the poor who will suffer, and for Scotland when Westminster's empty promises turn out to be...empty.
Cameron can and will deliver on his promises of greater devolution. He wants to go the wghole hog and bring our devolution for all the UK including getting rid of the West Lothian question.
It was Salmond who could not deliver on his promises but made them anyway.
But for those Yes people still wanting to fight on, here's one of my favourite historical examples of never giving up: <snip>
Gong to put my foot down hard on this one
This is not 1776, not a colonial situation and TERRORISM IS NOT AN ANSWER.
The last thing anyone wants is for some braindead moron, whether you or someone else, deciding that if you cant win iScotland at the ballot box, try it with the gun.
FFS grow a brain before its too late.
I'm not going to resort to insults (probably because the mods will open up a can of whoop-ass on me )
and I apologise for the caps BUT I AM NOT ADVOCATING TERRORISM!!
I am disgusted by the insinuation. To be fair to you, you don't know me, and an internet forum is not the best place to convey a conversation, but I was using George Washington as a historical example of never giving up. I was not advocating violence.
We lost the argument. But that argument can only be won in a fair and democratic vote. That's what I've always believed in. Washington bounced back. My point is that the SNP/YES can also bounce back.
Also, you're wrong about the promise of extra powers. It's already unravelling. Miliband and Cameron are disagreeing already, and Tory backbenchers are murmouring discontent. Scotland was wrong to trust that bunch. Scotland will rue the day it voted no.
Frazzled wrote: Now is it you're looking for absolute independence or something more akin to a state/federal system like the US?
My preference is total independence. A federal UK will happen on the same day America repeals the 2nd amendment, Texas declares Obama's birthday to be a state holiday, and Jimmy Hoffa's body is discovered
Westminster will kick the Scotland issue into the long grass for at least 10 years. Already Miliband (Labour leader) has back tracked on promises...and it's only been a day passed!
As I said to people, so long as Scotland threatened to vote Yes, it had a major bargaining chip. It's voted No, so it's like a poker player with no cards, a hostage taker with no hostages, a car with no petrol...you get the idea.
I'm thinking of emigrating. Maybe we could end up as neighbours?
1. Russel Brand is and always was a shock comic after free publicity, not public interest, and he doesnt care how much mischief he makes to get it.
There was a free and open vote, the police did their job and let scrutiny occur and the press to monitor freely.
Complaining against a democratic decision just after it was made, and raising contentious issues to do so is entirely counterproductive to the common good, and entirely Russel Brand.
'Westminster Fear' was in fact Spanish 'fear' - no EU membership, Bank of England 'fear' - no currency union. Both for good reasons.
Most of the rest was questioning Salmond's figures and claims, which an opposed view is expected to do.
As for media Bias, there was a lot of pro-Yes press even in UK papers. The Guardian was full of 'Yes' editorials.
The BBC was biased, but the BBC always is, it belongs to the Labour party.
2. "This is not the End."
I hope Frazzie is right and it is.
Your only option now is to pick up a gun, and rally fellow Scots to your 'cause'. I really hope after democracy has spoken in a ballot of all living in Scotland aged 16+ you will allow Democracy to have the fiknal word and accept the vote.
You can be damn sure if there was a Yes vote those who wanted Union would have no way back given to them either.
That being said you had your say yesterday, such a referendum should not and will not happen again for a long time. If you are disappointed with the result you have some sympathy from me. Were I a Scottish nationalist i would be bitter today also.
But despite mishandling by Better Together that were outmaneuvered on the issue, to which I have to credit Alex Salmond, the Saltire does not belong to the SNP. The Saltire was claimed by the Yes campaign, but it is not actually a Yes symbol, it belongs to Scotland and all in Scotland, both those who wanted Union and those who would be without.
You have every reason to be proud to be Scottish, and you need not love Westminster. Neither do I, and I do honestly believe that you will get your promised devolution, for a start it is the best way forward for everyone and there is support for Federalism south of the border too.
Things are changing for the better either way. The referendum has shaken London, and London needed shaking.
Had Devo Max been given as an option from the start it would have been overwhlemingly accepted. I am glad the referendum was Yers/No with Devo Max offered on the side, as it allows the question of independence to be put to you properly. Fair and square. This has been done.
I cannot say for certain that Scotland would have not been detter off independent, all I can say is that Salmond's promises did not add up. Under different leadership you may have had a better thought through campaign.
However I can say that rUK would have been finished. France was waiting for this was was Russia, and Argentina We would have lost the Falklands, remaining overseas oil assets and the clout coming from them, and very likely our seat in the UN Security Council and London's primacy in the Stock Exchange. All of which are cruciallyneeded for the nations economy, and looked at with envy by those who would pilfer them from us while we are weak. Thanks to the No vote we will still be the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland and have the right to remain on the UN security council, and will now those benefits will still be there for the UK long after the North Sea oil runs out.
After all was said and done my homeland could have been ruined yesterday, and that ruin could not have been rweversed. No matter all the benefits or dangers for Scotland, for England it would have been the end.. Still for all those dangers I aand fellow Englishmen had no vote whatsoever on this issue. And frankly we were OK with that. But now with the storm passing it is proper for us to ask that you accept our offer of Unity, a fairer devolution for all in the UK, with devolution for England, Stormont and Cardiff also. And recognise that the privilege of the referendum agreed was run by Scottish Government according to their own timetable and was fair, free and FINAL.
Westminster will kick the Scotland issue into the long grass for at least 10 years. Already Miliband (Labour leader) has back tracked on promises...and it's only been a day passed!
Citation needed.
Not attacking you as such, I just have no idea what you're talking about. What specific promises have Cameron et al reneged on? Its been less than a day, isn't it too early to call whether or not those promises will be kept?
Orlanth wrote: 1. Russel Brand is a gobshite comic after free publicity, not public interest,
There was a free and open vote, the police did their job and let scruutiny occur and the press to monitor freely.
Complaing against a democratic decision just after it was made, and raising contentious issues to do so is entirely counterproductive to the common good, and entirely Russel Brand.
'Westminster Fear' was in fact Spanish 'fear' - no EU membership, Bank of England 'fear' - no currency union. Both for good reasons.
Most of the rest was questioning Salmond's figures and claims, which an opposed view is expected to do.
As for media Bias, there was a lot of pro-Yes press even in Uk papers. The Guardian was full of 'Yes' editorials.
The BBC was biased, but the BBC always is, it belongs to the Labour party.
2. "This is not the End."
I hope Frazzie is right and it is.
Your only option now is to pick up a gun, and rally fellow Scots to your 'cause'. I really hope after democracy has spoken in a ballot of all living in Scotland aged 16+ you will allow Democracy to have the fiknal word and accept the vote.
You can be damn sure if there was a Yes vote those who wanted Union would have no way back given to them either.
That being said you had your say yesterday, such a referendum should not and will not happen again for a long time. If you are disappointed with the result you have some sympathy from me. Were I a Scottish nationalist i would be bitter today also.
But despite mishandling by Better Together that were outmaneuvered on the issue, to which I have to credit Alex Salmond, the Saltire does not belong to the SNP. The Saltire was claimed by the Yes campaign, but it is not actually a Yes symbol, it belongs to Scotland and all in Scotland, both those who wanted Union and those who would be without.
You have every reason to be proud to be Scottish, and you need not love Westminster. Neither do I, and I do honestly believe that you will get your promised devolution, for a start it is the best way forward for everyone and there is support for Federalism south of the border too.
Things are changing for the better either way. The referendum has shaken London, and London needed shaking.
Had Devo Max been given as an option from the start it would have been overwhlemingly accepted. I am glad the referendum was Yers/No with Devo Max offered on the side, as it allows the question of independence to be put to you properly. Fair and square. This has been done.
I cannot say for certain that Scotland would have not been detter off independent, all I can say is that Salmond's promises did not add up. Under different leadership you may have had a better thought through campaign.
However I can say that rUK would have been finished. France was waiting for this was was Russia, and Argentina We would have lost the Falklands, remaining overseas oil assets and the clout coming from them, and very likely our seat in the UN Security Council and London's primacy in the Stock Exchange. All of which are cruciallyneeded for the nations economy, and looked at with envy by those who would pilfer them from us while we are weak. Thanks to the No vote we will still be the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland and have the right to remain on the UN security council, and will now those benefits will still be there for the UK long after the North Sea oil runs out.
After all was said and done my homeland could have been ruined yesterday, and that ruin could not have been rweversed. No matter all the benefits or dangers for Scotland, for England it would have been the end.. Still for all those dangers I aand fellow Englishmen had no vote whatsoever on this issue. And frankly we were OK with that. But now with the storm passing it is proper for us to ask that you accept our offer of Unity, a fairer devolution for all in the UK, with devolution for England, Stormont and Cardiff also. And recognise that the privilege of the referendum agreed was run by Scottish Government according to their own timetable and was fair, free and FINAL.
I disagree with 99% of what you've been saying about the referendum, but I do agree with you on this: I would NEVER pick up a gun, or encourage others to do so, for Scottish independence. Never...
I will continue to campaign peacefully and democratically for Scottish independence for as long as I live. You may think or hope, the independence question is dead for years, but I hope and will push, for another referendum ASAP It's my democratic right to campaign for that, as it is yours to campaign against it. At least we're agreed on something
Milliband said that he can't support the pledge to give more power to Scotland because the issue of giving more power to England should take the forefront (or something to that effect). Alex Salmond responded by rubbing his hands and saying "told you". The whole notion of "powers" came across as rather vague and last minute to start with, with the three parties backing it in a rather ad hoc manner. As nothing was written in stone, rather the whole thing was just a way of attracting people to the No campaign, there's nothing stopping Westminster from retracting this pledge bar the Scottish electorate (and those in N Ireland and Wales who also are asking for similar powers). Even if these powers were to be granted the extent of them is rather vague, so Westminster can do as they please and still say they held up their end of the bargain (though like I said, like hell that won't piss off a load of people).
Still go ahead and screw over Scotland all you like. Salmond's successor has every right to hold another referendum at their discretion, and maybe a couple of years under a Conservative/UKIP government will swing more people to the Yes side. Expect for the smear campaign of the media, and general back handedness of Westminster to carry on then though (any notion of inquiries into press ethics during this campaign, particularly on the part of the BBC, are going to be swept under the rug naturally).
Westminster will kick the Scotland issue into the long grass for at least 10 years. Already Miliband (Labour leader) has back tracked on promises...and it's only been a day passed!
Citation needed.
Not attacking you as such, I just have no idea what you're talking about. What specific promises have Cameron et al reneged on? Its been less than a day, isn't it too early to call whether or not those promises will be kept?
Well, on the 19th, parliament was supposed to meet and pass a motion on it. It's printed all over the leaflets the NO camp published for their extra powers timetable.
Westminster will kick the Scotland issue into the long grass for at least 10 years. Already Miliband (Labour leader) has back tracked on promises...and it's only been a day passed!
Citation needed.
Not attacking you as such, I just have no idea what you're talking about. What specific promises have Cameron et al reneged on? Its been less than a day, isn't it too early to call whether or not those promises will be kept?
Labour hasn't back tracked on promises, they were outmaneuvered by Cameron (a Tory first since before Blair came to power). They do NOT want English devolution (symbolised by having only English MP's able to vote on issues relating to England only.) This is entirely fair, MP's from all over the Uk will vote on UK issues, but Scots get their devo max, as will Wales and Northern Ireland. However there is no need for an English parliament, instead the House of Commons remains an English parliament, but on days discussing laws that are for England only and devolved out to the rest of the UK it is only right and proper that only English MP's get to vote on them.
This prevents the much reviled 'West Lothian question', symbolised when Scottish MP's could vote to give Scotland a benefit and at the same time save money by denying the English the right to the same benefit. There were MP's who voted for free tuition in Scotland but against for England and Wales, because there was no point in allowing the spending as it wasn't benefiting Scots.
Labour however are against this because they rely on Scottish MP's to press through issues not relating to Scottish MP's. By having those MP's voting rights reduced to only covering Uk interests and those not devolved to Scotland Labour will have to try a lot harder to force legislation on the English by pressing Scottish MP's to do the job for them. And that was something Blair did a lot of.
English devolution is fair for the English, its balanced as devolution for all makes sense and will make society fairer. Instead of Westminster alone power will be shared at a national level from Stormont, Holyrood, Cardiff and Westminster for each component with UK issues foreign policy and international issues dealt with as normal by Westminster but with full representation of Welsh Scottish and Irish MP's who may indeed be the ones in charge ass we don't discriminate on these grounds. I have no problems seeing a Scot in 10 Downing Street, that that Scot will have FAR more power nationally and internationally than an iScotland President would.
Labour are caught in a loop as they talk about making society fairer, yet want to abort devolution for England. And this is after Labour agreed to Devo Max (this was why Cameron waited to get Clegg and Miliband on board it now seems) then hit them with a whammy which means that England gets devolution too. I didn't see this coming, and it appears Miliband didn't either.
Clegg has already agreed to back Devo Max for the whole UK. So Cameron has enough votes to force the issue now, especially if he links all the Devo Max elements together in one bill and uses the PM Veto to force the vote to a ballot so that Labour cannot talk it out* Cameron even has authority to do so as he has a time relevant promise to Scotland to keep and if Labour talks it out he can blame Milliband for breaking his promise to Scotland.
This has severely outmaneuvered Labour, if they disagree they break their promise to Scotland and look like control freaks to the English. If they let the vote pass Labour will have to pas English laws with Englsh MP's and that will be difficult even if they win a landslide like in 1997 as no matter how well they do they can't fully replace the Tory rural vote.
Westminster will kick the Scotland issue into the long grass for at least 10 years. Already Miliband (Labour leader) has back tracked on promises...and it's only been a day passed!
Citation needed.
Not attacking you as such, I just have no idea what you're talking about. What specific promises have Cameron et al reneged on? Its been less than a day, isn't it too early to call whether or not those promises will be kept?
Labour hasn't back tracked on promises, they were outmaneuvered by Cameron (a Tory first since before Blair came to power). They do NOT want English devolution (symbolised by having only English MP's able to vote on issues relating to England only.) This is entirely fair, MP's from all over the Uk will vote on UK issues, but Scots get their devo max, as will Wales and Northern Ireland. However there is no need for an English parliament, instead the House of Commons remains an English parliament, but on days discussing laws that are for England only and devolved out to the rest of the UK it is only right and proper that only English MP's get to vote on them.
This prevents the much reviled 'West Lothian question', symbolised when Scottish MP's could vote to give Scotland a benefit and at the same time save money by denying the English the right to the same benefit. There were MP's who voted for free tuition in Scotland but against for England and Wales, because there was no point in allowing the spending as it wasn't benefiting Scots.
Labour however are against this because they rely on Scottish MP's to press through issues not relating to Scottish MP's. By having those MP's voting rights reduced to only covering Uk interests and those not devolved to Scotland Labour will have to try a lot harder to force legislation on the English by pressing Scottish MP's to do the job for them. And that was something Blair did a lot of.
English devolution is fair for the English, its balanced as devolution for all makes sense and will make society fairer. Instead of Westminster alone power will be shared at a national level from Stormont, Holyrood, Cardiff and Westminster for each component with UK issues foreign policy and international issues dealt with as normal by Westminster but with full representation of Welsh Scottish and Irish MP's who may indeed be the ones in charge ass we don't discriminate on these grounds. I have no problems seeing a Scot in 10 Downing Street, that that Scot will have FAR more power nationally and internationally than an iScotland President would.
Labour are caught in a loop as they talk about making society fairer, yet want to abort devolution for England. And this is after Labour agreed to Devo Max (this was why Cameron waited to get Clegg and Miliband on board it now seems) then hit them with a whammy which means that England gets devolution too. I didn't see this coming, and it appears Miliband didn't either.
Clegg has already agreed to back Devo Max for the whole UK. So Cameron has enough votes to force the issue now, especially if he links all the Devo Max elements together in one bill and uses the PM Veto to force the vote to a ballot so that Labour cannot talk it out* Cameron even has authority to do so as he has a time relevant promise to Scotland to keep and if Labour talks it out he can blame Milliband for breaking his promise to Scotland.
This has severely outmaneuvered Labour, if they disagree they break their promise to Scotland and look like control freaks to the English. If they let the vote pass Labour will have to pas English laws with Englsh MP's and that will be difficult even if they win a landslide like in 1997 as no matter how well they do they can't fully replace the Tory rural vote.
*Known elsewhere as a filibuster.
Not all Scottish MPs vote on English matters. SNPMPs don't as a matter of principal.
I think you're being naïve about more devolution for Scotland. Scotland said no, Westminster doesn't care about it anymore. The possibility of a YES vote was their only ace - they threw it away. They have nothing to threaten Westminster with, anymore. As for Westminster, they've got bigger fish to fry with UKIP, EU referendum, and Boris Johnson! Scotland will be forgotten about, left to die of neglect. It happened during the 1980s. History will repeat itself...
As for Labour, I think they are finished in Scotland.
Well I was harassed by a pair of skinheads (WTF is with neo-nazis in the UK and adopting American neo-nazi symbols. 88's are so last year) riding a car covered in Union Flags last week. =P
Heh, but its not as if there aren't Fascists all over the place in the UK. One of the former student representatives at my college was even called "Nazi Paul" (why's he called Nazi Paul?" Uh, because he's a nazi and nobody can take him seriously...).
The possibility of a YES vote was their only ace - they threw it away. They have nothing to threaten Westminster with, anymore. As for Westminster, they've got bigger fish to fry with UKIP, EU referendum, and Boris Johnson! Scotland will be forgotten about, left to die of neglect. It happened during the 1980s. History will repeat itself...
....However it is in Camerions interest to fulfil his promise, Emnglisgh deolution is important to the Tories and Lib Dems.
Even if it wasnt it would be a monumentally stupid thing to renege on the pledge now. As Camerion promised Devo Max to Scotland during the referendum campaign, if he fails to deliver on this one promise that will be cause to forfeit the result of the campaign. I can see the demand: 'Cameron didn't offer what he promised Scots in the referendum therefore we demand another referendum!"
While the SNP will demand referenda anyway that can be written off as just the Loons talking, it will be an annual event. Westminster has largely butted out of the process, and made only one promise to Scotland related to the referendum, they made the promise freely and all three parties signed it. It would be colossally stupid to back out now.
Put it another way, if the Tories through short sightedness (and admittedly all the parties are they are greedy and short sighted) it will destabilise a now stable system. If one poll could cause a huge dip in the pound and a panic in the Square Mile. What would a new referenda based on a broken deal do. For a start Yes would likely win and second the City will lose a LOT of money very quickly, and more as foregn govenmenrt smell blood in the water and take what we have got.
Those people in the City don't like to lose money and both Labour and Tory are beholden to them, for better or worse. And while politicians may be short sighted, these investors are not.
On a point of real politik even if we assumed that the MPs are greedy (which is true), short sighted (usually true) and idiotic (sometimes true) they like thier own jobs enough and the people in the City like London's wealth enough that realpolitik will force the issue: Scotland will get its election promise, Cameron's own financial backers will demand it.
Believe that not because the politicans say so (its wise of you not to) believe it because the future of the UK economy requires it, and the City millionaires that account for the vast majority of the economic clout this nation has got (Scottish oil being a distant second) will demand it.
You may not like this, noone likes the Fat Cats. But the truth is the Fat Cat's have two homes: New York and London. Even Tokyo cannot muscle in on this, and if London loses the cattery bang goes the economy. The City of London largely pays for the lifestyle the average Briton takes forgranted. I hope you now see the economic severity of our recent position.
The good news for Scotland is that Scots will still be plugged into London long after the North Sea has given up its bounty. Generationally, it was a shred choice.
As for Labour, I think they are finished in Scotland.
They will bounce back. Gordon Brown was a joke of a politician but he did a good job in the referndfum contest. Labour will be seen as th best option to keep Tories out and the SNP will be a wasted vote. With Devo Max tory government policy wont hurt so much anymore. Scotland can set its own Tax and benefits and spending on things that matter to people. The UK will only really exist for emergency measures, running the highest courts of apeeal (discounting the EU) foreign policy, national debt handling and anything military, and in all of those issues a Scot has a fair chance of being the person in charge.
Labour needs Scotland, especially with English devolution imminent, and Scotland needs Labour. Anyone Scottish wanting real power in a poltiical career has a good chance of becoming a Minister or even Prime Minister if they join Labour and move up the party to the top. They could also serve as MSP's.
I can see Labour gaining ground from SNP in the next Scottish parliament election.
Salmond's greatest success is making the yes supporters believe they are a victim....a victim who receive greater governmental funds per head than the rest of the UK, who use and cost the NHS more than any other region, and who also receive free higher education.
I'm glad the majority of Scots saw sense, for whilst the dream of an independent Scottish nation may be attractive, the practicality of doing so in the current political and economic environment would have been tantamount to regional suicide.
I've been reading stories all week about pro Independence thugs intimating others, vandalizing cars and houses that display Union flags/No campaign stickers, leaving graffiti saying "Vote Yes or else!" outside polling booths, attacking Sky News reporters/cameramen...
I just assumed they were a vocal disruptive minority not to be taken seriously as they do not represent the Yes campaign as a whole. In essence, I gave the Yes campaign the benefit of the doubt (and by extension, you guys).
Are you two doing the opposite with regards to the No Campaign and its own vocal minority of thugs?
Well considering I was in that square on Wednesday and the feeling of that Yes event was a relaxed party atmosphere. No Voters turn up on the day of their victory and use that square to shout at others and make Nazi salutes.
George Square transformed by Nazi saluting Unionists.
Does this mean we can legitimately call No voters Quislings?
No. Just because BNP types 'supporting' Better Together by voting No, doesn't mean they are welcome. And they do like to fly the Union Flag; forgetting that the Union Flag flag, more than any other, represented opposition to the ideology behind the Nazi salute.
To put the boot on the other foot. The IRA were hoping for a Yes vote. At interview Martin McGuiness was visibly disappointed today for the missed opportunity. Northern Ireland was another place that would have been stirred up and brought to fresh misery if a Yes vote had prevailed.
Nevertheless despite the IRA's encouragement nobody is accusing the Yes Scotland as being in league with the IRA.
I am sorry that Fascists tried to ruin your street party. They do not speak for Better Together, they do not speak for the Union and they don't speak for pro Union support elsewhere in the UK.
Hey there's idiots, or at least people willing to go outside the bounds of social norm, on the side of any political campaign. You have Greens climbing oil rigs, Budhists attacking Muslims, etc. So it'd be short sighted to ignore that both sides of the referendum had those willing to participate in such acts (heh, though I'll say the BBC did very well to ignore all the cap that No campaign supporters did). Walk down a street in Glasgow and you'll see walls plastered in posters and stickers for the Yes campaign. Slogans written over every surface and well, plenty of splattered red paint too. Hell I even read "Stay in the UK or we'll slash you" (not the best slogan). The same goes for the other side too. Yes choose to portray itself as a social movement about change and making the country better. No was about the status quo. In the media this was changed to Yes being a band of bleary eyed idealists who cared more about screwing over the UK and propping up their own country. No was about security and patriotism. Of course both statements are probably true, but its easy to play up the negatives of either side.
So yeah, its not as if there wasn't those who didn't conduct themselves properly. Its not as if plenty of Orange Order folks didn't come over here and start belligerently protesting either, nor nationalists from England either. Nor is it the case that their isn't any right wing nationalists who supported Yes or those who adopted the referendum for their own xenophobic ends. The way the media played up the Yes campaign as being folks just out for trouble (look at this week's 2000AD cover...) was sheer propaganda however, as its easy enough to pick a minority of the No campaign as well and point out that they were looking to antagonise people.
The point I made about the dumbass skinheads (who are so detached from the original movement and neo-nazism that they decided to tattoo American prison symbols on themselves) was a joke. Like I said, there's fascists all over in the UK, and no doubt ones who were in support of the Yes campaign (heh, I remember hearing something along the lines of turning Scotland into a one race state once those foreigner loving English quit interfering). I'll reiterate though that the media's coverage of the campaign was biased as hell and did whatever it could to put down the Yes campaign. If it wasn't all the lies (seriously the BBC were still saying during Salmond's resignation that the banks were moving to London. ) it was just the sheer disregard for reporting on the story with a shred of integrity in regards for presenting the issue in a non biased manner. When there's only one major newspaper in the country which didn't go into full on anti-independence mode (one of whom was a paper which stands up for independence movements throughout the world, but yet not one on its doorstop) it just displays that the whole sector here in the UK (not so much in the rest of the world given that foreign media was much more balanced in their reporting, well bar in those countries which also had a stake in the result) is just a tool for the status quo. =P
Well yeah, did you see what happened in Austrailia to get that feth Abbot in? All the newspapers were pretty much Right Wing shill sockpuppets of Murdoch who pretty much put the opposition out as baby eaters.
Having not really seen any news regarding the campaigns, I can still readily believe that there was a huge amount of bias going on.
I am disgusted by the insinuation. To be fair to you, you don't know me, and an internet forum is not the best place to convey a conversation, but I was using George Washington as a historical example of never giving up. I was not advocating violence.
George Washington was a poor analogy. One of the facts airbrushed out of history was that the revolutionary movement drowned out the early majority sympathy for loyalism. Washington failed to get an actual democratic mandate and instead decided on military action.
However the 13 Colonies were a colonial situation so the move was legally justifiable, and the US was taken by a combination of conquest and treaty.
'We the people' came later, at the time it was written had their been a referendum the loyalists would have won, and Washington knew this to be true.
You cant go down the route of demanding more refenda until you get the answer you want. It will be laughed at and flatly denied. This was why Scotland was given the referendum on Scotland's terms. The only interference was in the wording of the question. Westminster complained that the orginal question 'Do you agree that Scotland should be axn independent country' was leading and demanded a rewrite. Still it was the SNP who wrote the ballot question, and the SNP who chose the timing of the election which they set for 2014 to coincide with the anniversary of Bannockburn. The referendum could have been held two years ago, but the decision to leave it to the Scottish First Minister was justifiable, fair and meant that Scotland alone would make its say.
That has now happened, from this point on the whole of the UK is part of the issue, and the majority don't want the break up of the Union, it's very clearly not in Englands interest.
So your last option is to force the issue.
Now if Cameron doesn't deliver on his promise you have a window. You can point at the possibility of this if you like, it would be a shrewd move by the SNP to do so. It would also be shreweder to shut up and see if Cameron does something as madly retrograde as to deny his promise to Scotland. THEN call for a revote.
Right so the Scots piss and moan through most of the last two years and the end result is the the rest of UK will now have to have at least one more layer of mewing politicians to put up with.
Because Local and Euro elections are so popular.....
I can't help but piss myself every time a Scot complains about bias in the BBC. Is this really news to you? Have you only just now noticed the BBC's rampant bias, now that that bias has is not in your favour?
YES the BBC is biased. Its been biased for decades. Its institutionally left wing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side...After another 5 years or so of Scottish whingeing and Anglo-phobia, you could give us English a referendum and WE would vote to get rid of Scotland.
Maybe thats Salmond's master plan...
Automatically Appended Next Post: OOO...got tingles all over when the crowd started chanting "Rule Britannia" at the 2:05 mark.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I'm going to boot up Total War and go conquer Scotland to celebrate.
MrDwhitey wrote: Cameron bloody should follow through on it, and damn the Tory backbenchers threatening rebellion over it.
The Tory 'backbenchers' (actually a Junior minister) will be back in line with the announcement that Devo Max is not just for Scotland.
Devo Max for Scots alone is genuinely unfair, especially for the English with no devolution of their own. However with Devo max for everyone the arguments are nullified and the Tories will be all for it. It's Labour who will lose out.
In effect Cameron has 'listened' to his detractors in the party and amended the Devo Max plan so that England is not unfairly disadvantaged. Frankly I think this was his plan all along and Labour played into his hands the cards he needed.
On thing about Cameron, corrupt Eton-crony only grasper that he is, he does have a knack at manipulation of other politicians. He has had an alliance with Clegg and given Clegg nothing out of it. the Lib Dems got two free votes on issues they wanted, including proportional representation, but then did a deal with Labour to scupper them. He has used the coalition to keep himself in office with a minority government and not had to pay for it by backing Lib Dem policies to conclusion. Clegg on the other hand had to go on TV and apologise for a total U-turn on tuition fees. He outmaneuvered the Lib Dems, now he has outmaneuvered Labour also and got the Tories (and England) into range of a benefit that is much to be desired.
However he did have to concede the continuation of the Barnett formula, though with Devo Max its effect will be lessened.
On the bright side...After another 5 years or so of Scottish whingeing and Anglo-phobia, you could give us English a referendum and WE would vote to get rid of Scotland.
it has bee mentioned by some in England. However it would be a catastrophe to abolish the Union ourselves as too much of our natioanl structure and intenatioanl powerbase depends on being the United Kingdom of Greart Britain and Northern Ireland. That might survive the loss of Northern Ireland, it would not survive the loss of Scotland or Wales.
Wyrmalla wrote: As has been mentioned here and by Salmond this morning, he's still came out on top of this. The Yes campaign didn't win the vote, but they came out with what they had wanted in the first place. It was the Westminster government which removed the additional powers option from the ballot, their promising it later on for those who backed No rather than it as a separate option just shows a bias. Were those extra powers always on the table? Well they must have been planned for a while. How they were presented though make Westminster come out over the SNP, rather than the other way around. Meh, but whatever, I'm just dissapointed I won't be having a snazzy new flag next to my Dakka profile.
The "extra powers" are rather nebulous, though.
The Scottish parliament has since 2012 had the legal right to vary income tax by up to 10p in the pound, and in 2015 gets the power to issue government bonds. These are considerable powers that were already locked in by legislation before the referendum.
Wyrmalla wrote: As has been mentioned here and by Salmond this morning, he's still came out on top of this. The Yes campaign didn't win the vote, but they came out with what they had wanted in the first place. It was the Westminster government which removed the additional powers option from the ballot, their promising it later on for those who backed No rather than it as a separate option just shows a bias. Were those extra powers always on the table? Well they must have been planned for a while. How they were presented though make Westminster come out over the SNP, rather than the other way around. Meh, but whatever, I'm just dissapointed I won't be having a snazzy new flag next to my Dakka profile.
The "extra powers" are rather nebulous, though.
The Scottish parliament has since 2012 had the legal right to vary income tax by up to 10p in the pound, and in 2015 gets the power to issue government bonds. These are considerable powers that were already locked in by legislation before the referendum.
They're not considerable powers - they are a financial trap, and Scotland walked straight into it. If Scotland starts raising its own cash, their block grant will be affected, so money that is rightfully Scotland's anyway, will be cut. In Scotland, turkeys do vote for Christmas.
The possibility of a YES vote was their only ace - they threw it away. They have nothing to threaten Westminster with, anymore. As for Westminster, they've got bigger fish to fry with UKIP, EU referendum, and Boris Johnson! Scotland will be forgotten about, left to die of neglect. It happened during the 1980s. History will repeat itself...
....However it is in Camerions interest to fulfil his promise, Emnglisgh deolution is important to the Tories and Lib Dems.
Even if it wasnt it would be a monumentally stupid thing to renege on the pledge now. As Camerion promised Devo Max to Scotland during the referendum campaign, if he fails to deliver on this one promise that will be cause to forfeit the result of the campaign. I can see the demand: 'Cameron didn't offer what he promised Scots in the referendum therefore we demand another referendum!"
While the SNP will demand referenda anyway that can be written off as just the Loons talking, it will be an annual event. Westminster has largely butted out of the process, and made only one promise to Scotland related to the referendum, they made the promise freely and all three parties signed it. It would be colossally stupid to back out now.
Put it another way, if the Tories through short sightedness (and admittedly all the parties are they are greedy and short sighted) it will destabilise a now stable system. If one poll could cause a huge dip in the pound and a panic in the Square Mile. What would a new referenda based on a broken deal do. For a start Yes would likely win and second the City will lose a LOT of money very quickly, and more as foregn govenmenrt smell blood in the water and take what we have got.
Those people in the City don't like to lose money and both Labour and Tory are beholden to them, for better or worse. And while politicians may be short sighted, these investors are not.
On a point of real politik even if we assumed that the MPs are greedy (which is true), short sighted (usually true) and idiotic (sometimes true) they like thier own jobs enough and the people in the City like London's wealth enough that realpolitik will force the issue: Scotland will get its election promise, Cameron's own financial backers will demand it.
Believe that not because the politicans say so (its wise of you not to) believe it because the future of the UK economy requires it, and the City millionaires that account for the vast majority of the economic clout this nation has got (Scottish oil being a distant second) will demand it.
You may not like this, noone likes the Fat Cats. But the truth is the Fat Cat's have two homes: New York and London. Even Tokyo cannot muscle in on this, and if London loses the cattery bang goes the economy. The City of London largely pays for the lifestyle the average Briton takes forgranted. I hope you now see the economic severity of our recent position.
The good news for Scotland is that Scots will still be plugged into London long after the North Sea has given up its bounty. Generationally, it was a shred choice.
As for Labour, I think they are finished in Scotland.
They will bounce back. Gordon Brown was a joke of a politician but he did a good job in the referndfum contest. Labour will be seen as th best option to keep Tories out and the SNP will be a wasted vote. With Devo Max tory government policy wont hurt so much anymore. Scotland can set its own Tax and benefits and spending on things that matter to people. The UK will only really exist for emergency measures, running the highest courts of apeeal (discounting the EU) foreign policy, national debt handling and anything military, and in all of those issues a Scot has a fair chance of being the person in charge.
Labour needs Scotland, especially with English devolution imminent, and Scotland needs Labour. Anyone Scottish wanting real power in a poltiical career has a good chance of becoming a Minister or even Prime Minister if they join Labour and move up the party to the top. They could also serve as MSP's.
I can see Labour gaining ground from SNP in the next Scottish parliament election.
Cameron's promises are not worth the paper they are written on. Scotland has sleepwalked into oblivion.
This is what will happen to Scotland, now that it threw away the only bargaining chip it had. With the general election upon us, the parties will split into party lines, and will be unable to agree on any powers. UKIP and the EU will distract everybody, with Scotland forgotten about.
Even if they did remember Scotland, where is the parliamentary time to implement anything? Miliband is already talking about a convention NEXT year!!!
Scotland blew it, and will rue the day that it ever trusted any Westminster promise....
Correct me if I'm wrong, "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean different things in the UK than the US right?
No, they mean the same thing as in the USA. Both have near identical policies, both are beholden to banks and big business, and both couldn't give a damn about voters except at election time. So yeah, no difference between the US and UK or liberals and conservatives.!
Republicans/Democrats or Labour/Liberal/Conservative in the UK: different colours/emblems but essentially the same policies, the same old broken two party system. But I think you already knew that!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No...America's Republicans are far more Right Wing than our Conservatives. At best, the Tories are Centre Right.
Britain in general is very left wing compared to the USA.
Just about everywhere is left wing compared to the USA. Us Democrats are as left as it feasibly gets and the left edge of that is about equal to the Lib Dems. Tories straddle the Republicans and Democrats (and generally get on with both), Labour would be seen as 'commies' and the Greens and SNP are to the left of Labour.
Hey Shadow Captain Edithae can you answer my question to you in my last post please.
Orlanth wrote: Hey Shadow Captain Edithae can you answer my question to you in my last post please.
The live Youtube video that someone else posted earlier on. I rewound it back to the point when the result was announced, and the crowd broke out into an impromptu rendition of Rule Britannia.
Orlanth wrote: Hey Shadow Captain Edithae can you answer my question to you in my last post please.
The live Youtube video that someone else posted earlier on. I rewound it back to the point when the result was announced, and the crowd broke out into an impromptu rendition of Rule Britannia.
It was quite moving.
Or infuriating, depending on your perspective.
Thankyou, I only saw live feed, I will workout how to wind it back.
Afterwards....
Ok allowing for the jeering it was a Glasgow sectarian mob out to taunt Yes voters. I didnt hear Rule Britannia but I did hear a lot of football chants. Similar to those monetioned earlier on this thread. A journalist has already condemned them here amongst elsewhere.
Disappointed as I was hoping for something more wholesome.
Now on reflection I would not be too alarmed, its not so much a hard line of the better Together in any form, its just Glasgow on a Friday night. Rangers vs Celtic sectarianism etc etc, having spent some time in Paisley I know how bad it can get. This sort of crap is normal for Glasgow, only tonight there is a special excuse. Know one or two Glasgow police too, pronounced pheonetically as 'pauless' by locals. I bet this is nothing like what they have seen and the extra cameras might mean less fights rather than more.
Still I would be careful about noticed speaking with an English accent anywhere near Pollokshields tonight.
Cameron's promises are not worth the paper they are written on. Scotland has sleepwalked into oblivion.
Evidently we cannot agree,. i trust the promise even though I don't trust Cameron.
Still the General Election is only seven months away, Cameron has until then to fulfil his promise. Either he will, or he wont. We will find out soon enough who is right and who is wrong.
I am happy to wait and see, I suggest you do also. If you give Cameron a fair chance to deliver Devo Max and he doesn't then you have justifiable leverage to call for a revote as the promise was conditional on a No vote. Scotland delivered that, so there is a well documented moral contract position now.
Frankly I think it would be catastrophic to cheat Scotland by reneging on the devolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: This is not a typical Glasgow Friday night. How fething dare you.
It's hordes of sectarian, unionist, royalist morons attacking people in the street.
What horde.
What attacking people.
I saw football chants and police presence.
Also being unionist and royalist doesnt make one a moron.
And yes Glasgow can get this bad. I have seen the bullet holes in the rival cafes.
And Paisley is allegedly stabbing capital of Europe.
From what I can see that lot deserve as much credence as a EDL rally... they're looking for trouble, and the best thing to do is to ignore their existence from a political stand point, unless they break the law, in which case let the Police deal with them.
They aren't a fair representative of the greater no vote, and I suspect they would have come out tonight had it been a Yes as well.
Cameron's promises are not worth the paper they are written on. Scotland has sleepwalked into oblivion.
Evidently we cannot agree,. i trust the promise even though I don't trust Cameron.
Still the General Election is only seven months away, Cameron has until then to fulfil his promise. Either he will, or he wont. We will find out soon enough who is right and who is wrong.
I am happy to wait and see, I suggest you do also. If you give Cameron a fair chance to deliver Devo Max and he doesn't then you have justifiable leverage to call for a revote as the promise was conditional on a No vote. Scotland delivered that, so there is a well documented moral contract position now.
Frankly I think it would be catastrophic to cheat Scotland by reneging on the devolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: This is not a typical Glasgow Friday night. How fething dare you.
It's hordes of sectarian, unionist, royalist morons attacking people in the street.
What horde.
What attacking people.
I saw football chants and police presence.
Also being unionist and royalist doesnt make one a moron.
And yes Glasgow can get this bad. I have seen the bullet holes in the rival cafes.
And Paisley is allegedly stabbing capital of Europe.
Hes telling the truth it seems. He is NOT talking about the previously mentioned live Youtube video.
Hell, when even the Daily Mail admits theres a problem, there is a problem.
However, this is the minority thuggish fringe of the Victors indulging in triumphalism. I'm sure we'd have seen similar scenes from the minority thuggish fringe of the Yes side too if they'd won.
You only need to look on social media to see what's happening. Stop pontificating on something you actually don't know about for once.
Edited by RiTides
Oh yes social media is the place for accurate news.
The Geoerge Street protestors were on live TV, they are not there now. I did see one or two isolated people with Union flags on live Tv and they were separate dispersed and causing no trouble.
As for the ugly proptest earlier. It has been well docutmented upon by credable journalists who were in George Square, so I dfont need your hysterical version.
On the balance its not patronising, just reasonably well informed.
As reported in the Guardian the violence last night was from a pub crowd. This is standard sectarian BS seen on many a pub night. Today is Yes vs No, next time it will be back to Rangers vs Celtic.
As you claim to come from Glasgow you must know this, you must have seen this. It's a minority of the usual Ned scum and police are well used to handling them.
The STV report I saw earlier. Protestors are not Unionists but loyalist extremists, recognised by the songs they sang....
The STV reporter has obviously seen this type of stuff before, its normal Glasgow drunk sectarian mob. They have just got 100% more press coverage than usual because of what day it is, and their current excuse to rub opponents noses in it.
Just to point out, as has already been, that's not the usual mob of drunken louts which apparently roam Glasgow every night. Glasgow's not some wasteland where gangs of a dozen drunks wander about beating each other over the head, least not the centre of the city. The group seen in there's a direct response to current events. For that size of a crowd every other pub around the area would've had to have cleared out, and well its a bit early to strip a man away from his pint. So there may be this perception that this is what Glasgow looks like every night, but that's hardly the case (despite how much the Simpsons and Family Guy portray the place), and having visited and lived elsewhere I can say the place is hardly different from any other city of sufficient population elsewhere. Uh, so can we stop with the apparently entirely factual accounts that Glasgow is a sectarian filled hellhole where you can't walk down the street without being strung up by a drunken git for wearing the wrong colour of shoes?
two-thirds (65%) of respondents felt that sectarian violence was very or quite common
Before you get angry you might want to consider that this is not a one off, or anything to do with independence but a deep sectarian division that exists within Glasgow.
The times I have been to Glasgow it has been a loverly city, but it does have a deep issue.
Thank you, and as the crowd was rather small and police contained. This wasnt a No extremist mass movement to bully Yes voters; it was the usual sectarian pub crowd, with a nasty excuse to laugh this day.
Sectariansism doesn't rule Glasgow, but it IS a factor.
Today's wee event in George Square was intentionally the opposite to what happened last night. I went into the city centre to pick up some paint and other crap, but on the way for the train happened upon a crowd up people in the square. Instead of the nationalism charged events which have happened before the people there were saying that they cared more for social justice, though if through Scotland becoming independent that be achieved then they were all for it. So they were having a peaceful protest, much to the pity of the No campaigners who tried to start something repeatedly. On a number of occasions people walked over and started yelling, often centimetres in front of the speaker's faces. ...Unfortunately for them however the guys talking said things along the lines of "you may hate me, but I know I can't win that way". To which after a while the hecklers wandered off in a huff (the police rarely involving themselves). The same hecklers also seemed to bring up that there were Rainbow flags alongside the others, and seemed to take offence to that (though as the guys said, "if you're going to be violent then you'll have to go through me first", before asking who in the crowd was gay, Asian, Jewish, etc),
Yeah, it wound up being a nice wee charity event. There was a food bank collection which turned out pretty well (though I'll point out the 40+ police didn't stop the traffic to allow the 50+ of us who carried the bags to the awaiting vehicle, which I found rather rude), even if the No campaigners did start slagging it off for the sake of doing so. I found the phrase, "there's enough nukes to blow the world up seven times over, how about we just do it once and keep that cash for something better" quite a good one too (though not to say I don't understand why there's that many weapons). In any case, a deliberately peaceful protest in order to provide a counterpoint against what happened last night.
Though I will mention that I had friends warn against me going into the area, and heard plenty of woe stories from my fellow volunteers at the charity shop today. The guy who delivers stock in said that more than a few houses in his neighbourhood have had their windows smashed for having Yes flags (he sad he felt terrible having to take his down). The head staff member said that she's received no end of abuse from Scots and her English friends back home for being an Englishwoman who voted Yes. Oh, and the pair of community service workers who went on at length about the Union last week coincidently didn't show up this week (given the way they were talking I wouldn't put it past them to joined in with one of the No rallies). So there's a little cut of the lives of the people who volunteer there at least. For all the No campaign stood for, and not making any actual factual judgement here, it seems to be the perception that there's a fair few people of high intolerance amongst them (which the point which one of the handy users here lists off each of the extremist groups, not just nationalistic, but those against particular races, religions, and sexualities, attached to each side. ...As well they're the public face of these sides considering how the media handles these things. Uh, and not to go off on a tangent, the news crews cleared out pretty fast today after it turned up there wasn't going to be the running battle that they wanted).
Edit:
Oh, and also because it was funny I'll mention it. In the train station on the way home an Englishman didn't have a ticket to get through the barriers. He started an argument with the staff, and for some reason tried to force his way through physically. He eventually bought a ticket. On the train he sat there spouting off non stop xenophobic slurs and insulting me (I was sitting on the seats opposite in the a carriage). A little funny to see how quickly someone can jump on the dumbass train over such a small thing, and that xenophobia is for some reason the go to way of causing needless offence. I wanted to jump in and say, "well if you don't enjoy our hospitality then live elsewhere", but as the guys were saying today, there's no point in trying to educate someone who's showing so much insensitivity (leave it to a handy police officer who's nearby the next time he comes out with that nonsense. ...Though for all what happened last night I'm wondering if this city's police force is aware that that kind of talk's illegal in this country).
It's sad to see that as the face of Glasgow, especially as the Central Station/Queen Street walk is the focus of tourists travelling though the city. From your description though it sounds as if they would find fault with anything to start something. It is galling that they have chosen to pin their allegiance to the No Campaign. However knowing my fellow Glaswegians, I really don't think that had they been Yes campaigners they would have been any less obnoxious.
I wrote earlier that we can bear a grudge, it is disheartening to see that that is still true, while the vote is now over the true repercussions to us as a community and country will come to the fore.
The hecklers did start going on about how the guys talking were exploiting people by turning their food collection into a political issue. ...Uh, yeah sure. ...What? At one point the guy collecting gave them some food (I think the heckler said something like, "so is that food just for those who voted Yes?"), which the hecklers just threw back in his general direction before they wandered off. I was kind of waiting to see a video on youtube of the No campaigners slinging cans of beans, but well, let's be glad those idiots just gave up there.
As far as the area being well a public hotspot, yeah, the whole place was bustling with shoppers and tourists all day. The ever present group of Chinese tourists were there (heh, not being racist or anything, but I think some travel group has something set up or something) who spent there time taking pictures of us rather than the usual sites. Something different at least compared to all the other tourists I suppose. Ah, but yes, I would agree that those on the Yes side of things who act similarly to the idiots who've been causing trouble on the No side would've probably done the same thing. There's idiots abounds, and allying themselves with a political movement is an easy way for them to have an outlet. Its just a shame however that well, not all of the people on the No side starting trouble even had the right to vote. Plenty of people came over from N Ireland and England to support the No campaign, and well, as shown by the Orange Order last night, not all of them wanted to do so peacefully (my neighbour said there's was something like 200,000 guys who came over from N Ireland to put the finger down on Yes voters ...his family being some of them). Heh, perhaps a bit like Ukraine in that regard.
Meh, anyhow, 12 o'clock tomorrow there's a planned sit in at George's Square being held by the same people who organised the event today (Glasgow's Needy). Hopefully that'll go off well, and at least its an excuse to go into the city centre and take a wander about China Town (oi I'm a student, and I need my cheap noodles). Given the police presence today, and the response that those who wanted to start trouble received, I'm doubting much media worthy news will occur (Scotland once again's fallen off the map. What's that you say about an extension of rights? Tsk, there's a general election to care about, and if you're talking about devolution I assume you're referring to that for the English counties?).
Its just a shame however that well, not all of the people on the No side starting trouble even had the right to vote. Plenty of people came over from N Ireland and England to support the No campaign, and well, as shown by the Orange Order last night, not all of them wanted to do so peacefully (my neighbour said there's was something like 200,000 guys who came over from N Ireland to put the finger down on Yes voters ...
Now THAT is fethed up. I hope the Police carry out investigations into that. Its always sad to see democracy subverted like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: However:
I'm doubting much media worthy news will occur (Scotland once again's fallen off the map. What's that you say about an extension of rights? Tsk, there's a general election to care about, and if you're talking about devolution I assume you're referring to that for the English counties?).
Whats wrong with that? Unlike Scotland, England has NO devolution, and its been a point of resentment for years. Surely an equal degree of devolution for all regions would be fair, yes?
I wouldn't take that value entirely to heart, but I won't deny that there's those in Scotland right now from other countries who came here explicitly to support either side of the campaign. Of course I don't recall hearing about the guys who're here just to cause trouble at all on the media, but well can't paint the No campaign in a negative light can we? There won't be an investigation into that or any of the other crap that was pulled during either campaign as to Westminster the matter's settled. The BBC will just pass off the concerns of the Yes supporters with a politically correct public statement (if that, already its forgotten), and the political manoeuvring which Westminster was involved in will be remember as a well run campaign. So yeah, that petition to have an investigation into the outright lies which the BBC and other parts of the media were involved in (lies which were repeatedly called on by the Yes side, but they carried on saying anyway), yeah those don't matter. Everything which happened over the last two years is going to be just swept under the rug, and any complaints will be put down as "people who just can't accept they lost". If you think that the referendum was fair in the least then you're not aware of the facts. People are ruled by the media, and with almost all British outlets being bought out by the No campaign its a wonder the other side achieved 45% at all. It'd be ignorance to to not think that those who have had a stake in anti-independence movements elsewhere in the UK, or who are strongly patriotic (a nice way of saying racist gits) towards the Union wouldn't have come here to cause trouble for those on the other side of the argument (...an argument which given they didn't have Scottish citizenship was hardly there's to involve themselves in).
In regards to English devolution I was making that point as in the English will now put aside that of the other countries in the Union and care only about their own. I'm all for more powers to the English counties. Hell go and live in Preston for a while and see what they think of the way power's spread in their country. I was inferring that already the media's moved on. As ever with the majority of their viewership living in England, and a large portion of that in London, issues outside of that area just don't seem to matter (at least in the view of the people reporting it all). So Scotland's had its time when it had some attention, but its time for it to shut up and roll over again (a sentiment which I've heard already from a couple of people, including UKIP).
While I don't doubt that there were people over from NI I doubt that there were 200K of them.
Just to recap a much earlier comment, England cant vote to get rid of Scotland from the Union, they can only vote to leave it themselves. So we would get to keep the pound not them!
Shadow I completely agree with you. For a long time the English have been hoodwinked (I cant think of a better word) over their ability to govern themselves. I don't really understand why the sense of Scottish, Welsh and Irish has continued to exist and flourish, while Englishness has faded. Devolution for all should exist.
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: In regards to English devolution I was making that point as in the English will now put aside that of the other countries in the Union and care only about their own. I'm all for more powers to the English counties. Hell go and live in Preston for a while and see what they think of the way power's spread in their country. I was inferring that already the media's moved on. As ever with the majority of their viewership living in England, and a large portion of that in London, issues outside of that area just don't seem to matter (at least in the view of the people reporting it all). So Scotland's had its time when it had some attention, but its time for it to shut up and roll over again (a sentiment which I've heard already from a couple of people, including UKIP).
Ah but yesterdays news is for yesterday, and being controversial sells covers, (Just ask Frankie Boyle). Its only been two days, let the dust settle a bit, restock and then start again. While you may not believe this, I voted SNP to get into Edinburgh on the strength of the promise of the bleeding referendum in the first place only to be told years later that I wasn't allowed to vote.
Wyrmalla wrote: ... ... ... (Scotland once again's fallen off the map. What's that you say about an extension of rights? Tsk, there's a general election to care about, and if you're talking about devolution I assume you're referring to that for the English counties?).
Wyrmalla wrote: ... ... ... (Scotland once again's fallen off the map. What's that you say about an extension of rights? Tsk, there's a general election to care about, and if you're talking about devolution I assume you're referring to that for the English counties?).
Some of the Scottish Referendum stories from the BBC website in the past day.
To be fair English devolution is the story at the moment because it is strongly contested and controversial. Scottish devolution is not a story because there is no contest, it will just happen in November. Labour however are wriggling to try and get out of English devolution because its highly damaging to them, good for England, logical and they walked right into it.
This is not to imply Scotland is 'forgotten', Scottish devolution is a current issue, but based on one that is currently sorted.
It is unfair, its base on factors from the 70's but its here to stay for the meantime. UK devolution will happen without altering th formula, however the fromula may become obsolete later if the local economies are federalised. But we are talking ifs here.
Wyrmalla wrote: Today's wee event in George Square was intentionally the opposite to what happened last night........ <snip>
Wyrmalla wrote: The hecklers did start going on about how the guys talking were exploiting people by turning their food collection into a political issue. ...<snip>
Wyrmalla wrote: I wouldn't take that value entirely to heart, but I won't deny that there's those in Scotland right now from other countries who came here explicitly to support either side of the campaign. <snip>
Now what we see is an inevitable aftermath of a referendum charged with nationalism.
The human animal is tribal and tribalism can turn man on man very quickly and overcomes logic. There are plenty of good examples of this where an accepted societal subset becomes a hated one overnight. Former Yugoslavia is full of those stories, best example would be the escalation of anti-Semitism once triggered. Before Hitler/Stalin and similar scum made it OK there might be one or two Jew haters, after the political trigger you get whole communities. Poland, which didn't have large scale anti Semitism or a Nazi or Soviet party of their own handed over their Jews to the Germans, they didn't need the SS to come get them.
Sick people know how to shoe in with these sick emotions, all the Great Dictators knew how to do this because its negative and powerful and people get caught up in the hype.
Nobody is stirring up large scale hatred in Scotland, and I am NOT comparing Salmond to Stalin or Hitler, but the underlying monkey tribalism is still there because you cant remove it from man. The referendum became tribal through nationalism so after ther result the Yes monkey got covered in poo, so the No monkey is waving his stick.
Do not be under any illusion that if there had been a Yes victory there would be any difference. You would have seen the same emboldenment for racism, but it would come from Scottish nationalists who would be shouting in the faces of No supporters on the street who voted No because they believe in a better Scotland and not for any sectarian reason. Note that you get a different type of person going onto the street at the victim side, Yes vote fanatics are at home strewing or feeling gutted, the Yes campers on the streets are the Yes community not Yes fanastics. Again this would have been mirror imaged.
This was sadly inevitable, Salmond chose 2014 for the election for Bannockburn anniversary and maximum Braveheart factor, a lot of people have felt intimidated during the referendum process and on the balance that has been predominently No supporters before Thursday. In fact this made the difference as most No vote was static but was also silent because they didnt want to trigger loons. But they rturned up en masse for the ballot itself and then returned home.
What you are seeing is the ebb tide of a nationalist wave. Many No supporters felt intimidated, and now the boot feels lifted from their shoulders, the worst of them are out for payback. As you can see there were plenty of No voters around. 47% in Glasgow, yet the heckling scum are a tiny minority. Were this a real scale No payback then Glasgow would be in massive civil unright right now.
Thankfully because of the lack of enablement only the hardcore fringe are out bullying Yes supporters, and as previously indicated most of those are doing so becvause they are already polarised by Sectarianism. That also explains why this is happening in Glasgow, but not on any notable scale in Edinburgh or Aberdeen. You will get the odd one or two loons everywhere.
This has to run its course, as it cant actually be stopped except by patience and individual police action. The time to stop a post election surge by extremist supporters of whichever faction won would have been in 2012 when it could have been decided not to use nationalism as the manner of the campaign. Had Scottish independence been held solely on economic terms and rational debate this would not have happened. In dact in hindsight had the SNP decided upon a currency, had not lied about oil and not lied about Europe and said. We will be iScotland, with this as our curncy after a few years of Panamaisation and in about five further years will get into Europe. It will be a long hard slog but we will no longer have Westminster on our backs he may have won.
Instead he tried endless fear smears, threats and anti English sentiment. Yhe SNP claimed the Saltire as its own (you can vote No and be no less Scottish), made it Scotland vs No by their own rhetoric and encouraged Yes loons to turn up with Yes banners and Braveheart faces.
If you see a No extremist monkey flinging poo you can justly blame Alex Salmond, because he made it inevitable that the <whichever side won> monkeys would fling their poo at <whichever side lost monkeys> because he turned into a campaign on nationalist issues. He even allowed his own party to join in with reprisal threats.
There was hate and fear in the campaign, a lot of Unionists were preparing to have to leave. In some cases the threats actually came from senior party leaders
This story is ther tip of the iceberg. A number of people were warned by Salmonds own henchmen not to return to Scotland as they werre not wanted. I know of one such case personally, a hereditary peer, business leader and Unionist. He was warned that he was no longer welcome in Scotland. However in this Salmond has seemed to forget something, the man was a Scottish noble and you cant tell a Sciotsman he cant live in Scotland (well not until you have the Republic of Salmond). So this laird decided that he would go to estate and run his businesses from there. He is still there, he wasn't budging until after the referendum is over.
There was an article on this in January, about 20 very prominent Scots, mostly peers were told they were no longer welcome in Scotland. It was in the press but I couldn't find the article now. It went in and out of the press as Salmond was wise enough not to send his henchmen to make threats in writing, just face to face warnings in London events and clubs. Still I know this to be true because I know of one of the victims of this harassment. You can choose to believe or disbelieve this as you will, becausev I wiont be mentioning any names. Still the laird in question sent Salmond a "condolence" email from his estate in Scotalnd, where Salmond had demanded him not to be.
I think this marks the difference. Post either vote you will get nationaism raising its ugly head, had Salmond won you would have had state sanctioned bigotry as well.
If ugly nationalism is something to be avoided then in my opinion on Thursday Scotland dodged a bullet.
This ugliness will now have a chance to pass. My sincere apologies form all fair minded Unionist for those who are victimised by No supporting extremists. Any incidents are a matter for the police though.
To be honest it's all a total bloody mess, based on some, valid, but idealistic views.
This island is called The United Kingdom and devolution at the level that Scotland wants is a very dangerous political step to make. Scotland will get the powers it wants for more self rule and control, but it will potentially cripple the rest of the country at the political level. We could see in the future a Labour / Lib Dem government in name only, they may of one the election but due to this new "Scottish MP's vote on Scottish issues, "English MP's vote on English issues, etc they don't have a majority. I would say that if devolution happens it has to happen across the whole of this Isle, not just at "country" level. Perhaps something similar to the US, that it's done at county level, not what was offered in the referendum.
I would also say that it's time for a fundamental re-evaluation of this whole idea of "national identity" within The United Kingdom. The Scots & The Welsh use the fact that they have a "native" language as a key point when it comes to arguing for their national identity, but here's the thing. If you'd taken someone from London, say from 1934 and dropped them in to the middle of Dorset or Yorkshire I can guarantee you that they would of thought they were in a different country due to strong regional dialects. As to the whole issue of Westminster being out of touch with what happens in Scotland... I've got news for you. I live in Bournemouth and think the same thing. My MP is a Lib Dem and all the others around here are Tories and when I here their self centred whining about coming out of the EU or that English MP's should vote on English matters it makes me shudder.
Going back to idealistic views, mine is this. I say that the whole of The United Kingdom should be genetically screened and if it turns out that that the people of Scotland and Wales are fundamentally different to the rest of The United Kingdom, then the whole idea of a separate country can be looked at again.
It seems stupid for the NO or the YES people to try to heckle or each other, or vandalize property, especialy given it really can't be considered a landslide vote.
Relapse wrote: It seems stupid for the NO or the YES people to try to heckle or each other, or vandalize property, especialy given it really can't be considered a landslide vote.
Relapse wrote: It seems stupid for the NO or the YES people to try to heckle or each other, or vandalize property, especialy given it really can't be considered a landslide vote.
Relapse wrote: It seems stupid for the NO or the YES people to try to heckle or each other, or vandalize property, especialy given it really can't be considered a landslide vote.
Well it looks like for the moment the Yes campaign side of things here in Glasgow have been taken over by a charity. Glasgow's Needy is playing on feeling left over from the referendum to get people together to protest and collect for the city's food banks. Its nice to see that they've done pretty well for themselves (its just two guys running the thing) and that the Yes voters can have something to stand behind which doesn't have aggressive means. Meanwhile membership for the Greens, SNP and SSP parties has sky rocketed, though I can't speak for Labour (who may not be doing too well in the next election given that the party as a whole joined the No campaign, yet half the country here was on the opposite side. Given the consensus that England's becoming more Conservative it may be a good idea for them to somehow claw back some votes in the other Union countries).
So with that I'm wondering how the next general election's going to turn out? A conservative swing no doubt, but in opposition to that where would the left go? The Lib Dems haven't made many friends, nor have recent events in Scotland put Labour in good standing either. Like I said, the Greens, SNP, and SSP here will probably make a killing, though whether those on the No side vote for any of them is down to Westminster's actions in the time running up to the election. In any case, at the moment here I'm seeing an upswing in the mood of those who voted Yes following their loss last week (though as its been put, yes 10% is a wide margin, but almost half the country voted Yes. That and that particular side had a large youth following, so the matter presumably won't be dropped soon by grass roots groups).
I hope Labour get smashed in the General Elections, even if that will bring a Conservative government. If Cameron is still leader I actually trust him more than Ed to deliver those powers. It's not a lot of trust though. It's not really him, more the idea of whether he'll be able to wrangle those backbenchers back in line. I don't even think Ed would try.
Ed's dead to Scotland!
Labour needs to be rebuilt from the ground up as a party, or perhaps cast aside in favour of new organisations.
Medium of Death wrote: I hope Labour get smashed in the General Elections, even if that will bring a Conservative government. If Cameron is still leader I actually trust him more than Ed to deliver those powers. It's not a lot of trust though. It's not really him, more the idea of whether he'll be able to wrangle those backbenchers back in line. I don't even think Ed would try.
Ed's dead to Scotland!
Labour needs to be rebuilt from the ground up as a party, or perhaps cast aside in favour of new organisations.
Wyrmalla wrote: Well it looks like for the moment the Yes campaign side of things here in Glasgow have been taken over by a charity. Glasgow's Needy is playing on feeling left over from the referendum to get people together to protest and collect for the city's food banks. Its nice to see that they've done pretty well for themselves (its just two guys running the thing) and that the Yes voters can have something to stand behind which doesn't have aggressive means. Meanwhile membership for the Greens, SNP and SSP parties has sky rocketed, though I can't speak for Labour (who may not be doing too well in the next election given that the party as a whole joined the No campaign, yet half the country here was on the opposite side. Given the consensus that England's becoming more Conservative it may be a good idea for them to somehow claw back some votes in the other Union countries).
So with that I'm wondering how the next general election's going to turn out? A conservative swing no doubt, but in opposition to that where would the left go? The Lib Dems haven't made many friends, nor have recent events in Scotland put Labour in good standing either. Like I said, the Greens, SNP, and SSP here will probably make a killing, though whether those on the No side vote for any of them is down to Westminster's actions in the time running up to the election. In any case, at the moment here I'm seeing an upswing in the mood of those who voted Yes following their loss last week (though as its been put, yes 10% is a wide margin, but almost half the country voted Yes. That and that particular side had a large youth following, so the matter presumably won't be dropped soon by grass roots groups).
For one thing I think the turnout for the next election will be abysmal. As you say, almost half the country voted for something that didn't pass, so they are going to be feeling disenfranchised and to top that a large percentage are young first time voters. On that front did they lower the voting age for the election as well as the referendum? If they didn't then you're looking at an even lower turnout. As to the result? I wouldn't even like to try a guess.
Wyrmalla wrote: Well it looks like for the moment the Yes campaign side of things here in Glasgow have been taken over by a charity. Glasgow's Needy is playing on feeling left over from the referendum to get people together to protest and collect for the city's food banks. Its nice to see that they've done pretty well for themselves (its just two guys running the thing) and that the Yes voters can have something to stand behind which doesn't have aggressive means. Meanwhile membership for the Greens, SNP and SSP parties has sky rocketed, though I can't speak for Labour (who may not be doing too well in the next election given that the party as a whole joined the No campaign, yet half the country here was on the opposite side. Given the consensus that England's becoming more Conservative it may be a good idea for them to somehow claw back some votes in the other Union countries).
So with that I'm wondering how the next general election's going to turn out? A conservative swing no doubt, but in opposition to that where would the left go? The Lib Dems haven't made many friends, nor have recent events in Scotland put Labour in good standing either. Like I said, the Greens, SNP, and SSP here will probably make a killing, though whether those on the No side vote for any of them is down to Westminster's actions in the time running up to the election. In any case, at the moment here I'm seeing an upswing in the mood of those who voted Yes following their loss last week (though as its been put, yes 10% is a wide margin, but almost half the country voted Yes. That and that particular side had a large youth following, so the matter presumably won't be dropped soon by grass roots groups).
For one thing I think the turnout for the next election will be abysmal. As you say, almost half the country voted for something that didn't pass, so they are going to be feeling disenfranchised and to top that a large percentage are young first time voters. On that front did they lower the voting age for the election as well as the referendum? If they didn't then you're looking at an even lower turnout. As to the result? I wouldn't even like to try a guess.
I do now laugh that Salmond has come out and said, we didn't win, but if we get an SNP majority we can become an independent nation....
How's that one working Alex? As you cant just tell Westminster your pissing off to form your own country.
55% of Scots didn't agree with your idea, so kindly do one and leave quietly.
If the vote had been run like a normal constituency election the results would have been even more landslide like with 28\4 split No/Yes.
I also am getting really pissed off at this insinuation that I only voted no because of the promises Westminster made Re: more powers.
No no, I voted No because the economic argument was about as solid as a wet tissue bag, and a lot of people knew this too.
It was Salmond and the SNP's vanity project from the start and I hope they get a drubbing at the next Scottish general election to show the nations displeasure.
Also this screaming that Westminster 'lied' and didn't give what they promised. Its been 4 days, obviously the parties are going to wrangle for the best deal, and Labour was at the top of this pile as Scotland is very important to them, but Cameron would be a moron to not give Scotland the extra powers promised, as it would be a disaster and the English now have a taste of finally getting an answer to the 'west lothian' question, so of course its going to be shouted about in the halls of parliament now, moan in February if you get nothing from Westminster, not 4 days after the vote.
The chip on the shoulder of the Yes camp and this '45' nonsense really belittles all they said about agreeing with the result, it seems that was only true in the event of a Yes vote.
Rick_1138 wrote: I do now laugh that Salmond has come out and said, we didn't win, but if we get an SNP majority we can become an independent nation.....
This should not surprise me, but it does. It takes some nerve to promise seperation even after a plebiscite refuses the idea.
I also am getting really pissed off at this insinuation that I only voted no because of the promises Westminster made Re: more powers.
It implies Salmond thinks the No voters are as gullible and easily led as the Yes voters. Some probably are, but the quiet no vote that carried the referendum which was 75% of all No voters were No from the start.
Also this screaming that Westminster 'lied' and didn't give what they promised. Its been 4 days, obviously the parties are going to wrangle for the best deal, .
What is calling about this is that it takes three years to mount a referendum campaign to ask one question (a general election is set up over the period of one calender month), yet a devolution process is overrunning if not completed in four days.
What type of idiot does he take you for?
Medium of Death wrote: I hope Labour get smashed in the General Elections, even if that will bring a Conservative government. If Cameron is still leader I actually trust him more than Ed to deliver those powers. It's not a lot of trust though. It's not really him, more the idea of whether he'll be able to wrangle those backbenchers back in line. I don't even think Ed would try.
Ed's dead to Scotland!
It's funny really. On a personal level, I'm anti-Tory (except in defence policy/fiscal restraint), and would love to be able to vote Lib Dem/Labour. But Labour literally cannot muster a single heavyweight, reliable, known politician to the field anymore. Let's see....
Miliband is a bumbling nobody with nothing important or original to say. Ed Balls and Harriet Harman are still completely tarred by their days of association with the last institution, and made several monumental screwups that demonstrate their complete incompetence. Chuka Umna barely knows what his brief is (as evidenced by his most recent interview where he couldn't even name Scottish members of his own party), and is as slimy a creature that ever walked the face of the earth. Diane Abbot takes reverse racism to new extremes.
Literally the only person Labour has left that I even regard as mildly competent would be Peter Mandelson, and he's so corrupt as to make that worthless. There is a real void and paucity of talent in the Labour party, and whilst I'm not especially pro-Tory, they can at least muster a fairly solid lineup of mediocre/competent statesmen.
Cameron? Nothing special, but competent. William Hague? Ex-Tory Leader who's matured over time into a solid politician. George Osborne? Slimy and Tory through and through, but effective and knows his brief quite well. Theresa May? Shaping up into a future potential Tory leader if she can avoid too many cockups. Michael Fallon? Never seen him before the other night in interview, but he seemed to have a good handle on his job and be reasonably competent. Phillip Hammond? A bit of a political bruiser. Boris Johnson? Far cleverer than people suspect, with a very efficient spin machine.
Tl;dr, The Conservatives have a wealth of a mediocre/unremarkably competent ministers to draw on, whilst Labour can't muster up a single one. There's such a dearth of originality, willingness to take risk, and lack of direction that I'd rather the Conservatives took Government over them any day, whether I like the Tories or not.
Labour needs to be rebuilt from the ground up as a party, or perhaps cast aside in favour of new organisations.
Indeed. Labour has become a shadow of what it once was. Thatcher killed their internal organs by turning the working class into homeowners, Blair hollowed out the shell to fit in his ego and vast aspirations to be a 'World Leader', and then Brown stifled any remaining healing until what little was left rotted away. Now all that's left is the husk. Dry, insubstantial, and purposeless.
Millibands speech today was lacklustre, and his promises for his ten year plan are suspiciously vague. Important stuff like devolution, Lord reform and 'constitutional changes were glossed over in as many lines. As Labour is likely to foul up all three (and should in my opinion leave well alone) the speech was disturbing.
Meanwhile the six major policies were talked about at length,b but with a mixed degree of detail. The NHS reforms were fairly comprehensively explained, the banking reforms were exceptionally vague. I can see Labour delivering on the former, they will never deliver on the latter as they are as crony infested as the Tories.
Its bad when you get a pre-election leaders speech, and you can see from the speech which proposals are very important, dangerous and are being understated, which will be achieved and which are soundbytes and empty promises the party has no intention of coming through on.
A most unprofesional show by a weak Prime Ministerial candidate. Still they might well win anyway because they promise less austerity.
And on austerity, Milliband hardly mentioned the economy at all, funny that.
Orlanth wrote: Millibands speech today was lacklustre, and his promises for his ten year plan are suspiciously vague. Important stuff like devolution, Lord reform and 'constitutional changes were glossed over in as many lines. As Labour is likely to foul up all three (and should in my opinion leave well alone) the speech was disturbing.
Meanwhile the six major policies were talked about at length,b but with a mixed degree of detail. The NHS reforms were fairly comprehensively explained, the banking reforms were exceptionally vague. I can see Labour delivering on the former, they will never deliver on the latter as they are as crony infested as the Tories.
Its bad when you get a pre-election leaders speech, and you can see from the speech which proposals are very important, dangerous and are being understated, which will be achieved and which are soundbytes and empty promises the party has no intention of coming through on.
A most unprofesional show by a weak Prime Ministerial candidate. Still they might well win anyway because they promise less austerity.
And on austerity, Milliband hardly mentioned the economy at all, funny that.
When did they promise less austerity? Last I recall, Ed Balls vowed not to touch the fiscal reforms instituted by the Tories. I don't believe him for a second, there's never been a single Labour Institution that's left with a balanced budget (something ideological no doubt), but he hasn't said that austerity will end to my knowledge, quite the opposite.
As far as I can tell, Miliband's proposals are:
-£8.00 minimum wage by 2020.
-A 2.5 billion injection into the NHS, to be subsidised by a crackdown on tax evasion, a new mansion tax, and more tobacco taxes.
-Lowering the minimum voting age to 16.
-Raising apprenticeships to the point where 50% of the youth do them.
They're also mildly nonsensical and meaningless for the most part. The minimum wage is going up to £6.50 in October, and Osborne has being saying since January he wanted it to hit £7.00. If it keeps going at its current rate, it'll actually be £8.00 be 2020, or something close to it. The Tories already ringfenced the NHS (so no cuts there to complain about), and his proposals for raising more cash are a mixture of lies (Labour hitting the rich? Pah), and easy hits (rich people and smokers! Yeah!) that will be ineffectual (the people Labour hires to write tax laws become tax evasion advisors two years later and rich people keep their money outside the country).
The apprenticeships is a desperate attempt to find a solution to growing University costs and youth unemployment issues, but the goal given is simplistic to the point of idiotic. It's like Blair's original goal of 50% to University. You can't just seize on a figure like that. It looks nice in the headlines, but starts falling apart once you consider the fine print. Apprenticeships in what? Where are the new apprenticeships going to allow people to work? Will these markets be globally competitive, or will they just end up unemployed again because the industry isn't here? etcetc
Thats your problem. You are confusing a daytime TV presenter with a real journalist. Thats what he does, and politicians have to do that kind of show because some people are swayed by that. We have people like Jeramy Paxman and Jon Snow to do the deeper stuff. Politicians have to be able to do the harsh questioning as well as the day time TV and weekend cooking show stuff. It's the modern equivalent of opening supermarkets and kissing babies.
There's certainly momentum in Scotland, social media at this stage, for people to reject Labour. Recently joined the Scottish Green Party and will be going to my first meeting on Thursday. I'm looking forward to getting involved in any way I can. I'm hopeful that even if people aren't for Independence they'll see how Labour has shafted Scotland and the UK and how having them in power won't be good for this Country or the UK as a whole. Labour inspires more hatred in me than the Conservatives at this point. You expect the Conservatives to pursue their policies, Labour have betrayed their ideals. Utter revulsion is all I have left for them.
Here's some Russell Brand.
Some good truths in here. It's probably a bit airy for some people but I enjoyed it. Morally relativistic comments about his past or current status need not apply.
When did they promise less austerity? Last I recall, Ed Balls vowed not to touch the fiscal reforms instituted by the Tories. I don't believe him for a second, there's never been a single Labour Institution that's left with a balanced budget (something ideological no doubt), but he hasn't said that austerity will end to my knowledge, quite the opposite.
Ed Ball's comments don't add up, and drew derision from the Trades Unions. Then on top of that they got no backing from Milliband.
Milliband wants a hike on the minimum wage, I agree with that but it will mostly effect minimum wage compnaies like the supermarket chains. The £8 will be paid for with a hike on groceries, this will then mean a rise of inflation and subsequently of welfare payments.
Apprenticeships are also not free, and subsidies are promised. In the speech Milliband didn't ink apprenticeships with hiring UK or EU workforce and gave a green light to increased immigrant labour.
Which on analysis is possibly why the housing goal is at 500k new homes and not 200k as mentioned in the ICIS report in June.
-£8.00 minimum wage by 2020.
-A 2.5 billion injection into the NHS, to be subsidised by a crackdown on tax evasion, a new mansion tax, and more tobacco taxes.
-Lowering the minimum voting age to 16.
-Raising apprenticeships to the point where 50% of the youth do them.
They're also mildly nonsensical and meaningless for the most part. The minimum wage is going up to £6.50 in October, and Osborne has being saying since January he wanted it to hit £7.00. If it keeps going at its current rate, it'll actually be £8.00 be 2020, or something close to it. The Tories already ringfenced the NHS (so no cuts there to complain about), and his proposals for raising more cash are a mixture of lies (Labour hitting the rich? Pah), and easy hits (rich people and smokers! Yeah!) that will be ineffectual (the people Labour hires to write tax laws become tax evasion advisors two years later and rich people keep their money outside the country).
Good analysis. But it only covers four of his six plans.
There is a 'promise' to reign in the banks, without any specificity whatsoever. This is obviously therefore a complete falsehood, no major party will touch the banks, and to promise a clampdown without proposals is just vacant rabble rousing. Again Labour betrays socialist roots.
The house building program is the sixth.
The apprenticeships is a desperate attempt to find a solution to growing University costs and youth unemployment issues, but the goal given is simplistic to the point of idiotic. It's like Blair's original goal of 50% to University. You can't just seize on a figure like that. It looks nice in the headlines, but starts falling apart once you consider the fine print. Apprenticeships in what? Where are the new apprenticeships going to allow people to work? Will these markets be globally competitive, or will they just end up unemployed again because the industry isn't here? etcetc
With the increase in selective scholarships and a mounting attack on the independent schools the apprenticeships is the last nail in a coffin of neo-feudalism. Apprenticeships effectively mean - here is your blue collar work with a glass ceiling. Especially as apprenticeships are often now in semi-skilled occupations.
It shows how far Labour has fallen when a large percentage of the population are denied social mobility.
Milliband even managed to look patronising doing it. Calling for a round of applause because a young apprentice electrian was female. There have been female sparkies for a while.
There is more however, the constitutional meddling is most worrisome, especially as it was mentioned in passing and yet is far more weighty that issues which Milliband made extensive commentary on. Labour has an ugly reputation for constitutional meddling purely for its own party benefit and to the both short and long term detriment of the nation. I do not trust New Labour to make a fair constitution for the nation, and such matters should not be attempted even by more far sighted and well informed parties. Current politics both on the left and right is increasingly self serving, short sighted and dogmatic. Those are not flavours that make up a healthy long term constitutional document. The UK has a volatile electorate, and thus has been well served by not having a single constitutional document.
Nice to see that some of the press has now cottoned on to the fact that Milliband ignored the economy in his speech. The Tories were slow of the mark, they could have nailed him badly for that.
Some good truths in here. It's probably a bit airy for some people but I enjoyed it. Morally relativistic comments about his past or current status need not apply.
You do know that Russel Brand is not a free thinker, he is reading from a loose script provided by Labour. As a comic he can get away with stuff mainstream Labour cannot. Such as repeatedly calllng Farage racist without anything to back it up. He can also make other proposals and accusations and commenataries without the need to back them up with anything. This therefore makes him useful.
Brand is there for a purpose, its away of putting across a partisan point of view in a milieu that is hard to critique.
Be aware that you are drinking in New Labour spin, remodelled for the twitter generation.
I'm obviously not saying his thoughts are unique, because I'm sure he's reading up on this kind of stuff at the moment, as he says in his "Trews" program. To suggest he's being paid to be a New Labour shill is quite something else.
I don't take everything he says as 100% absolute truth.
Knowing Scottish people as I do, news of a big oil field find would not have made the slightest bit of difference to the vote - they would still believe themselves incapable of handling all that money, and would still have handed it over to somebody else...which they did. I wish Scots would take a similar approach to winning the lottery and hand over that cash to me
Evidence of this approach? Well, Everybody knows about the McCrone report, but did it provoke anger? No!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daba wrote: It hasn't even been a week since the voting...
Well, if they can cobble together a 'pledge' in under two days, I'm sure they can implement these powers in a similar space of time.
Given the typical incompetence of our politicians, especially when coming up with knee jerk ad hoc responses, I'd much prefer they take their time and come up with a well considered and thoroughly researched solution, like a federal system of government that devolves power to ALL regions fairly.
Given the typical incompetence of our politicians, especially when coming up with knee jerk ad hoc responses, I'd much prefer they take their time and come up with a well considered and thoroughly researched solution, like a federal system of government that devolves power to ALL regions fairly.
Constitutional reform can't be done overnight.
They had plenty of time, they had two years of the Scottish referendum campaign to cobble something up.
Given the typical incompetence of our politicians, especially when coming up with knee jerk ad hoc responses, I'd much prefer they take their time and come up with a well considered and thoroughly researched solution, like a federal system of government that devolves power to ALL regions fairly.
Constitutional reform can't be done overnight.
They had plenty of time, they had two years of the Scottish referendum campaign to cobble something up.
As did Salmond , on things like currency union and EU membership, the former which was outright rejected by Westminster before the referendum, and the latter which would have taken years to achieve and even then on unfavourable terms due to obstruction by other EU countries.
And yet Salmond failed to cobble up a plan B on those points because he believed he was going to get his way, just like Westminster failed to come up with a plan for devolution because they believed they would get their way and win comfortably without having to make concessions.
This complaining about lack of reforms is really getting on my wick. It started 48 hours after the vote and has been going on all week. Seriously, a week, whilst parliament has been in recess, so they can't even vote on anything.
On top of that the Govenment seems to have been thrown by how strong the calls to answer the West Lothian question at the same time have been.
Steve steveson wrote: This complaining about lack of reforms is really getting on my wick. It started 48 hours after the vote and has been going on all week. Seriously, a week, whilst parliament has been in recess, so they can't even vote on anything.
On top of that the Govenment seems to have been thrown by how strong the calls to answer the West Lothian question at the same time have been.
They had TWO years to present a plan on extra powers. I have zero sympathy for them.
We've known that for a while now. We've also known that the vast majority of those reserves would cost more to extract than they would bring on the open market under current technology. Making them economically unviable for the foreseeable future.
A UKIP donor has called for an English referendum on ejecting ‘malcontent’ Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the UK. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has demanded a “federal future” for Britain.
Property investor Andrew Perloff, chairman of Hertfordshire-based real estate firm Panther Securities, said Scotland’s rejection of independence came as no surprise given that UK taxpayers “contribute £1,600 per year per person ... to these malcontents”.
The ‘Barnett Formula’ is a wealth distribution method whereby UK taxpayers spend £1,600 more on every Scot than on every English person.
Under the heading “chairman’s ramblings” in Panther Securities’ interim results, Perloff said: “We have just had the result of the Scottish referendum which appears as a resounding Yes to the union 55 percent in favour to 45 percent against.
“I do not know why the result would have been in doubt. Why would any faction of a social club resign when all the other members contribute £1,600 per year per person to their particular faction and have been further browbeaten to offer further incentives to these malcontents?
“Perhaps now the English can have a referendum as to whether we wish to keep the Scots in and whilst we are at it, the Irish and Welsh as well! Why should the Scots have a one-way bet?” Perloff asked.
Panther Securities, which recorded pre-tax profits of £3,235,000 in the six months to June, has donated £17,500 to Farage’s UKIP.
Farage wrote to 59 Scottish MPs in the wake of the Scottish referendum demanding they immediately give up their right to debate or vote on devolved English issues in Westminster. If Scots want more autonomy, then they shouldn’t be making England’s decisions, he says.
“We’ve had a lot from Scotland but the tail cannot go on wagging the dog any longer,” Farage told the BBC.
The UKIP leader, and a number of Tory backbenchers, have accused Prime Minister David Cameron of ignoring England to appease the Scots, who are keen to see promises made during the referendum campaign fulfilled.
All three major parties have agreed to grant Scotland more authority over issues including welfare spending and setting its out levels of tax-decisions currently in the hands of the politicians in Westminster.
“Throughout this whole devolution period [England] really have been the poor relation, we've been ignored,” said Farage, accusing Westminster leaders of “panicking” in the lead up last week’s referendum.
Farage told LBC Radio listeners this week there needed to be a constitutional convention to work out a “federal future” for the country.
He called for “a fair proper way to have a federal United Kingdom, where all four parts of the country are happy that they've got a fair deal.”
In a column published in the Sun, he said more Scottish power would breed resentment. “English people have been suckers for too long,” because English taxes “inordinately” benefit Scotland, he argued.
Forty-nine percent of Welsh citizens are demanding the same devolved powers currently offered to Scotland following last week’s referendum. But a new poll shows support for Welsh independence has dropped to its lowest level.
Leanne Wood, leader of Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru, said the current Wales Bill should be redrawn and that a new one should be introduced alongside the revised Scotland Bill.
“It would be unthinkable and unacceptable if MPs voted for substantial new powers for Scotland whilst also voting on a second rate bill for Wales,” Wood said in a party statement.
“If our devolution journey has taught us anything it is that piecemeal, incremental change in our settlement leads to unsatisfactory outcomes for the people of Wales,” she said. “The Wales Bill is already inadequate and it would be insulting for its inadequacy to be further highlighted by new arrangements for Scotland.”
In the run up to the September 18 Scottish referendum, polls indicated a spike in Welsh support for an independent Wales. However, in the days following the referendum, fresh poll data suggests fewer Welsh citizens than ever support a split with the UK.
Wednesday’s survey by ICM for BBC Wales, which polled 1,006 adults from September 19-22, found only 3 percent of Welsh citizens surveyed wanted independence.
But the survey found that 49 percent back more powers for the Welsh Assembly, while 12 percent want the assembly completely abolished.
The result contrasts with a separate poll for ITV Cymru Wales and Cardiff University published on September 15, during the Scottish #indyref campaign, which found support for Welsh independence stood at 17 percent, with 70 percent against.
By contrast, rather than killing nationalist sentiment in Scotland, the referendum defeat has provoked a massive membership boost for Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party.
Responding to Wednesday’s ICM poll, Plaid Cymru Shadow Economy Minister, Rhun ap Iorwerth, said the poll showed significant support for ensuring “more decisions about Wales are made in Wales,” and said “the status quo is no longer an option”.
“Plaid Cymru has long argued that the decisions that directly affect people’s lives should be taken as close to them as possible, and it is clear that voters here agree with us,” ap Iorwerth told RT.
“Only yesterday the party published its proposals for ensuring that Wales has the same powers that are being offered to Scotland in areas such as policing, our natural resources, energy as well as more control over the levers which shape our economy,” he said. “The state of our economy demonstrates clearly that Westminster isn’t working for Wales which is why Plaid Cymru has clear proposals to create more jobs, improve public services and to invest in our infrastructure.”
Speaking to the BBC on Wednesday, Plaid Cymru leader Wood said she was not surprised to see such small support for an independent Wales, blaming the “context of the Better Together campaign” and the “unprecedented level of scaremongering” by the British establishment parties during the Scottish referendum campaign.
Wood said she was “encouraged,” however, by the growing number of people who support more powers for the National Assembly for Wales.
Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to link new devolved powers to Scotland with plans to address the so-called “West Lothian question”, the anomaly whereby Scottish MPs can vote on English-only matters while English MPs have no say on devolved matters in Scotland. Welsh nationalists see this as an opportunity to claw more powers from Westminster.
Meanwhile, Wednesday’s poll found growing support for Nigel Farage’s UKIP in Wales, capitalising on falling support for the governing coalition parties and weakening of traditional Labour Party electoral strongholds.
UKIP support is up 7 points at 14 percent compared with a BBC poll in March, while Labour is down 4 points at 38 percent, and the Conservatives are down 1 on 23 percent. Plaid Cymru are down 1 on 13 percent and the Liberal Democrats down 2 points on 7 percent.
While UKIP are unlikely to take a seat, their rise could have an impact on key marginals.
AndrewC wrote: But that's the fun thing Shadow, you cant kick us out, you can only leave.
Cheers
Andrew
I dont want to kick you out. I don't want you to leave either. I want us all to kiss and make up, so we can be one big happy family again. If it takes burning Westminster to the ground and burning all MPs at the stake to achieve it, I'm OK with that.
We have much more in common historically, culturally and legally with the Scottish and Welsh than we do with continental Europeans.
Northern Ireland I think will leave one day. Its inevitable, and maybe even for the best. Two separate united islands with strong ties but separate independent governments.
AndrewC wrote: But that's the fun thing Shadow, you cant kick us out, you can only leave.
Cheers
Andrew
I dont want to kick you out. I don't want you to leave either. I want us all to kiss and make up, so we can be one big happy family again. If it takes burning Westminster to the ground and burning all MPs at the stake to achieve it, I'm OK with that.
Okay, I'll bring the marshmallows, hot chocolate and a copy of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. If you can arrange for the matches and a PA system please.
AndrewC wrote: But that's the fun thing Shadow, you cant kick us out, you can only leave.
Cheers
Andrew
Wait... wait... what if England votes for independance from the UK? Can that happen? Someone should whisper that in a UKIP rep's ear, just to see what happens. I bet it would be hilarious.
Steve steveson wrote: This complaining about lack of reforms is really getting on my wick. It started 48 hours after the vote and has been going on all week. Seriously, a week, whilst parliament has been in recess, so they can't even vote on anything.
On top of that the Govenment seems to have been thrown by how strong the calls to answer the West Lothian question at the same time have been.
They had TWO years to present a plan on extra powers. I have zero sympathy for them.
Your argument makes no sense.
It took Salmond even longer to set up a referendum to ask one question.
So something that involves negotiation and dialogue could conceivably take a little longer then.
Negotiation on devolution is only beginning I am still confident it will be concluded in a fraction of the time it takes the Scottish Government to pose a single Yes/No question.
Your mantra of our side can take as long as it wants but you must deliver yesterday simply doesn't wash. Try another line please.
Alex Salmond beleives that if you have devolution you have most of independence, so just declare it.
He 'forgets' that the democratic majority rejected independence.
Though I have an exceptionally low opinion of Salmond, I had to do extra extra sourcing to find quotes for this. I had to be sure. Was Salmond really that fething desperate
Alex Salmond wrote: I mean my view on the referendum, it’s my personal view, is it is something you have in that once in a generation but of course there are many routes to independence. I mean the referendum route was one of my choosing, it was my policy, I thought that was the right way to proceed but of course there are a whole range of ways Scotland can improve its position in pursuit of Scottish independence. I think that’s going to happen, Dermot. I mean when you have a situation where the majority of a country up to the age of 55 is already voting for independence then I think the writing’s on the wall for Westminster, I think the destination is pretty certain, we are only now debating the timescale and the method.
So if democracy doesn't get what you want, try another method. Huzzah for Kim Jong-Eck.
)
