And finally… #6
Posted on
January 29, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
At least the price is falling this time round, we suppose.
Click for teh bigs. You know where it’s from by now, right?
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 05-19
- 05-17
- 05-16
- 05-15
- 05-14
- 05-11
- 05-09
- 05-08
- 05-07
- 05-04
- 05-04
- 05-02
- 04-28
- 04-27
- 04-23
- 04-22
- 04-21
- 04-20
- 04-19
- 04-17
A tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Sorry to go o/t right away, the First Minister is live on Scotland Tonight, STV tonight, 10 30pm.
The link is here.
link to news.stv.tv
That is one stunningly bad piece of literature. The layout, typefaces and colour is terrible. Message remains the same and is best ignored now as it was then.
Behind you!
Watching Salmond. Needs to lose some weight, and stop talking in the third person.
Naebother ti the boy.
Did FM answer all with ease or will bt crowd say he got it easy tonight, best l ‘ve seen for a while.
Just watched the Great Dictator. He keeps on making sense and I believe he is doing it DELIBERATELY
Yes, I thought he was good. Seemed very relaxed.
Salmond at his best tonight. Watching him answer questions with ease and state the positive reasons for independence makes you wonder how anyone could not think it was a good idea. Wake up people of Scotland!!!
Salmond excellent.
Mackay awful; what a miserable bas**rd.
Why, as a nation, do we get lumbered with such bawheids presenting our flagship news programmes?
Meanwhile, BACK ON TOPIC, £350 in 1979 would be about £1,650 now. Just by the by.
In the Glorious People’s Republic Of Scotland, going off-topic in the VERY FIRST COMMENT will be punishable by death and/or having to have gravy on your chips. Forever.
An excellent interview by the FM. Answered the questions with ease and in everyday language that hopefully even Alastair Darling could understand. There is little doubt that as the debate progresses, the positive message on social justice, economic prosperity and the prospect of not spending billions on weapons of mass destruction will drip feed through to even the most non political of Scots.
When Scots HEAR the arguments, SS’s 60/40 in favour will surely become at least 70/30 in favour.
1979? 1997 surely?
Meanwhile, BACK ON TOPIC, £350 in 1979 would be about £1,650 now. Just by the by.
It would be but that is for September 2007 – Check the date out. In dodays money its about £537
“1979? 1997 surely?”
Holy shit. The design was so atrocious I assumed it must be the 1979 referendum, but you’re quite right. Wow.
O/T At the end of Newsnight Gordon Brewer showed the front page of tomorrow’s Scotsman. On the top right hand side of the page, there was a headline which said something like SNP backs down over independence question. Alex Salmond had just been on Scotland Tonight and had said he did not as yet know what the Electoral Commission had decided. So how could the Scotsman have a printed front page saying that the SNP was backing down. How does the Scotsman know there is something to back down from?
Rhetorical question, right?
That is genius. “Think twice! No, wait a second, think FIVE times!”
So according to that leaflet, devolution costs everyone £40 a year. But independence would only cost us £1 a year. Might as well save that £39 then, eh?
Please tell me you’re joking about it being from 1997. Even Microsoft Publisher couldn’t do something this bad.
(Oh and remember, there’ll be no chips if we go indy, so none of this talk of gravy on your chips.)
For pete’s sake surely the elecroral commission have been holding soundings discussions with the Scottish Government to ensure no surprises tomorrow? Isn’t that the diplomacy aspect of politics?
Unionist trolls out on force on twitter after Salmond’s performance. They really are thick. Its quite depressing the amount of people within Scotland who actually think like this. I really really hope they are ashamed of themselves when Scotland becomes a fairer richer society.
To be fair it is Ochil Think Twice. 1997 in Alloa was the equivalent of 1979 everywhere else.
Are we paying £350 more tax than the UK?
What’s that? No? It didn’t happen?
Ah more lies.
Keep em coming.
Having looked at the content of this leaflet the charges of random colours, bad formatting, and bad grammar don’t need a jury to stick. But is it just me or is it dyscalculic as well? How is an increase in basic rate of tax of 43p in the £ (presumably to around 67%) remotely believable?
OK Rev, Hang me if you will? Apparently the word on the street is that the Electoral Commission are saying that THE QUESTION should be “Should Scotland be an independent country?”.
Unelected, undemocratic and unwanted. Scotland says thanks but no thanks!
To my shame, I have not been keeping a close eye on the performance of the Electoral Commission. As such, my comment is purely speculative. However, if the EC is in any way connected the the British state, I can not see how it can be considered an independent arbiter.
@Cameron
re EC link to newsnetscotland.com
@ andrew
Thanks for the link. Now I know a little more about the EC and its relation to the state. Now I would ask, how could anyone see the EC as an independent arbiter?
The Electoral Commission is not an entirely independent arbitrator. It is a Westminster run quango.
Salmond I suspect has been again playing them at their own game. The original question as proposed by the Scottish Government was the same as has been used in previous referendum. If the question the Electoral Commission propose is “Should Scotland be an Independent country” as Bill C above has commented, then I don’t see that Salmond has really lost anything. The Unionists will disagree and make as much of it as they can, but Salmond will put it to the Scottish Parliament and it will be passed by the Parliament.
We have a question and next month the Section 30 order will be passed to the Scottish Parliament to hold the Referendum – something the Unionists have not wanted to happen.
All will have been achieved in an agreeable way in a fair and transparent manner for the people of Scotland – Game on!
I wonder what the question might have become if Salmond had asked for “Should Scotland become an Independent country”?
I am sure that there can be much mocking of Unionists for Twitter users by pointing out that in the HoC and HoL, they regularly use “does the honorable member agree…..”, as this has is now a leading question which we don’t use in Scotland, would they consider updating it?
Leaked late last night by the Express – if true then it lends itself to the story that the Electoral Commission has some serious questions to answer. As have the Express journalists and editorial staff.
link to express.co.uk
Their proposed question isn’t too bad really, the only objectionable thing is who has proposed it. The EC are a joke after their ongoing failure to investigate postal voting fraud in numerous elections and by-elections, and their failure to investigate Peter Cruddas and Sarah Southern over their obvious breach of party funding laws.
If I was the type of person who believed that “do you agree” was leading, then I would also think that “should become” was quite reassuring – it’s like you’re only being asked your opinion on some hypothetical thing that might happen sometime in the future. “Should become” is a bit less forthright than “should be”, it removes a bit of immediacy from the decision, so maybe a few fearties will be swayed to our side. That’s if you happen to believe people are so easily swayed by the format of a question in the first place.
Even a stolid Labour man like big Robbie Coltrane could answer Yes to this one:
link to scotsman.com
On-topic, I’m guessing that the pamphlet was done on an Amiga 500. Typeset and fact-checked by the Alloa equivalent of Councillor Terry Kelly. Printed out in a wee room above a bookies. And read by no one.
If the leaked stories are true (a leak from the wonderfully ‘neutral’ electoral commission run by Westminster???? Surely not!)
The important point however, is the suggestion that campaign spending limits should be raised. This is exactly what the better NO campaign desire, as they already have secured multiple sources of funding from the wealthy elite in London, who desire to hold on to their ‘ownership’ of Scotland. I fully expect such nonsense will be rejected.
At the end of the day, the electoral commission may say what they wish, the final decisions rest with the democratically elected Scottish parliament – as would happen in ANY democracy. No quango anywhere decides such policy, only a democratic parliament can do so. The democratically elected Scottish parliament will debate such matters in light of the commission’s views, take a vote and make the decisions – just as would happen in Westminster.
Just as an aside, we all know how this will be played already, as the topic is surprisingly on the main (UK) news page of the BBC already. The best propagandists will be working overtime at Pacific Quay. So obvious. They don’t even pretend anymore.
I think a wee tweak of the question would do no harm. Only a fool would think this would change the outcome when it’s just a straight choice between yes and no.
For the campaign funding…the electorate will favour limits on this as per the SNP stance. Anyone suggesting this should be opened up to allow big donations from business etc will do themselves no favours. That would backfire in a big way.
Time for some clever boxing. Show a little willingness to come and go, be captain reasonable to any and all and put forward the back up question you’ve had hidden up your sleeve all along.
YUPPFURRIT?
“Should Scotland be Independent from Westminster”
….. or separated from Westminster, divorced even
Of course it should, just get on with it.
So, we are paying £350 (time whatever the inflationary factor you decide) per annum because we have a devolved government.
The cost of an independent Scotland is £1.
Thus we gain 350 – 1 = £349 by going independent.
I don’t think the economics genii Darling and Alexander could find a hole in that argument?
Think once. Think twice. Think DON’T DRIVE YOUR CAR ON THE PAVEMENT – (c) The Young Ones
What was the original question Salmond put to the EC, and what is the proposed revision by them? I thought unionists were moaning for months about the process taking to long…Never mind Rev Stu’s got a new post on the subject!