Quoted for stupid
We might have to make this a regular mirror strand to “Quoted for truth”. We’re struggling to get our heads round a particularly dim-witted piece in today’s Scotsman by Gregor Gall, a left-wing academic who the paper notes is “professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford and lives in Edinburgh”. (Tough commute.)
It’s full of all manner of illogical cobblers (we have a feeling that we saw The Illogical Cobblers supporting Birdland at the Edinburgh Venue in about 1989, but that’s another story), from which one passage really leaps out with its underpants on its head.
“Since the signing of the “Edinburgh Agreement” on 15 October last year, when Alex Salmond conceded that there would be no second question on the ballot paper, in effect, devo-max is on the ballot paper – and, thus, to the exclusion of independence.
This is exactly the kind of mishmash that is sinking – and will sink – the campaign for independence.”
Yes, yes, we know, but ignore the bewilderingly clueless insistence that Alex Salmond wanted a second question for now, because it’s not even the dumbest thing there.
Gall’s assertion is that a Yes vote in the referendum won’t really be a vote for independence, but for devo-max. This is already achingly idiotic in itself – control of defence, foreign policy, oil revenues and welfare are by far the biggest attractions on the independence playbill, and all of those will come home to the Scottish Parliament no matter whether we keep Sterling and the Queen or not. But even crazier still is the implication that if it was true, it would be a bad thing.
It’s an article of (misguided) universal faith in Scottish politics that devo-max is what the people want the most – the status quo is thoroughly unloved, but people don’t yet seem ready to make the full leap to complete self-governance. (After all, sane people might ponder, if substantially enhanced devolution was so unpopular why would all three Unionist parties be strenuously – albeit dishonestly – insisting that that’s exactly what they’ll deliver, if only Scotland will vote No first?)
What’s certain, though, is that if you combine support for devo-max and independence, it commands a huge majority. So we can think of almost no more guaranteed way to secure a Yes vote than to convince Scots that what it really means is devo-max.
Independence supporters aren’t suddenly going to vote No out of spite that it’s not quite enough independence, and with backing for the status quo now consistently below 25%, if the devo-maxers come along for the ride the Yes vote will probably be even higher than the overwhelming assent of the 1999 devolution referendum.
Gall’s claim is so plainly and utterly barking mad on the surface that we can only assume it must be a bit of cunning reverse psychology, which we’ve just ruined. Oops. We’re off to stand in the corner with a pointy hat on for a bit.
The bile from his “Gall” bladder, must have reached his brain!.
Have to say, that is about the most cryptic logic statement I’ve ever seen. Perhaps he would like to set the Times crossword if his thinking goes around in circles like that?
I’m struggling even to comprehend how he could possibly arrive at that conclusion. I think batshit doesn’t even cover it; he’s one step away from sectioning.
Professor Gall demonstrates that having intelligence is very different to having common sense.
The NO campaign seems to be tying itself in knots by constantly saying on the one hand they’ll offer some kind of “devo-max” (unspecified) but at the same time arguing the SNPs version of independence is rubbish ‘cos it’s not real independence ‘cos you’ll still have the pound.
Look on the bright side; The Scotsman has found yet another advocate of the status quo from the world of academe who it appears is no more capable of constructing a logical, reasonable & believable argument than a Columbian drug baron pleading to be let out of jail because he needs to go home & feed his dog before it eats his electric bill.
Professor Gall demonstrates that having intelligence is very different to having common sense.
Having an academic role as part of my job I can confirm this to be widespread within the academic world.
“This is exactly the kind of mishmash that is sinking – and will sink – the campaign for independence.”
Er, the complete opposite actually, Einstein. If Devo-Max WAS on the ballot paper, that would have created even more of a mishmash, and may have sunk the independence campaign. But, Einstein, it isn’t so it won’t!
…and you’ll have to grow some hair if you want me to ironically call you Einstein again!
It has occasionally occurred to me that part of the Yes campaigning next year might be exactly this – the reassuring of the devo-max supporters that this is sort of what they’ll be getting if they vote yes.
If you take the No lot at their word then both a Yes vote *and* a No vote mean “devo-max”. There’s slightly more “max” in a Yes vote and slightly more “devo” in a No vote but Scotland gets more powers either way. So this helpful chap is bang-on!
The key problem with this line of “reasoning” is the first word of the paragraph above – namely “if”.
@Cath
Yup, the argument from Project Fear can be expressed succinctly: Some powers good, slightly more of some powers good (or maybe bad), full powers bad. Devo max bad, slightly more of some powers good (or maybe bad), so Devo plus good (or maybe bad). No to full powers good, so Devo max and Devo plus then good, although commissions may establish that both are bad.
Haud on, let me start that again..
I’m thinking that as this “intellectual” thinks that Alex Salmond actually signed up to Devo MAX and not Independence then perhaps we should spread this passage far and wide. By ensuring all the Devo MAX supporters read this passage then a YES win in 2014 would be one hell of a giant step closer to a victory!
We had devo-max from 1603 to 1707 and it sucked.
YES is the only way
I like the bookcase, Gregor. Sorry, did you say something?
@ Training Day:
Project Fear speak:
Firm commitments on devolution bad; vague promises good.
Does that help?
With this kind of reasoning ability, how does he even dress himself of a morning?
The entire premise of his argument is wrong, which as we know is an oft-used tool in the unionist’s armament, we saw it most recently with the Scotland Institutes paper on Scottish defence – essentially written by a bunch of people looking down the middle of an empty union bog roll.
2+2=5
I’ve read the article twice, and i’m still baffled. Does he actually believe Devo Max is on offer, or is he simply rubbishing the SNP’s position?
Arbroath is right.
I cannot ascertain from the quote given whether he is in fact inferring that the SNP are watering down independence to the point where it effectively becomes Devo Max OR whether he is instead inferring that the No camp are elevating their position up to Devo Max.
If the former, as you say, an astute move by Salmond and co to garner the natural Devo Maxer vote, making independence more likely.
If the latter (and it were true) then I think it would make the Yes vote less.
Of course, despite any claims by Yes campaigners that there will be substantial new powers, we all know they are lying their arses off. Question is whether Joe (never reads) Blogs knows that too?
I studied logic once, so let me clarify – it’s really quite simple. Devo max isn’t on the ballot paper, but independence is. Therefore, devo max is on the ballot paper and independence isn’t. Got it now?
Oops! That should of course have been:
“Of course, despite any claims by No campaigners that there will be substantial new powers, we all know they are lying their arses off. Question is whether Joe (never reads) Blogs knows that too?”
My dug has a better grasp of the referendum than this wally!
I think it just goes to prove how well Salmond has played the whole Devo Max card. It has got to the point where some Yes supporters even think he wanted it as an option in the referendum (I did for a while!).
Given the importance of the natural Devo Max vote I think it is quite possible that as we approach the vote we could have both sides screaming one of the following.
“We’ll give you Devo Max effectively, it just requires a Yes vote”
OR
“We’ll give you Devo Max effectively, it just requires a No vote”
The real constitutional choice in the referendum, I am convinced will be either,
Independence Lite
Or
Devo Minus (where minus might mean complete removal)
The Us will need to lie better than they have ever done before to sell their jam tomorrow nonsense.
Perhaps evidence of the negative health effect generated by the trans-dimensional border thingy, that separation is causing. That is a bugger of a commute.
Maybe this is the fabled positive case for the Union? The Union is so wonderful, it can be anything you want it to be!
A YES vote saves the Union, and gives Scotland its independence. Sorted.
Maybe this is the fabled positive case for the Union?
So that is where the unicorn comes in to the picture.
Bet you it’s not even a real bookcase, just one of those big photies.
To be an academic suggests you are at the very least proficient in your chosen field.
Scottish real politics are not his field then,obviously!
Hopefully he’ll get his message across to the fearties – Don’t be afraid to vote YES. ‘Independence’ does not mean Independence. You will actually just be voting for Devo Max.
The guy sitting down is whispering, ‘sit doon man, yir makin an erse o yersel.’
As the SSP suport YES, I think this must be some academic black is white bullshit or else it is an insight into the vapidity of the Edinburgh chattering class. If we YES we don’t get devo-max. If we vote no we won’t be given devo-max. Devo-max is dead.
“There’s slightly more “max” in a Yes vote and slightly more “devo” in a No vote but Scotland gets more powers either way.”
Problem with that for the NO campaign is that a large minority (or possibly a majority) of those people who support them strongly (ie campaign for them, are on their web pages etc rather than just people currently planning to vote no) hate devolution and want less rather than more. They have the Tories, UKIPers, Orange Order, Union Jack types who didn’t want a Scottish parliament in the first place and would much prefer to see powers taken from it.
I can’t imagine those people being happy about being disenfranchised, and it would be the NO campaign, their own side, doing that. So the offers and promises will have to be half-hearted and watered down enough that those people actually don’t believe them and understand it’s just jam tomorrow . But yet strong enough to have everyone else believing them. That’s a tough call.
Chic McGregor,
I fully agree that, whatever they call them, the two effective options on offer next year will be Indy-lite and devo-minus. Devomax/undecideds may not be a majority, but their support is absolutely crucial. Between now and Setpember 2014, this group of people will be asking themselves (and others): ” which option is closer to what I really want?”. Watering down independence may not be to everyone’s taste, but we have to take a decent majority of people with us.
That said, BT have a much more difficult task in persuading the target devomax supporters/undecideds that a NO is not really for status quo. Even if they could fool enough people for a while, the next question is invariably “ok, so what DOES a NO vote mean?”.
The YES campaign is built on hope and promise. The NO campaign is built on fear and deception. That is why we will win.
Confuscious say, always give your adversary a means to save face, that way they can walk away feeling they have won a concession and the day will be yours. Mind you he also said, “man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.” I think the good prof. has hole in pocket. He was obviously one of the Grinning Skull, Curtice’s students.
What is it about the Uni of Bradford that produces these no-hopers? I’m thinking about the other “Professor of Peace Studies” (Gallacher?) who used to write to Scottish papers to tell us how how bad the SNP is. Putting you’re work title after writing a piece of nonsense just shows that you are arrogant AND stupid.
Trust the Scotsman to find someone somewhere in the world to talk down the SNP.
What 1999 devolution referendum? I must have missed that one, but am surprised we had one only two years after the other devolution referendum!
Do you not think that the White Paper is going to be designed to impart exactly this message to the undecided but devo max (whatever that was meant to mean) supporting section of the Scots electorate?
I think it’s really quite a smart move by the SNP Government but I fear the howels from the Greens, SSP and Radical Indy wings of YES Scotland.
I hope they don’t spend their time railing against the SNP proposals, but instead get stuck into painting a vibrant and radical picture of their concepts and social policies for a possible future Independent Scotland.
That may be the best way for YES to be able to talk with and motivate the different constituencies necessary to achieve an overwhelming and unambiguous YES vote in 2014.
My interests and tastes lie very much in the radical end of the spectrum in this constitutional debate, but I know and accept the necessity in moving only as fast as the slowest YES voter is moving.
Post Indy however, normal politics kick in and manifestos will be tested for popularity when policy/social change will return to the usual electoral cycle,(to be defined by our Constitution).
So not long to wait for all us radicals who are well and truly up for the fight! (bigsmily)
This guy being a professor and all that perhaps he is thinking about some kind of Schrodinger’s referendum?
Sadly he is not stupid.
He is knowingly grinding his Unionist Political Axe and is being given a platform to do so, because of an academic title.
More of this to come.
Or, as Schrodinger might have said.
” Onybody seen ma cat?”
“Devomax/undecideds may not be a majority, but their support is absolutely crucial”
It’s not just that their support is crucial for a win – that’s the cynical way to look at it.
It’s also crucial, for all of us and Scotland/rUK that we build as broad a consensus as possible. Obviously you’ll never get full agreement or anywhere close but a narrow victory for either side will be bad, especially after a totally polarising debate.
It’s what’s most frustrating about this “debate”: it needn’t have been polarising. Had we been discussing “OK, clearly from the votes and polls people in Scotland aren’t happy with the status quo; where do we want to go now?” we could be having a good, wide-ranging, respectful debate, potentially across the whole UK. The consensus would have settled somewhere around a kind of federal structure.
I realise this is pie-in-the-sky: it would never have happened that way with Westminster, and we have what we have. So it’s up to us in Scotland to try to find that consensus. Though doing it against a background of constant carping, negativity, smears and denigration from Westminster isn’t exactly ideal either.
I’m not particularly in the radical camp. Had devo-max been on the paper I’d probably be sitting back not getting much involved in the campaign, happy with that gradual approach. But given a straight yes/no there was no question at all it was Yes. Similarly, I’m ambivalent about currency, the monarchy, NATO, the EU etc. The easy life, the path of least resistance and least conflict is what I favour but if pushed, I’m very much open to real, radical, transformational change as well. I have no idea how many people fall into that camp and how many are genuinely scared of radical change? So I agree with the post upthread that I hope the Greens, Radical indy etc are out there campaigning for their own vision – which will be what many people want to hear. But not in an angry, “the SNP are shit” kind of way.
Frankly, if it smells like shite, and squashes like shite, its SHITE no matter how much an intellectual you think you are.
Perhaps he should get a job writting the scripts for Lamont, he’s certainly qualified.
Vote YES – Vote Scotland.
Alba Gu snooker loopy!
I can see that, post indy, the parties who opposed it will be in a very bad place come the first elections because they will be totally unable to convince potential voters that they can run a country which they campaigned so long and hard not to be able to run. What can they tell voters?
@Robert McDonald
Big boys did it and ran away!
Cath,
I agree with most of what you posted. I would probably have opted for Devomax, if it was on offer. As you imply a broad concenus needs to be achieved (it’s another step to indy anyway). However, since last September, we have known that there will be no second question. I do feel that the winning side really needs to achieve more than 60%, otherwise there will be division and a lot of bad feeling for years to come. A 51:49% split either way would be the worst possible result. If this happens, the behaviour of the MSM, particularly the BBC, will be responsible for the chaos that follows. Let’s make sure it’s a decisive YES.
Gregor Gall’s article would leave any reader exasperated. Maybe he fell out of his ivory tower and banged his heid. To argue that a YES vote is a vote for Devo-max is so daft, so wrong-headed, so nonsensical a proposition that it defies belief.
At the moment Scotland is NOT recognised by the UN as an Independant state.
The UN, after a YES vote, WILL in due course recognise Scotland as an independent state. We will sit alongside all the other independent nations in the UN. We, the people of Scotland, after a YES vote, will elect governments of our choosing. We, not Westminster, will decide on how we spend our own resources, whether or not to join NATO, stay in the EU, keep the pound, have a hereditary head of state etc etc.
It really is that simple, that fundamental.
With a YES vote we get everything. A NO vote gives us nothing, zilch, nada.
Gall’s instinctive unionism is clouding his better judgement. If he wants to live in LamontLand, a ‘something for nothing’ Scotland, then he should just say so.
Left-wing unionist is now officially an oxymoron.
@Cath
Nice comment to which I add my favour. First and foremost for me has to be Independence. Then we Scots can decide our own future. Everything else is simply another form of dependency.
This is one of those silly incoherent Unionist-desperate newspaper articles that tries to convince the Scottish electorate that Devo Max is an option, so much so that if you vote NO then you’ll get Devo Max. But it’s not an option, it is a vague promise that has all the substance of a puff of smoke and will disappear as quick as. There are fools like this Professor who still probably believes in the phantom ‘great socialist struggle’ (‘one final push we’re about to win!’) and at one-time probably called himself a communist or a Trotskyite or something. WAKE UP GALL your party has deserted you, they are playing you like a fiddle to deceive the good people of Scotland! Britain is lost, England is lost, it’s run by the banks and several hundred criminals in Westminster, there is only one hope and that is YES Scotland!
From what I understand the fact that AS hasn’t declared that Scotland will be a independent socialist republic from day one of independence means it’s basically ‘devo max’ or ‘indie lite’. Controlling our own destiny is not ‘proper’ independence and he forgot to mention that if we were properly independent we’d get our own personal unicorn as well, the moron.
Given that those who want independence would prefer Devo max overthe status quo and Devo Max would be supported by those suppiorting Devo Max (well duh!) then one could argue that such a move is cunning in the extreme by Alex Salmond.
However, I think what is on offer is independence rather than Devo Max but hell what do I know?
Look, what kind of independence is it anyway if we continue to drive on the left?
And anyway the EU will insist we drive on the right as a condition of entry.
I’m aware of no official statements on this from the SNP. Why are they silent about this? What have they got to hide?
The truth is they haven’t a workable plan, or in fact any plan, to manage the traffic congestion on the border when cars, vans and lorries have to change lanes.
That’s what I call a “jam tomorrow”.
Devomax will allow us to retain our distinct and historical tradition of driving on the left. With independence there are just no guarantees.
Sorry forgot to add in my previous post the author is also a member of the SSP and presumably supports scottish independence. Therefore his article should be seen in this context as merely ‘lefty’ bleating.
I’d rather listen to what Professor Green has to say about it…
or even Professor Plum for that matter.
Cath,
I think that is the gamble betterNO have taken and I think they have misjudged the Scots psyche.
They have misinterpreted the general electorate’s willingness to go along at a slower but still forward moving pace of change, as somehow a fear of that change. By framing the choice as status quo vs Full Indy, they have actually given up the control they had over the speed at which change will happen.
I don’t think the description you give of your previous political/constitutional outlook is that different from the majority veiw of Scots who seemed content previously to move along the road of independence in an essentially pragmatic and gradualist manner, but on the strict understanding that movement, though slow, would still always be forward.
The Edinburgh Agreement and BetterNO have essentially threatened and undermined that settled will, and now folk are starting to ask themselves, ‘If it’s a choice between standing still (or even going backward) and Full Indy, well why not just get on with it then?’
Hopefully the white paper will try and address this question and help reassure those folk that voting YES is just another variation on the gradualist ‘settled will’ ride towards Independence that we were all on anyway, before the Unionists tried to stick a spoke in the wheel.
Having read and reread the piece, the first thought that eventually passed into my conscious, after the usual wurrafuk, was that it was an exercise in tautology. Internally inconsistent and contradictory.
Then I reverted to character and just thought it was constipated nonsense, not budging or really doing anything of any merit.
So could it be tautologically constipated.
Anybody out there help me out please.
I haven’t read the article at all, so could some one tell me why the Scotsman thought a person who’s ‘expertise’ lies in industrial relations should be asked to comment on the referendum
“could some one tell me why the Scotsman thought a person who’s ‘expertise’ lies in industrial relations should be asked to comment on the referendum “
Because he was going to have a go at the SNP.
I suspect the no campaign are now backsliding on the second question. They fear the electorate will now vote for independence. LOL too late now suckers you had your chance to offer Devo Max and didn’t want this. I was one of the people who didn’t want the Devo Max option on the paper as I felt it was a distraction and would split the yes for independence vote. Thankfully the unionists unwittingly have made a noose for their own necks.
If you read the article in the Scotsman it’s more a regurgitation of received wisdom than an academic article.
The article is based on the equation:
Keeping the Queen + keeping the pound + a shared defence/army = Devo-Max not independence.
The argument falls apart because:
1. Lots of countries have kept the Queen as head of state. Canada and Australia still have the Queen as head of state and they’re independent.
2. Keeping a shared currency for a while doesn’t equal devo-max.
3. I’ve no idea where all these clever pundits have picked up the notion that the SNP want Scotland’s future defence force to stay part of the British Army but it’s taken as a given.
It’s the kind of stuff you’d get from any uninformed pub conversation.
Off subject did anyone see that creton Michael Kelly on newsnight yesterday. He looks like night of the living dead. Instead of answering any questions he just gave a monologue about why he thought Salmond was a failure. The guy has not an ounce of humility. He is pure 1970’s Glasgow corrupt Labour council. I think his main problem is that he doesn’t feel particularly Scottish so he has no passion for the nation he lives in.
I actually prefer that theirs no Devo-Max on offer, wrestling powers from Westminster will be difficult enough next year, without having to barter, over extra powers, maybe its dawning on the BT camp, that they should have kept the Devo- Max option alive, as for the unionist gutter rag the Scotsman, it may have to start printing the truth from 2014 onwards, I imagine that will be an odd conception and rather alien in nature to them.
What is being proposed is essentially Devo Max but on OUR terms and not Westminster’s.
Left to our friends in London,Devolution will become a failed experiment with powers repatriated to Westminster.
First, was it not Donald Dewer that attributed to the dictum ‘devolution is a process not an event’? For some reason Gall says it was Ron Davies. Or could it be that it was a phrase coined by Labour in London and given to both Welsh and Scottish leaders at the time?
Also was it not a rouse by backbench Labour MSP’s to push for the devo Max question, knowing that the SNP prefered a single question on Independence, but Alex Salmond , being the astute politician, agreed, thereby extinguishing the possible Labour outcry of ‘undemocratic’ if Alex Salmond stuck to one question? When their rouse was known, they then switched to stating that the SNP cant have 2 questions. Alex Salmond got his way when Cameron refused to allow 2 questions, ergo unionists shoot themselves in a double blind double bluff – just saying like
“First, was it not Donald Dewer that attributed to the dictum ‘devolution is a process not an event’? For some reason Gall says it was Ron Davies.”
No, it’s widely attributed to Dewar, but he was quoting Davies when he said it. Original thought from Scottish Labour? Catch yourself on, lad.
Seanair says:
28 June, 2013 at 3:08 pm
“What is it about the Uni of Bradford that produces these no-hopers? I’m thinking about the other “Professor of Peace Studies” (Gallacher?) who used to write to Scottish papers to tell us how how bad the SNP is.”
I missed that connection Seanair. You’re thinking of Professor Tom Gallagher. Maybe he’s one of Professor Tom’s acolytes.
As I always say, “Professor” is an honorary title that goes with a job appointment not an academic qualification.
I was doing some door knocking last night and the reception on the door was good.
I just cannot fathom out these so called weighted polls.
What was also very noticeable was a good reaction by Labour voters when we produced a Labour for indy leaflet.
I think the YES Campaign needs to give Alan Grogan and the rest of Labour for Indy more prominence in the campaign.
All the SNP Voters are committed we need to drag along the Labour Voters and the non voters.
As a post script ,after our labours of the evening we retired to the local.
I have a tory buddy in there who was moaning that people he has been speaking to over last couple of weeks are deserting his beloved union..
now only one guy in a pub ,but believe me he is a dye in the wool true blue Rule Britannia unionist.
If he is getting bad vibes something is happening
Gregor is a long term supporter of the SSP and as far as I’m aware is still in favour of Scottish independence. What he appears to think is that the SNP’s vision of independence is not radical enough because they favour keeping the Queen, NATO and the pound and that for that reason the Scottish people are not being offered full independence a bit like Jim Fairley who thinks that because it is proposed we would still be in the EU we wouldn’t ‘really’ be independent.
He thinks therefore that the SNP’s proposals might more accurately be termed as ‘devo max’ than independence.
To my mind Devolution Max has always meant keeping all revenues raised in Scotland minus the Oil (which is the most important bit) and controlling ‘everything’ except defence and foreign affairs which are the main important political areas we need to control along with benefits. It’s never been an attractive idea for me!
A better version of any ‘Devo Max’ proposal is that we just take everything via independence.
Gregor’s ‘more radical’ independence is being offered politically by the Greens and the SSP who are both anti-EU, favour own currency and support a republic as far as I am aware and there would be the opportunity after independence is declared for a republic to be established later on.
We might also remove ourselves from the EU if there was sufficient public opinion that wished to do so. Similarly we might decide to share the pound for a while or go straight for our own currency, the point is that those decisions would be taken by our elected independent Scottish Government.
I think Joanne Lamont does a lot of great work unwittingly for the SNP and the Yes campaign every time she opens her big gob!
DougtheDug
i assume the answer is
3 – NATO
For those interested in another Bradford Professor, Tom Gallagher’s latest article is entitled, “UKIP and the phony Scottish referendum”. If you haven’t read any of his stuff before this is pretty tame.
You can find it here:
link to thecommentator.com
There’s a simple and clear choice to make next year.
Vote yes and gain full control of your country.
Vote No and put complete and total faith in Westminster politicians who have systematically lied to us over the years to deliver on a vague promise that none of them can fully agree on.
What will it be?
Yes is a bit of a no brainer for me!
Joe Middleton:
Since you seem to know Gregor Gall do you know where he got the strange idea that the SNP are proposing a shared defence force with the rUK?
“We know – according to the SNP leadership – that a so-called independent Scotland would maintain the union of the crowns (hence, the monarchy), the pound and the Bank of England, shared defence services and so on.”
(My bold)
I really don’t know what Gregor means by ‘sharing defence policy’. I suggest you ask him. I think the SNP have suggested that we would work together with other countries on defence (including rUK/England) but I’m not aware of any official policy in that regard.
The radical stuff is all well and good.
If you were intent on getting drunk fast I suppose you could be “radical” and inject a bottle of whiskey directly into your blood stream.
Personally I would rather take the safer route and savour it a glass at at a time until the required effect was acheived
As I always say, “Professor” is an honorary title that goes with a job appointment not an academic qualification.
To be fair, you don’t normally get the job that has the title without some significant academic accomplishments on your CV.
I like the way the books are locked away, presumably to protect him from them?
The real reason Alex Salmond wanted a second question btw was to force the unionist parties to flesh out their policies on enhanced devolution. However we all know the extent of genuine unionist ambition for Scotland. It was called the Calman Commission!
If the unionists had agreed an enhanced devolution package that was worth appending to a ballot paper it would have meant a guaranteed step forward in terms of powers for Scotland and would have been another stepping stone towards independence no matter the result. Also in the campaign Yes Scotland could then have said ‘you can have all that and more with independence’.
Alex Salmond attempted to call their bluff and it worked. The situation we are now in is far better because anyone who wants enhanced devolution can only achieve more powers by voting for independence.
@Joe.
He never asked for a second question, but said he was open to one.
Trap sprung.
This is not an unhelpful contribution.
Not one for the purists but not unhelpful either.
@Joe Middleton
‘The real reason Alex Salmond wanted a second question btw was to force the unionist parties to flesh out their policies on enhanced devolution. However we all know the extent of genuine unionist ambition for Scotland. It was called the Calman Commission!
If the unionists had agreed an enhanced devolution package that was worth appending to a ballot paper it would have meant a guaranteed step forward in terms of powers for Scotland and would have been another stepping stone towards independence no matter the result. Also in the campaign Yes Scotland could then have said ‘you can have all that and more with independence’.
Alex Salmond attempted to call their bluff and it worked. The situation we are now in is far better because anyone who wants enhanced devolution can only achieve more powers by voting for independence.’
No, I can’t agree with you saying Salmond wanted a second question. The reason he did not was probably due in no small way too the Calman Commission. I originally thought that he did want a second question. However, I now think it was offered purely to show the people of Scotland that devolution had reached its limit, or is close to its limit. I think Salmond wanted to call the Unionist parties’ bluff, but I do not think he wanted a second question in the referendum.
The Unionist parties’ and MSM’s insistance that Salmond wanted a second question as an ‘insurance card’ basically tells us all we need to know about their view of the result of the referendum. They believed, and still believe, that there is going to be a No result. The problem for them is that 1) they thought that the SNP would get beat in 2011, and they got a majority, and 2) a significant section of the electorate in Scotland want real financial powers for the Scottish Parliament, and the No campaign have now either to deliver (no chance), or they will have to deceive the voters a la 1979.
Muttley79,
‘or they will have to deceive the voters a la 1979’, after which they still lost and YES won! (bigcheesygrin)
Personally I believe the most important thing about a Yes vote in 2014 is it gives us Sovereignty to make decisions ourselves. Thats what independence is. It really wouldnt matter to me one bit if absolutely everything was to remain the remit of Westminster when Holyrood has the undisputed power to say, Defence? Oh we’re gonna do that ourselves now guys, kthnxbye.
Gall appears to be offering a personal opinion – he’s not speaking on behalf of the SSP.
Come to think of it, I have no idea on whose behalf he is speaking, but his Wiki-entry is interesting – he’s writing a ‘history’ of the SSP?
Good for him. That’ll be a ‘work-in-progress’ then?
I trust he’s also doing his fair share of leafleting and street work.
The SSP get scant coverage.
But we get this.
Where’s me Lambrini…
I think it’s clear the plan is to spam the public with promises of more powers from all sources but those in power who can actually deliver. keep repeating it enough and more than a few will believe it’s a real offer.
In reality of course nothing will be on offer – quite the opposite in fact
pmcrek says:
28 June, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Personally I believe the most important thing about a Yes vote in 2014 is it gives us Sovereignty to make decisions ourselves. Thats what independence is. It really wouldnt matter to me one bit if absolutely everything was to remain the remit of Westminster when Holyrood has the undisputed power to say, Defence? Oh we’re gonna do that ourselves now guys, kthnxbye.
beautifully put mate, that’s all I’m looking for, the option to say , very good Westminster, but were no wearing that pish you can jog on. Were really no into the way your dealing with that shit, let’s no fall out about it but we will square this one up thanks. Maybe next time.
I think it’s clear the plan is to spam the public with promises of more powers from all sources
I thought the plan was not to promise more powers, but to get their friends in the media to promise that they’d promised more powers. Then when they deliver nothing, they’ve got plausible deniability.
I see this befuddled intervention by this befuddled academic as an befuddled attempt of endorsing NO.
Why else would it have been reported?
BT/NO have to build up the “jam tomorrow if you vote NO” thingy.
I’m not sure it’ll work twice, there are enough people around to remember Alex Douglas-Home’s infamous promise, and what came after.
@Jiggsbro-
‘Then when they deliver nothing, they’ve got plausible deniability.’
And deniable plausability?
There must be few sadder than the man who agonises over his ‘place in history’ whilst completely unaware of the here-and-now.
Sadder still is the character who can see himself doing it, but carries on regardless – what manner of fool confines himself to an ivory-tower packed with narcissists?
FTWFLOT
AlexMcI
“Empowerment” I believe its called in corporate circles
@ianbrotherhood
I suppose David Cameron agonises over the fact that his place in history is that it might well happen that Scotland becomes independent over his watch
He won’t be remembered as a glorious leader like Churchill, or even Tony Blair, who at least took the country to two wars. Poor Dave. He can only tinker around the edges of the Syrian situation until Obama and Putin decide one way or another.
It’s actually quite sad to realise that you once were a world power and now no longer are. At least your big friends still let you hang around for snippets of world glory.
Let’s wave some Union Jacks! Let’s celebrate the Queen, the royal baby, the beginning of WWI and Britishness! Let’s celebrate the Empire… Oh…
@lumilumi-
Aye.
The purest beauty of all is that the ‘wee man’, the ‘ordinary’ lass in the street can wander up to the polling-booth on the day – remembering to do so in-between getting the shopping, fetching the weans to and fro etc – and truly say to her pal, in passing, ‘och hen, I’m just away in here for a minute to end the British Empire’.
That’s what we’ll do.
We’ll end it.
And there’s SFA they can do about it.
UK?
No more.
Get yersels a new name, ya bams!
lumilumi,
what are you talking about, it never worked once! Why repeat the lie, it only encourages them.
lumilumi & ianbrotherhood
Call me a cynic but I doubt Cameron is against anything in theory that increases his post PM autobiography sales, I only doubt he has the intelligence to notice it.
@Braco 11.36 pm
Er… You’ve lost me there. Maybe you’re just too witty and I’m baffled.
@pmcreck
I’m an advocate of Scottish_Skier’s long-standing conspiracy theory that the Tories actually want to get rid of Scotland, out of irrational spite and a dastardly plot to keep Labour out of power for evermore. And if David Cameron can write the book “How I lost Scotland from the Brithish Empire” and make millions out of the book, he’ll be quite happy. Everybody wins.
Doug
I have never seen the Commentator before….LOL
that is all.
HandandShrimp
I dont know about you but ironically I couldnt comment on the site.
“as for the unionist gutter rag the Scotsman, it may have to start printing the truth from 2014 onwards, I imagine that will be an odd conception and rather alien in nature to them.”
headline from the Scotsman post independence
shock revelations show the SNP cost Scotland billions in lost revenue by failing to reveal how much Scotland was losing in revenue by being part of the union
over the past 30 years
figures reveal Scotland lost billion of pounds of income which could have been used to rebuild Scotland’s infrastructure if the SNP had been honest about how much the country was losing
this SNP government should be held to account for this ludicrous failing
reporting for the Scotsman
Marcus Gardham
rod mac says
“I was doing some door knocking last night and the reception on the door was good.
Apparently the better together campaign do that as well
only they call it chap door RUN
No……… I’ve read it through a couple of times and he is clearly barking.
joe middleton says
“To my mind Devolution Max has always meant keeping all revenues raised in Scotland minus the Oil (which is the most important bit) and controlling ‘everything’ except defence and foreign affairs which are the main important political areas we need to control along with benefits. It’s never been an attractive idea for me!”
exactly, I can never understand the preference of a substantial proportion of the electorate (if the polls are to be believed) is for devo max its crazy, the very things we need to control oil revenues, defence, welfare still being controlled by Westminster, what kind of deal is that?
its like accepting a cone from the ice cream man minus the ice cream,
all you’ve got is the empty cone for which you paid a great deal more that its real value.
and the bosses wonder why the readership is falling, publishing this tripe, I am only reading it through a post as I would not waste my money as toilet paper is kinder to my bum than newsprint
I am starting to wonder if Bradford is a real university, or a safe house for wallopers. Is Terry Kelly also on the staff?
Why would anyone just want to borrow the car….when allowed and with conditions attached…..when they could have the keys, car, oil and fuel to put in it, along with the freedom to use it as you wish? Oh and the ability to pay for it through employment, a living wage etc.
Offered like this…..to anyone, it’s a no brainer!
@Jonh King
Ha Ha..Yes indeed, who said the MSM were fickle, who was it that said…” Turn every failure to your advantage”, and no doubt the sycophants at the Scotsman, will try to.
lumilumi,
‘too witty’,……. I wish!
Sorry min, didn’t mean to come across all cryptic there. I was just trying to emphasise the point that every time the Scots have been asked about further powers for Scotland, via referendum, they have always responded with a YES.
In the case of 1979, that you referred to, 51.62% YES 48.38% NO. That was with all the lies that the UK establishment could tell (via Broadcast plus Print media) and all the truths they could hide! (McCrone report etc… ).
That alone points to a YES in September 18th 2014. (bigsmiley)
@Craig P-
I was quite pleased with my ‘ivory-tower packed with narcissists’, but ‘safe-house for wallopers’ is superb.
Hats off…
He now scribbles for the Herald.
Gregor Gall: Four faces for a future independent Scotland | The Herald (archive.ph)