Add Comment

HICCUP, GULP, HICCUP

"...the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber also challenged Alex Salmond to hold a referendum on independence "next week", contradicting the stance of his party north of the border." Maybe someone should tell Charlie that the leader of the Scottish Lib-Dem Unionists won't even start to talk about independence far less have a referendum on it. "As a former leader, you have more time to think more closely about how we communicate and engage." In this case he obviously hasn't had enough time to, "communicate and engage". Does Charlie actually follow the big political stories in Scotland or know what his party line is?

Charles Kennedy[quote]"If I was being mischievous, I would probably ask him, as several people have, if you think independence is the way forward and you've published a bill on it, why not put it to the test next week'?"[/quote] That's the kind of glib politics I'd expect from a unionist. Not only is he looking a bit daft when you consider that the liberals were too scared of a referendum to even enter negotiations with the scottish government unless the mere [bold]mention[/bold] of a referendum was removed, but how mickey mouse would it be to publish a white paper, say you are holding a discussion and debate with 'everyone' and then hold the referendum a fortnight later? Absolute nonsense-Kennedy should stick to being sozzled and representing British interests, where perhaps he might at least make some sense. People like him should think about things.....and then shut up!

The problem is that Charles Kennedy was shafted by his own party, so how can he feel that a return is viable? There was a plan to eject him in favour of Simon Hughes, that back-fired and the party had no other choice than to support Ming Campbell. I don't think that any party has so obviously destroyed its chances of electoral success than the Lib Dems. Charles Kennedy might oust Ming Campbell and get back into the driving seat but really the Lib Dems are finished for the next four to eight years. They have managed to go from being challengers to the Tories to being siderunners to the Tories. In Scotland the choice is Nicol Stephen, meek and sheepsih, or Tavish Scott, the blood thirsty sheep dog. Take yer pick....and good luck to yez...

what would he say to a referendum next month ?

I'd trust Charles Kennedy more than Brown, Salmond, Nicol, Alexander, Cameron and the rest. I think he'd be a great First Minister or Prime Minister. Past drink problem? He hasnt got criminal convictions because of his boozing unlike the current most powerful man in the world. Charles Kennedy was derailed because unbelievably he had almost got the libdems as an electable national force in a country sick of bipartisan politics. ( Unlikely?As unlikely as an SNP victory?)Dark forces got im!

If I had spent the last 20 years or so blootered round the streets of London I would be trying to get a job with The Pogues rather than lead the Lib Dems. I am sure the Fort William refuse team may put him on their waiting list if they are desperate.

Lied about his problem -drink and fags show poor judgementa nd lack of self control - sad thing is he's the best the Fib Dums have got"

He makes a valid point about the odd timing of the independence referendum - why are you waiting till 2010, Eck? Having trouble convincing more than 1 in 5 Scots that independence is the way forward?

Not much point in putting up a bill to be voted down by the residual London Toadies. [bold]Thig ar Latha! Oor Day Will Come![/bold]

Frank, Gordon Broon wont even consider a referendum on major constitutional points the EU want britain to adhere to. Gordon Broon and Tony Bliar insisted that fundamental rights of citizens would not apply to Britain. He has three major Unions saying they will campaign for a NO vote until the Human Rights Clause is put back in. Broon would make citizens of the UK second class with less rights than the rest of the Citizens of Europe. Alex Salmond and the great SNP team do want to carry on the great infusion excitement in Scotland by running our Government Well and acting in the interest of Scots citizens first and foremost. Of course he needs to continue to prove himself to the Scottish People, but the difference is he was elected to do that Broon who was as guilty as Bliar got appointed because him and the other liar stamped out any opposition in their own Party. If anyone had challenged they would be finished in the English Labour Right Wing Fascist Party which controlled Scotland and Wales for so long. See if you can come up with at least one honest and genuine arguement against the SNP that you havent heard through your local labour how to think pamphlet.

pehman "what would he say to a referendum next month ?" I'm sure it would depend on what it said to him first.

"talorthyanhe" Still half asleep, I can't even spell my own name.

Franl does some shadow boxing[quote]why are you waiting till 2010, Eck? Having trouble convincing more than 1 in 5 Scots that independence is the way forward?[/quote] No. The recent [italic]Times[/italic] survey surprised even the [italic]Times[/italic] by showing over 60% of the population have no objection to independence in principle.

[quote][bold]Frank[/bold] wrote: He makes a valid point about the odd timing of the independence referendum - why are you waiting till 2010, Eck? Having trouble convincing more than 1 in 5 Scots that independence is the way forward?[/quote] The state of the Unionist arguments here is getting embarrassing. He's waiting until 2010, Frank, because [italic]he doesn't have a majority and couldn't get the bill through, because the Unionists are so scared of the Scottish people they won't let them have a voice on the matter[/italic] . It's not the SNP that are preventing a referendum being held tomorrow.

There is no rush, there is nothing wrong with making your argument and trying to progress it further. Unfortunately the folk who question the referendum, "hold it now next week 4 years" appear completely incapable of understanding the current political landscape, so perhaps they'd be better making themselves a nice pot noodle or something intsead?

[quote]he failed to deny persistent rumours ...[/quote] He was good at denying his drink problem. Charlie, you've popped your cork, the fizz has gone out of your champagne and you're a has-been ... go home.

[quote]There is no rush, there is nothing wrong with making your argument and trying to progress it further.[/quote] Agreed. [bold]It is not for Scots to defend their wish to run their own country again. It is for those who say outsiders should run Scotland to defend their position.[/bold] This is a quite different matter to deciding what fiscal policies and investment is needed to keep Scotland self-sufficient. Unionists, either mistakenly or deliberately, merge the two issues together: Scots cannot govern because they have no money, or conversely, they have no money therefore they are unfit to govern. Even the dreaded Mrs Thatcher got the philosophy of self-help the right way round: "Everyone has the right to own their own home." Or put another Tory way, we must be weaned off a society of council rents and benefits. And she might have added, landlords who alter rent conditions at will.

Boaby 12.35 How DARE Du mention Da UnLiberal Tramocrats and Da Pogues ida sam paragraph. An Ootrage! AAAAND "The boys of the NYPD choir Were singing "Galway Bay" And the bells were ringing out For Christmas day " Oh - did I mention da laetest Tram news - Utility deversion costs may be double original estimate. Dear oh dear.

[quote][bold]Frank[/bold] wrote: He makes a valid point about the odd timing of the independence referendum - why are you waiting till 2010, Eck? Having trouble convincing more than 1 in 5 Scots that independence is the way forward?[/quote] Duh...it was in the Manifesto. Do you read much?

So he took a drink...so what. Bush had a BIG alcohol problem, then he found RELIGION. Drink is better.

[quote][bold]Albert[/bold] wrote: [quote]he failed to deny persistent rumours ...[/quote] He was good at denying his drink problem. Charlie, you've popped your cork, the fizz has gone out of your champagne and you're a has-been ... go home.[/quote] Albert you're right he should go home. Charlie stand for Holyrood and lead the Lib Dems. Scotland needs more leaders. The First Minister is the only leader we have and he will benefit from strong opposition.

Charles Kennedy is a Lochaber man through and through.. A crofters son educated at Lochaber High School and well respected in the Highlands.. He maybe doesn't get that sort of respect form the Weegies but he **** near made the Wibbly Democrats electable before being stabbed in the back by his own party. He's a far greater politician than Mingin' Campbell whose idea of a rebuke is an imperious stare.. That won't win you elections.

Graham Bearsden at 12.07 has a point - Mr Kennedy is a politician of some talent, you don't have to be a Lib Dem to see that. His career is going nowhere at Westminster - can't see a second go at UK Leader would be a good idea, given that half the Party stabbed him in the back. So why not stand for Holyrood? Nicol is pretty ineffective and Tavish while talented, is handicapped by his Fanatical Unionism. The difficulty for the SNP at the moment is that there is no quality opposition to debate with. Charlie would be an improvement.

"Frank wrote: He makes a valid point about the odd timing of the independence referendum - why are you waiting till 2010, Eck? Having trouble convincing more than 1 in 5 Scots that independence is the way forward? Duh...it was in the Manifesto. Do you read much?" Precisely - it was in the manifesto, which means that BEFORE he knew whether he'd have a working majority or not, Salmond decreed that there would be no referendum for three years. Why? Because he KNEW he couldn't win it. Duh......

Tommy Rott is well named whereas Frank is being anything but. BEFORE the election Alex Salmond made it abundantly clear that, if elected, the SNP would have to spend a considerable time in Government PROVING that they were capable of running Scotland and EARNING the TRUST of the Scottish people. I mean he said it on umpteen occasions - what bit did Tommy and Frank not understand? Anybody with half a brain cell (which excludes the 2 previously mentioned posters and Charlie Boy as well apparently) could therefore deduce that a referendum was never going to happen in the short term - irrespective of the size of any majority. Yes, the Bill would be introduced but the actual vote would be in the longer term. AFTER the election and with the nature of the result, it has become clear that unless one or more of the Unionist Parties change their stance (worrying that Kennedy either doesn't seem to know what his party's stance is or else he is being completely disingenuous again, take you pick!) then the Referendum won't happen at all. So what precisely is the point of Kennedy or Unionists on here saying that it should be held this week, next week, or the week after? Well, they know it's not going to happen don't they so it's safe to shoot their ill-informed mouths off and bask in their self-satisfied posturing. As for the Lib Dems re-electing Kennedy as leader - well lets just look back at the calibre of candidate they had for their last leadership election - you know, the one they had after they ditched the pathologically lying alcoholic? The candidate list comprised of the following 3 worthy candidates: 1 Aristocratic Geriatric 1 Guy preaching family values whilst hiring teenage rentboys to use him as a human toilet. 1 Gay man in denial (Honest, I'm really not gay, I'm just bisexual) This was the best the Lib Dems could offer the country. Of course it may be different now - maybe Lembit Opik could take time off from ******** one half of the Cheeky Girls who is some 30 years his junior, to enter the fray this time? After all his judgement is sound isn't it - first of all he backed the human toilet and when that was discovered he transferred his support to the gay man in denial. Then there is this ridiculous suggestion that after having been exposed as the aforementioned pathologically lying alcoholic, Kennedy might not be good enough for Westminster but would make a good candidate for First Minister to replace somebody who is proving to be the best FM we have ever had and a credit to his Nation. I genuinely worry that some of the people on here are actually allowed to vote. I thought lunatics were legally disenfranchised.

I exclude Tommy Rott from my rant above - I misread his post :-) As for Frank he can have the extra criticism that I unjustly heaped on Tommy, as well as his own share - he deserves it. See, I'm big enough to admit that I got that small detail wrong but everything else is 100% right :-) Sorry Tommy! :-)

The problem I see with Kennedy, like so many other Westminster lackeys, is that he has never had a career before politics. He lives in a Westminster bubble far removed from the reality that most of us face. I really do not know what gives these people such self belief that they know what is best for us or for Scotland with so little life experience to draw on.

You have the right name mr tommy rot, I wonder how many posts you have made on here before under that name? The fact is that some forms of politics at least attempt to make their case, and will indeed allow three or four years in government to demonstrate their own abilities and state their case. Some people are opposed to this, they don't want a referendum on Scotland's future and yet moan that it isn't on the table at this moment simultaneously! this is merely people who don't wish for any referendum being silly to the extreme and furthermore being so unable to state a case of their own rely on negativity. That negativity is less and less acceptable as a case for politicians and parties seeking the votes of the Scottish electorate, and the fact that the new Scottish government exists states this far better than mere words. I wish for effective opposition parties in Scotland, it is good for democracy, but merely relying on negativity is not on at all. People have to make learn how to their case.

I WOULD VOTE FOR JEREMY THORPE. ALTHOUGH HES NOT VERY GOOD AT PLOTTING AND PLANING A MURDER. WHICH HE WAS FOUND INOCENT OF !!!!

Dear Eva Braun Why are you dragging up the story about Jeremy after all these years? I thought it had all died down. When I saw your post the ghastly memories came flooding back and I just had to bite the pillow. How hurtful. Yours, Norman PS Bunnies can and will go to France