Raising the debate: DVD extras
A few isolated gems we couldn’t find room for in the first piece.
Any more we missed? Send in your favourites and we’ll add them.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op):
“The major question of principle that needs to be addressed is whether the referendum in Scotland can be bought and sold with foreign gold. I know that some people have heard that term before, but it is true none the less. Should the referendum be bought and sold with foreign gold? The SNP seem to have no scruples about that.”
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab):
“I thank my hon. Friend [Ian Davidson] and neighbour across the water. Does he agree that perhaps the word that is missing here and in many other places is “trust”? For example, trust in what will be done in Edinburgh where, as I have mentioned on several occasions, bullying takes place. We see it in other areas. I am sorry to say that this is another example of the SNP’s bullying—in this case, of my hon. Friend. I am pleased to see him stand up against that.”
[Aw, the poor wee lamb.]
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con):
“If the franchise had been based on the UK parliamentary elections, British nationals who have been living outside Britain for less than 15 years would have a vote. That would be much fairer.”
[That is, someone born in Surrey who lived their whole life there until emigrating to Tanzania in 1999 should be able to vote on whether Scotland becomes independent.]
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con):
“I echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for a very simple change so that the franchise for Westminster elections also applied to Scotland.”
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab):
“Polling has shown that 45% of the people who voted SNP in 2011, when the party won that overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, oppose independence and support being members of the United Kingdom.”
[We are unable to locate this “polling”. Can anyone help?]
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab):
“The SNP’s proposal is based not on any principled view that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote for all elections but rather on a belief that they might gain electoral advantage from the inclusion of that group, who were believed to be more likely to support independence.”
[The SNP has called for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote in ALL elections for at least a decade.]
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab):
“Can we trust – here is another Scottish word for the Hansard reporters – the sleekit First Minister and the SNP to do what is in the best interests of Scotland, rather than what is in the best interests of the First Minister and the SNP? I think the jury is well and truly out on that point.”
[During the debate we learned that the word “disingenuous” is not permissible Parliamentary language. However, it seems you can say what you like about members of other Parliaments.]
good grief…… makes me want indy so much more now…… every man woman and child north of the tweed should read this pish to see how the politicians truly feel about scotland and her rightful place in the world!
Re parliamentary language, as I’ve previously said here and elsewhere, okay Salmond isn’t an MP but there are SNP MP’s, surely they are being attacked ….even if you just take the last quote above
the sleekit First Minister and the SNP to do what is in the best interests of Scotland,
Isn’t that saying the SNP (so their MPs are sleekit?) hardly parliamentary I’d have thought
The way they talk about the First Minister of the democratically-elected Scottish Government is disgraceful, and as we can see from how the random unionist idiots behave on Twitter, they just encourage their followers to use the same language.
Hey, if it’s okay for MPs to say it, then it must be fair game, no?
Quick search came up with the following as having been deemed unparliamentary …
blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, hypocrite, ignoramus, liar, pipsqueak, rat, swine, stoolpigeon, tart, ("Tractor" - Ed)
I’d have thought sleekit (once explained to those who don’t understand) would rate above pipsqueak for example?
Maybe this can cheer us all up though: Alex Salmond talking about a written constitution for Scotland, with the people involved in its conception.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/constitution-rights-16-01-2013
This is a country I want to live in, not the stinking cesspit of elitism, privilege and cronyism that permeates throughout the UK. Democracy, NOW! (Well, in 3 years time…)
And this from a 2008 BBC article on unparliamentary language ……
It is expected that the proceedings of Parliament will be conducted in a courteous and good tempered manner.
Criticism and accusations are permitted (often under the cover of parliamentary privilege) but certain types of language are considered too abusive.
MPs should not:
call another member a liar
suggest another MP has false motives
describe another member as “drunk”
misrepresent another MP’s language
use abusive or insulting language.
If an MP uses unparliamentary language during debates the speaker will ask the member concerned to withdraw what has been said.
Terms of abuse that have been ruled as out of order include coward, hooligan, rat and ("Tractor" - Ed).
If an MP refuses the Speaker may “name” them, meaning that the member will be asked to leave the House and is suspended for five sitting days.
The Ian Murray quote at the end sums up Unionists for me, the bit where he warns the Hansard reporters that he’s going to use a Scottish word – it’s so parochial, so provincial and so unnecessary. Would he have warned the reporter that he was going to use a French word? Would he have needed to mention it at Holyrood?
I don’t think that I can watch the House of Lords’ debate. I’m guessing that there will be a lot of bitterness from Scottish lords which will be interspersed with a fond remembrance of a Scotch nanny, a long monologue on the cultivation of Begonias and much snoring. It’s also worth remembering that Bishops of the CofE will get a vote on our future. A YES vote is the only way to escape this 17th century lunacy.
There are some comments about yesterday’s ‘debate’ at the Labour for Independence Facebook page. Both Sarwar and Davidson are mentioned:
https://www.facebook.com/labourforindependence
Listening to the excellent contribution from Angus Robertson, I was interested to note that on four occasions he was interrupted by members of the Labour Party (one of whom was Alistair Darling the titular head of Better Together) and a Conservative MP who do not seem to be aware of correct parliamentary procedure. they repeatedly asked Mr Robertson to commit his party, the government of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament to accepting the advice of the Electoral Commission. for the benefit of those seemingly ill informed Members of Parliament, I feel it incumbent upon me to educate them in the correct procedure. No individual member of a party may bind the Government of Scotland or the UK Government to a course of action that is in the remit of the whole parliament. In exactly the same way that the UK Parliament will not be bound by advice from the Electoral Commission until the issue at hand is placed before Parliament and voted upon, neither will the Scottish Parliament be bound by that advice and it is not in the power of any individual to so bind the Parliament.
I am amazed that Scottish Labour in particular think it is a good idea to peddle this line about Salmond being a dictator. This is mainly because the SNP received the support of 45% of the electorate who voted in 2011 and over 30% in the council elections last year. They are effectively telling all these voters to sod off, and have also done the same with the Labour Voters for Independence group as well. Why when they need to win the referendum, and are ahead at the moment, so determined to stick two fingers up to large swathes of Scottish voters?
Mutley79,
Exactly, they don’t seem to realise that it is not only the SNP they are insulting. I know a number of people who don’t support independence, but voted SNP in 2011 because they like AS. A number of people that don’t like AS are not happy with the attacks either. The appalling behaviour of Labour politicians is driving them into the “undecided” camp. Many of the “Never” folk are already becoming “Don’t knows”. If the personal insults keep coming, many of the “Don’t knows” will become “Why nots”.
@Luigi
They obviously can’t get over their hatred of Salmond and the SNP. It seems they are so blinded by this hatred that basic political calculations are being ignored. Even if they win the referendum they still have to compete and win elections. How are they going to do that when they have alienated such a large proportion of the electorate, both SNP supporters, voters and their own voters?
All those “proud Scots” in Labour; they sure know how to be patriotic. I wonder if they have September 9th marked down in their little red diaries?
The 500th anniversary of the Battle of Flodden.
Remember when Joan McAlpine accused Labour and Lib Dems as being anti-Scottish? Remember when Labour`s Douglas Alexander took Nicola Sturgeon to task on Question Time repeatedly demanding an apology for Joan McAlpine`s accusations? Yes?
Makes you feel a wee bit sick, eh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16545340
They see that one man as being singularly responsible for them potentially losing their cushey wee jobs and pensions in 2 or so years…..and they are doing little to conceal the true nature of their anger, as unionist arguments and scare stories are falling like dominoes leaving only this ugly truth for all to see.
I had to give up watching as my blood pressure couldn’t take it. I though the “Effing Tory” from Epping was bad enough. I should have realised that Labour North Britain branch would have trumped her for sheer vileness. I wonder what Shinwell, Maxton and Hardie would think of the current bunch of Labour MSPs/MPS?
I am thinking of marketing rubber “YES” bricks, to throw at bald heids during televised Westiminster debates. Any takers?
Bearing in mind that this is a referendum for Independence for Scotland, contributions from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are just as foreign as those from France, Monaco, the Bahamas = or the USA.
So I guess the rest of the UK Conservative campaign for saving the Union will just disband itself, then.
I think it is clear to see that Labour’s hatred goes beyond Alex Salmond and the SNP. They hate themselves as Scots, they hate Scottish success, they hate the electorate, they hate their weakened futile position, they hate their constituencies, they hate their Better Together bedfellows and they hate democracy. In fact the only thing they don’t hate is being the ‘big man’ in London and the gravy train that takes them there. It must be an easy thing to hate when you desperately want to be a career politician in North British Labour.
A parcel o’ rogues is too good a description. Utter skinless shits I’d call them.
Perhaps Crusty (the clown) Ian Davidson considers all those nasty gnats to be “Bannockburn deniers”. After all, according to his recollection, more than 100,000 Englishmen got an undeserved “doing” during that awful, seperatist event.
Dcanmore,
They hate themselves because they are scots. Alll this “proud scot” guff is brought out now and then because they still depend on scottish votes. They yearn to be accepted among the great and good of England, which they admire. Subconsciously, however, they know that they will never be fully accepted down there. Hence all this self-loathing. It is rather sad. “Bloody jocks – why did I have to be one”!
As Doug Daniel alluded to above, the type of behaviour seen yesterday by those supposedly representing their voters in their various constituencies, the MSM press and its ‘journaliars’, the BBC and on occasion other broadcast media outlets, on a daily basis producing smear, mis/disinformation and negativity toward the SNP, Alex Salmond and co., the Yes campaign, any good news about Scotland, ‘Scottishness’ in general and all the rest is fomenting discord among the general population of the present-UK and encourages abuse and offence, both generally and personally.
Is it done deliberately? I can’t say for sure. The following definitions may help you make up your own mind:
propaganda noun (various)
1. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
black propaganda (excerpt from Wikipedia)
“The major characteristic of black propaganda is that the people are not aware that someone is trying to influence them, and do not feel that they are being pushed in a certain direction. Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications and deceptions. Black propaganda is the “Big Lie”, including all types of creative deceit.”
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just seeing things as they may be, or indeed, are.
I think that “parliamentary privilege” should be removed for Holyrood.
They will never revoke it in Westminster as it gives cowards of all kinds the ability so say what they want without redress.
So let us encourage that this be removed in Scotland, so those who make up lies, misrepresent facts etc could face repercussions for their deceit and inflammatory statements. Holyrood could be a GREAT exhibition of democracy.
Ian Davidson – “The referendum will be timed to take place after the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people . .”
Once again, this is the “Braveheart gambit” – seek to denigrate Scotland’s historical fight for freedom against an aggressive neighbour whilst vigorously promoting Britain’s colonial and continental wars.
When in 2014, we “celebrate” (yes Cameron’s announcement did contain the word)the commencement of the Great War, will that be to revel in the killing of millions of Germans?
Davidson’s derisive language is the Braveheart Gambit writ large. Its purpose to delegitimize critical narratives chronicling Scotland’s emergence into nationhood.
The aim is to invalidate Scots collective sense of themselves as an historic race, forged in brutal battle and wrought in centuries of bitter struggle.
The Union’s men habitually, for the sake of narrow political expediency, have sought to trivialize the impact of Wallace and battles like Bannockburn on our nation’s development and upon our national psyche.
Mythologies are an essential ingredient of the glue than binds a people and creates a national identity. That is why icons of empire were paraded endlessly by press and other media in London’s sporting pageant last year.
Yet simultaneously there has been a concerted effort by the chattering class, the jockastocracy in the Lords, and the pet jocks in the Commons, to delegitimize that phenomenon where Scotland is concerned (while promoting the notion shamelessly where Britain is concerned).
For goodness sake, Bannockburn is THE seminal event that led to the creation of our nation. It is a tale of bravery and native wit, that led a small army of patriots acting in defense of their wee bit hill and glen, to overcome and rout a much larger army from a much larger land.
These heroes and their courage and sacrifice should never be demeaned nor forgotten by any Scot. They represent the best in us and the best of our intentions.
None speaks to the heart of our people like the deeds and the persona of Wallace and events like Bannockburn, and no Scot should feel embarrassed to embrace that narrative, so shamefully demeaned and ridiculed by Westminster’s pet jocks and Unionist bullies like Davidson.
I make no apologies for re-banging on this drum.
@Christian Wright
I totally agree with what you are saying.
Shame on that buffoon, Davidson for denigrating the Battle of Bannockburn for cheap (very) political points. I am, as I’m sure plenty of other Scots are, really pissed off with this lie being spread by the ‘No’s that Bannockburn, and with it the association of ‘hating the English’, is some kind raison d’etre for Scottish independence. Not only does it perpetuate the falsehood of Scotland being anti-English, but it also allows the present-Uk’s right-wing nutters to spout all kinds of abusive and bile-laden rubbish.
Yes, it happened many years ago, but as you allude to, a nation’s history is part of a nation’s psyche: Bannockburn is as much a part of Scotland’s history and psyche as is the Battle of Flodden, the Highland Clearances and World Wars one and two. None of these events are ‘celebrated’ in Scotland, never mind demonising the nationality of the opponents.
That Davidson came out with that statement is an utter disgrace and an embarrassment to Scotland. How people could now view this man as having any position of authority in Scotland is beyond my comprehension.
My reading of the events of Bannockburn, was it was they who sought to kill Scots, it was they who came here. It was they who had the manpower and the weaponry.
It was they, who were defeated and sent home to think again.
This was about defending our land.
Something the Scottish ("Quizmaster" - Ed)s should remember.
RevStu, the link to the debate in your second sentence (“Any more we missed?”) is incorrect. It always points to to-day’s debates.
This is also the case for the link in the “Raising the level of debate” article (“yesterday’s epic House of Commons “debate””).
Cheers for the heads-up. Links fixed now.