
Has Brown sent us along the road to independence?
Things fall apart; the centre does not hold. Last summer most of us in the McChattering classes thought that,
once "capability" Gordon Brown entered Number 10, many Scots would start to lose their infatuation with nationalism and revert to their traditional allegiance to Labour. Hasn't happened. Indeed, the moral and political disintegration of Gordon Brown's leadership, which this column examined last week, may now be one of the factors that hastens the disintegration of the UK.
It's just that no-one ever thought it could possibly be as bad as this. Fights breaking out in cabinet; ministers jostling for the succession; a paralysed Prime Minister unable to make decisions; an unprecedented collapse in the UK government's poll ratings. And all this at the very moment when nationalists have entered government in all three devolved legislatures. There are times when history seems to be pursuing a logic of its own. In many ways, nationalism is an anachronism in this global financial village, and yet the Scots appear to be turning to it as they never did in the days when Scotland had its own autonomous industrial economy. Recent polls, such as the TNS
System Three in yesterday's Sunday Herald have shown a steady increase in support for independence over the past year.
Of course, the performance of the minority SNP administration in Holyrood has had a lot to do with this. Yet, when you think of it, the remarkable thing is that the nationalists are still in government at all, one year on, with only 47 MSPs out of 129. Alex Salmond would never have got the keys to Bute House had the unionist parties got their act together last May. Once over the threshold, there was no stopping him. The Scottish voters have been given a masterclass in radical nationalist populism - cutting
prescription charges, saving
accident and emergency units, abolishing student loans, axing bridge tolls etc.
The real surprise is that Gordon Brown, for all his intimate knowledge of Scottish politics, has had no answer to this, apart from a risible campaign to promote Britishness. Perhaps we should have forecast that his protege, Wendy Alexander, would be further disaster for Labour in Scotland - though I certainly didn't. She seemed to represent the way forward for Scottish Labour: female, intelligent and open-minded about constitutional reform. But she has mounted campaigns against cuts in services even as her mentor, Gordon Brown, cuts the funding to pay for them.
| Scots voters have had a masterclass in nationalist populism | |
|
To complete the picture, Gordon has installed in the Scottish Office a clutch of ministers who seem determined to pursue a petty-minded and punitive campaign against Scots for the crime of voting SNP. The threats to cut off council tax benefits and to overrule the Scottish Parliament's power to introduce a local income tax were as offensive as they were politically inept. This allows the nationalists to paint Labour as neo-colonial overlords and defenders of the unpopular council tax - and may also give Salmond an excuse for not introducing his own dubious alternative while blaming Westminster.
The whisky tax in the budget was so unpopular that even Wendy Alexander's husband, the economist Professor Brian Ashcroft, condemned it. Labour's Scottish ministerial team declared their intention to take powers back from the Scottish Parliament, even as Alexander was promising to extend them. Westminster has blocked a ban on air weapons and attacked the Scottish Government for rejecting nuclear power and opposing Trident. Then there was al-Megrahi, the oath of allegiance to the Queen, the £40m elections botch up . . . it just goes on and on.
Brown must see how damaging this all is, yet he has done
nothing to mitigate the emerging disaster. Perhaps his attention is elsewhere. The abolition of the 10p tax band was not intended to hit Scotland, but it will because low pay is so prevalent here. It also offends against the moral sentiments of Scots who don't see why non-doms and hedge-fund managers deserve to pay less tax than the working poor.
With political incompetence on this scale, it's not surprising that Alex Salmond has had a good year. However, it has long been the conventional wisdom - in this
column as elsewhere - that despite the high approval ratings for the SNP minority Government, the Scots were essentially
constitutional opportunists who might flirt with nationalism, but would always, in the end, vote to remain in the UK. But even this is now brought into question.
Yesterday's TNS System Three poll, indicating a slim majority in favour of negotiated independence on the SNP's terms - 41% for to 40% against - cannot be ignored. Only last August, TNS was registering a 15% lead for staying in the Union. A Scottish Opinion poll last week also showed independence running neck-and-neck with the Union - 41% for; 43% against. It's too early to say that Scots are now committed to leaving the UK, but something is certainly stirring in the undergrowth of Scottish public opinion. We may now have to start thinking about independence as a realistic option for Scotland.
Yet again, this seems counterintuitive because the present
financial climate doesn't look at all propitious for the cause of independence. It's a cruel world out there - look at what's happening in Iceland, where a small independent country has had to increase interest rates to 15% to fight off international financial predators. The Irish tiger is looking pretty sick, too. In the past, at times of national emergency, the Union has generally been strengthened by a collective sense that we are "in this together".
That may still hold true. The impact of the financial turbulence has yet fully to hit home in Scotland, and when it does Scots might again seek security in the Union. Then again, they might not. After having had a taste of autonomy over the past year, I don't see much enthusiasm for returning to the old dependency culture. There are now so many examples of highly successful small countries in and out of the EU, from Norway to Slovakia, that going it alone no longer means being alone.
Moreover, the rise of the London city state and the fall of the welfare state consensus that united these islands in the half-century after the war, has eroded the ties that used to bind the UK together.
London is now a leading hub of the international plutocracy and barely conscious of the existence of the UK hinterland, whether in England or Scotland. As the economy slides into recession, Scots will be watching very closely to see who wins and who loses. But, right now, the biggest loser is
Gordon Brown.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: Mrs I P Knightly, Scotland on 9:59pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Quite a good read. It certainly has been an interesting year. The SNP were never meant to win the election nor was Alex Salmond meant to become First Minister. For the SNP to achieve what they have done as a minority Government has been the surprise. When they went into minority government I thought they would be blocked 100% of the time by a grand Unionist coalition. That coalition never really materialised and they if they tried now would reap the voters wrath. Many of non-SNP voters at the election in May I have spoken to are quite happy with Salmond's government and like his stand against the UK Govt when necessary. Brown will push more voters in the SNP camp if they try to derail the Scots Government by threats and intimidation. When Brown has the next UK Cabinet reshuffle, ditch Browne (and get rid of Cairns) as they have helped the SNP notch up a few percentage points in the opinions polls. The public don't like sore losers.
Quite a good read. It certainly has been an interesting year. The SNP were never meant to win the election nor was Alex Salmond meant to become First Minister. For the SNP to achieve what they have done as a minority Government has been the surprise. When they went into minority government I thought they would be blocked 100% of the time by a grand Unionist coalition. That coalition never really materialised and they if they tried now would reap the voters wrath. Many of non-SNP voters at the election in May I have spoken to are quite happy with Salmond's government and like his stand against the UK Govt when necessary. Brown will push more voters in the SNP camp if they try to derail the Scots Government by threats and intimidation. When Brown has the next UK Cabinet reshuffle, ditch Browne (and get rid of Cairns) as they have helped the SNP notch up a few percentage points in the opinions polls. The public don't like sore losers.
Posted by: Kadok, West End on 10:23pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Iain, I wish you would give up this line about nationalism being an anachronism. In 1945 there were 51 members of the United Nations - there are now almost 200. It is the Union of Empire which belongs in the past. This is so self-evident but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
The argument about economic security in the Union also doesn't bare scrutiny. The English economy has been supported on inflated property prices and dodgy financial services. It is a bubble which could very well burst and be economically disastrous. Scotland by contrast has a massively expanding whisky industry, tourism industry, agriculture, fisheries, water, alternative energy, great financial institutions, and of course oil at over £100 a barrel. We also have a generally excellent egalitarian education system and a industrious workforce. Scotland has huge potential and only through independence will we prosper. Please accept the obvious Iain.
Iain, I wish you would give up this line about nationalism being an anachronism. In 1945 there were 51 members of the United Nations - there are now almost 200. It is the Union of Empire which belongs in the past. This is so self-evident but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
The argument about economic security in the Union also doesn't bare scrutiny. The English economy has been supported on inflated property prices and dodgy financial services. It is a bubble which could very well burst and be economically disastrous. Scotland by contrast has a massively expanding whisky industry, tourism industry, agriculture, fisheries, water, alternative energy, great financial institutions, and of course oil at over £100 a barrel. We also have a generally excellent egalitarian education system and a industrious workforce. Scotland has huge potential and only through independence will we prosper. Please accept the obvious Iain.
Posted by: Gregor Addison, Scotland on 10:30pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Iain, when Gordon Brown came unelected to power, I thought he was past his sell by date. It came as no surprise to me that he hasn't lived up to his promise, which was ten or fifteen years distant from his days as a firebrand socialist. There are very few of the latter left in Labour in Scotland; most decanted to the SSP and when it collapsed, I suspect very few returned to Labour. Brown became a myth that in a post-Blair age he could never live up to. Wendy Alexander's claims of being a 'socialist' are just as confused. The real problem in Britain today is that Scotland is becoming the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with England because we have what they do not, a popular government delivering popular (not 'populist') policies for its people. Labour long ago deserted Scottish voters; they shouldn't be surprised now that those same voters are opting for independence.
Iain, when Gordon Brown came unelected to power, I thought he was past his sell by date. It came as no surprise to me that he hasn't lived up to his promise, which was ten or fifteen years distant from his days as a firebrand socialist. There are very few of the latter left in Labour in Scotland; most decanted to the SSP and when it collapsed, I suspect very few returned to Labour. Brown became a myth that in a post-Blair age he could never live up to. Wendy Alexander's claims of being a 'socialist' are just as confused. The real problem in Britain today is that Scotland is becoming the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with England because we have what they do not, a popular government delivering popular (not 'populist') policies for its people. Labour long ago deserted Scottish voters; they shouldn't be surprised now that those same voters are opting for independence.
Posted by: sailingbuy on 11:26pm Sun 13 Apr 08
independence is the normal path of tha last few decades
there are now as many independent states in europe as there was in the entire world about a hundred years ago someone said the other week
so what is happening in Scotland vis a v UK is a very natural phenominon.... not realisng it is anachronistic
independence is the normal path of tha last few decades
there are now as many independent states in europe as there was in the entire world about a hundred years ago someone said the other week
so what is happening in Scotland vis a v UK is a very natural phenominon.... not realisng it is anachronistic
Posted by: Colkitto, River Clyde on 11:35pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Gordon Brown is becoming well known for his dithering.
He may have won an early election, but dithered and didn't call one. His chance was lost forever.
He dithered over Northern Rock too. But, his ultimate mistake could be not calling Salmonds bluff with a referendum. Looks like his dithering has cost him the union !
The rise in nationalism won't fade away. You can feel there is something in the air again, just like there was when the SNP gained power !
Gordon Brown is becoming well known for his dithering.
He may have won an early election, but dithered and didn't call one. His chance was lost forever.
He dithered over Northern Rock too. But, his ultimate mistake could be not calling Salmonds bluff with a referendum. Looks like his dithering has cost him the union !
The rise in nationalism won't fade away. You can feel there is something in the air again, just like there was when the SNP gained power !
Posted by: Matt, Southerly on 11:58pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Strange how Mr Brown and his colleagues (his Scottish colleagues) can use the Westminster parliament to attack the poor of Scotland in order to embarrass the SNP minority government.
If there's a more effective way for Brown and his cronies to wreck the chances of Labour in Scotland, I've yet to think of it!
Strange how Mr Brown and his colleagues (his Scottish colleagues) can use the Westminster parliament to attack the poor of Scotland in order to embarrass the SNP minority government.
If there's a more effective way for Brown and his cronies to wreck the chances of Labour in Scotland, I've yet to think of it!
Posted by: Boggle fey the Bog, North Bank o' ra Clyde jist South o' ra Drum on 12:01am Mon 14 Apr 08
A nice job of work, but I feel Iain is dithering a bit.
When the full effect of the present economic crisis is unleashed, the people of Scotland will not place the blame on a minority Nationalist government, that is being stymied, at every turn by the government in Westminster. They will recognise the fact that Westminster has allowed the UK to build it's so called wealth on dubious financial deals, property booms and the largest spate of government borrowing for decades.
My own thoughts, for what they are worth are, that the Scottish people will then say, we certainly can't do any worse if we are running our own affairs and will react accordingly, demanding independence from a corrupt, uncaring and Londoncentric system.
As a byline has anybody seen the disgusting Party Political Broadcast by the English Democrats Party on BBC iPlayer.
Here is the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/iplayer/page/item/b
009vtg7.shtml
A nice job of work, but I feel Iain is dithering a bit.
When the full effect of the present economic crisis is unleashed, the people of Scotland will not place the blame on a minority Nationalist government, that is being stymied, at every turn by the government in Westminster. They will recognise the fact that Westminster has allowed the UK to build it's so called wealth on dubious financial deals, property booms and the largest spate of government borrowing for decades.
My own thoughts, for what they are worth are, that the Scottish people will then say, we certainly can't do any worse if we are running our own affairs and will react accordingly, demanding independence from a corrupt, uncaring and Londoncentric system.
As a byline has anybody seen the disgusting Party Political Broadcast by the English Democrats Party on BBC iPlayer.
Here is the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/iplayer/page/item/b
009vtg7.shtml
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 12:35am Mon 14 Apr 08
[quote]Iain, I wish you would give up this line about nationalism being an anachronism. In 1945 there were 51 members of the United Nations - there are now almost 200. It is the Union of Empire which belongs in the past. This is so self-evident but you can't bring yourself to admit it.[/quote]Uh, I logged on to say this, but I've been gazumped. I just can't understand why Iain, an intelligent and perceptive journalist if ever I saw one, keeps coming out with this line.
Also the line that because a couple of small independent nations have had a leaner than usual time, that means Scottish independence is a no-no. Iain, come back to us on that one when Ireland or Iceland shows the slightest sign of wanting to rejoin in union with a former colonial power. When any of the newly-independent states of Eastern Europe starts yearning for Yugoslavia or the USSR to return.
Won't happen? And why not? Because the joy of walking tall in the big wide world rather than being hidden under Nanny's skirts is a heady draught, which won't be relinquished lightly.
And why should Scots decide that they need to creep back under these skirts for fear of economic adversity? This is the union that used the oil money that might have given Scotland "an embarrassing budgetary surplus" to fund Thatcherite tax cuts for the wealthy. That has given us the unsustainable house price inflation now to be corrected painfully. That has closed down heavy industry and manufacturing to save its own. That has given our fishing industry to the Spanish. That has taxed the poor to benefit the rich,
The only reason Scots might vote for more of that sort of "helping hand" is more doom-and-gloom spin by unionist blatts.
Iain, I know you're not a nationalist. I know you support the union. But you can also observe, and think, and reason - most of your articles demonstrate that. So why not think a bit more. Go have a wee chat with your old pal Murray Ritchie.
Iain, I wish you would give up this line about nationalism being an anachronism. In 1945 there were 51 members of the United Nations - there are now almost 200. It is the Union of Empire which belongs in the past. This is so self-evident but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
Uh, I logged on to say this, but I've been gazumped. I just can't understand why Iain, an intelligent and perceptive journalist if ever I saw one, keeps coming out with this line.
Also the line that because a couple of small independent nations have had a leaner than usual time, that means Scottish independence is a no-no. Iain, come back to us on that one when Ireland or Iceland shows the slightest sign of wanting to rejoin in union with a former colonial power. When any of the newly-independent states of Eastern Europe starts yearning for Yugoslavia or the USSR to return.
Won't happen? And why not? Because the joy of walking tall in the big wide world rather than being hidden under Nanny's skirts is a heady draught, which won't be relinquished lightly.
And why should Scots decide that they need to creep back under these skirts for fear of economic adversity? This is the union that used the oil money that might have given Scotland "an embarrassing budgetary surplus" to fund Thatcherite tax cuts for the wealthy. That has given us the unsustainable house price inflation now to be corrected painfully. That has closed down heavy industry and manufacturing to save its own. That has given our fishing industry to the Spanish. That has taxed the poor to benefit the rich,
The only reason Scots might vote for more of that sort of "helping hand" is more doom-and-gloom spin by unionist blatts.
Iain, I know you're not a nationalist. I know you support the union. But you can also observe, and think, and reason - most of your articles demonstrate that. So why not think a bit more. Go have a wee chat with your old pal Murray Ritchie.
Posted by: DougtheDug on 12:36am Mon 14 Apr 08
Iain, I have in the past questioned your political judgment and despite the accuracy of your comments about the Labour tactics in Scotland I still have reservations about it.
The statement, "The real surprise is that Gordon Brown, for all his intimate knowledge of Scottish politics, has had no answer to this...", starts from the false assumption that Gordon Brown has a knowledge of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown might have an intimate knowledge of Scottish Labour party politics and infighting but not an awareness of Scottish politics as a whole. His whole career has been one of fighting his way to the top of a party, not fighting his way to the hearts of the electorate. For all the dewy eyed sentiment about his assumed connections to "true" Labour he has been Tony Blair's wing-man and architect of PFI and the housing boom throughout the disaster of NuLabour.
I wrote this response to an article by Nigel Willmott in the Guardian on May the 5th 2007 one day after the result of the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
[quote]If Brown manages to make a public appearance in the next few months. Here in Scotland the man's gone into a major huff and disappeared from the TV screens.
No brazen Blair, "Springboard for success", statements, he's just vanished from public view. Scotland was meant to be Brown's backyard, his power base and fiefdom but when the pressure's on or things don't go the way he wants he can't take it.
He'll crack completely as the new PM when he's got no Blair to hide behind and nowhere to run and hide.[/quote]
http://commentisfree
.guardian.co.uk/nige
l_willmott/2007/05/r
easons_to_be_cheerfu
l.html#comment-56585
4
I'm not a political commentator or pundit but by the end of that missing week major alarm bells should have been sounding in the heads of all political commentators in the UK. It seems to have passed them all by but I knew he was doomed by the end of the first day that he was missing in action from our TV screens.
I've also never worked out why you thought that Wendy Alexander represented, "...the way forward for Scottish Labour". A casual reading of her history and tantrums in Henry McLeish's administration would have disabused anyone of that notion, unless you considered that the only way forward for Labour in Scotland was down.
Labour in Scotland may have had a mission at one time but now its whole mission is to keep Labour in power in London and to h3ll with the consequences in Scotland that result from policies to do that. Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander are living proof of the moral and policy vacuum at the heart of the Labour party.
Roll on independence.
Iain, I have in the past questioned your political judgment and despite the accuracy of your comments about the Labour tactics in Scotland I still have reservations about it.
The statement, "The real surprise is that Gordon Brown, for all his intimate knowledge of Scottish politics, has had no answer to this...", starts from the false assumption that Gordon Brown has a knowledge of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown might have an intimate knowledge of Scottish Labour party politics and infighting but not an awareness of Scottish politics as a whole. His whole career has been one of fighting his way to the top of a party, not fighting his way to the hearts of the electorate. For all the dewy eyed sentiment about his assumed connections to "true" Labour he has been Tony Blair's wing-man and architect of PFI and the housing boom throughout the disaster of NuLabour.
I wrote this response to an article by Nigel Willmott in the Guardian on May the 5th 2007 one day after the result of the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
If Brown manages to make a public appearance in the next few months. Here in Scotland the man's gone into a major huff and disappeared from the TV screens.
No brazen Blair, "Springboard for success", statements, he's just vanished from public view. Scotland was meant to be Brown's backyard, his power base and fiefdom but when the pressure's on or things don't go the way he wants he can't take it.
He'll crack completely as the new PM when he's got no Blair to hide behind and nowhere to run and hide.
http://commentisfree
.guardian.co.uk/nige
l_willmott/2007/05/r
easons_to_be_cheerfu
l.html#comment-56585
4
I'm not a political commentator or pundit but by the end of that missing week major alarm bells should have been sounding in the heads of all political commentators in the UK. It seems to have passed them all by but I knew he was doomed by the end of the first day that he was missing in action from our TV screens.
I've also never worked out why you thought that Wendy Alexander represented, "...the way forward for Scottish Labour". A casual reading of her history and tantrums in Henry McLeish's administration would have disabused anyone of that notion, unless you considered that the only way forward for Labour in Scotland was down.
Labour in Scotland may have had a mission at one time but now its whole mission is to keep Labour in power in London and to h3ll with the consequences in Scotland that result from policies to do that. Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander are living proof of the moral and policy vacuum at the heart of the Labour party.
Roll on independence.
Posted by: wee folding bike, at an iMac on 12:38am Mon 14 Apr 08
I'm a little surprised that someone thought Wendy would do a good job. I expected her to be mince and not even steak mince at that.
I'm a little surprised that someone thought Wendy would do a good job. I expected her to be mince and not even steak mince at that.
Posted by: ratzo on 12:58am Mon 14 Apr 08
Fair enough Iain, but it reads like it was written on automatic pilot. It veers between the slapdash and the bleedin' obvious.
The use of the word anachronism is interesting, though.
State nationalisms tend to be transparent rather than identifiably 'anachronistic'. Hence, its citizen-subjects take its semiotic processes as 'normality', almost as second nature. Unionism is the State nationalism of the UK. The emergence of Scottish nationalism has constantly exposed the real anachronisms of UK nationalism. Thus, the historical 'logic' at work is the rational process of the liberation from systematic UK failure, and its relentless abuse of power. That process was in place before Brown came to his unelected office. That's why it feels like there is a direction in events; and evident tendencies.
Neither Brown nor Cameron can stop the disintegration of the UK. Neither has anything meaningful to offer in terms of their policies or their invented 'traditions'. As you rightly point out - Labour is the party of cant, corruption, bribery, torture, and illegal wars; and the tories are exactly the same, minus the piety.
Fair enough Iain, but it reads like it was written on automatic pilot. It veers between the slapdash and the bleedin' obvious.
The use of the word anachronism is interesting, though.
State nationalisms tend to be transparent rather than identifiably 'anachronistic'. Hence, its citizen-subjects take its semiotic processes as 'normality', almost as second nature. Unionism is the State nationalism of the UK. The emergence of Scottish nationalism has constantly exposed the real anachronisms of UK nationalism. Thus, the historical 'logic' at work is the rational process of the liberation from systematic UK failure, and its relentless abuse of power. That process was in place before Brown came to his unelected office. That's why it feels like there is a direction in events; and evident tendencies.
Neither Brown nor Cameron can stop the disintegration of the UK. Neither has anything meaningful to offer in terms of their policies or their invented 'traditions'. As you rightly point out - Labour is the party of cant, corruption, bribery, torture, and illegal wars; and the tories are exactly the same, minus the piety.
Posted by: Ramsay, Hamburg on 1:05am Mon 14 Apr 08
Another richly thought-provoking article from Iain MacWhirter.
However you describe it and account for it, the situation that the advocates of independence find themselves in is unprecedented: an effective and popular autonomist government in Edinburgh facing an unpopular UK government which is weak and apparently unable to find a means of meeting the constitutional challenges that face it.
With the opinion polls now showing what appears to be an emerging majority in favour of independence, all of this would seem to indicate that the road to independence might actually be open.
The British government is as incompetent as that? The United States will stand by and just let this happen? It cannot be that easy. Scotland is too important to the UK no matter what anybody may say to the contrary just as the UK is strategically important to the USA. The UK and US governments are furthermore hand in glove, as no one can have failed to notice.
Time for the sinister Endowment for Democracy of Washington, DC to spring upon the scene in the shape of the sinister Professor Tom Gallagher, who is suddenly all over the place launching thermo-nuclear diatribes at Mr Salmond and the SNP government from the columns of The Washington Times and The Sunday Times and no doubt elsewhere in the weeks and months ahead.
The Endowment for Democracy, as you may know, is an organization which is funded by the US Congress and is accused of interference in foreign governments. It is believed to have been set up to continue legally the Central Intelligence Agency's prohibited activities of support to selected political parties outside the USA. In other words, exactly what the unionists appear to need at this juncture.
Suddenly from the United States a picture of SNP-governed Scotland as an emerging threat to democracy and western security pops up. Some serious scaremongering and skulduggery is afoot, and we had better get used to it, because it is unlikely to go away until either the SNP tide is turned or Scotland has become independent.
The UK Prime Minister appears to have called in the cavalry. Scotland has been frightened off independence before. Can it happen again?
Another richly thought-provoking article from Iain MacWhirter.
However you describe it and account for it, the situation that the advocates of independence find themselves in is unprecedented: an effective and popular autonomist government in Edinburgh facing an unpopular UK government which is weak and apparently unable to find a means of meeting the constitutional challenges that face it.
With the opinion polls now showing what appears to be an emerging majority in favour of independence, all of this would seem to indicate that the road to independence might actually be open.
The British government is as incompetent as that? The United States will stand by and just let this happen? It cannot be that easy. Scotland is too important to the UK no matter what anybody may say to the contrary just as the UK is strategically important to the USA. The UK and US governments are furthermore hand in glove, as no one can have failed to notice.
Time for the sinister Endowment for Democracy of Washington, DC to spring upon the scene in the shape of the sinister Professor Tom Gallagher, who is suddenly all over the place launching thermo-nuclear diatribes at Mr Salmond and the SNP government from the columns of The Washington Times and The Sunday Times and no doubt elsewhere in the weeks and months ahead.
The Endowment for Democracy, as you may know, is an organization which is funded by the US Congress and is accused of interference in foreign governments. It is believed to have been set up to continue legally the Central Intelligence Agency's prohibited activities of support to selected political parties outside the USA. In other words, exactly what the unionists appear to need at this juncture.
Suddenly from the United States a picture of SNP-governed Scotland as an emerging threat to democracy and western security pops up. Some serious scaremongering and skulduggery is afoot, and we had better get used to it, because it is unlikely to go away until either the SNP tide is turned or Scotland has become independent.
The UK Prime Minister appears to have called in the cavalry. Scotland has been frightened off independence before. Can it happen again?
Posted by: Ramsay, Hamburg on 1:20am Mon 14 Apr 08
CORRECTION:
The full title of the organization in question is the National Endowment for Democracy.
CORRECTION:
The full title of the organization in question is the National Endowment for Democracy.
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 1:52am Mon 14 Apr 08
Iain refers to 'global village' or on anothe ocassion to 'globalisation' as de facto counter-arguments against independence. Perhaps he might like to explain this. To me and many others globalisation has meant that people are turning to their national identities in order to strengthen a sense of belonging.
Iain really does have to explain himself here. His point is profoundly important for many who want a coherent argument over the constitution and yet here is Iain bandying it around without feeling the need to explain his hypothesis at all.
Let's be out with it Iain - explain yourself man.
Iain refers to 'global village' or on anothe ocassion to 'globalisation' as de facto counter-arguments against independence. Perhaps he might like to explain this. To me and many others globalisation has meant that people are turning to their national identities in order to strengthen a sense of belonging.
Iain really does have to explain himself here. His point is profoundly important for many who want a coherent argument over the constitution and yet here is Iain bandying it around without feeling the need to explain his hypothesis at all.
Let's be out with it Iain - explain yourself man.
Posted by: art1000, Dunfermline on 5:05am Mon 14 Apr 08
MacWhirter should have lived and worked abroad for a while in happy self governing countries like Holland or Denmark to get a feel for the stronger sense of community, more cohesive society, sense of belonging, linguistic and cultural strength, better governance etc. That would have broadened his mind to the possibilities for Scotland. Having said that who would employ someone who's sole claim to fame was arguing the intellectual case against having a society like theirs.
To caricature his position, we should all be watching imperial television (BBC from London only), speaking (RP or Estuarine) English, packing off our MPs to London , enduring another tweedledee UK government for ten to fifteen years and and then voting Labour again once they get a new Dear Leader who makes the right 'soshul justice' noises but when elected starts wars. A sort of hopeless hinduesque cycle or birth, meaningless life and then death and reincarnation.
I do not need him, who have little experience of life outside the UK, telling me what to think and reducing my ambition for my fellow citizens and society.
MacWhirter should have lived and worked abroad for a while in happy self governing countries like Holland or Denmark to get a feel for the stronger sense of community, more cohesive society, sense of belonging, linguistic and cultural strength, better governance etc. That would have broadened his mind to the possibilities for Scotland. Having said that who would employ someone who's sole claim to fame was arguing the intellectual case against having a society like theirs.
To caricature his position, we should all be watching imperial television (BBC from London only), speaking (RP or Estuarine) English, packing off our MPs to London , enduring another tweedledee UK government for ten to fifteen years and and then voting Labour again once they get a new Dear Leader who makes the right 'soshul justice' noises but when elected starts wars. A sort of hopeless hinduesque cycle or birth, meaningless life and then death and reincarnation.
I do not need him, who have little experience of life outside the UK, telling me what to think and reducing my ambition for my fellow citizens and society.
Posted by: Colin Wilson, Aberdeen on 6:49am Mon 14 Apr 08
"...nationalism is an anachronism in this global financial village, and yet the Scots appear to be turning to it.... Recent polls, such as the TNS System Three in yesterday's Sunday Herald have shown a steady increase in support for independence "
Wanting independence, and nationalism, are two different things.
Since 1990 independence (i.e. normal governance) has been restored to a considerable number of European states, with no nationalism involved in most cases.
Evidently Iain MacWhirter hasn't been following events.
"...nationalism is an anachronism in this global financial village, and yet the Scots appear to be turning to it.... Recent polls, such as the TNS System Three in yesterday's Sunday Herald have shown a steady increase in support for independence "
Wanting independence, and nationalism, are two different things.
Since 1990 independence (i.e. normal governance) has been restored to a considerable number of European states, with no nationalism involved in most cases.
Evidently Iain MacWhirter hasn't been following events.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 9:11am Mon 14 Apr 08
Ramsay, Hamburg,
Interesting post. While there may be certain interests in the US who want the UK to remain as it is there are also others quite serene or even happy about Scotland going its own way. Seems the presidential candidates are happy enough.
A Rump UK would be more likely to follow US foreign policy than less likely. The Rump UK would Risk loosing its security council seat though I doubt a majority in council would be forthcoming for Rump UK removal.
There is far higher risk from within the UK. Recent history shows that the UK is willing to use extreme measures to scupper the movement of power from London to Edinburgh - The death of William McRae for example.
Ramsay, Hamburg,
Interesting post. While there may be certain interests in the US who want the UK to remain as it is there are also others quite serene or even happy about Scotland going its own way. Seems the presidential candidates are happy enough.
A Rump UK would be more likely to follow US foreign policy than less likely. The Rump UK would Risk loosing its security council seat though I doubt a majority in council would be forthcoming for Rump UK removal.
There is far higher risk from within the UK. Recent history shows that the UK is willing to use extreme measures to scupper the movement of power from London to Edinburgh - The death of William McRae for example.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:07am Mon 14 Apr 08
I am not sure how sanguine the US will be if we get rid of Trident and their airbases, and stop their rendition flights, and pull troops out Iraq, and generally don't buy into any of their neo con nonsense. I suppose it depends on who the next Pres will be. I think the answer to the question is yes, Gordon Brown has sent us along the road to indepedence. Not on purpose though. But Iain I have to say that I remain amazed that you ever thought Wendy had any form of ability whatsoever. She must have microchipped you at some point. I'm glad the ''plant'' doesn't work any more.
I am not sure how sanguine the US will be if we get rid of Trident and their airbases, and stop their rendition flights, and pull troops out Iraq, and generally don't buy into any of their neo con nonsense. I suppose it depends on who the next Pres will be. I think the answer to the question is yes, Gordon Brown has sent us along the road to indepedence. Not on purpose though. But Iain I have to say that I remain amazed that you ever thought Wendy had any form of ability whatsoever. She must have microchipped you at some point. I'm glad the ''plant'' doesn't work any more.
Posted by: Wen D, Inversnecky on 10:15am Mon 14 Apr 08
I agree with most of the posters on here.
I would only add that I personally believe that NO WAY will london EVER allow Scotland to secede from the union unilaterally.
I believe that, in order to achieve this end, london will employ ALL manner of dirty tricks, including help from abroad.
The SNP in particular will have to be especially vigilant during the troubled times ahead.
I believe, however that, if the Scots keep their nerve, indepedence will follow. I have my doubts, after reading Scots history, if that will be the case.
Our "salvation" may be that the younger generation may not possess the fears that older Scots appear to have had in the past!
I agree with most of the posters on here.
I would only add that I personally believe that NO WAY will london EVER allow Scotland to secede from the union unilaterally.
I believe that, in order to achieve this end, london will employ ALL manner of dirty tricks, including help from abroad.
The SNP in particular will have to be especially vigilant during the troubled times ahead.
I believe, however that, if the Scots keep their nerve, indepedence will follow. I have my doubts, after reading Scots history, if that will be the case.
Our "salvation" may be that the younger generation may not possess the fears that older Scots appear to have had in the past!
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 10:43am Mon 14 Apr 08
[italic]The death of William McRae for example.[/italic]Oh, get real.
If MI5 was really in the business of assasinating inconvenient British nationals, there are a few people a lot higher up the queue than he ever was!
Not everything that's incompletely explained is a conspiracy.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of truth in what Ramsay says, perhaps most especially when the strategic importance of places like Faslane is considered. This could get pretty nasty, even if assasinations aren't the [italic]modus operandi[/italic].
The death of William McRae for example.Oh, get real.
If MI5 was really in the business of assasinating inconvenient British nationals, there are a few people a lot higher up the queue than he ever was!
Not everything that's incompletely explained is a conspiracy.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of truth in what Ramsay says, perhaps most especially when the strategic importance of places like Faslane is considered. This could get pretty nasty, even if assasinations aren't the
modus operandi.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 10:50am Mon 14 Apr 08
Someone mentioned the malignant article by Tom Gallagher.
I did try to post a comment on the Sunday Times but incredibly their error message came up three times ,all at different times of the day.
Yes , there are dirty tricks afoot !
As a " swivel eyed member of the McChattering classes" I was pleased with the latest opinion polls but treat them with care, the only poll worth having is a referendum.
I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us?
And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!
Someone mentioned the malignant article by Tom Gallagher.
I did try to post a comment on the Sunday Times but incredibly their error message came up three times ,all at different times of the day.
Yes , there are dirty tricks afoot !
As a " swivel eyed member of the McChattering classes" I was pleased with the latest opinion polls but treat them with care, the only poll worth having is a referendum.
I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us?
And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!
Posted by: GML, right here on 11:06am Mon 14 Apr 08
There are some excellent comments on this thread. It is a very well-made point to refer to the vast increase in the number of independent countries since the end of WWII. That is what normal is.
The main political phenomemon of the last half century has been the decline and fall of empires. (Interestingly, this has been a stated goal of American foreign policy for most of the 20th century, so maybe they are smarter than they look.) The British empire, the Portuguese empire, the French empire and the Soviet Russian empire have all given way. The current arguments over Tibet can be seen as strains within the Chinese empire (Tibet and, as the Chinese call it, Xinjiang are not historically or ethnically Chinese, and Chinese behaviour towards Tibet is classically imperial.)
The end of empire is the main trend of modern history. I would argue that participation in the British Empire was why Scotland joined and stayed in the union. The loss of large quantities of capital in the Darien scheme, and access to to the English and colonial markets were key to selling the union to the noblemen who signed up for it. In the 19th century, a quarter of the world was pink on the schoolroom maps, and Scots were obviously part of the 'winning team' that 'ran the world'. (Gordon Brown still appears stuck in this era most of the time.) Shipbuilding, textiles, tobacco and other formerly major industries in Scotland all flourished on empire trade and markets.
No doubt Scotland gained greatly from the empire in its heyday, admittedly at the cost of disproportionate military casualties and high levels of emigration. But it all went wrong in the 20th century. The mass slaughter of a generation of men in the First World War (far greater pro-rata than England, Germany, France or Belgium) had an effect on Scotland that is still not fully appreciated. The empire started costing more than it was earning (refs - Niall Ferguson's 'Empire' and 'War of the World' - two excellent books). WWII was followed by the closing down and selling off of pretty much all the empire's remaining assets to pay for the war. The British state grew in social scope as it shrank in imperial scope, and the revenue raised by the resulting greater tax burden was pulled into London (as always happens with imperial capitals). The result - half a century of industrial decline and falling relative living standards in Scotland, and resultant massive emigration. But at least we could get to see swinging London at the movies...or sing about it - it is actually this situation that underlies eg Billy Connolly's [italic]"Last train to Glasgow Central" [/italic] if you think about it.
The empire era is over, and Scotland has now been on the losing end of the British proposition for almost a century. Look at the relative economic growth rates. Look at the relative population growth figures. Look at the military casualty statistics. Look at what happens to your TV licence money. Look at the enormous public expenditures in London (recently these include £3 billion for the high speed railway to Dover - St Pancras station looks lovely, of course - the Millenium dome, the Olympics, Crossrail, the new office block for MPs etc; but take a walk along the Thames and down Whitehall and see how long this has been going on for.....)
Any Scot who believes Britain stands best for Scotland's long term interests, despite a century of evidence to the contrary, is one or more of the following: ill-informed, a fool, a romantic flag-waving British nationalist who doesn't care about the real world, or a power hungry hypocrite who seeks power in London at the expense of his or her own country. I will leave it to you to classify leading unionist politicains according to these categories.
There are some excellent comments on this thread. It is a very well-made point to refer to the vast increase in the number of independent countries since the end of WWII. That is what normal is.
The main political phenomemon of the last half century has been the decline and fall of empires. (Interestingly, this has been a stated goal of American foreign policy for most of the 20th century, so maybe they are smarter than they look.) The British empire, the Portuguese empire, the French empire and the Soviet Russian empire have all given way. The current arguments over Tibet can be seen as strains within the Chinese empire (Tibet and, as the Chinese call it, Xinjiang are not historically or ethnically Chinese, and Chinese behaviour towards Tibet is classically imperial.)
The end of empire is the main trend of modern history. I would argue that participation in the British Empire was why Scotland joined and stayed in the union. The loss of large quantities of capital in the Darien scheme, and access to to the English and colonial markets were key to selling the union to the noblemen who signed up for it. In the 19th century, a quarter of the world was pink on the schoolroom maps, and Scots were obviously part of the 'winning team' that 'ran the world'. (Gordon Brown still appears stuck in this era most of the time.) Shipbuilding, textiles, tobacco and other formerly major industries in Scotland all flourished on empire trade and markets.
No doubt Scotland gained greatly from the empire in its heyday, admittedly at the cost of disproportionate military casualties and high levels of emigration. But it all went wrong in the 20th century. The mass slaughter of a generation of men in the First World War (far greater pro-rata than England, Germany, France or Belgium) had an effect on Scotland that is still not fully appreciated. The empire started costing more than it was earning (refs - Niall Ferguson's 'Empire' and 'War of the World' - two excellent books). WWII was followed by the closing down and selling off of pretty much all the empire's remaining assets to pay for the war. The British state grew in social scope as it shrank in imperial scope, and the revenue raised by the resulting greater tax burden was pulled into London (as always happens with imperial capitals). The result - half a century of industrial decline and falling relative living standards in Scotland, and resultant massive emigration. But at least we could get to see swinging London at the movies...or sing about it - it is actually this situation that underlies eg Billy Connolly's
"Last train to Glasgow Central" if you think about it.
The empire era is over, and Scotland has now been on the losing end of the British proposition for almost a century. Look at the relative economic growth rates. Look at the relative population growth figures. Look at the military casualty statistics. Look at what happens to your TV licence money. Look at the enormous public expenditures in London (recently these include £3 billion for the high speed railway to Dover - St Pancras station looks lovely, of course - the Millenium dome, the Olympics, Crossrail, the new office block for MPs etc; but take a walk along the Thames and down Whitehall and see how long this has been going on for.....)
Any Scot who believes Britain stands best for Scotland's long term interests, despite a century of evidence to the contrary, is one or more of the following: ill-informed, a fool, a romantic flag-waving British nationalist who doesn't care about the real world, or a power hungry hypocrite who seeks power in London at the expense of his or her own country. I will leave it to you to classify leading unionist politicains according to these categories.
Posted by: Terry, England on 11:11am Mon 14 Apr 08
[quote]“I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us?
And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!”[/quote]
It doesn't make sense because you're confusing Westminster with England. Those with their snouts in the Westminster trough need Britain, England doesn’t.
If the SNP would open some branches down here, you’d be independent by the next election.
“I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us?
And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!”
It doesn't make sense because you're confusing Westminster with England. Those with their snouts in the Westminster trough need Britain, England doesn’t.
If the SNP would open some branches down here, you’d be independent by the next election.
Posted by: Globaltraveller, Scotland on 11:27am Mon 14 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Terry[/bold] wrote:
[quote]“I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us? And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!”[/quote] It doesn't make sense because you're confusing Westminster with England. Those with their snouts in the Westminster trough need Britain, England doesn’t. If the SNP would open some branches down here, you’d be independent by the next election. [/quote] Terry, despite all the puffed up hyperbole and propaganda, I think you know that isn't true. Far more in England are happy with the idea of a United Kingdom than in Scotland, indeed a poll recently showed that only 16% thought England would be better off with Scotland.
TBH if there was a referendum on rejecting the Union in England, I put money on it failing. I can't say the same about Scotland.
Terry wrote:
“I would like an answer to one question, if we Scots are such a drain on the English why is the Westminster government so keen to hang on to us? And don't say oil , there has to be a greater reason!”
It doesn't make sense because you're confusing Westminster with England. Those with their snouts in the Westminster trough need Britain, England doesn’t. If the SNP would open some branches down here, you’d be independent by the next election.
Terry, despite all the puffed up hyperbole and propaganda, I think you know that isn't true. Far more in England are happy with the idea of a United Kingdom than in Scotland, indeed a poll recently showed that only 16% thought England would be better off with Scotland.
TBH if there was a referendum on rejecting the Union in England, I put money on it failing. I can't say the same about Scotland.
Posted by: CRAGman, Edinburgh on 11:28am Mon 14 Apr 08
Ukraine no more
Belgium no more
Austria no more
Turkey no more
India no more
Iran no more
Serbia no more
Burma no more
Israel no more
Sri Lanka no more
Estonia no more
Moldova no more
Greece no more
China no more
Germany no more
Zimbabwe no more
Canada no more
Georgia no more
France no more
Slovakia no more
Yugoslavia no more
Malaysia no more
Lithuania no more
Thailand no more
Poland no more
Switzerland no more
Spain no more
Lebanon no more
United Kingdom no more
Sudan no more
Iraq no more
Serbia no more
Romania no more
Latvia no more
Afghanistan no more
etc. etc. - the list of countries with separatist or independence movements is even larger than this sample
Ukraine no more
Belgium no more
Austria no more
Turkey no more
India no more
Iran no more
Serbia no more
Burma no more
Israel no more
Sri Lanka no more
Estonia no more
Moldova no more
Greece no more
China no more
Germany no more
Zimbabwe no more
Canada no more
Georgia no more
France no more
Slovakia no more
Yugoslavia no more
Malaysia no more
Lithuania no more
Thailand no more
Poland no more
Switzerland no more
Spain no more
Lebanon no more
United Kingdom no more
Sudan no more
Iraq no more
Serbia no more
Romania no more
Latvia no more
Afghanistan no more
etc. etc. - the list of countries with separatist or independence movements is even larger than this sample
Posted by: The Voice of Reason, Blairgowrie on 11:45am Mon 14 Apr 08
That's a smashing list CRAGman, even if I'd question one or two. It's fantastic to see peoples going for it independently in the world rather than living at home with their Maw and Paw until they're middle aged and too auld for a bit of fun.
No spinster me.
VoR
That's a smashing list CRAGman, even if I'd question one or two. It's fantastic to see peoples going for it independently in the world rather than living at home with their Maw and Paw until they're middle aged and too auld for a bit of fun.
No spinster me.
VoR
Posted by: Terry, England on 12:00pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Global traveller, can you give me your source for the 16% wanting England to keep Scotland?
The last one I saw showed 59% wanting Scotland to leave http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/main.jht
ml?xml=/news/2006/11
/26/nunion26.xml
There is a set of polls that the Government often quote called the "British Social Attitudes survey". It is carried out for the Government and always throws out figures that contradict the more numerous polls carried out by MORI, YOUGOV etc. I think it is flawed, but cannot honestly point out why (probably their sample profile).
Global traveller, can you give me your source for the 16% wanting England to keep Scotland?
The last one I saw showed 59% wanting Scotland to leave http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/main.jht
ml?xml=/news/2006/11
/26/nunion26.xml
There is a set of polls that the Government often quote called the "British Social Attitudes survey". It is carried out for the Government and always throws out figures that contradict the more numerous polls carried out by MORI, YOUGOV etc. I think it is flawed, but cannot honestly point out why (probably their sample profile).
Posted by: Craig H, Cathcart on 12:29pm Mon 14 Apr 08
GML, good points about the empire. I believe Scotland benefitted from it - certainly, the people at the top did.
If the people at the top today thought they would benefit more from independence than they do from the current set up, it would happen tomorrow. Jim Mather has, and is, doing an excellent job persuading some of these people.
GML, good points about the empire. I believe Scotland benefitted from it - certainly, the people at the top did.
If the people at the top today thought they would benefit more from independence than they do from the current set up, it would happen tomorrow. Jim Mather has, and is, doing an excellent job persuading some of these people.
Posted by: Globaltraveller, Scotland on 12:32pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Terry
From December 2007 - and from the same paper (it was 17% rather than 16%):
tinyurl.com/2ccn9r
[quote]The poll suggests the concept of "Britain" still retains a deep hold on the affections of English people, and 62 per cent say their British identity is just as important to them as their Englishness. Only 17 per cent believe England would be better off without Scotland.[/quote]
The same couldn't be said for most Scots, or indeed Scotland at all. There have been others, and if I can dig them out I'll post them.
Terry
From December 2007 - and from the same paper (it was 17% rather than 16%):
tinyurl.com/2ccn9r
The poll suggests the concept of "Britain" still retains a deep hold on the affections of English people, and 62 per cent say their British identity is just as important to them as their Englishness. Only 17 per cent believe England would be better off without Scotland.
The same couldn't be said for most Scots, or indeed Scotland at all. There have been others, and if I can dig them out I'll post them.
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 1:07pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Abroad at the moment, in one of these independent countries that has tried and enjoyed normal government. Looks like Scotland may at last be joining up to normality and ditching the completely hopeless Labour Party at the sametime.
Happy Days!
Abroad at the moment, in one of these independent countries that has tried and enjoyed normal government. Looks like Scotland may at last be joining up to normality and ditching the completely hopeless Labour Party at the sametime.
Happy Days!
Posted by: Terry, England on 1:33pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Globaltraveller, thanks for the link.
This was run when the Telegraph were pushing Brown’s Britishness nonsense and the journalist has applied some spin. For example “…62 per cent say their British identity is just as important to them as their English one”. This is true, but the statement “ 74% feel their English identity is at least as important as their British one” is equally true and it would put a different slant on the article.
Having said that I can't argue with your facts, but it is a hell of a swing in one year.
Maybe if the questions “Is Scotland’s higher public spending justified?” (63% say no) and “would England be better off without Scotland” (78% say better off or no difference) was followed by “should the Union continue?”, the result might have been similar to the one the year before. Who knows? The questioning is all important in these polls.
The only data I would reject outright from this poll is 49% want a British footie team. What???
Globaltraveller, thanks for the link.
This was run when the Telegraph were pushing Brown’s Britishness nonsense and the journalist has applied some spin. For example “…62 per cent say their British identity is just as important to them as their English one”. This is true, but the statement “ 74% feel their English identity is at least as important as their British one” is equally true and it would put a different slant on the article.
Having said that I can't argue with your facts, but it is a hell of a swing in one year.
Maybe if the questions “Is Scotland’s higher public spending justified?” (63% say no) and “would England be better off without Scotland” (78% say better off or no difference) was followed by “should the Union continue?”, the result might have been similar to the one the year before. Who knows? The questioning is all important in these polls.
The only data I would reject outright from this poll is 49% want a British footie team. What???
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 2:22pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Terry , we've been told so often that we are a drain on English taxpayers.
I know it is'nt true, do you?
I read what is said in the Telegraph and Times about Scots and some of it makes me angry.
Happily there are other posters out there who redress the balance !
Greville springs to mind!
He too, seems to think that a branch of the SNP would be an asset to English voters!
England needs a parliament for English matters.
PS I still want to know why they want to hang on to us! Westminster that is , not the people of England!
Terry , we've been told so often that we are a drain on English taxpayers.
I know it is'nt true, do you?
I read what is said in the Telegraph and Times about Scots and some of it makes me angry.
Happily there are other posters out there who redress the balance !
Greville springs to mind!
He too, seems to think that a branch of the SNP would be an asset to English voters!
England needs a parliament for English matters.
PS I still want to know why they want to hang on to us! Westminster that is , not the people of England!
Posted by: Ramsay, Hamburg on 3:01pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Apropos of daveymac's reference to the mysterious violent death of the prominent SNP activist William McRae, I think one should accept that no conclusive evidence of foul play has ever emerged.
Nevertheless, it is the case that in his Washington Times vituperations Tom Gallagher has compared First Minister Salmond to the late Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, who, among other accomplishments, offended powerful interests in his state, as Mr Salmond may be said to be doing in Scotland. What became of Governor Long? He was assassinated.
Is this a veiled threat I see before me? Perhaps not. But who else is comparing Mr Salmond to an assassinated politician? Mr Gallagher is in a league of his own.
Apropos of daveymac's reference to the mysterious violent death of the prominent SNP activist William McRae, I think one should accept that no conclusive evidence of foul play has ever emerged.
Nevertheless, it is the case that in his Washington Times vituperations Tom Gallagher has compared First Minister Salmond to the late Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, who, among other accomplishments, offended powerful interests in his state, as Mr Salmond may be said to be doing in Scotland. What became of Governor Long? He was assassinated.
Is this a veiled threat I see before me? Perhaps not. But who else is comparing Mr Salmond to an assassinated politician? Mr Gallagher is in a league of his own.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 3:14pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Hi Terry,
Have we exchanged posts before? I think we might have. Might I suggest that a good [bold]start[/bold] for English democracy might be to require all Scottish Labour MPs to vote ONLY on UK wide matters. This would severely curtail the influence of the Westminster "Shock Jocks", including Gazza Brown himself, his Darling, Des "O'Connor" Browne and his Cairns terrier. These men are a curse on both our houses, as has become blatantly obvious in recent times. It is an affront that these people can impose an artificial majority on your country, just as it is an affront that they can attempt to meddle in matters where they have no mandate here! And as for a British football team. AAAAAaaarrrrrrrrgggg
ggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
! All part of Brown's Britishness campaign of course ;-)
Hi Terry,
Have we exchanged posts before? I think we might have. Might I suggest that a good
start for English democracy might be to require all Scottish Labour MPs to vote ONLY on UK wide matters. This would severely curtail the influence of the Westminster "Shock Jocks", including Gazza Brown himself, his Darling, Des "O'Connor" Browne and his Cairns terrier. These men are a curse on both our houses, as has become blatantly obvious in recent times. It is an affront that these people can impose an artificial majority on your country, just as it is an affront that they can attempt to meddle in matters where they have no mandate here! And as for a British football team. AAAAAaaarrrrrrrrgggg
ggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
! All part of Brown's Britishness campaign of course ;-)
Posted by: Terry, England on 3:15pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Tony Blair puts England’s contribution to Scotland at £10bn and said it is a “price worth paying to save the Union” and the Scotsman Newspaper recently put it at £20bn. Then you have the McCrone report that argued that the economy of an independent Scotland, properly managed, would "tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".
The truth is, no one knows because successive Government departments have obfuscated and fudged the facts.
Maybe Scotland subsidises the rest, maybe not…we don’t know! I think it is irrelevant. If you’re in a relationship for what money you can get out of it (whether it is a friendship, marriage or political Union) it’s over; forget it, shake hands and walk away.
An indisputable fact however is Scotland gets 25% more public money than England. Why? I’ve absolutely no idea except it might be an attempt to buy off the nationalists. This policy seems to have worked in the sense that invading Iraq to make the world a safer place and tinkering with Bank of England powers to avoid a Northern Rock “worked”.
Thanks for your support for an EP and good luck in the next elections (I assume you’re SNP).
Westminster still want you because Labour would be stuffed without you and Cameron wants to be PM of Britain, not just England. He obviously likes to think "big". Turkey don't vote for Christmas and Pigs don't vote "ban the trough"!
Tony Blair puts England’s contribution to Scotland at £10bn and said it is a “price worth paying to save the Union” and the Scotsman Newspaper recently put it at £20bn. Then you have the McCrone report that argued that the economy of an independent Scotland, properly managed, would "tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".
The truth is, no one knows because successive Government departments have obfuscated and fudged the facts.
Maybe Scotland subsidises the rest, maybe not…we don’t know! I think it is irrelevant. If you’re in a relationship for what money you can get out of it (whether it is a friendship, marriage or political Union) it’s over; forget it, shake hands and walk away.
An indisputable fact however is Scotland gets 25% more public money than England. Why? I’ve absolutely no idea except it might be an attempt to buy off the nationalists. This policy seems to have worked in the sense that invading Iraq to make the world a safer place and tinkering with Bank of England powers to avoid a Northern Rock “worked”.
Thanks for your support for an EP and good luck in the next elections (I assume you’re SNP).
Westminster still want you because Labour would be stuffed without you and Cameron wants to be PM of Britain, not just England. He obviously likes to think "big". Turkey don't vote for Christmas and Pigs don't vote "ban the trough"!
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 3:28pm Mon 14 Apr 08
If Britian were no longer a ''superpower'' (stop laughing at the back) then ''we'' would no longer get a seat at the top table. I believe that is why there is genuine fanatical opposition to independence in the Westminster establushment village - it really would sound out the last days of Empire, and the rump of the UK would not be able to stride the world like the midget, err sorry colossus, that establishment appear to imagine they are just now.
If Britian were no longer a ''superpower'' (stop laughing at the back) then ''we'' would no longer get a seat at the top table. I believe that is why there is genuine fanatical opposition to independence in the Westminster establushment village - it really would sound out the last days of Empire, and the rump of the UK would not be able to stride the world like the midget, err sorry colossus, that establishment appear to imagine they are just now.
Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 3:52pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Terry your understanding of the complexities of devolution, independence, etc is really quite sophisticated. I notice on a lot of the blogs I read that many commenters who style themselves as English Nationalists are actually rather fervent Unionists who while rightly condemning the problems arising from Labour's botched attempts at devolution would hate to see the break up of the UK. There seems to be a grey area where supporters of an English Parliament, supporters of some form of federalism for England, supporters of full independence, all kind of merge into "English Nationalists".
In online conversations with many of these people it has emerged that separating formally from Scotland is not and never was on their agenda.
The problem is that England will never get it's own parliament without full separation as Westminster would never allow it. I often tell these commenters that I fully support an English Parliament as I believe England as a country has been cynically used by Brown and his cronies for their own political ends. The response I usually get is " we know what your game is , you're only saying that cos you want to get independence for Scotland, we just want what Scotland's got nothing more"
The number of commenters who realise that a truly independent England is the only way to get the kind of country they want is actually quite small. I hope that number continues to grow and that offering that opinion isn't just seen as a cynical attempt to end the Union ( we're going anyway) for it is genuinely meant.
We know what it's like to have your identity swallowed by "Britishness" and we are lucky enough in the SNP to have a party with a leader who fights our corner. I wish you had someone similar.
Terry your understanding of the complexities of devolution, independence, etc is really quite sophisticated. I notice on a lot of the blogs I read that many commenters who style themselves as English Nationalists are actually rather fervent Unionists who while rightly condemning the problems arising from Labour's botched attempts at devolution would hate to see the break up of the UK. There seems to be a grey area where supporters of an English Parliament, supporters of some form of federalism for England, supporters of full independence, all kind of merge into "English Nationalists".
In online conversations with many of these people it has emerged that separating formally from Scotland is not and never was on their agenda.
The problem is that England will never get it's own parliament without full separation as Westminster would never allow it. I often tell these commenters that I fully support an English Parliament as I believe England as a country has been cynically used by Brown and his cronies for their own political ends. The response I usually get is " we know what your game is , you're only saying that cos you want to get independence for Scotland, we just want what Scotland's got nothing more"
The number of commenters who realise that a truly independent England is the only way to get the kind of country they want is actually quite small. I hope that number continues to grow and that offering that opinion isn't just seen as a cynical attempt to end the Union ( we're going anyway) for it is genuinely meant.
We know what it's like to have your identity swallowed by "Britishness" and we are lucky enough in the SNP to have a party with a leader who fights our corner. I wish you had someone similar.
Posted by: Terry, England on 3:52pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Hi Alastair, we have exchanged posts before. I hope you're ok and the campaign is going well.
Hi Alastair, we have exchanged posts before. I hope you're ok and the campaign is going well.
Posted by: Colin Wilson, Aberdeen on 4:31pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Perhaps the exchanges between Terry, Alistair etc point to the way ahead.
Instead of various "nationalists" fighting from their respective corners, the way ahead might be to form a united movement of people from ALL the UK nations who want to see the organisation dissolved.
Perhaps the exchanges between Terry, Alistair etc point to the way ahead.
Instead of various "nationalists" fighting from their respective corners, the way ahead might be to form a united movement of people from ALL the UK nations who want to see the organisation dissolved.
Posted by: GML, right here on 4:58pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Actually "Britishness" is an idea that was largely promoted by Scots in the 18th and 19th century, pretty much as a means to stake a claim on part-ownership of the imperial state without being absorbed by England. (It is hardly an original observation that the Scots are very fussy about the usage of the terms 'Scottish', 'English' and 'British', and those south of the border traditionally less so.)
The concept of Britishness was a deliberate political construct, to put something at the middle of the imperial project that the participants (including the Welsh and Irish too at that time) could all sign up for. It occurs to me that Gordon Brown is absolutely historically consistent with this effort in his attempts to bang on about red white and blue Britishness, make children swear allegiance to the Queen, set up some kind of anti-terrorist home guard and so on.
The thing is, there isn't a British empire left to rule. Artifical imperial national identities have waned around the world - I don't see the Soviet Union reopening its workers paradise any time soon, or the Ottomans or the Hapsburgs making a comeback - and Gordon Brown just looks ridiculous now with all that comedy Britishness stuff.
And for anyone who believes that Scotland has a chronic fiscal deficit, even this rather unionist newspaper debunked that old chestnut recently. Anyone who swallows the GERS report figures is so slow off the mark that they are being outwitted by Ian Lang (remember him?). Just ask yourself this question of any state, not just the UK: does money flow from the periphery to the centre, or from the centre to the periphery? Then take a walk around central London, as I did a couple of weeks back, and look how some of that money has been spent over the last couple of centuries. And now the bonus money that used to flow in from the empire is coming from [italic][bold]where exactly[/bold][/italic] ? (I'll give you a clue, it's black and it rhymes with 'soil'. And it now sells for well over $100 per barrel.)
Actually "Britishness" is an idea that was largely promoted by Scots in the 18th and 19th century, pretty much as a means to stake a claim on part-ownership of the imperial state without being absorbed by England. (It is hardly an original observation that the Scots are very fussy about the usage of the terms 'Scottish', 'English' and 'British', and those south of the border traditionally less so.)
The concept of Britishness was a deliberate political construct, to put something at the middle of the imperial project that the participants (including the Welsh and Irish too at that time) could all sign up for. It occurs to me that Gordon Brown is absolutely historically consistent with this effort in his attempts to bang on about red white and blue Britishness, make children swear allegiance to the Queen, set up some kind of anti-terrorist home guard and so on.
The thing is, there isn't a British empire left to rule. Artifical imperial national identities have waned around the world - I don't see the Soviet Union reopening its workers paradise any time soon, or the Ottomans or the Hapsburgs making a comeback - and Gordon Brown just looks ridiculous now with all that comedy Britishness stuff.
And for anyone who believes that Scotland has a chronic fiscal deficit, even this rather unionist newspaper debunked that old chestnut recently. Anyone who swallows the GERS report figures is so slow off the mark that they are being outwitted by Ian Lang (remember him?). Just ask yourself this question of any state, not just the UK: does money flow from the periphery to the centre, or from the centre to the periphery? Then take a walk around central London, as I did a couple of weeks back, and look how some of that money has been spent over the last couple of centuries. And now the bonus money that used to flow in from the empire is coming from
where exactly ? (I'll give you a clue, it's black and it rhymes with 'soil'. And it now sells for well over $100 per barrel.)
Posted by: ratzo on 6:21pm Mon 14 Apr 08
GML, on 11:06am & 4:58pm: two outstanding posts.
GML, on 11:06am & 4:58pm: two outstanding posts.
Posted by: Traquir, Alba on 6:28pm Mon 14 Apr 08
Very good posts in this forum and as several people eluded to
the Scottish Resources of Oil & Gas is one of many factors
that an Independent Scotland can leverage to prosper. I thought
it might be worthwhile to add a few facts and figures here
to make the enormity of this Scottish resource more clear and
perhaps help to explain one of the main reasons Westminster
wants to hold onto Scotland.
Based on current market prices and known/potential
reserves as of 2004 the values of the Scottish resources
are :
. Oil - £668,752,590,136
. Gas - £186,934,868,421,053
Clearly substantial sums will be spent on exploration, extraction,
reasonable profits etc. Even then massive amounts of monies are
still available as profit for Scotland which for a country of
only 5 million would be very considerable. With Scotland
being independent we would then pull the strings to
work out appropriate proportions between the various
financial metrics here e.g. proportion invested in a oil
fund for future generations (currency zero), acceptable
levels of profit; mutually beneficial tax regimes. Having this
power Scotland would no doubt run our Oil & Gas industry
much differently to the way the Westminster currently does
and in a way that would be much more beneficial for
Scotland.
The 2004 current/potential reserves can be found at
- tinyurl.com/6yn6cg
To arrive at the final figures in sterling there are a number
of conversions happening e.g. currency, MMbtu - metric meters,
tonnes-barrels, current market prices.
If there are any errors in my c