliberately clouded in the "Devolution debate" (Round 1) that was raging at the time - devolution being the unionists' (successful) method of trying to blunt the issue. That option doesn't really exist any more. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I did my bit for the Yes side in 1979 by going out leafleting a few times. Although some people sincerely believed in it, independence as an idea was a negotiating ploy to get devolution for a lot of people at that point and large portions of Scottish society viewed it as being in the realm of fantasy and didn't take it particularly seriously. The SNP post-Govan in 1988 was a very different beast to the SNP of the 1970s. Maggie Thatcher's role should never be underestimated. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hendry |
I campaigned for the Yes vote '79. Independence was not on the agenda.
The Yes vote won but the infamous and scurrillous 40% rule, never used for any other UK vote, meant that it did not go through. Quite a lot of people did not vote Yes because the tories (e.g. Alec Douglas-Hume) were running around saying that when they got in they would offer a much greater devolution package in line with Ted Heath's declaration of Perth. It has to be born in mind that at that time, Tory credibility was not in the sorry state it is today. Of course when Thatcher did get in, she immediately tore up the declaration of Perth, and there was no second referendum. You will of course know, that independence was again ruled off the agenda for the Constitutional Convention in the early 90s. This of course, forced the SNP to withdraw, although as previously they did support the Yes campaign in '97. There may still have been PI supporters who did not vote Yes in '97 because independence was not on the agenda, but the overwhelming Yes vote speakls for itself. I have no doubt a third referendum in '97 with independence v status quo would have won. Polling (that we know of) on the simple choice between independence and the status quo, did not begin until immediately after devolution. Polls (about 20) since then, giving that clear choice, have averaged 54% predicted Yes vote for a referendum. The latest poll shows 40% Yes, 44% No, 16% no response. i.e. a predicted Yes vote of 48% The reason why it is a little lower than the average is because it talks of 'negotiating with the UK government' rather than a straightforward Yes. This puts off some marginally PI support and also some ultra-nats, many of whom even have doubts about having a referendum at all. However, when push comes to shove in a referendum, the latter category will vote Yes however obtuse the question phrasing is. The Constitutional Convention which is being formed, is again excluding the SNP and other PI parties, yet is to be funded by the Scottish taxpayer. The Independence Convention, which despite the name does NOT exclude members of Unionist parties, is entirely self-funding. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It didn't force anyone to do anything. It was used by the SNP an excuse, no more no less. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lothian Sky |
Ah, but you see, the thing about the SNP is this..
they have principles! You cant expect to invite a pro-independence party, and then tell them they cant discuss independence. It's undemocratic to rule out one option for discussion because YOU dont like it, and makes a total mockery of the whole process. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
OK then, should the moderators of this forum decide that only posts in support of independence are to be allowed would you participate? No one is forcing you out mind !! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
As usual, being the dreariest sort of party cheerleader, you miss the point entirely. The backwoods fundamentalist faction in the SNP prevented their participating in the convention. When it became obvious that it would be a success, the SNP changed their mind and jumped on the bandwagon. Salmond takes enormous personal and political credit for making that possible, as it was achieved in the face of considerable internal opposition. Surprise, surprise, the most striking outcome of the SNP's u-turn on devolution has been a massive increase in relevance and prominence for the party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
The name calling has been ignored.
The SNP under Salmond took the pragmatic decision to support the subsequent Yes, Yes campaign for the devloved Scottish Parliament, they did not change their mind on non participation in the convention. The decision to support the devolution campaign was a case of half a loaf or none at all. Yes they were against devolution but only if independence was considered. The removal of independence as an option compelled them to suppport the next best thing. As far as it (constitutional change) being an obvious success is concerned it is for exactly that reason that independence was ruled out as an option, the Unionists, as now, were afraid that the Scottish electorate would embrace it. The irony now of course is that it is the Unionists who refuse to take part in a conversation that disbars nothing from the discussion. Instead they bizarrely set up their own commission again refusing to consider independence.
The success of the SNP has indeed been a surprise to Unionists who believed that devolution would neuter them (the SNP). The only surprise to myself is the dramatic rate of this success in that the SNP actually won an election so soon after the establishment of the parliament, especially given the hostile media they experience. So, since you declined to answer my question first time around here it is again; Would you participate in a forum that prevented your views being considered? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hendry |
Don't give us that. You would have just loved it if the SNP had said, OK we accept independence is off the agenda. The difference this time is the SNP are not even invited. Democracy? Constitutional? Give them a dictionary (and an ethics 1.0.1 correspondance course). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Hardly. I was a member of the SNP at the time, and was appalled that the facepainting fundamentalist minority prevented the party taking part in constructive dialogue about devolution. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| kevin04 |
When's April the 1st? 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Not sure I follow that? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| kevin04 |
just having a wee joke as you mentioned you were in the SNP before. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Hard to believe that agentmancuso doesn't understand the tactical reasons why staying in the constitutional convention would have been a very bad move. Most SNP people learned some major lessons from the 1979 debacle. To extract maximum concessions from Westminster there had to be a credible threat of going all the way. Sometimes wonder if getting passed over in the candidate selection process may have happened at some point.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I take the point. But would it not have been easier to extract more concessions as to the shape devolution eventually took in 1997 if the SNP had been part of the design process?
 I could have been first minister!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
It isn't rocket science. The SNP has (and had then) a policy of independence. The convention ruled out independence. How could the SNP participate and keep any credibility? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Because the vast majority of voters don't see things in black and white. To gain credibility, the SNP have to be seen to be living and working in the real world. Sticking rigidly to independence or nothing is childish obstinacy, as Salmond knew very well, hence his determination that the party should participate in the Yes campaign, despite opposition from the fundamentalist backwoodsmen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Do you actually remember what happened in the late 70s? The SNP wound up campaigning for something they didn't really believe in while most Labour activists either didn't campaign or were helping Brian Wilson and Tam Dalyell on the No side. Most SNP activists learned some lessons from that. It isn't the SNP's role to come up with and argue the merits of a devolution plan when that isn't one of their core policies. As things stood in 1997 Labour won the general election so once the people of Scotland had rejected the SNP's preferred policy of independence in Europe it then made sense to support Labour's referendum plan on the basis that it was better than the status quo. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True. But look at the how the situation developed: in the face of massive internal 'no truck with Labour' opposition arguing just as you are, Salmond and the gradualist wing persuaded the SNP to back the Yes vote. Result: 10 years later we have an SNP government, and according to this site at least, independence is a matter of minutes away. Where would the SNP be if the fundamentalists had won the day and prevented involvement in the Yes campaign? Nowhere. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
However 'Hendry's' point that originally brought you into the discussion still stands. The SNP were effectively forced out of the convention because independence had been barred as an option of discussion. Your opinion on the merit of their subsequent decision to ally themselves to the 'Yes, Yes' campaign may be valid but it doesn't reinforce your assertion that having independence removed as an option is used only as an 'excuse'. My unanswered question from my previous posts remains. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"Where would the SNP be if the fundamentalists had won the day and prevented involvement in the Yes campaign? Nowhere."
Highly arguable. The SNP's gradualists, if you meet them, they are bland and cannot really motivate your man on the street because they're that far removed from them and are mainly interested in their own careers. I wouldn't call Salmond a gradualist. But you are wrong to state that Gradualists alone supported devolution. I did, and I'm not one (although I suppose I might be if I was in Wales, and interested in Plaid Cymru). Just as I would support enhanced devolution over the status quo. It would be my second choice though. The SNP is often a beneficiary/victim of outside circumstances. I think over the years, they've not done well at harnessing the independence vote, because various people disagree with their various positions on non-independence issues. Hence they've picked up unionist votes, and independence supporters have voted for unionist parties. By the way, there's an old vulgar joke about whether gradualists have orgasms or just "gradual" low key pleasure during lovemaking. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Celtic Indian |
Was this article only shown on English speaking AlJazeera,or Arabic speaking broadcasts too ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Did anyone ever paint their face? Or did you just internalise the criticism of opposition parties? Yes, I think you probably did. Sounds like you did a Brian Wilson, and did a backflip after a prolonged political adolescence, and reversed all your opinions.
I think you need to find Arabs on this board. Other than Dundonians, you'd be struggling. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
They were not forced. They opted out. It's just sitting on the ball. And it's politically inept.
Remind me? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
That's nonsense. The gradualists are far more politically aware, and far more competent. They are also far closer to the average man in the street, who is after all a soft 'nationalist' traditional Labour voter.
It's not my place to argue on his behalf, but I doubt many SNP activists would agree.
Before devolution gradualist meant pragmatic supporter of devolution.
Unlike which parties?
Until Salmond and his gradualist 1979 group turned the SNP into a Social Democratic party there were no other policies worth speaking of.
The fundamentalist equivalent is a purely solitary activity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
My opinions didn't change that much at all. Devolution altered the shape of the game somewhat. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
My pleasure: Would you participate in a forum that prevented your defining views being considered? As far as political ineptitude is concerned I would argue that, far from being inept, the SNP have played a very deft game. They held onto their principles and watched the Unionists deliver a devolved parliament. Now, had the SNP participated in the convention they would have been effectively neutered. How could they have demanded extra powers when they themselves had participated in the process that drew the original powers up? The reality: Around 12 years on we have a situation where your so called ineptutude sees an SNP Government and independence firmly on the agenda. The unionists are scrambling as they desperately try to limit the extra powers that will undoubtedly be forthcoming from Westminster. Devolution was a massive mistake for the Union, massive, I really cannot understand why they went for it. It effectively politicised the Scottish population in a way they never had been. I myself have only taken a real interest in politics as a result of the new parliament. Previously my disillusionment with Labour and my opting to vote for the SNP would have meant little. They would have remained a relatively small but vocal group at Westminster. Now however a vote for the SNP at Holyrood has real meaning, it has brought an SNP Government and independence into the public arena, a subject hitherto mentioned only as a 'scare story' every Westminster election. The new Scottish parliament has amplified the voice of both the independence movement and the SNP. Everyone appears to be have been caught off guard this last year, except the SNP who give the impression that they have been preparing for Government for some time. Look at Scottish Labour, like a once great champion who has been fighting hand picked bums for years they have fallen apart when faced with a real opponent. The illegal 'side bets', bribes and corruption that was rife throughout their reign have been exposed. The Scottish press faced the greatest dilemma, how to report a positive new Government without undermining the union. Thus far one quality paper (The Scotsman) has decided to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favour of a clumsy pro Union bias. The Herald is more subtle but still clearly pro-union, Douglas Fraser has let himself down in recent months and Alf Youngs editorial where (in reference to illegal donations) he more or less stated that an opposition to the SNP was more important than the rule of law. This is where we are now, real ineptitude all around from Nicol Stephen to Wendy Alexander & Gordon Brown. From the petty Unionist commission (again refusing to consider independence) to illegal donations, from secret donors to non elections, from disenfranchised voters to accusations of gerrymandering, from Iraq to god knows where ................ Real ineptitude, real corruption, real lies. By all means have your little swipes at the SNP 'am' if it makes you feel better, hell, even call me a name if you like, it won't I'm afraid undo what has been done nor stop what is about to follow.
Oh, I didn't expect you to answer my question 'am', anyway, it is probably better posed rhetorically. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"They are also far closer to the average man in the street,"
Most gradualists (in my experience) are interested in their careers, and as professional politicos have next to nothing to do with the man on the street. Their main aim is to stay in a job. "I doubt many SNP activists would agree. " Many would, many wouldn't. Next... "The fundamentalist equivalent is a purely solitary activity." Have you much experience of the gradual or the fundamental equivalent? "My opinions didn't change that much at all." Seemingly they did. You were obviously an adolescent going through a phase who grew out of it. You could have also been a unionist adolescent who became a nationalist... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, if I thought I could find some workable middle ground. So would anyone with half a brain.
Salmond and his gradualist supporters have, despite the intransigence and ineptitude of fundamentalist hicks.
It's fairly revealing that you consider having the openness, competence and willingness to talk to people as being neutered.
If they had taken part in the original process Holyrood would have some of those powers already.
Because 'they' are not all the same, despite your belligerent bigotry. Many people were (and are) in favour of (increased) devolution because they see it as the best available option for running Scotland, not because they have in great interest in nationalism of any stripe, whether separatist or unionist.
Really? According to the ESRC "In the devolved elections in Scotland and Wales in 1999 and 2003, turnout was lower than in all Westminster elections since 1997, and fell markedly in between: from 59% to 49% in Scotland and from 45% to 38% in Wales." Does that look to you like a population 'politicised in a way they never had been'? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
Good grief, I can almost hear the keys being hammered as you typed this.
Oh dear, please stop this childish habit.  ............... or you go back on my 'scroll past' list !!
Three points of response: 1. I still believe that the electorate are more politically aware than prior to 1997. The numbers mean nothing unless we know their reasons for voting. The habitual labour voters are dying, there may indeed be fewer replacements but they are more aware and less inclined to vote 'traditionally'. 2. The number of people 'in favour' of more devolution is meaningless until the extra powers are defined. Only when those powers are eventually defined will we know the true support for all options. 3. This statement of yours......
......is fabricated and ignores the point that I made, now that is revealing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Nice dodge.
You may be right of course. It's just that turning out to vote in ever smaller numbers looks, at first glance, like an odd way of showing it.
Actually the numbers mean plenty: they decide who gets elected.
Nowadays they tend increasingly to vote SNP. Same people, same limited outlook.
It means increased devolution is the favoured option, as every poll shows.
Of course it is. I wrote it.
You confuse 'ignore' with 'dismiss'. Only through talking to other parties and finding common ground did the SNP achieve anything. On their own they achieved absolutely nothing for half a century; within a couple of years of working with other pro-devolution parties a parliament was in place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'd recommend it: all the best people are on that list. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
I don't drive a dodge.
Read my point again, the numbers are unimportant for the reasons I have given.
Ah, changing the context of the discussion I see, feel free to address my point.
There is no confusion, you attributed an opinion to me that was wholely fabricated. In doing so you deliberately ignored the point that I made in order to avoid addressing it. If you simply wished to dismiss the point then why have you fabricated a completely false meaning?
This particular comment will have to wait until later, feel free to address the points that you ignored. I couldn't help noticing the post from 'av', now now 'av' you know that your blood pressure rises when you try to bait............carefull
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
No, I just think you're a complete arsehole. Trust me, I've met enough in my lifetime, they don't have any effect on my heart - however I will not generally refrain from calling them what they are. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Why am I not surprised that Aventinian has met so many arseholes? It must be the company he keeps. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Indeed, most decent folk wouldn't be seen dead around here. Maybe I'm a Mother Theresa-like figure, coming down to show you the light...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It does feel a bit like that sometimes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Mother Therea was a particularly nasty piece of work. If you wish to compare yourself to her I think you're doing yourself a disservice, but who am I to interfere? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"Mother Therea was a particularly nasty piece of work."
So they say. She refused to serve non-RCs etc. But like most people who criticise her - including myself - I doubt you have done more for India's poor than her. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michael Follon |
I originally came across the Al Jazeera video at http://www.five-year.com/2007/12/...seeks-freedom-from-uk-28-dec-07/. This is the comment I posted to it -
'This is an example of the widespread misunderstanding about what the United Kingdom really is - even in the United Kingdom. This misunderstanding has its origins in the Union of the Crowns in 1603 (a misnomer which I hope the following extract will clarify) - '...on 25 March 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England. It was a purely personal union. There were still two kingdoms, each with its own parliament, administration, church and legal system.' Source: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0. It is only the Treaty of Union of 1707 (which created the state of Great Britain) that the SNP seeks to bring to an end. The United Kingdom would continue to exist until the people of Scotland decide otherwise in a referendum.' |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True, though I doubt many SNP enthusiasts think of it that way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
No, two Kingdoms are not a united kingdom. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
So how would you describe the position in the century between the Union of Crowns and the Union of Parliaments then? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Two kingdoms with a shared monarch, rather like Australia and New Zealand today. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I agree with Holebender and Avatar, although I imagine the separation of the Crowns wasn't as pronounced then as it now is in the Australia/NZ example. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||