The Guardian today carries an article by Gordon Brown, which echoes the content of his speech to the House Of Commons on Thursday. We’ve read it over and over again trying to make any sort of coherent sense out of it, but we’ve drawn a blank. The mighty architect of “The Vow” appears to have not the slightest idea what he actually proposes as a constitutional settlement for the UK and Scotland.
But perhaps we’ve missed something.
“There is no democratic country in the world whose main lawmaking body is made up of a first and second class of elected representatives.”
Get used to this. Every time Brown has risen to his hind legs in Parliament since the referendum his main concern has been the “status” of Scottish Labour MPs, ie him.
“And there is no state in the world, federal or otherwise, in which one part of the country pays national income tax while the other part is exempt. Yet these are the two principal constitutional proposals that have come from the Conservative party in its kneejerk response to Ukip’s English nationalism and an ill-thought-out drive to impose what is commonly called “English votes for English laws” (Evel).”
This isn’t actually true. The Tories have been demanding EVEL since long before the rise of UKIP. The No vote delivered in Scotland by Labour merely presented them with a golden opportunity.
“Under their plans, ‘the mother of parliaments’, once lauded as a beacon for fairness and equality before the law, would become home to the first elected body in the world to decree one of its constituent parts – Scotland – half in, half out of its lawmaking process. Second-class status for Welsh and Northern Irish representatives might soon follow.”
The problem Brown has is that EVEL is in itself an absolutely fair and reasonable proposition. Why should England not enjoy the same status as Scotland? Why should it alone be subject to the interference of MPs whose constituents are not subject to the laws they pass? By definition, EVEL makes no difference to Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish voters. The only entity which suffers is the Labour Party.
“But this is not simply a Westminster insiders’ issue, relevant only to the sensitivities of MPs; it is about the status of each nation in what has hitherto been one United Kingdom. By according a first-class status to England within Westminster and a second-class status to the rest, the constitution would be changed for ever. And the government of the day would become a servant of two masters, with its ability to govern depending one day on the votes of the whole of the UK and the next day on English votes only.”
Exactly the current situation faced by the Scottish Government, of course.
“Taken alongside the Conservative proposal to devolve all income tax decisions to the Scottish parliament, Scottish MPs would find themselves excluded not just from ordinary English lawmaking but from some of the most controversial and sensitive decisions a parliament can make – on income tax and the budget.”
But if those decisions only affect England, because Scotland is making its own decisions about taxation and spending, what’s wrong with that? Brown has no answer – other than vested Labour interest – to why Scottish MPs should vote on matters only concerning England.
His premise is false in any event – the budget includes (for example) military spending, which is not and never will be devolved, and therefore Scottish MPs could not be excluded from any vote on it.
“Chaos would follow: for, once Scotland and then Wales and Ireland became exempt from contributing to UK income tax – but still benefiting from it through Barnett formula allocations – English consent for pooling and sharing across the UK would quickly dissipate. Whether by malice or by mistake, the Conservatives would have done the Scottish nationalists’ job for them.”
This is complete gibberish. There already isn’t “English consent for pooling and sharing across the UK”. In poll after poll the English public expresses bitter resentment of what it (wrongly) believes to be its subsidy of Scotland.
If you had wanted to kill off the UK, you could not have devised a more lethal way. ‘A nation divided against itself cannot stand,’ Lincoln famously said, quoting Mark’s Gospel. He could have added the rest of that text: ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.’”
Florid cant.
“The starting gun for this developing constitutional crisis was fired the morning after the Scottish independence referendum, with the prime minister’s announcement of Evel. When carefully analysed, his was not a proposal for greater English rights but for fewer Scottish rights. Everything that has been said since that fateful morning has confirmed that the central Tory proposition is the reduction of Scots’ voting rights in the Commons – an issue material to the referendum that should have been announced before, rather than after, the vote.”
As noted above, the Tories have made no secret of their desire for EVEL since the day the Scottish Parliament reopened in 1999.
“The failure to do so has fuelled the demonstrations, petitions and allegations of betrayal, bad faith and breach of promise, which have dominated the Scottish debate ever since.”
No, Mr Brown, what’s dominated the debate ever since is the collapse of the vow which YOU staked your reputation on and which you gave your solemn personal promise the Tories were with you on.
“What can end this constitutional impasse? It requires us to recognise that the fundamental problem of our UK constitution is not that English MPs can’t vote on Scottish issues – that is merely a symptom of the problem – but a basic imbalance in the size of the four nations. England is 84% of the union, Scotland 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. When translated into representation at Westminster, the 533 English MPs can, at any time they choose, easily outvote the 117 parliamentarians from the rest of the UK.”
If only someone had said.
“Recognising this permanent dominance in numbers, every generation has had to find a way to balance the power of the majority nation to impose its will with some protection for the minority nations. This is not a problem unique to Britain. The US, Australia and many other countries have had to find ways of managing the gross inequalities in the size of their constituent parts. Their constitutional protections for minorities show that a blanket uniformity of provision – such as Evel mimicking Scottish votes for Scottish laws – does not ensure fairness of treatment.”
Let’s hear your proposals, then.
“So, as the price for keeping the American union together, California accepts that it has just two members of the US Senate to represent its 38 million citizens, the same as Wyoming has to represent its 583,000 people. Similarly, the price New South Wales pays for Australian unity is one senator for every 580,000 people, in contrast to Tasmania’s one senator for every 40,000.”
Logically, then, Mr Brown – who promised Scots the closest thing to federalism possible, remember – must be proposing to give Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland equal numbers of MPs? This should be interesting.
“And nor is fair treatment for minorities in the Spanish senate, the Swiss council of states, the South African national council of provinces, and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican senates achieved by the crude uniformity of the Evel approach, but through special arrangements that recognise minority needs in their states or provinces.”
Which apparently we’re not going to get to hear about.
“So there is a way forward that can keep the UK together, one that recognises the sizes of each nation and region and is founded on both a sensitivity to minorities and self-restraint by the majority. It involves retaining income tax as a shared tax, and ensuring the Scottish parliament is accountable for the majority of its spending.”
Woah, hang on a minute. The only possible logical conclusion of “retaining income tax as a shared tax” in the context of the above is to keep it ALL at Westminster. Since income tax revenue isn’t ring-fenced, and since its level is determined by ALL government income and spending, you can’t just arbitrarily assign SOME of it and expect the sums to add up.
If you don’t give Scotland control of its own revenues, you can’t (fairly) demand that it takes responsibility for its own spending. The only rational solution is to keep 100% of income tax at Westminster. Brown appears to be demanding that Labour in fact completely abandon its plans for the partial devolution of the tax.
That would, of course, be a welcome shift in position. This site, and senior MPs in Brown’s own party like Ian Davidson, have repeatedly pointed out the massive damage that partial devolution of income tax would do to Scotland. Yet in reality Brown makes no such call, issuing only a weasel-worded pretence that some fantasy middle ground can be found, which he fails to identify.
“But it could also involve changes in Commons committee procedures that would recognise an English voice on English issues without undermining the equal status of MPs – while enthusiastically supporting more powers for Wales, Northern Ireland and forms of devolution that meet the distinctive needs of English cities, counties and regions.”
Such as?
“No longer should we see Britain as a centralised, unitary state founded on an undiluted Westminster sovereignty, but as a diverse partnership of nations, cities and regions that pool and share risk, rewards and resources as part of one United Kingdom. Ironically, under the logic of the Conservative proposals, London MPs could be excluded from voting on matters devolved to the London assembly.”
That does indeed seem logical. In fact, it could very reasonably be argued that it was the dictionary definition of “devolution”. What’s your point?
“But there is a bigger truth: that the most powerful part of England – London – has secured the greatest devolution of decision-making in England. It is time we supported greater devolution to empower England’s other great cities and regions.
By embracing every nation and region, and every interested civic group, in a 2015 constitutional convention, the voice of England would be heard – and not in angry opposition to the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but alongside them.”
Once again, Mr Brown appears to have forgotten to include his actual proposals. He’s seemingly just told us that the four constituent parts of the UK should each have the same number of MPs and that income tax shouldn’t be devolved, but has failed to expand on these startling and radical ideas.
At the same time he’s told us that Birmingham and Bournemouth and Bristol should all get devolved powers, but with no details on how that could or should be implemented. He appears to be proposing that there should be TWO extra levels of government introduced within the UK – regional and city devolution, on top of the existing national devolution – but offers no hints as to the how, the why, the when or the how much. He barely refers to Scotland specifically at all.
This, readers, is the alleged intellectual heavyweight of the Labour Party in Scotland. This fatuous grab-bag of woolly head-in-the-clouds aspirations more suited to the simple-minded idealism of a high-school debating society is what passes for the cutting edge of Labour thinking.
A survey this week found that just 15% of Scots trusted Labour (and the same number trusted Mr Brown personally) to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The drivelling excuse for a speech above suggests that Mr Brown himself probably isn’t one of them. Because not only does he have no ability – as a largely absent opposition backbencher – to deliver such powers, it seems abundantly clear that he doesn’t have the remotest notion of what they should be.
So, a long-winded way to say he’s feart that Labour will lose power…!
And not a damn thing he can do except stamp his foot. That explains why he’s been at the commons so much lately.
Remember as recently as 2010, Gordon Brown was voted third worst post-war Prime Minister by Brit historians. He has no credibility or influence in the Brit London Bubble and in fact Brown remains openly despised down south.
The infamous Vow was a product of Brown’s gigantic ego and the astonishing unquestioning parochialism of the Scottish press.
It never, ever had any basis in UK political reality.
That 15% that trust Labour was all they needed on the 18th Sept. Soon enough though they will start to question that faith. They will ask what change is coming my way and they will realise that the answer is the proposal for a Major in Bristol, Liverpool, Norwich and Stoke.
The Westminster parties have trivialised our constitution as they position change that suits their ends. Labour terrified of a situation where they are in majority across the UK but a minority in a post 18/9/14 EVEL world. The irony of the SNP holding the balance of power as a result of this will not be lost on them! Tories trying to lock out the Jocks after locking in our resources. Lib Dems? Who cares?
My real issue is that no-one in the media will call this out.
Maybe Broon has gone all avant garde, and is using the Eno/Bowie ‘cut up’ technique when speech writing.
Or, maybe it’s just a pile of bluster, to hide the real agenda.
As an aside, wouldn’t evel mean that PM, and cabinet positions were off limits to Scots MPs forever ?
An absolute disgrace of a man. Fooled a lot of fearthearts into voting no. I hope he burns in hell when he kicks the bucket. I will cheer louder than I did when Thatcher went. Traitor, pathological liar, self interested carearist. A total disgrace and a waste of space.
Stephen.
“Everything that has been said since that fateful morning has confirmed that the central Tory proposition is the reduction of Scots’ voting rights in the Commons – an issue material to the referendum that should have been announced before, rather than after, the vote.”
Why, would that have changed which side you campaigned for, Gordon? Would you have voted Yes if you’d known this?
Hypocritical, hand-wringing nonsense. Crawl back under your rock, Gogszilla, and don’t come back.
Sigh, twisting himself in knots again. What exactly is this strange creature about? Who knows. I can tell you something:
Gordon Brown is not a pheasant plucker.
If only, if only, someone had taken apart Brown’s pre referendum speeches, as you have done Stew, if only someone in the YES group, had got equal T.V. air time, the result would have been, I’m sure in our favour, I remember thinking at the time of his rankings, “where are the replies?, he got a free run at it, mind you that’s par for our media.
The ONLY purpose of the commission is to delay,obscure, and ultimately deliver sfa to the Scottish people.
Whatever else did you expect?
Movealong now- nowt to see here…
Brown is going on the premise that the majority of Scots MPs sent to London are from the Labour Party.
I wonder what Broon’s position would be if the Labour Party and Tory Party roles in Scotland were reversed? If we Scots were sending fifty Tory MPs and only one Labour MP to London, would Broon still be so keen to have Scottish Tories voting on English only matters? Actually, I think the answer would still be yes.
Quite fitting realy, I recall reading a paper from the University of Warwick not long after the opening of Holyrood. It quite rightly pointed out that devolution was a purely political fix as no real relationship was defined between the then Scottish Executive and any bodies with real statutory powers.
A pretendy parliament and a pretendy government so to speak.
There is a reason Westminster treats Scotland like a Bantustan.
I have no problem with EVEL. Particularly, if it would highlight the tax and spend position so that people could see that England does not subside Scotland.
However, I doubt, they would do anything that would change the position.
I find it difficult to read and listen to anything about Mr Brown. His rare appearances in Westminister must make his constituents bllod boil.
This man is quite simply a washed up, delusional and egotistic dinosaur. He knows what his charge to defend the union the week before the referendum did. Gave false hopes to the fence sitters and risk averse sections across Scotland that played some part in the crazy result!
He has no mandate to promise ANYTHING never mind extra powers to Scotland and he knew that before and he knows it now. What his agenda is, is self preservation and that is it, nothing more nothing less than a dying entity scurrilously holding onto a presumption of power that dissipated from him long ago.
Some are born arses. Some have arsedom thrust upon them. I fear the Broon’s arsitude is of his own making. He’s spent so long oscillating between being a phony Englishman and a phony Scot he doesn’t know what he is. Well he’s both: a phony and an arse. Of little value to anyone except the “Ah’ve aye voted labour” dimwits.
Don’t worry, Johann. Forget the disrespectful mutterings of George Foulkes and the rest of the Red Tory sycophant Brigade. There is absolutely no fear of the self-proclaimed saviour of the world, him who would be leader of the free world (bank), seller of gold and destroyer of pensions, of ever lowering himself to run for FM, in a wee council building somewhere in the North of Britain. Way too small for this giant of humanity.
Your job is safe for the time being.
At the same time Rev, the more Brown speaks, the more he makes the case for total Devo-Max – or Independence.
All power to his confused elbow!
Here is what the Fabians had to say on the matter, a couple of months back.
The sociologist TH Marshall said that individuals are bound together in solidarity and social citizenship through a sequence of civil, political and social rights. Applying his logic, the creation of new political rights in Scotland, with a parliament responsible for major aspects of social policy could create a competing site for social solidarity at odds with the UK. In practice, distinctive policies such as the abolition of undergraduate tuition fees have earmarked Scotland’s political space; the same is true for Wales and Northern Ireland.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/devolution-the-ties-that-bind-us/
I want this but someone else has to do it
I could never make head nor tail of any of his ramblings. Thank you Rev for breaking it down into digestible language.
His presence in the Labour Party, for me, was this dark shadow hanging over it like the Grim Reaper, silent and menacing.
Like you say, if this is all the labour party have in the intellectual stakes then they need put to death, like a rabid dog cornered and foaming at the mouth!
A one-eyed rabbit down a ferret hole.
The tory party wont give a solitary f*** what GB wants and neither will the people of England.
They will be happy to see him destroyed as they blame him for the financial melt-down – not entirely fair but so what.
I look forward to EVEL passing as apparently that might be against the Treaty of Union and therefore more evidence that independence is the only way forward.
Am I missing something?
There ALREADY are 2 different classes of MP at Westminster if English MP’s cannot vote on Scottish devolved areas.
My take on the big picture is neither Labour nor Tories want devolution at all but are willing to accept some if it keeps the Scots quiet for a while, again. Their trick has been to have an illusion of devolved powers, but have a firm hold of the reins in the background. Look at Calman and the Scotland Act – all that discussion devolving very little. So little, they all felt it necessary to offer more before the ink was dry.
So what’s Brown’s game? Loose cannon, or is he a puppet? If he didn’t serve someone somewhere’s purpose, he would have been shut up!
We can say with a fair degree of certainty that he was wheeled out on the 8th Sept to begin making promises on the direct orders of No10.
However, we can now see that Labour stand to lose influence if their flock of Scottish MPs are neutered by EVEL. Labour might win the most MPs, but not be able to legislate for England! So perhaps Brown has had his chains tugged and told to act for Labour’s interests.
What he says sounds like a mixed up blend of his own fading ideas plus someone else’s. So, who (if anyone) has their hand up the puppet’s arse now, and toward what agenda?
Perhaps it’s part of a simple means by which no more devolution will take place. They use the excuse of … “it’s all too complicated with too many conficting issues” … and throw their hand up, then move on. Long grass, kick, ball.
Does it matter? DevoFA will follow and the SNP are fighting fit. With a little help from their friends, WM2015 could largely take SLab MPs out of the equation anyway!
Unfortunately we won’t see such a detailed and factual analysis of Brown’s rant in the ‘Scottish’ Sunday media (although the SH could be interesting).
Instead we’ll get claims that Brown is ‘Scotland’s Champion’ and other nonsense – and many will actually believe it.
Great report. The real worry is that 55% probably knew full well what total frauds Crash and The Vow really are but they voted No anyway. One way or another, all of it has to be voted on in the next referendum wether or not unionists like it. And its all in the hands of a Lord Smith from the better together Weir Group, wonder why.
The Guardian will continue to give Brown a platform because he chimes with their thinking.
Remember, this newspaper told Scots to vote No – to secure unspecified powers which were not on the ballot paper.
It also published a peculiar leader last week, which suggested that a unitary state required centralised tax collection, which seems to be the only consistent idea Brown has espoused.
None of them have heard of Norway, obviously, where tax collection starts at the lowest level of government, and only higher rate tax payers contribute to national government income.
There is a delicious irony here. I think (just my opinion) there would still have been a no vote without The Vow.
They have succeeded in accelerating the demise of Labour in Scotland and further highlighted the lying corrupt system of Westminster.
Thundering drivel.
How do you solve a problem like Gordon? Ebola would do for a bloody start. A snake oil salesmen has more credibility than this glass eyed cunt with his mouth opening and shutting like a trout out of water. I’ve got more faith and trust buying meat and fish from tinks going round the doors or promises of riches from Nigerian “Businessmen”, over the internet. He’s such an obvious fraud for those with eyes to see, but not the deluded, he should advertise in Old Moore’s Almanack. The Great Bonso. Send your Gold for “Top” price guaranteed. Invest your Private Pension with the Great Bonso, for a return that will make you gasp. The Great Bonso guarantees a glorious future with unlimited powers. Please send him your vote and your grandchildren future to The Great Bonso, c/o The House of Commons, Westminster, London, England.
Remember, the value of promises may go down as well as down. No guarantees, or returns possible.
The Great Bonso Broon.
Stephen.
The man is mentally unstable, and i’m waiting on him announcing that he is really the reincarnation of Napoleon.
Either that, or he is just a fud.
The mere mention of his mother-in-law would prompt Reggie Peerin to see a hippopotamus.
Being honest – what does the mention of ‘Gordon Brown’ make you think of? No cheating now…
I can’t even do it – will have to try and get busy doing something else, then catch meself unawares later.
Sounds as if he is hallucinating on the wacky stuff. Too much for his numpty band to follow. What a confused mess they have found themselves in noo.
Brown is really is a deluded halfwit. What did he expect from the Tories. His mutterings smack of “It wisnae me, bad boys made me do it!”
And yet the good folk of Kirkcaldy will no doubt vote Brown / Labour as always.
Seriously, if anyone was watching his facial expressions during this weeks debate, they would be worrying about his sanity.
Darren Carnegie occupying George Square,Glasgow for a week,talks a lot more sense than Gordon Broon.
Darren is protesting at the awful levels of poverty in 2014 Glasgow.
He will return to Livestream tonight[Saturday] AT 5:45 PM:-
http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/GlasgowsNeedyDay4
There is also archived interviews from Darren earlier in the week.
As we know retained powers are for all of Westminster to vote on, so whilst England does not wish to devolve powers to another body, all issues to be decided by Westminster shall be voted on by any and all MPs who wish (or can be bothered) to turn up and vote.
I’m waiting for him to appear on the TV wearing a purple shell suit, and doing a David Icke.
Maybe the brain insert from the lizard people is malfunctioning?
Slightly OT, but looking ahead and taking 40 or more SNP MPs at Westminster, and holding the balance of power. This could make the UK ungovernable, but that would not be in the SNP group’s interest. They would need to co-operate with the Governmental party, and at times this might mean voting against their normal principles, or beliefs. Nowhere near as much as the LibDems of course, they would refuse to back the Bedroom Tax, but might have had to vote for the Tuition Fees in England, even if that’s covered by EVEL which normally they respect.
In return though they could push Smith through, and fill in the gaps it leaves, such as perhaps the right to hold a referendum at will, devolution of Crown Estates, APD, whatever Smith leaves out.
But they would have to have the UK governable – and prosperous, even if it means making compromises.
SNp / YES Alliance for the previous posting.
Brown is at the heart of the political “theatre” that is Westminster. You can be sure that anything the Red Tories say on Scottish matters has been previously agreed with Blue Tories’ Central Office. It is all political theatre, “opium for the masses”.
Brown is the sort of warped individual, maybe there was one at your school, who jumped on weaker children, just as the brute attempted to frighten the likes of Lindsay Jarrett and all Scots needing organ transplants. Bullies like this never dare to take on those more powerful than them or to rock the boat in any single way. It is all bluster, PR and, most importantly, political theatre for the “Daily Retard” journos to report.
The SNP should lead the way here and there is a great chance to change the political landscape in Scotland forever.
If I was the first minster of Scotland I would hold a press conference and deliver a speech like this.
” I would like to reach out to the No voters in Scotland and to all of those Scots who have been been engaged in politics all their lives and in the last few years. I would also like to reach out to those who voted for the first time and the 16 -17 year olds who have become so engaged in our democracy. We must never go away again, each and everyone one of us need to have a say in how our country can become a better place to work, live, and grow old in, with dignity.”
“The truth is we work for you. You vote for us as you believe we will do what is best for the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland do not work for us. We are here to deliver a better Scotland for all and not just the few.”
“Therefore, today I announce that moving forward our manifesto will include that this engagment will continue to move Scotland forward for all. Today we reach out to every person in Scotland and we are saying to you that we will give you a voice that you can use to develop our democracy and country.”
“I’m delighted to announce that we will be holding more referendum’s in the future and these will be in our manifesto. These will not be independence referendum’s although that is still our goal. These will be national referendum’s on a living wage, on more powers to the Scottish parliamnet, and on wether or not our public services, railways and energy sectors should be moved back into our hands.”
“So the people of Scotland. I say to you all today, this is what we promise. If you vote for the SNP you will get a chance to use your voice to let us know what you want us to do. You will be asked if you want us to introduce a living wage for all, if you want more powers for Scotland and if you want privatisation stopped and the public utilities put back into our hands.”
“We want you to stay engaged with politics. So we want you YES and NO voters to tell us what you want us to do. Then we promise as we work for you, to deliver those promises. Vote for us and you will decide how you want Scotland to work for all and not just the few. We’ll ask you and then we’ll deliver for you.”
If I was the leader of the SNP this is what I would do. Change the way Scotland is run for ever. Switzerland do this and ask all of their people what changes they want and then deliver. We can do the same.
Instead of elected people telling us what to do on major issues and us working for them it should be the other way round. They should work for us.
Gordon Brown has been played like a fiddle, he is a clown , a washed up has been, an underachieving politician that just can’t except the fact he is not important any more.. He has been had!!! Big time by the sneaky Cameron, If I were Brown I would get down and dirty with the Westmonster mafia, of which he him self “used to be apart” so he knows how the game is playing out. Why not turn on them big style, !!! He knows Scotland has what it takes to prosper, Labour is in limbo, the Tory’s have humped you big time. Sowhy not jump ship Gordon , turn on them!!! Suck it up and admit you fucked Up big time, don’t get angery Mr Brown , Get even……. Labours only hope has now got to be in an independent Scotland, but only if they get rid of all the reds and srart a fresh grassroots style..
Gordon Brown has been played like a fiddle, he is a clown , a washed up has been, an underachieving politician that just can’t except the fact he is not important any more.. He has been had!!! Big time by the sneaky Cameron, If I were Brown I would get down and dirty with the Westmonster mafia, of which he him self “used to be apart” so he knows how the game is playing out. Why not turn on them big style, !!! He knows Scotland has what it takes to prosper, Labour is in limbo, the Tory’s have humped you big time. So why not jump ship Gordon , turn on them!!! Suck it up and admit you fucked Up big time, don’t get angery Mr Brown , Get even……. Labours only hope has now got to be in an independent Scotland, but only if they get rid of all the reds and srart a fresh grassroots style..
@Ian Brotherhood : Nowadays mention of the Broon just makes me think back to the day after Black Thursday.
I run a wee business and the only ones making money from it are HMRC (duty and vat and vat on the duty). I awoke that day to realise I’d still be paying taxes to Westminster, and not to the Scottish Government. I wept. I decided to give up the business. But I didn’t because I’m convinced that one day………..
And so the Broon, every time I see his photo or hear one of his arsitudinal utterances, reminds me why I didn’t throw in the towel that day. We live in hope!
@Juteman;
The man is mentally unstable, and i’m waiting on him announcing that he is really the reincarnation of Napoleon.
I am not a personal fan of Napoleon, but don’t insult his memory. The guy was certainly ambitious and crazy, but it was, willy-nilly, some kind of military genius who conquered half of Europe and left a system of laws that has profoundly influenced the rest of the world as far as Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Codes).
Nothing to do with the minnow you’re referring to.
A bit off-topic, but I’ve just spent half an hour with a cup of coffee and an absolutely inspiring speech by Tariq Ali hosted on Bella Caledonia. “Scotland: Victory next time”.
The more Brown reneges on his meaningless promises, the more he puts personal and Labour party advancement over the good of his country, the more he colludes in selling us all down the river, the stronger the Yes movement will grow.
I don’t think the vow made much of a difference. I suspect it was a last minute diversion to explain a peculiar result.
Only a few months away from the 2015 general election and the Labour Party strategy appears to be undecided:
Should the Party assume loyalty of the working class and concentrate their efforts on the swing voters, (5%-8%)? Volatile and risky but winning the swingers over would provide enough votes allowing the Party to form a government without need for assistance from any other party. Ed Balls, his wife Yvette Cooper and Douglas Alexander favour this approach.
b. Should the Party pursue a policy of containment working hard to regain the working class vote so badly neglected by the Blair and Brown governments? If successful the Party could benefit from a return of around 31%. Insufficient, acting alone to form a government but perhaps sufficient to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats who should attract around 8% of votes cast. Jonathan Cruddas, Labour’s Policy Coordinator, backs this strategy.
c. Ed Miliband is in a quandry. His concern is Scotland, where returns indicate the Party is not in good shape. Projections are that between 05-15 seats could be lost to opposition parties in Scotland unless changes are put in place very soon. Rumour has it Johann Lamont would be prepared to step aside allowing the general election campaign in Scotland to be co-ordinated and lead by a Westminster MP, (possibly Jim Murphy). She would retain her position as leader of the Party in the Scottish parliament.
d. Another difficulty to be overcome is power sharing and accountability. There are indications that all is not well within the leadership team. The uneasy truce between Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband is not working and there are indications that change will be necessary at the top if the Party is to stand any chance of being elected. But how did the party end up in this state? I gathered press reports, for a few years providing comment on the persons noted. They make interesting reading.
http://caltonjock.com/2014/10/18/the-2015-general-election-looms-and-the-labour-party-in-fighting-goes-on-unabated/
maybe Gordon could get behind this petition. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/english-referendum-on-scotlands-removal-from-union?source=facebook-share-button&time=1412503482
Has as much chance of success as any of his other bright ideas …..
heard the one about the m/t box, there’s nothing in it.
Ian Brotherhood says
Being honest – what does the mention of ‘Gordon Brown’ make you think of? No cheating now…
This.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3bb-4URRHI
@yesindyref
You are assuming that going into full coalition is the only vehicle for holding the balance of power. It isn’t. Such a party can help to form a government by offering a party or coalition just confidence and supply and nothing else. This keeps the government in place and with the ability to pass their budget. All other matters require the formation of a coalition of of the willing and often involve horse trading in select committee and having to wear opposition amendments in bills.
Three successive Labour led coalitions in New Zealand were kept in power by the Greens offering just confidence and supply. During that time the government was stable, Michael Cullen ran a budget surplus and paid down debt, prostitution was legalised and civil partnerships created for all, not just gays.
Note that NZ Labour are very different from the British version. I would vote for them if we moved back.
Thanks for blurring his face, blab have definitely been left holding the baby, and their desperate unionist gamble with crash and the vow is going to come back to haunt them.
The Man in the Jar
Being a good folk of Kirkcaldy, I can say that not all will be voting slab.Don`t even know if crash is standing, keep hearing he is standing down but nothing confirms this.
Link to a meeting being held in Kirkcaldy. Committed to getting rid of crash/slab.
http://www.indyscot.info/details.php?ref=28
By the length of you analysis, Stuart, I can see Brown has been talking abject waffle … yet again.
Like Maggie Thatcher completely batty in her last tenure as PM, I am sure we will be told sooner or later Brown lost his marbles when he lost his premiership.
At any rate, who bar a few worshipping, fearful pensioners, happy to be locked in a cupboard for him to berate, gives a crap what Brown says or thinks? He is a failed politician.
Gordon the Hapless – grousebeater.wordpress
Boycotting the BBC – grousebeater-wordpress
Zen Broon,
‘He has no credibility or influence in the Brit London Bubble and in fact Brown remains openly despised down south.’
I hope that for anybody with half a brain cell ‘up north’, he has no credibility and is openly despised
“If you don’t give Scotland control of its own revenues, you can’t (fairly) demand that it takes responsibility for its own spending. The only rational solution is to keep 100% of income tax at Westminster. Brown appears to be demanding that Labour in fact completely abandon its plans for the partial devolution of the tax.
That would, of course, be a welcome shift in position. This site, and senior MPs in Brown’s own party like Ian Davidson, have repeatedly pointed out the massive damage that partial devolution of income tax would do to Scotland..”
Not sure I quite understand what Wings is getting at here.
No income tax devolution at all would be welcomed?
But surely most people in Scotland would have voted for Devo-Max.
We were repeatedly told that NO was not a vote for No change, but for significant new powers.
I understand that Scotland could be worse off overall if the Barnett formula is reduced accordingly, and tax rates stayed the same.
But I suspect that most people on this site want 100% control over income tax at the very least.
Once we have that, then the pressure for control of other taxes makes sense.d
Surely most people want Scotland to have FFA, and to be able to compete. Not receive hand-outs.
If there is to be a pooling and sharing arrangement, surely there could be a fair formula to deal with transfers between richer and poorer areas. But Scotland raising all its own income would help to clarify the true position.
does income not come from what we produce (revenue) as much/more so, as it comes from tax?
Non-expert in the gibberish of economics
Juteman says
“I’m waiting for him to appear on the TV wearing a purple shell suit, and doing a David Icke.
Maybe the brain insert from the lizard people is malfunctioning?”
Don’t bother wrapping it I’ll take just like that.
I know let s make things even more complicated constitutionally!
I am genuinely starting to believe that the Union is dead and we are witnessing the headless chicken phase AKA British Labour Party with Gordon Brown as the removed head, lying in the dirt eyes wide open but nobody home.
The cleanest solution is independence but then we all know this
Or
abolish the Scottish Parliament.
Gordon Brown seems desperate to avoid being labelled, and shown to be, the politician who sold out Scotland.
He appears to be using a scatter gun to defend himself.
Even the ‘mother of parliaments’ quote is inaccurate. What John Bright actually said in 1865 was ‘England is the Mother of Parliaments’.
It suits Brown’s ‘Westminster insiders’ purposes to truncate this quote.
@ Will Mcewan
The vow made all the difference.
The Panelbase survey in October 2014 found 66% of respondents wanted the commission on more powers headed by Lord Smith of Kelvin to produce devo max, with 19% opposed and 15% undecided.
Devo max had majority backing from supporters of all parties, with 59% of those who voted LibDem in the 2011 Scottish election in favour, 60% of Tory voters, 62% of Labour voters, 71% of Green voters and 79% of SNP voters.
You gov also done a poll after the result about devo max.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-an-option-for-devo-max-had-been-on-the-ballot-paper-alongside-the-other-opti
55% for 30% against with 15% undecided.
Looks like to me that Devo Max better be deliverd.
all the business as usual (economic suck dry power’s, and retention of devolved powers) “powers” are there, but there are no job’s creation powers.
all smoke and mirrors.
EVEL is a step towards an English parliament. Westminster is a UK parliament. As far as I am concerned we are en-route to home rule for all countries and this is good news.
The sad news is that it’s all down to the incomparable incompetence of our MPs at Westminster who are too busy looking after themselves and their parties they cannot arrive at a vision of something workable and better for ALL UK citizens.
Bring it on. Let’s have EVEL and an English parliament. Let’s dump Barnett and progress to the inevitable consequences. Tax and spending powers completely devolved.
Defence and foreign policy? This would eventually evolve into a negotiation between the four(?) countries, each with equal say from a country point of view although arguable the English weight would carry the balance of power.
The sooner we can push the UK down the path of federalism the sooner we can be free of Westminster.
Brown is right in one thing… we are moving a step closer to Independence… but its as much his ‘fault’ as the Tories duplicity.
Westminster is a UK parliament that fails to treat the regions of the UK fairly.
This is because the power sits in London. It is really rather obvious and simple.
It is time for an English Parliament… The thin end of the wedge to achieving 100% autonomy in the Scottish Parliament.
Brown has assured his place in the history books as the most incompetent and perverted politician that ever emerged from Scotland.
Brown sold Scotland out with lies and false promises for his own benefit and has subsequently realised his mistake. Oops.
Brown the dinosaur who squashed the remaining breath out of the labour party in Scotland.
Excellent.
Gordon Brown will love this one:
http://www.voiceforengland.com/
I am also sad to say that Mr Brown is my MP (never voted for him) and whilst my wee part of Kirkcaldy voted 79% YES I speak to other yes voters and they still think Mr Brown is a ‘good guy’ basically just coz he is a Fifer.
He is not a good guy he is a liar and scarer of old people.
Think of the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang but a villain who targets old, nearly dead people.
Derek
‘Instead of elected people telling us what to do on major issues and us working for them it should be the other way round. They should work for us.’
Well said – I think it is called DEMOCRACY
@Morag 3.28pm
Thanks for that pointer to Tariq Ali on Bella Caledonia; it was very interesting and gave me some hope for the future.
for all intents and purposes scotland has got none of the assets it needs, and all of the liabilities, to pay, to keep WM afloat, in a style to which it has become accustomed.
how can scotland borrow to invest and retain the fruits of it’s labour and assets now, it can’t.
“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alcapone382490.html#6leuSYOuXHCLPspv.99
@ronald alexander mcdonald
“I think (just my opinion) there would still have been a no vote without The Vow.
Disagree there.
I know several people who voted No because we would be getting more powers. The Ashcroft poll said it was the #1 reason for a quarter of No voters.
YES had moved ahead with a week to go according to the polls.
That was when the media blitz went into overdrive regarding more powers.
Perhaps not the Daily Record ‘Vow’ specifically, but the general principle that was all over the media in the last week.
That a NO vote was not a vote for no change, but for radical new powers.
Gordon Brown’s speech was heavily reported, and he promised federalism. Most people think of the USA when federalism is mentioned, and US states have far more powers than the Scottish government currently does.
The implication was that we would be getting some kind of United States of Britain, with a self-governing Scotland.
Rev,
He doesn’t have a clue about what he promised: that’s because he probably didn’t ask, when he was persuaded to offer vague promises he had no power to implement, what the promises would be. It was all rather frantically rushed, and that’s why he’s expressing all this surprise at what has been put forward as promises to be fulfilled. Was Gordon hoodwinked into standing up and promising us, well, anything? It’s also interesting that Gordon Brown, a former Young Communist, would quote the Bible.
The truth about this matter is, as I’ve said before, a bribe was offered to the Scots to vote No, and some of them changed sides to get the bribe, which has been a recurring event in Scottish history. That’s how the Act of Union got signed. You couldn’t put shame in some folk.
Luigi
Watch out, it’s a UKIP trap. They also want your details.
I’m glad I’m not the only one to fail to find a coherent argument in the article. Pure fudge.
Latest You Gov Poll for the General election
Labour now sit behind the Tories.
YOUGOV
Scotland
SNP 41%
CONSERVATIVES 20%
LABOUR 19%
LIBDEMS 9%
UKIP 6%
GREENS 5%
Some of you seemed to be confused about the vow and if it made a difference. All the polls after the result says it did.
The Panelbase survey in October 2014 found 66% of respondents wanted the commission on more powers headed by Lord Smith of Kelvin to produce devo max, with 19% opposed and 15% undecided.
Devo max had majority backing from supporters of all parties, with 59% of those who voted LibDem in the 2011 Scottish election in favour, 60% of Tory voters, 62% of Labour voters, 71% of Green voters and 79% of SNP voters.
You gov also done a poll after the result about devo max.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-an-option-for-devo-max-had-been-on-the-ballot-paper-alongside-the-other-opti
55% for 30% against with 15% undecided.
Looks like to me that Devo Max better be deliverd.
I think poor old Crash forgot that he’s not important anymore, during the referendum the MSM lauded him as a big deal and he really thought it was true, i think it’s called believing your own publicity, he did everything but carry forth the stone tablets, and lo from the sky came a great thunder, and and like a “Big Tit”, he rent asunder his own party, and it was good
“Can’t help myself”
@Onwards 3.44
Income tax is one of 24 taxes and generates around 30% of the tax take (correct me if I am wrong Wingers). Raising all of the income tax or a proportion of the income tax will not provide sufficient monies to cover Scottish expenditure.
With DevoMax/HomeRule/FullFiscalAutonomy, ALL taxation raised in Scotland would be controlled by the Scottish Parliament. There would be no need for the Barnett formula.
The Swiss hold national referendums for all sorts of things.
This is an interesting read, they are currently going to vote on an income for all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
They whole swiss country have already voted on bonuses and excecutive pay.
Like I said earlier I think it could work for Scotland. In a very positive way and keep people engaged.
However, political manifestos would be the litmus test.
Only questions in winning manifestos would be asked.Then you know what you are voting for.
Just watched Tariq Ali “Scotland:Victory Next Time” on Bella. Gave me quite a lift from still feeling really low.
Can anyone confirm that Brown was paid a very large sum to help deliver a NO vote with his Loanhead performance? I read somewhere a figure of around £350K?
Curious, but insensed if true.
Tom Devine is right when he says it is either federalism or independence. We all knew that the Tories would stab Labour in the back after the referendum. I despise the Tories with a passion, but in this instance it is hard not to be impressed by their sheer ruthlessness and deviousness. Brown and SLAB are completely up shit creek without a paddle. It is now surely beyond doubt that all Brown and SLAB care about are their careers.
seanair says:
18 October, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Luigi
Watch out, it’s a UKIP trap. They also want your details.
Aye, but I may as well find out what the buggers are up to!
If the SNP did involve voters through referendum questions on low pay, public utilities, more powers, it would
a) Bring the YES/NO voters together
b) Change the country for all and tackle poverty and inequality
c) Keep everybody engaged in politics
d) Push through important policies that they couldn’t do otherwise
e) Win every election by a landslide moving forward
What’s not to like ?
People say there are no real alternatives out there.
I say this is a very good alternative and will keep everybody engaged and change the country.
If it works for Switzerland then it will defo work for us because of the size of political engagement we have now.
Why wouldn’t it work ?
1) Get rid of Brown and Slab
2) Get rid of the Daily R*****
We’re home and dry.
A section of the SNP manifesto should read like this:
We will offer the people of Scotland a say in their democracy. Therefore, we promise to ask the people of Scotland the following questions via a national referendum :
1) Should all workers in Scotland receive a living wage ? YES/NO
2) Should Scotland have Home Rule ? YES/NO
3) Should the railways and energy companies return to the state? YES/NO
We promise if the result of any of these referendum’s produce a YES vote we will implement the changes within 12 months of coming into power.
C’mon what’s not wrong with that ?
As for G Brown contesting a seat in order to enter the Scottish Paliment, I think you can forget that, why would he when he’s got a cushy number from the U.N, swanning all over the world, and talking of world, j I’m sure in his mind that if he sticks in, he will be saying to himself ” why I could get the top job, and really, really save the world”. Such is the mind of one G.Brown.
Is it just me or does it seem like we are about to see the resigning of the Act of Union, at a very tasteful ceremony of course, lots of tartan and shortbread. What a lovely finishing touch that would be! And all because we gave the English Parliament the mandate, the vote at the referendum, the RIGGED vote. Does anyone here really and truly believe that the Scottish people did not vote for independence? Do you really believe that the Scottish people voted “NO”? The VOTE WAS RIGGED!!, we have enough evidence, and that is the way forward, finding a legal means by which we can FORCE a RE-VOTE. They have manufactured a new history (to the victor and all that) where they cheated and we haven’t done anything about it. They have the mandate now they have been given the authority to implement anything they like. The RIGGING of the vote is the key!! It is the crux about which the English Parliament is going to!??? Well just have to wait and see……
@cirsium
There is a video of James Aitken on Referendum TV which is worth a look. He talks about taxes on it. I think you are right about income tax, we would need significantly more tax revenue for it too even be a decent deal. The Tories/Liberals talk about devolving all income tax, the revenue from corporation tax, capital gains tax, possibly air traffic duty. I am not sure how much this would raise? We would need a proportion of oil revenues as well. Presuambly John Swinney and co are going to argue for this to the Smith Commission.
I like the cut of your jib, Derek Henry @ 3:04 xx
@Derek Henry;
Be careful. Switzerland is not Scotland, and is organized in Cantons, more or less totally autonomous. National votations take place when a sufficient number of people sign petitions. Then, to be accepted, a proposition has to reach a double majority: majority of Cantons AND majority of people.
Besides, they also recently adopted a text that puts a quota on the number of strangers that can work in the Confederation. That very redolent of UKIP…
@Bowanarrow
Why would Salmond and co spent their entire careers arguing for independence only to knowlingly accept and tolerate a rigged ballot? Does not make the slightest bit of sense.
@Dr Jim
Lol, thank you for that
@AuldA – referendum on all men should wear kilts?
@Auld A
Yes of course.
It is not the exact model from Switzerland. That would be crazy!
We are taking very little from the Swiss model.
The huge difference being that the questions posed to the public would be what is in the manifesto.
You look at the questions in the manifesto and say yeah I would like a say on that.
All i’m saying is let the public decide on important issues that would tackle poverty and inequality.
It’s a win, win situation. Especially the home rule one if you want independence.
I’m telling you the SNP would win 75% of the vote if they done this. Only people voting against this is some Tories.
Seriously, my dogs have better communication skills than Crash. If you saw his shambolic performance at the debate, you can’t help but see he struggles to communicate with the outside world. Every journalist piece written about him as a man, paints him as somewhere on the spectrum of personality disorder.
At the debate, he clutched his notes,struggled to keep his place, stood hunched, but blundered on. I sat with my jaw dropping further, thinking wtf is he actually saying?
Imagine if we had anything like decent media here who would have taken this idiot and Vow apart like the Emperor’s new clothes that they are.
@ Paula Rose
Thanks Paula x,
It makes perfect sense to me.
I can’t see any downside if we want.
a) Independence.
b) A fairer and more equal society.
c) To keep everybody engaged in the political process.
d) To push great things through that we can’t without independence.
e) To win every election
f) If we want to beat the concentrated power at the top by democratic means.
g) To improve our democratic process.
Just for anyone who may have missed it….
http://www.change.org/p/gordon-brown-mp-go-fuck-yourself
I don’t understand what Gordon is so worried about. After all, Johann Lamont and Ed Miliband, his supposed bosses signed a pledge even before the vow stating:
“We believe that Scotland should have a stronger Scottish Parliament while retaining full representation for Scotland at the UK parliament”. David Cameron and Nick Clegg signed it so it is SET IN STONE. http://wingsoverscotland.com/nick-clegg-signs-a-pledge/
Honestly, anyone would think that Gordon doubts the word of the 6 honourable ladies and gentlemen who signed this declaration? Or the word of Better Together who forged this iron pact.
Don’t worry Gordon, the Scottish press cavalry will be along any minute to clear this All up. Any minute now. Right about now. Hello?
Muscleguy
No, I’m not assuming a full coalition at all. It’d probably be like the first SNP session, on a vote by vote, budget by budget basis, a bit of give and take.
Anyway, the UKIP have said no full coalition, they would do it on a per vote basis, and chances are they’ll have over 20 MPs as well, probably more than the LibDems.
Income tax alone will not cover the SG budget so this really is a poison chalice, but there are other things I have issues with. This crap about being allowed to borrow X billion, first of all why should we have to borrow anything when we are such a massive net contributor to this wonderful union but more importantly if this were somehow to be accepted, how is it meant to be repaid given the failure of the accompanying income tax powers alone to cover the existing budget never mind interest and capital repayments on such a loan. Balancing books Westminster style so that the SG is hamstrung from the word go and be doomed to exponentially increased borrowing that will ultimately require a massive bailout (using our own money) from Westminster who will either dress it up as the benevolent imperial masters riding to the rescue, or more likely, having to bail out those useless Jock benefit scroungers.
@Derek Henry:
Make sense but be careful. Letting the public decide means that everybody must be fully informed to be able to make up their mind in the most objective way. Otherwise, there will always be bigwigs to load the dice.
Unless God himself enters the play:
https://leggodunquesono.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/la-lezione-del-1980/
@Paula Rose:
Yeah, every man in kilt.
And every woman in hills. Err… wheels. Darn, I meant eels. Electric. Oh, shucks! 😉 Heels.
In reality they still hold the master card. Regardless of which powers they devolve those powers remain “loaned”.
At any time a simple vote will switch everything back to Westminster.
We are merely being allowed to play on an extending lead – they can lock the ratchet and reel us in anytime
A thoroughly dishonest and hypocritical man.
Party before people and power for power’s sake.
He deliberately set about terrifying whoever would give him five minutes of floorspace, he lied, he promised, he threatened and all for self promotion and party. He threatened carnage if we voted yes and now he threatens carnage after a no vote has been achieved. He sold the Scottish electorate’s future for for selfish reasons and now asks for our aid in bailing his lying arse out of the hole he dug for himself.
I don’t think so. As my dear old mum used to say he made his bed, now he can lie in it.
It’s all very well to scream about the vote being rigged, but nobody has yet come up with any coherent proposal as to how it might have been tampered with, in a systematic way, on a large enough scale to produce a majority of almost 400,000 for No spread across the entire country in what was quite frankly a convincing pattern right down to individual ballot box level.
Morag: nobody has yet come up with any coherent proposal as to how it [the vote] might have been tampered with, in a systematic way, on a large enough scale to produce a majority of almost 400,000
Propaganda, lies, bibes, preferment, instilling irrational fear of the unknown…
PS: Nor has anybody on this thread mentioned a thing about rigging anything.
Gordon Brown is quite right here. EVEL sounds fine until you think about it.
EVEL is NOT devolution for england, it is the distorting of a parliment that (like it or not) still, and despite increasing devolution, will continue to dominate scotland in terms of law, foreign policy, and spending. While Scotland remains in the UK we have a huge interest in ensuring equal representation there.
If english mp’s have rights over english laws then we will effectivly be in a situation where the UK government MUST be an english one. While still controlling most of our government. Its unacceptable.
Clootie, I can just imagine the furor of the Scots if Westminster tried that.
Bad enough that the unelected HoL removed or right to protest against fracking under our homes. However taking away our elected parliamient I think would be a step too far even for Westminster.
Postals votes and registered non-voters Morag?
British State controlled duplicity at all levels?
I’m not accepting that the result was fair and ‘impartial’ and never will.
But to move on -the Yes posse are not limited to a miniscule percentage of party pushers-they are an incredibly huge (1.6+}
movement for change-quite a different proposition.
Independence is INEVITABLE,that’s one thing that has become abundantly clear.It can only go one way from here,and that is the reality.
@muttley79
I asked them just that question, and I was sent the following reply…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3GM_nQ2eOrXeWdWV0h1QVdUbXVCUzNuMWd6RmZKemt1MFdB/view?usp=sharing
Its not very reassuring.!!
And is it to be ok for the NO campaign to screw everybody backwards and ten times over on multiple fronts and every concievable angle,so that we can say-Oh that’s alright guys-well done-Do me a favour.
This is not game over -it’s game on.
@Derek Henry
Totally up for it.Not only is it logical,but it gives the electorate a semblance of power during the inter election years and keeps the electorate politically engaged.
The more powers promise was Westminster at its usual best.Divide and conquer is the name of their game.To make it work they need people like Brown,Lamont,Alexander etc.
Bought and sold.
@grousebeater 8:04pm
You may wish to check what Bowanarrow posted at 5:25 and then give us an update.
Grousebeater
Yes vote rigging was mentioned by bowandarrow
@ Morag says:
18 October, 2014 at 7:43 pm
“It’s all very well to scream about the vote being rigged, but nobody has yet come up with any coherent proposal as to how it might have been tampered with, in a systematic way, on a large enough scale to produce a majority of almost 400,000 for No spread across the entire country in what was quite frankly a convincing pattern right down to individual ballot box level.”
I don’t know either and you are right to demand evidence.
But I do know this. The contingency would have been there. Take just this one point in the case of a YES vote. According to our bizarre “constitution”, queenie owns the coastline. In the result of Scottish independence, she would have lost roughly 60% of that.
The whole establishment is so top-down and in thrall to the “monarchy” that this alone would have been enough to derail independence. And people should not say: they wouldn’t do it just for that. The main problem of rational people is that they think all others are rational. They are not! Especially those who walk around in tails and ermine and wigs and even dresses (bishops).
Think how many murders have been committed over a few bob. So what would the most immoral and brutal heads of our nation in the even of queenie being robbed of our coastline?
But that is not all. The UK economy is already a drowning elephant. Lose Scotland’s oil and whisky exports and the trade deficit would double. The rUK pound would be sold on the markets. rUK borrowing costs would rise — and a rise of even 0.5% in base rates is enough to basically sink the whole economy, such a precarious state are we in right now.
Even more. Cameron would be an international laughing stock, the person who lost 30% of one of the supposedly most important nations on earth. His reputation would be lower than that of Neville Chamberlain or King George III for losing America.
Our political leaders have launched how many illegal wars, murdering and maiming tens of thousands of innocent people? Now they are at it again in Syria just because of a pipeline. So I know this much: they are capable of absolutely anything and rigging a vote with the help of the security services would be regarded by them as a “patriotic act”.
Remember Darling’s strange announcement a week before the vote, all stern and Stalinist: “We will win. Be very sure of that.” I always thought he overplayed his hand a little out of exasperation.
@Grousebeater
PS: Nor has anybody on this thread mentioned a thing about rigging anything.
Still at it Mr G.
This is your style, you talk as if only you know that which is the “truth” but can’t even be bothered to check the whole thread to see if anyone else actually did mention vote rigging in a post.
Posyed by Bowanarrow at 5:25:
Do you really believe that the Scottish people voted “NO”? The VOTE WAS RIGGED!!
Looks like a poster here did mention a “thing about rigging”
Your views and opinions are only worth the same as anyone else who posts here. Stirring the porridge maybe hahaha.
As the Rev Stu says there is nothing really wrong with English votes for English laws …
that is if it were not for the fact that there is actually no such thing as a parliament of the country of England. As things stand the actual set-up is that the de facto Parliament of England and the actual Parliament of the United Kingdom are one and the same.
We now have the farcical situation of 533 non-elected Members of a non-existent de facto Parliament of the Country of England masquerading as the elected 533 members of a now non-existent bipartite Parliament of The United Kingdom. This United Kingdom Parliament was,(as its title properly described it), legally a bipartite union. It has now, however, morphed itself into a quadratic union of countries instead of a union comprised of two kingdoms.
That means the unelected de facto parliament of England is now calling itself, “The United Kingdom”, and thus, when it devolves powers, it is really that, (unelected as such), de facto Parliament of England devolving the country of England’s powers to three subservient devolved countries parliaments.
Quite simply the glaringly obvious solution is for the Country of England Parliament to be properly elected as such and to be removed from Westminster. Then the four countries of the United Kingdom could have a much reduced, equally represented, Federal United Kingdom Parliament. If then, the country of England wished for regionalism in England it will be an English votes for English Laws matter and no business of any one else.
I would still wish for Scotland to be independent but at least a real Federal Union would be a great deal more democratic that the hodgepodge of sleaze & corruption we must suffer just now.
@Morag
I watched the Tariq Ali video on Bella Caledonia twice today. It was very special. The second time I watched it was with my wife who is totally apolitical. We were both captivated not only by Tariq’s grasp of Scottish history but also with his assessment that Scottish independence is inevitable.
The more Scots who get to listen to people of the calibre of Tariq the more Scots will see that independence is the only way to create an egalitarian and prosperous Scotlan .
Yes, the Tariq Ali video is great. Feel a bit more pride and less of a sense of shame that at least we Scots (and the Greeks) have bucked the trend and moved to the left and even further away from the racist right, which is where other countries are moving, including our southern cousins.
If we could send even 30 SNP members to WM, our country would have an absolute majority of “non-status quo/establishment” MPs, which I don’t think has ever been done before, at least not in recent times (probably was in Ireland and was of course in Holyrood).
I was replying to Bowanarrow, and others who responded to him. His post was somewhat hysterical, I’m surprised you didn’t notice it.
“Propaganda, lies, bibes, preferment, instilling irrational fear of the unknown…” are none of them ballot-rigging. Get it into your thick head, I’m disagreeing with people who assert that the actual ballot papers were tampered with.
If you’re not going to engage with that, butt out.
Thomas Potter, if you look at this article from Lawyers for Yes, you’ll see a good explanation of how fraudlent postal votes couldn’t possibly have swung the referendum.
http://www.lawyersforyes.org/2014/10/05/jonathan-mitchell-the-suggested-grounds-for-judicial-review-of-the-referendum/
No doubt there was small-scale individual vote pauchling – there always is. Some people would be registered who didn’t have the right to vote. (Some of these would have voted Yes, of course.) 400,000 is really not possible. In particular, not via the postal vote (see above article).
The No campaign pulled every dirty trick it could. Tampering with the actual ballot papers in a systematic and large-scale way wasn’t part of it though.
As you’d maybe expect, in a sea of selective nonsense from Brown, his point about US politics cherrypicks an example from the Senate. While it’s true that there are two senators from every state regardless of size, he ignores the fact that the House of Representatives is more geared towards giving each state a number in that house which represents the overall numbers in the state.
It isn’t always perfect (I seem to remember Illnois is particularly well served on a representatives-per-voter ratio but some other places are less so) but the point of bringing it up is that I imagine Brown thinks we are all too ignorant to know about these things and will just swallow his favoured example of how US politics does things wholesale without question.
BLAB (Scottish sub-branch) seem to me to be the Scottish managers of Gormenghast. But who would be Steerpike, Gordie or the Smurf?
How evil is EVEL? Is is worth Scotland suffering its consequences in order to avoid suffering the rule of the corrupt labour party?
Kenny, I agree with you that the British establishment were absolutely desperate to avoid a Yes vote. I think we often underestimate how devastating it would have been for them, as you so eloquently point out.
I think they were fairly complacent until quite late on though, because they didn’t believe the late surge for Yes that we expected was going to happen. When it did, they panicked, though they also tried occasionally to put a confident face on it.
I don’t challenge the claims that the ballot papers were tampered with on the grounds that the British state was playing fair and honourably and wouldn’t do such a thing, but on the grounds that there is really no coherent explanation of how that might have been accomplished, in the real world we live in, given the information we have about how the vote was carried out.
Fairliered, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with EVEL. It’s been SNP policy, voluntarily, for many years. It’s Labour that oppose it, because of the influence they’d lose.
And because it would signal the end of the union. I don’t know why Cameron doesn’t seem to get that.
Kenny: the Tariq Ali video is great.
It’s always more edifying and informative to listen to an intellectual state his considered views than a firebrand shout down his opponents.
If you want to hear Tariq Ali, get your tickets for the Radical Independence Conference. Glasgow. November 22nd.
Jim Arnott (and Kenny), I think Tariq Ali is a fantastic speaker. I’d love to know if he did all that extempore, or if he was able to see some sort of autocue!
Lots of us like to talk about how independence is inevitable, and how we’ve gone to far to turn back, and how the awakened Yes movement will grow until it sweeps a majority with it. Then, if you’re me, you start worrying that it’s all just wishful thinking and we’re doomed never to succeed.
Hearing it from someone as wise and thoughtful as Tariq Ali, and perhaps even more importantly someone who doesn’t live here and isn’t personally invested in our independence, makes it all seem so much more rational.
Morag, I agree with you about EVEL. My worry is that it will be manipulated to disadvantage Scotland. If we had our own broadcaster, we could highlight this. Unfortunately we have the ("Quizmaster" - Ed) BBC.
Fairliered, I’m booked to see Nicola Sturgeon at the Hydro that afternoon. (I was too late to book for Edinburgh, that’s why.) I believe the two events run concurrently, otherwise I’d be extremely keen to hear Tariq Ali.
I remember many years ago another member of the SNP London Branch committee was going on about getting Tariq Ali to speak to a branch meeting. To my shame I didn’t really know much about the guy or what a superlative speaker he was. I also thought he was just being suggested as a general left-wing commentator – I had no idea he was so interested in Scotland, or so informed. I wish I’d got behind the proposal more whole-heartedly, at the time.
Fairliered, I think there comes a point where even the BBC can’t paper over the cracks. A bunch of Scottish Labour MPs bellyaching that they’re not allowed (for example) to vote to impose tuition fees on English students, might possibly get through the censor.
Very well dissected Stu. I began in a similar vein on FB – Brown really needs taken to task and held to account for his ongoing involvement in wider narrative. He doesn’t even have a role in the Labour negotiating team – no wonder.
Not for the first time in the past few years, Stu, have I sat scratching my head at this man’s mangling of political philosophy, economy theory, and history. He’s one of the most conceited politicians to cross the border for Westminster (and there have been many). His hubris paid for a couple of hundred thousands Labour swing votes on the 18th, with him believing destiny was offering him a second chance to out-Blair Tony’s footprint in the history stakes. He was an outcast for most of the Referendum campaign and now finds himself surplus again and bawling from the green backbenches (where he hadn’t been seen much in the past 4 years despite continuing to draw down a full time wage).
Were it not for the lickspittle attitude of the Beeb in Scotia along with the Record, Herald, and Scotsman he’d be left howling at the moon rather than the rest of us. They continue to give him an extraordinarily easy time despite his record in Govt and as PM, his marginalisation from frontline politics, and his breathtaking arrogance around the Vow and since. But in relation to his, er, speech the other day you were right to concentrate on the sheer gibberish construction. Clumsy and transparent in purpose he takes logic and principle and turns them inside out in attempt to stuff Pandora’s malEVELolent forces back in the box. Labour power politics kicking our country’s future all over the place. Let us all keep this shame under the spotlight.
Morag: I think Tariq Ali is a fantastic speaker. I’d love to know if he did all that extempore, or if he was able to see some sort of autocue!
Don’t insult him – NO autocue.
Most lecturers have studied their subject well and over many years, and can bring to it many references historical or topical to illustrate their thesis that others might never have comtemplated, or know about.
Morag
During my time with the London Branch we had David Penhaligan, Teddy Tayor, Gavin Strang, Jim Naughtie, Ian MaCormick (when he was in the SDP) and Graeme Watson plus a few that I cannot recall offhand.
Liz: Rigging was mentioned by Bowandarrow.
Two hours earlier. I missed that, Liz. Still, I see the night patrol is intent on turning another topic over to their hobbyhorse, and the confused Alex still feels able to cross the line of house rules while claiming he runs the site.
Thanks for the heads up, Liz.
Morag. Never underestimate the power of the BBC to support SLAB and cover up or ignore their various misdemeanours.
I am not sure what time Tariq Ali will be speaking. Unless it is between 2pm and 4pm you could maybe do both.
Marcia, I recall we had Bruce Kent and… jings, I’d have to look through the old minutes, my mind must be going.
It’s interesting that you had Teddy Taylor. Once, we invited a Scottish Conservative MP from Aberdeen to speak to the branch. His reply was positively abusive, and he seemed to think that our perfectly serious invitation was some sort of wind-up.
Fairliered, the BBC will do anything for SLab, we know that. It ran a propaganda campaign on behalf of Better Together, and that’s why No won.
There’s still no practical way the ballot papers could have been tampered with, regardless of what the BBC were prepared to say. I keep saying it. Pointing out that certain interests would have been very willing to interfere with the ballot papers doesn’t prove that actually happened. For that, you need at the very least some plausible explanation of how it might have been done.
If I discover it’s possible to get in to Tariq Ali’s speech, I’ll try to do that. I was most impressed by that video on Bella – I’ve never heards such a long speech from him before.
Oh, and Grouse Beater, I do know how lecturers work. That’s because I am a lecturer. You know, me, the person whose identity isn’t a secret and who can be looked up online and all that. Unlike you.
Four hours with my final year honours class last week, with only a 15-minute break when the video-conference link to the group in Ayr was cut off. And I knew it was being filmed for the archive. Now that was fun.
That’s what gives me such respect for Tariq Ali’s delivery. That formal style, with beautifully-crafted sentences, a speech that isn’t just verbal but would read equally well in a verbtim transcription – doing that entirely extempore is a rare talent.
I was reading on SOTT.net it gave a very interesting narrative as to the How and Why the vote was rigged. I was of the opinion that, “no, they couldn’t/wouldn’t do that to us” now I’m not so sure. Look how they tried to silence the Irish, I think WM would do anything to keep the Goose that lays the golden eggs. Have a read at this article, it may open a few more eyes, or not. http://www.sott.net/article/286355-Special-Report-Scottish-Referendum-Rigged-The-How-and-the-Why
Morag: I am a lecturer
I note you omit to mention the subject. I don’t give a fig who you are. I know you to be arrogant and insecure.
You claim to understand plain English.
Understand this: I do NOT ask that you stop declaiming those who suggest a rigged ballot. I ask that you stop converting every topic to your obsession.
I am sure the owner of the site, Stuart, would say the same thing. After he has spent so much time researching a subject for our information and discussion it’s insulting to see it diverted or ignored.
PS: Giving a talk extempore is anything but a rare talent!
At least he has realised what “the fundamental problem of our UK constitution” is. Now he wants others to notice as well that England has ten times the population of Scotland. A worthy ambition.
Those examples from Australia and the USA etc are nonsense. I cannot for the life of me think of any successful federal nation where one constituent state is more than four times the size of all the others put together. For goodness sake, even in the Soviet Union, the Russians made up only about half the entire population.
I’m German. Germany has only been a nation since 1871, before that is was all little independent kingdoms and dukedoms. Yet today none of the federal Länder has any notion of wanting to break away. But imagine for a moment that the proud City of Hamburg would, through some fictional machination I am too lazy to invent, become three or four times as rich as it already is, i.e. about as rich as London. Let’s also imagine that the German Parliament was in Hamburg, and the constitutional court, and the head quarters of the Bundesbank. Let’s imagine that the neighbouring Länder of Lower-Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern would also prosper in the gravitational field of Hamburg, while with increasing distance from that single hub of commerce and affluence people are notably poorer. Let’s then imagine that in the far South of Germany, the reasonably well-to-do Land of Baden-Würtemberg was beginning to feel somewhat alienated. This has partly to do with the fact that the government in Hamburg seems very far away and doesn’t seem to quite understand the needs of Baden-Würtemberg. It also has partly to do with the fact that there is a very prolific gold mine under the Schwarzwald mountains which generates a lot of wealth, but most of this wealth is used for building more bridges in Hamburg and resurfacing roads in Lower-Saxony and for waging war on the Finnish, who have for some imaginary reason annoyed the Hamburg elites. Then there is the (again, imaginary) fact that Germany’s nuclear waste is all dumped on a little village in the Breisgau, close to the border with France and Switzerland. And finally, Baden-Würtemberg has for the last forty years overwhelmingly voted for the square party, but since the rest of the Germans vote for the Hamburg-friendly circle party, the square party doesn’t get much of a say in government. Under these circumstances, it would be entirely conceivable that the good people of Baden-Würtemberg would want to leave the German federation.
But it isn’t so. The parliament is in Berlin, the Bundesbank in Frankfurt, the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. There are a number of centres of affluence besides Hamburg: Munich, Frankfurt, Mannheim, Wiesbaden, Stuttgart… Nordrhein-Westfalen, the largest Land, has only about 20% of the overall population. There are four cities of over a million, and eleven more of half a million and over. Sixteen Länder have their own parliaments and contribute to the federal parliament, no one of them outweighs all the others. Such a federation can work. A ratio of 84:8:5:3 doesn’t work so well, and I don’t see how it ever could.
Any new devolution plans are always going to be – a fudge, pig in a poke, compromise, sell out, bag if shite – think of any other appropriate phrases.
There is one perfect solution that avoids all of these. – Independance.
“Grouse Beater”, whoever you really are, what I would ask is that you stop following me round and bad-mouthing me every time I post on the site.
My subject is veterinary clinical pathology, sorry I didn’t know you were interested. Author of a standard text-book on the subject. Lecturer at the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, during the 1980s. Currently lecture to students studying animal science to degree level. Last week’s topics were “Analysis of Blood” and “Metabolic Disease”.
I think you may be missing the professional detail in my appreciation of Tariq Ali’s skill. The quality of his delivery is unusual, and particularly skilled. Not many can match that.
jasus think need to emigrate no will stay will see this out we will WIN
@Cherry – It’s beyond any doubt that the stinking corrupt British Establishment corrupted our vote it’s not a reason of why or how it’s only that without Scotland the British Establishment are no more.
We can’t dwell on the monster that is the British and how they stole our independence, we must mobilize totally to destroy the Labour Party in Scotland and take our country because we won’t be given it!!
Re falsification, if it was done, I of course do not know how it was done, but I know how it is done in other countries. And, let’s face it, all countries are the same nowadays, whether it is the same “I’m a Karashian Dancing on Ice Get Me Out of Here” reality crap on tv or an elite passing laws criminalising peaceful protest while implementing austerity, banker bailouts and a never-ending “war on terror/drugs/immigrants”…
I will post another time the most likely way it was done based on my observances in other countries, I am tired now, but it would certainly not be in terms of sending letters to England to be scanned or shredding ballot papers. It would be done from the top down on computers.
IB – then this is especially for you, babes. 😉
The Waterboys, Whole of the Moon – one of my favs. (In fact, listening/singing along now)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7dEC3PAzUs
And once again, “Grouse Beater” the anonymous, there is not one single occasion where I have posted about vote-rigging other than as a response to some other posts which raised the subject. I am not obsessed by it, I am sick to death of it, and if I never heard about it again, it would be too soon.
But it’s like the hydra. Every couple of threads, new heads appear being touted by new posters. It’s an object lesson in susceptibility, and to be honest, lack of critical thinking. Here we go again, with Cherry Louden now taking up the issue.
There’s nothing on that linked page that explains how the referendum voting papers could have been tampered with in a systematic fashion, on the scale required to produce the actual result. Nothing. There wasn’t when it was cobbled together several weeks ago and there still isn’t. It’s a clever piece of collage work that doesn’t actually have a solid fact relating to vote tampering anywhere in it.
And I reserve the right to point this out every time someone links to it.
Most reasonable people will see that the best way forward is to focus now on the 2015 General Election and not to be distracted by the referendum and conspiracies as to why the Yes vote failed to gain enough to win.
I can understand why many are upset about the result and there will be many who believe that a rigged vote could be the only reason Yes lost. the vast majority though are ready to move forward.
We know where we are now, we know the next hurdle. Let’s not be deflected no matter what others say, whether on here or in the media.
The establishment is more scared of the Scottish electorate now than it was even leading up to the referendum. An unstoppable force has been mobilised, petty trolling and wishful thinking are not going to get in the way. Let’s just keep on keeping on 🙂
Kenny, there were no computers involved.
Vote tampering has occurred in other countries. The system in Britain has flaws, without a doubt, and small-scale fraud is pathetically easy. Its strength lies in its robustness to large-scale systematic falsification, and you can’t simply declare that because other countries, with different systems, have failed in this, then it must also have happened here.
If you can describe some way our voting papers could have been tampered with, in the actual real world of Scotland in September 2014, I’ll be very interested to hear it. Because I can think of none. And I’ve racked my brains.
The “stinking corrupt British establishment” did corrupt the entire campaign. They broke the Edinburgh agreement as often and in as many ways as they liked. They spent millions producing government propaganda papers rubbishing the very idea of Scottish independence. They petitioned every foreign head of state, celebrity, sports personality and business leader they could find to speak out against our country. They enlisted the BBC in this effort – most blatantly when a BBC correspondent was given the job of feeding Obama the question he was to use to stammer his prepared rubbishing of Scotland to the cameras.
They took money from dodgy oil tycoons. They said the vote was a matter for the Scots then flooded the country with English activists. They told lie after lie after lie. They terrified our old folks, and our foreign residents. They used the BBC and the newspapers as their personal propaganda outlets.
All that is clear to see, with the evidence all over the place. What there is not, is evidence that they tampered with the ballot papers.
Thepnr – you’re back and decided you wouldn’t let Slab hijack your name after all? 😉 (Or just using the wife’s pc?)
Not the wife’s computer, I’m having a change of heart, I think Thepnr suits me here. A few posters have said that so don’t know, I’m swithering!
Thepnr, you do what you feel best about. I think we know you, whichever moniker you choose! (I’m just a bit miffed about the occasional poster who carefully conceals his real identity then attacks others from behind the cloak of anonymity.)
I’m really intersted in Annette’s post. Am I right in believing that the victorious allies imposed the German federal system with the aim of preventing a strong centre arising to challenge their own supremacy in the future?
I was in Bavaria last year, and my hosts said there used to be all these small countries but now we’re all part of Germany and nobody wants to go back to the small states again. They expressed surprise that we wanted independence. I gave it some thought and it seemed to me that it was more or less as Annette said. The structure is egalitarian, the discrepancies of size are not too blatant, and nowhere in particular is disadvantaged.
Oddly enough when the Bavarian party came to us this year (different individials) on the second half of the exchange visit, they were cheering us on!
@Morag, whoa there! I was just putting up a website which had an article which frankly,IMO, DOES pose a reasonable hypothesis. I obviously pressed your buttons, but just because you don’t agree with the article, in no way gives you the right to belittle me. I have been on here for months reading everyone’s views, and this is probably the second time I felt I had something to contribute. If this is how you treat people who voted yes, then god help a no voter who wishes to put forward his/her opinion. An opinion which you don’t agree with is not wrong, it’s just another opinion.
Sorry, Cherry, you got me in a bad moment, because “Grouse Beater” has been running an vendetta against me and I’m getting irritated by it. I’m sorry if you thought that was a contribution, and I belittled it. I didn’t mean it that way.
An opinion is an opinion, but I’m looking for facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. That page doesn’t have a single fact that supports any coherent theory of a way September’s voting papers could actually have been tampered with, in the real world. All the cherry-picked anomalies have been dissected to death here there and everywhere, and it’s flim-flam.
Would you have a look at this page from Lawyers for Yes and see whether it addresses your concerns?
http://www.lawyersforyes.org/2014/10/05/jonathan-mitchell-the-suggested-grounds-for-judicial-review-of-the-referendum/
It doesn’t cover every point but it does a pretty good job and I think it’s easy to follow. Lots of bad things were done to us, but there’s no evidence anyone actually tampered with our voting papers.
Morag, yes, the allied forces designed the federal structure, at least for West Germany. The Länder roughly follow some historic borders, but by no means all of them. People in the East are on the whole poorer, since the infrastructure and economy still haven’t caught up. There is a certain amount of discontent about this, but certainly not enough to make more than a tiny minority wanting the old DDR back.
And then Germany has so many things the UK doesn’t have: A proper constitution, based on human and civil rights, and with a constitutional court to safeguard it. Proportional representation. An elected head of state(not by general vote, but by the leaders of the Länder). A Social Democrat party that is at least still somewhat centre, even though it has also participated in the general right-shift. An established Green party PLUS an established party left of the Greens.
When I was in Germany last summer, people I spoke to didn’t understand why we would want independence. They thought it was a crazy idea. And I thought, “Yes, that’s because you cannot even imagine what it is like.”
And yet the Germans who were here in June understood, and were cheering us on. They must have caught the mood.
They were also shocked to discover that our National Health Service didn’t begin until 1947. I told them they were completely spoiled by having the oldest health service in the entire world thanks to Bismarck, and they had no idea how many countries muddled along.
It was mainly the US that influenced the German and Japanese set up. They were not happy with British Imperialism, but could not recognise their own imperialism. Eisenhower developed a Vets programme, which included education and housing.
Britain, reluctantly, used the Bismarckian Welfare system, purely for militaristic reasons because the German troops were healthier, taller and better educated. The Liberals used some reforms in WWI and the coalition war Cabinet agreed, with minor differences, in WWII. Labour happened to be in power when it was implemented and the Civil Servant architect, Lord Beveridge resigned in disgust as Lord Atlee would not go far enough.
Bismarck was no socialist, or liberal and imprisoned thousands of German socialists. Karl Liebknecht was sent to the Gallows singing Burns’, ‘A Man’s a ma for a’ that’. He was a friend of John MacLean, Clydeside socialist and Scottish republican. Hamish Henderson’s ‘John MacLean March’ contains the line, “Lenin’s his fiere and auld Liebknecht his mate”.
I lost touch with Tariq a long time ago. Not sure how to get in touch again. He supported me in getting the International Marxist Group adopt a Scottish Workers Republic. Some of you may have seen a young, longhaired, bearded Alastair Darling carrying the banner in Edinburgh with MacLean’s portrait calling for a Scottish Workers Republic”. He used to go on about bankers, even then, when he seemed to understand them better. He was not the only right wing Labour careerist to start off in Socialist groups and then take the banker’s shilling. Scotland has a long list of such ("Tractor" - Ed)s.
As our German friend, Annette, pointed out, Federalism would still see Scotland under the thumb a larger “partner” and Independence is the only road worth considering. Each US State legislature has more power than the current Devolved Scottish Parliament.
It was mainly the US that influenced the German and Japanese set up. They were not happy with British Imperialism, but could not recognise their own imperialism. Eisenhower developed a Vets programme, which included education and housing.
Britain, reluctantly, used the Bismarckian Welfare system, purely for militaristic reasons because the German troops were healthier, taller and better educated. The Liberals used some reforms in WWI and the coalition war Cabinet agreed, with minor differences, in WWII. Labour happened to be in power when it was implemented and the Civil Servant architect, Lord Beveridge resigned in disgust as Lord Atlee would not go far enough.
Bismarck was no socialist, or liberal and imprisoned thousands of German socialists. Karl Liebknecht was sent to the Gallows singing Burns’, ‘A Man’s a ma for a’ that’. He was a friend of John MacLean, Clydeside socialist and Scottish republican. Hamish Henderson’s ‘John MacLean March’ contains the line, “Lenin’s his fiere and auld Liebknecht his mate”.
I lost touch with Tariq a long time ago. Not sure how to get in touch again and would be grateful if anyone can give me an addy. He supported me in getting the International Marxist Group adopt a Scottish Workers Republic. Some of you may have seen a young, longhaired, bearded Alastair Darling carrying the banner in Edinburgh with MacLean’s portrait calling for a Scottish Workers Republic”. He used to go on about bankers, even then, when he seemed to understand them better. He was not the only right wing Labour careerist to start off in Socialist groups and then take the banker’s shilling. Scotland has a long list of such ("Tractor" - Ed)s.
As our German friend, Annette, pointed out, Federalism would still see Scotland under the thumb a larger “partner” and Independence is the only road worth considering. Each US State legislature has more power than the current Devolved Scottish Parliament.
Just watched Tariq Ali “Scotland:Victory Next Time” on You Tube. It was a very cogent explanation of what happened in the referendum, especially regarding the role of all the journalists. Scotland, you will get independence next time.
…and can someone please tell me how to change my avatar? I have a jpg all ready to go. Thanks.
O/T
I really hope we can get away from all this vote rigging talk. It would be far more productive to consider why we lost the vote. IMHO we left ourselves as hostages to fortune.
We argued for a currency union when it was so easy for the other side to simply deny it. Rather we should have stated that we would have our own strong currency and if the rUK needed a currency union we might consider it but only on our one terms.
Ditto Europe. We could have opted for EFTA but if the EU had wanted us as members then we might have considered this but only on our own terms.
Ditto NATO. We could have had NATO plead with us to join in order to protect the Greenland Channel. But it would have been our choice.
I believe concentrating on these issues for the next “time” would be more rewarding than “obsessing” with rigged ballots but this is just my opinion.
@Morag:
Bavaria was the last of the independent German kingdom to be united to the Prussian empire at the death of Louis II. Besides, Bavaria is the economic engine of Germany. Like Italy, where Rome is the political capital city with the economic capital city is Milan, in Germany, Munich is the economic capital city. In every country where this dichotomy exists (Spain, Italy, Germany), there are some indy movements, more or less powerful. Add to that that Bavaria has a strong identity, e.g. it’s the only Roman catholic Land. Etc.
@Wannabescot: http://www.gravatar.com
@Annette: Schöne Erklärung für unsere Schottische Freunden. Vielen Dank dafür.
@Morag and others: French Alsace has kept up some particulars of the Prussian Empire. When the area was “freed” after WWI and once more united to France, a law was passed that kept a certain number of rights the Germans had given to the region. They have a better NHS than the rest of France (more costly, but refunds better), for example. Two extra holidays (Holy Friday and December 26th). People who crumble under debts can place themselves in personal bankruptcy. Etc. Some are cumbersome, though. The law on association, passed in France in 1901 under a free regime, has not been implemented in Alsace/Lorraine, where a stricter regime is still in force, owning to the Bismarckian restrictions at that time.
And, maybe the most visible, trains drive on the right track, having been installed by Germans. In the rest of France, where the first trains were pioneered by English engineers, the trains drive on the left track.
If you’re interested in German history and want to understand how the Prussian lead emerged, read a book on the Thirty years’ war.
Re: SLP banquet
There is space for a comment below the announcement. I have already left one and suggest that as many of us as possible do likewise. Along the lines of , “Have you no shame?’
The guidelines for submissions by members of the public to the Smith Commission read like a deterrent rathar than constructive advice.
Here is one of them: “Are there any practical or legal barriers or difficulties to implementing the proposal? How might these be overcome? For example, are there likely to be administrative or organisational difficulties in implementing the proposal? Does sufficient expertise lie at the devolved level to implement the proposal effectively? Are there any barriers in EU law to devolving the power in question?”
Maybe we should just ask Barroso! It seems to me that Smith is just a continuation of Project fear. Prediction: we will hear “many of the public submissions were interesting and ambitious but constitutionally impractical.”
https://www.smith-commission.scot/have-your-say/guidelines-submissions/
@Thepnr 1.04am
Well said.
Yesterday is yesterday, its done. We’ve got tomorrow to look forward to and work towards and the buggers are well aware that its not over by any means. Their own strategy and methods throughout the entire campaign ensured that.
They now have half of Scotland’s electorate well pissed off and motivated to contend with. I’d say a fair chunk of their own vote who must, by this time, be having serious doubts as to the wisdom of their choice on the day and waves of those motivated and energised people joining what to Westminster unionists are opposition parties.
It’ll soon be ding, ding round two. Theories on yesterdays vote are a waste of energy. Tomorrows vote may rush into view sooner than anyone thinks and that is where we should focus our minds. We look at their overall strategy, take it apart, counter it more effectively and draw their claws. We came so close without the aid of any media in round one. With a bright shiny new one we put together ourselves and get behind who knows?
Its still out there waiting to happen and WM made a mistake in how they worked their passing victory. They pissed us off.
he had no radical ideas. He blundered in, made a grand statement that caught out the three main party leaders, who it seems never actually made a vow, but were said to have done by the daily record. It was a last minute dodge to save their arses and it worked. Brown like labour, knew the vow and his promise were worthless, hence the piggybacking of a petition. They knew it was worthless, they knew they could pin it on the Tories, and the age old cry of “only labour can keep the Tories out” could ring loud and clear once more. Back to normal, back to the same old same old. What they didn’t expect was Cameron proposing EVEL in return for enhanced powers for Scotland. There is a huge appetite for this in England, why? because Bettertogether did a huge hatchet job on Scotland’s reputation within the Union.
Donald: Alastair Darling ….. He used to go on about bankers, even then, when he seemed to understand them better. He was not the only right wing Labour careerist to start off in Socialist groups and then take the banker’s shilling. Scotland has a long list of such ("Tractor" - Ed)s.
Another highly informative post with insight. Thank you.
Some of you may have seen a young, longhaired, bearded Alastair Darling carrying the banner in Edinburgh with MacLean’s portrait calling for a Scottish Workers Republic”.
‘The Betrayers’ – a BBC Drama Series – grousebeater.wordpress
Thanks, AuldA, that’s really interesting.
@Morag:
My pleasure! Have a great Sundae.
Errr… did I wrote something wrong?
It just goes to show how far to the right Labour have moved, if they make Bismarck look like a communist. 😉
It’s true that Bavaria likes to think she is a little special (we Northerners humour her…), but in all the years I lived in Germany, I never once heard anyone suggest that Bavaria, or any other Land, might like to secede.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I cannot see how a federal state could work for Britain, with one partner being so overwhelming. The historic, geographic, social, economic and political parameters are all against it. And my suspicion is, when Westminster politicians say federal, they just mean imperial by another name.
Too true Annette. There is nothing quite like Perfidious Albion. Tory Blair’s One Nation and one people, “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein … sound too familiar, as did his “Third Way”.
Even the Brownies here are to the left of Flush Gordon,
@Morag
I worked in Germany and was quite fluent then in German at the end. Nearly went back for another long gig with the intention of becoming bilingual, but decided I wanted our kids born and brought up in Scotland (to my financial disadvantage!).
I found the Germans ignorant of their own history, it wasn’t really taught in school, and many didn’t believe in the concentration camps. But they were embarrassed about their own history, and perhaps then felt inferior.
I told them that these things had happened and they should find out and accept that, but that they should also look at their other history. That having been almost brought into a worse Depression than the US by barbaric and at the same time half-hearted reparations by the French and British, and denied their rich Rhinelands, Hitler, ignoring his evil doings, had wrought an economic miracle in Germany such as the US could only have dreamed of, with the autobahns and rest houses for haulage well-appointed even then, and spaced sensibly along them for the lifeline of a rejuvenated economy.
That ignoring the morality of the war itself, Germany, by recognising the value of tanks and other military assets (U-boats, battleships, fighters / dive bombers, mechanised artillery etc) had practically brought the whole western world to its knees.
That recognising the value of science and research, had even deprived of its raw materials, rubber and oil, had almost managed to invent the atom bomb, had the rudiments of long-distance deliver and space travel, and that only the combined efforts of most of the rest of the world including a re-industrialised America had manged to quite abrely at times, stop them even towards the end.
That the Russians would not have got into space and the Americans on the moon, the British our Blie Streak (and ultimately the French etc their Ariane) without the efforts of the German scientists and research papers, virtually kidnapped and stolen after the war.
I found they held their heads up higher after this, but I also learnt a lot hidden by British history. That for instance Britain and France took all their manufacturing equipment to rebuild our industries, in spite of a “non-reparation” apparent attitude. Some of it still probably works to today!
The British mostly English, still have some hatred for the Germans and it’s not just for the football. But then the british also don;t know their / our history, just the “good” bits.
@Annette:
Man sagt ‘die Bayern’?
I ask that because you used ‘she’ to refer to the state, which is a typical French/German ‘Redewendung’, because in our languages things (states) have a gender.
Auf wiederlesen! 😉
In all my travels at sea all the Germans I met were, nice good fun and did not confirm to the stereotypes portrayed by most English people.
Oh, Gordon, for god’s sake, it isn’t difficult. The West Lothian Question needs answering, and the only way to do it is devolution for England. And, yes, because England is 85%, this doesn’t work. And anyway, could you imagine a mayor for London (pop about Scotland and Wales combined) to go to the union government through an intermediate (i.e. the first minister for England)?
So devolution in the case of England must mean regional government. Personally I’d go for one for the south, one for the north, one for the Midlands, one for the east and London, because you need these bodies to be serious lawmaking bodies, and for their government to shoulder much responsibility – grandiose county council won’t work.
Of course all this means an absolutely serious loss of statue for the union parliament in Westminster. Today, in all bar the nationalist parties, being a backbench MP is more prestigious than a front bench MSP/AM. This would need to change. Can you think Westminster legislating for something like that? Stranger things has happened, but if I were a betting man I would put my money on what I believe would be the end product of any other path – independence.
Oh, and all this tax stuff is a complete red herring. The only possible solution is that each parliament is in principle responsible to raise the tax necessary for its spend. So in future there would be a union income tax – goes to Westminster, pays for defence etc – and a Scotland(/Wales/London/etc) income tax – goes to them, pays for there spending.
Given that this may be a bit unfair on the parts with more needs (however defined), I’d give the union parliament a duty to equalise living standards, and let them give some of their tax revenues, raise equally across the union, to those parts in more need.
Onwards says:
18 October, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Am I missing something?
There ALREADY are 2 different classes of MP at Westminster if English MP’s cannot vote on Scottish devolved areas.
Nor can Scottish MP’s.
Its Scottish MSP’s that vote on devolved areas.
@yesindyref2: You say “I found the Germans ignorant of their own history, it wasn’t really taught in school, and many didn’t believe in the concentration camps.” When and where was that? And how big was your, um, sample size? It was certainly taught at school, in depth, when I was a teenager in the 80s. And as far as I know you can be charged and taken to court if you deny the Holocaust. Any display of Nazi regalia, symbols etc is also illegal. Also, have a look at this http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/09/procter_gamble_pulls_out_detergent_in_germany_over_neonazi_code.html to get an idea of how hypersensitive and suspicious people in Germany are regarding anything that reeks even remotely of Nazism.
Anyway, what worries me is that UKIP are doing pretty much exactly the same as the Nazis in the 1930s and people in Britain are not taking this seriously enough.
@AuldA: Ja, man sagt “die Bayern.” I was just giving myself airs and used an Anglophone idiosyncrasy. 😛
There can be few countries so ignorant of their own history as Scotland, England, on the other hand has such an inflated and false view of its own history. Ireland is the opposite and has a rich tradition of folk songs and like to commemorate all its traditions, events and martyrs they have aplenty, thanks to British Rule, As Yeats said, “The fools, the fools, they have given us our martyrs”
Every Irishman know of the massacre of Drogheda by Cromwellian troops,for example and has it burned into their collective memory and which right wing English historians have attempted to whitewash. Few Scots know of the much worse Cromwellian sack of Dundee where the troops ran amok for four days. Or, of the forced hunger and death march from Dunbar to London and the Carolinas for the defeated Covenanters by Cromwell.
Scots are susceptible to British propaganda rather than facts and have easily fallen for the exaggerated Divide et Imperia tactics that pass for history. Here are but a few; “Highland/Lowland, East/West, Glasgow/Edinburgh, Catholic/Protestant, Campbell/Macdonald, Island/Mainland divides, plus the false Tory/Labour con, perhaps the biggest myth of all.
When Hector MacMillan wrote ‘The Sash’ it was intended to explode some of these myths, but the lumpens were so brainwashed that they actually ran coaches to see the play and cheered on their own bigoted caricatures. To some, Alf Garnet was a hero and a prophet, not a figure of fun.
Although English fascist football fans are akin to Nazi Germany they contradict themselves, as bigots often do, by worshipping old British War films and humming the dam buster tune at football matches and demos with arms outstretched mimicking spitfire wings. They are also attracted to British and German military memorabilia and British jingoism, such as War memorials. Jubilees, London Olympics. Team GB, No campaign, Old Firmism, etc. By Old Firmism I mean the LOL, Rangers for No and the whole of the Celtic Board for No and the British Empire. There is a smaller Rangers for Yes and Celtic UK/OK base.
Compare that to Germany today where such lumpenism would be laughed off the streets.
@Annette:
🙂
@Donald Anderson:
Given the mean IQ of skinheads and hoodlums of the same ilk, it’s no surprise they aren’t disturbed by contradictions.
Donald: There can be few countries so ignorant of their own history as Scotland. England, on the other hand has such an inflated and false view of its own history.
Precision and erudition of this order get lost on social websites, picked up by a few keen to learn, not chatty enough for others. In addition, it’s almost impossible to develop a theme if no one engages in interchange, and because one has to post in small snippets not conducive to continuity of thought. I welcome them nevertheless. Pearls in a stream. (I knew MacMillan. Rough, blunt character. Eventually eschewed theatre for making violins in a remote cottage up in the Leadhills.)
I wish merr Scots had the I” of Annette.
Look at eh contradictions of British Nationalist Labour MPs claiming to be “Republicans” for Ireland – country that Labour oppressed – and do not live in and Unionists and Royalists for Scotland – a country that they clearly despise and have done nothing for.
Just listened to Jenny Marr, Labour MSP on Radio Scotland trying to waffle her way out of a discussion on “Has Labour lost its way” and a Labour spin doctor/liar. The phoner inners also said Labour has lost its Labour roots since Tony Blair. No one corrected them to say that they never had any socialist roots since they became British. No one mentioned the betrayals of Ramsay Mac,Viscount Earl Atlee, or Lords Wilson and Callaghan, let alone Jenny Marra, Lord McConnell or Yohanne Lamont. Why did Yohanne’s parents chose a boy’s German name for her?
Johann is the common accepted spelling of Joanna in whichever part of the Gaeltacht her family comes from. Or so I am led to believe.
If you Brits start to feel TOO bad about your “man with no plan” just train your spyglass across the pond and revel in the fact that you’re not suffering OBAMA’S inanity…
Cando- on the wall of the White House during Richard Nixon’s reign , according to “All the Presidents men ,” If you’ve got them by the b—s there hearts & minds will follow .” Maybe they have same at number 10!
Juteman: I am waiting for him to claim he is the reincarnation of Napoleon.
Ha ha! I enjoyed that remark.