Behind our backs
Proceedings in the House of Lords are little seen by the public. While it’s possible for the determined to locate online coverage in the depths of the internet, very little ever makes it to popular broadcast media, and as a result the general public remains mostly ignorant of what goes on there. So we’d very much recommend you find a few minutes to watch some of this. (Annoyingly requires Microsoft Silverlight.)*
It’s the Lords debate on the Scotland Bill, which took place on the 26th of January 2012. It starts at 11:36.55 in the embedded video above (we think the timestamp on the clip represents the time of day the debate took place), and goes on for some hours. Don’t panic, you don’t need to watch all of it – you’ll get the gist from the first 20 minutes or so, by watching the speeches from Lord Forsyth and Lord Foulkes.
There are no SNP representatives in the House of Lords. This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room.
11:56.20
LORD FORSYTH OF DRUMLEAN (Con): I shall always be grateful to the Scottish Nationalists, for bringing down a Labour government and enabling Mrs Thatcher to become Prime Minister.
[laughter]
LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK (Lab): Indeed. And that’s something else we agree on. And like the noble Lord Forsyth, we Labour people keep reminding them of that as well, that treachery.
The entire debate is similarly enlightening, as a procession of unelected peers of the United Kingdom, supposedly from bitterly-opposed sides of the political divide, come together to sneer and mock and conspire to frustrate the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of Scotland.
Every political appointee in the chamber represents a party which doggedly refused for decades to allow the Scottish people a referendum on independence, yet now seeks to dictate the terms on which that referendum should be held after their position was overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish electorate. The cosy, condescending scorn and merriment which echoes around the chamber throughout the “debate” (in which everyone is in fact on the same side) illustrates with startling clarity the regard in which Scotland is held by the UK establishment.
Only rarely is there any interruption to the contemptuous consensus. Around 12:11.30 Baron Wigley of Caernarfon (Plaid Cymru) injects a modicum of respect for the Scottish Government into proceedings, pointing out through a stream of sniggering interruptions (including one gibbering old fool asserting that Scotland is ALREADY independent, because it’s in the UK) that the referendum question is clear and simple and fair. At 12:15.31 he concludes his speech thusly:
“When I heard words being mentioned – “weasel words”, we heard a moment ago [from Lord Forsyth] – questions with regard to [Alex Salmond’s] good faith, described as “cunning”, and “devious” and “frightened”, I really do put it to noble Lords: if the debate is going to be pursued in that tone, what will be the outcome and what will be the effect and the reaction in Scotland?”
He’s followed immediately by the non-party peer Baron Kerr of Kinlochard, who notes that “I’m ashamed as a Scotsman and a Scots Unionist that it took a Welshman to make that point”, and goes on to observe the gulf in opinion between the Lords and the Scottish people with regard to the conduct of the referendum, as well as the unseemly cowardice of using such derogatory language directed at those who are not there to defend themselves.
But such voices are the briefest of flickers as Lord after Lord lines up to jeeringly put the boot into Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scots as a whole. Watch as much as you can stomach, and decide whether this “United Kingdom” is a club you want to remain a ridiculed, condescended-to junior member of.
* If you don’t want to install Silverlight, you can read the entire transcript of the debate at Lords Hansard, on this page. But you won’t get the full flavour of proceedings.
I've now been listening for over two hours so will finish tomorrow. It's a disgrace the language used and thankfully there are just a few who are honourable enough to object.
Actually you've only got about 20 minutes to go.
I only see a button asking me to install Silverlight. I would imagine this is not what I am meant to be watching.
Is this another bit of software I need and will it be a pain in the arse and run in the background all the time? I don't want another realplayer or bit of malware…but I'll get it if it isn' going to be a pest in future or slow things down.
Cheers for giving the gist of it in the post and transcript though.Bit of an eye opener. It really should be THIS that is being shown to people in Scotland by independance supporting groups or the media. They shouldn't get away with being two-faced forever. If any of these cowards had an ounce of decency or anyone in the media then it would be spread far and wide. I've no doubt that the rest of the political class think much the same when they think the Scottish aren't looking.
Silverlight is Microsoft's online media-streaming prog. God knows why Flash wasn't good enough for them, or why the government elected to use Silverlight instead, but them's the breaks, I'm afraid. I'm not aware of any malware behaviour or performance hit from it, but I'm no expert. The transcript contains all the text (though it's often slightly inaccurate), but doesn't convey the sniggering and hooting and general atmosphere, so make up your own mind.
I happened across another "debate" in the H of L on recent changes to the dimensions of the coinage and the effects of this. One noble lord ventured a query on the subject of an independent Scotland adopting sterling. This was the cue for general sneering laughter. The contempt is breathtaking.
Tom says "The contempt is breathtaking."
Nothing compared with the contempt there is in Scotland for the HoL.
I scanned through the debate. My main impression is that the noble Lords have no idea how to deal with the new realities in Scotland. Name calling is their only way to handle their frustration at being in a completely irrelevant place.
The SNP were guilty of treachery in 1979. Throwing the dummy out of the pram they voted in the same lobby as Thatcher, condemning Scotland to all the sorrows and injustices that that milk snatching hectoring harridan brought to bear. And, just as Callaghan said at the time, it was like turkeys voting for Xmas to come early. Lord Forsyth was right as well when he mentioned Salmond working with the Tories in that joke of a building they have a nerve to call a parliament. Tartan Tory nanny statespeople the lot of them. You mention Plaid Cymru and how they injected some calm – Plaid voted against the SNP in 1979 on the no confidence vote. I think you might just be able to trust their sense of common mood. But as for Salmond and his Fred the Shred letter and his four week expense claim for food when parliament was in recess, and his cosying up to dodgy moslem money men – pfff. It's no joke that just along from the new transport museum, under a bridge, there is the following graffiti; "4 out of 5 foreign crooks vote SNP". The SNP and Alex Salmond have earned the contempt they deserve – even if it is from a bunch of corrupt, out of touch, gin swilling, doddering fraudsters like the House of Lords. Poachers and gamekeepers, pots and kettles and a'that. I'm not anti or pro independence, I'm just agin that parcel of rogues calling itself the Scottish National Party. As England wakes up to the realities of this debate our thin skins are going to be rankled by this curious type of contempt. The SNP are banking on that to help win their dubious arguments in Scotland. Again, contemptuous.
“The SNP were guilty of treachery in 1979.”
In fact, as the FM pointed out last week, in his autobiography the then-Labour PM Jim Callaghan blamed not the SNP for his defeat and the ushering in of Thatcher, but the Labour MPs who conspired to rig the devolution referendum, deny the Scottish people the Assembly a majority of them had voted for, and leave the SNP with no option but to withdraw their support. I’m happy to take his word for it, since he seems well placed to know.
Still, good work on the “Tartan Tory” jibe. Yawn.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=8972
Where in my reply does it say that Callaghan blamed the SNP? I do though, and countless other Scots like me. You quote the FM from his autobiography concerning 79 so it must be true then. Doh! I've never thought that withdrawing support was the same as collaborating with the enemy but maybe King Alex has something insightful to say on that and I'm just missing something. Zzzzzzzz. Hindsight and foresight most definitely aint King Alex's forte. Tartan Tory as a moniker may be tired but it still carries resonance especially when actions versus words are taken into account. Your "Yawn" jibe though has the same vibe of contempt displayed by the House of Lords which you so sanctimoniously condemn. What a turkey. Still looking forward to an independent Xmas cos Santa Salmond says it will be alright in his autobiography? Yo ho ho.
@Longshanker
This is the standard propaganda I've heard before time and again. Especially from the Labour groups and unionist media who seem to never notice when their chosen party admits fault or does something wrong. All emotion and no reality or substance. Kind of like the entire unionist and Lib/Lab/Tory campaign. Probably why so many people are fed up with these main parties. Shame you didn't get something panicky or overwrought in about pandas too, eh? That would have been the cherry on top. You should stop listening to rumour and try to find out some facts. You've clearly been listening to poisnous whispers without checking up on things yourself.
Longshanks, for the one using such emotionally charged and loaded terms as "treachery" you seem curiously unaware or unconcerned at the blatant "treachery" and two-faced behaviour of the major parties – Labour, Tory, Lib Dems (Instead you focus only on mistaken and clearly poorly researched claims about the SNP…despite your claim of neutrality). Especially their anemic "Scottish" counterparts.
I'm sure someone like yourself who claims to be ever so "neutral" and just so happened to be spouting off rehashed nat bashing political spin on a Scottish political topics blog will no doubt be happy to be reminded of the facts and ready to admit that all the main parties are in fact to blame for the issues you cast up and are far more at fault.
Ah, Longshanker really showing that neutrality in the second post. Tee hee hee. Back to the unionist blogs and news comments sections with you, lad. The mask has slipped.
And lying, too. He can't know what is in Salmond's autobiography unless he has picked the locks on the FM's desk drawer. He hasn't published an autobiography.
Oh, I see. RevStu quoted from Callaghan's autobiography, and Longshanks can't read.
"Where in my reply does it say that Callaghan blamed the SNP? I do though, and countless other Scots like me."
By which you presumably mean "hate-blinded idiots". If Labour don't hold up their end of a bargain, why should the SNP? Such weakness would be political suicide. The Labour MPs who betrayed Scotland are the ones who opened the door to Thatcher, and if that's what their own leader thought it's certainly good enough for me.
(As noted above – the quote in question is from Callaghan’s memoirs, not Salmond’s.)
Morag cant read either – the name's Longshanker. But yeah, you're right, misread that bit. Still doesn't make what I said any less relevant.
Revstu you don't have enough context for your presumption. So who's the idiot? But you're right in one instance, I do hate Thatcher and her legacy still afflicting this country and the UK like a withering sickness. I witnessed first hand and suffered the consequences of Thatcher's stance on Scotland.
As for Shodan's comments about espousing unionist propaganda – two words – bigoted pish. Nowhere have I made any pro-unionist comments. Neither have I stated that what Labour did with the Scottish Parliament vote in 1979 was right or excusable. What I have said is that the SNP betrayed the country by opening the door to Thatcher with all the requisite consequences which needlessly ruined so many decent people's lives. Just because I condemn the SNP for this treachery doesn't mean that I'm pro-unionist. So there could be presumptions made about hate blinded idiots etc. But I'll give them a miss – not enough context.
Regarding poor research, you're plainly too young to remember the propaganda put about by the Labour party at the time that if you didn't vote it was the same as a "No" vote. Subsequently the voting rate was around the low 30 per cent mark – hardly a vindication of great Scottish interest in a parliament (at that time).
King Alex is good at passing on the blame, take tonight's deflection on the Fred the Shred embarrassment. His 'a big boy did it and ran away' statement blaming Blair, Brown and Darling hardly excuses his lack of foresight on the matter. So the reference to Callaghan blaming Labour as vindication for SNP actions doesn't wash.
King Alex is virtually a one man party. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite like him, and have gone to rallies to hear him speak, and he's impressive. But as for trusting him, which I think is probably imperative to being pro-independence, forget it.
"But you're right in one instance, I do hate Thatcher and her legacy still afflicting this country and the UK like a withering sickness. I witnessed first hand and suffered the consequences of Thatcher's stance on Scotland."
Me too. Which is why I want independence, so Scotland never has to suffer a Tory government voted in by someone else again.
"Just because I condemn the SNP for this treachery doesn’t mean that I’m pro-unionist."
Except it plainly does, because if you were neutral on the subject why wouldn’t you blame the people that the actual Labour Prime Minister at the time held responsible? The SNP had 11 MPs out of 620-odd, blaming them for bringing down the government is ridiculous. And quite apart from anything else, just because the SNP didn’t back Labour after it betrayed its promise to them, that didn’t mean Labour would automatically lose the election. The electorate picked Thatcher, not the SNP. Be angry with them.
"Subsequently the voting rate was around the low 30 per cent mark – hardly a vindication of great Scottish interest in a parliament (at that time)."
You're close, assuming that by "around the low 30% mark" you mean "just under 64%".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979
That's higher than any Scottish Parliament election, higher than the UK general elections of 2001 and 2005, and only fractionally lower than in 2010.
We trusted Tony Blair and look what that got us, a trillion pound of debt and a tory government,and considering what's on offer from the labour party the tories will be in government at westminster for the next 15 or 20 years….its a no brainer, I'm going to put my trust in Alex Salmond and the SNP….I will be voting yes to indepenence.
You rely on a single sourced Wikipedia article when it contradicts itself later on under the 40% rule entry. Dear dear – you should join the SNP. It had to be 40% of the registered electorate. And it didn't reach that by quite a significant margin – even Wikipedia backs up my low 30s assertion. Young as I was, I remember it. I remember the bitter bleating and twisted face of Margo MacDonald regarding the 40% rule and Labour's cynical message that not voting was the same as a no vote. Why else do you think it failed? 63.8% would have made the Parliament a reality. I didn't fully understand the implication of statements made regarding the bleak future ahead for Britain. But I quickly learned over the following years. So don't quote single sourced Wikipedia entries to me when they're so blatantly laughable. If you're going to censure me be above reproach yourself.
"The electorate picked Thatcher, not the SNP. Be angry with them."
Being angry with the electorate is like barking at the moon – pointless and a bit stupid. My points about foresight and why the SNP have consistently lacked it are due to this. All 11 SNP MPs voted with the Tories. If memory – not wiki – serves me correctly the tories won by one vote. I remember there was some poor doddering old Labour MP – virtually on his death bed – who couldnt make the vote. If he had the Labour government would have stood. The addition of eleven SNP votes were more than enough for the Tories to force Labour to resign and call an election. Anyone with any insight other than money could see what was coming with Thatcher. So what was the SNPs excuse? They inflicted that blight on the country just because of some machiavellian manoeuvering on the Labour party benches. Shame on them. And, incidentally, the electorate rejected the SNP as well – only 3 got re-elected if I remember correctly.
"You rely on a single sourced Wikipedia article when it contradicts itself later on under the 40% rule entry. Dear dear – you should join the SNP. It had to be 40% of the registered electorate."
Oh ffs. You said "voting rate", which to any sane person means turnout, because you used it as an indicator of interest. Nobody ever expresses votes as percentages of the total electorate. Of course the Yes vote didn't get 40% of the total electorate – I doubt any party has managed that in any election since about 1910, even when there were basically only two parties.
"They inflicted that blight on the country"
No, they didn't. The electorate did. When Callaghan lost the confidence vote, Thatcher didn’t just take over in his place – there was an election and 40 million people decided the outcome, not 11. Labour still got to campaign for their vision alongside the Tories, and they lost. The Callaghan minority government was a lame duck – it would have been lucky to last another three months even if it had won the confidence vote. It takes a special kind of idiot to believe it would have held Thatcher off forever, with or without the SNP.
It takes a special kind of idiot to believe it would have held Thatcher off forever, with or without the SNP.
This is getting tediously cyclic. Consider the following actions and consequences.
Action: 11 SNP MPs vote in the same lobby with Thatcher and her cohorts.
Consequence: By 1 vote, lame duck Labour administration falls and Thatcher wins following election on a landslide..
Your argument seems to be that the SNP hold no responsibility for the consequences of this action.
It takes a special kind of idiot to believe that. You're not Chris Huhne are you?
Yeah, Labour were a lame duck, but trading in cliches – a week's a long time in politics – things could have been slightly less catastrophic for the country if Labour had the choice of when to call an election. As it stood, their weakness was compounded by the vote of no confidence and the rest is hateful history.
By your argument, no politician should ever be held to account for the consequences of the votes they cast. So, logically, it wasn't the Tories who inflicted the Poll Tax on us a year early, it was the damned electorate. Shame on them. Dear dear. How long are you going to defend the indefensible and hide behind the insanity that it was the electorate's fault?
Probably forever. Eh?
"Your argument seems to be that the SNP hold no responsibility for the consequences of this action."
Yes, that's absolutely correct. 11 people are not responsible for the choice made by 40 million. The SNP supported Labour on the basis of an agreement over devolution. Labour broke that agreement, and left the SNP no choice but to withdraw their backing. It's not the SNP's fault that Labour couldn't command the support of the electorate in the subsequent election, it’s Labour’s.
Remember – Labour won the second 1974 election (with a majority of just three seats) in October. There would have had to be an election no later than October 1979 anyway. Even with SNP support Callaghan could have clung on for a MAXIMUM of five more months, and pretending that any plausible events in that period of time could have turned the 43-seat majority Thatcher secured into a Labour win is delusional to the point of psychotic insanity.
"So, logically, it wasn't the Tories who inflicted the Poll Tax on us a year early, it was the damned electorate."
Superb use of "logically", there. The Tories didn't stand on a platform of introducing the poll tax in Scotland a year early. The electorate can only be held responsible for policies that are in parties' election manifestos. It's not the fault of Lib Dem voters, for example, that the MPs they elected reneged on their pre-election pledges about tuition fees.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. 11 people are not responsible for the choice made by 40 million.
How long are you going to deliberately miss the point here? Or remain blind to it in your pro-SNP zeal? The consequence of their treacherous support for Thatcher's Tories was the direct downfall of a Labour government which then led to the election of Thatcher Tories on a high. That was the consequence of their Tory support and why the Tartan Tories moniker should quite rightly haunt them. They could have abstained – another marker of support withdrawal from Labour. But they didn't. If they had abstained I wouldn't be engaging in this, what has frankly become tedious and shrill, debate. They voted with Thatcher. Yes, you can blame Labour and I haven't argued otherways – but Labour didn't vote WITH the Tories, the SNP did. Get it into your skull, the vote was so close, that without SNP votes it would not have carried and the treachery label would not exist and I would not be making these posts.
Lord Forsyth thanked the SNP for allowing Thatcher to get in, Foulkes condemned them for their treachery. A consensual agreement on action and consequence. Or perhaps they're "hate blinded idots" also. Your name calling and insult slinging – "psychotic insanity" indeed – is certainly up to the standards of your favourite party. Maybe you'd like to add anti-Scots as well because your laughable zeal makes you blind to the the SNPs post 79 legacy of betrayal and treachery. Go on – what's the next insult? You make a post about language used in the House of Lords and sanctimoniously pontificate on how terrible it makes the unionists and then go on to call someone who disagrees with you; boring ("Yawn"), "hate blinded idiot", questioned my sanity "any sane person", "delusional to the point of psychotic insanity", "pro-unionist". Hmmm. Many of your postings contain tut tuttings about bias and balance. Where's the balance in your petty cat calling replies just because someone has the temerity to have a different opinion? You should join the SNP though, you'd really fit in well, you're just about the calibre they're looking for.
Dearie, dearie me. Awfully fixated on something that happened over 32 years ago, involving mainly people no longer within the senior SNP and some of them actually dead. Doing something they believed to be right at the time, in view of the atrocious betrayal of the Scottish people by Labour. And with no crystal ball to see what was going to happen next. And indeed, something that was as much a gesture as anything, because what happened would have happened anyway.
And apparently no concern at all for the innumerable times Labour have voted with the Conservatives since, or the "New Labour" project that made them electable by the simple expedient of turning them into a clone of the Tories, or the recent endorsement of the Tories' vicious slash-and-burn tactics by modern Labour.
Dearie, dearie me.
Yet again, Longshanker dodges the point(s).
1. Had Labour not betrayed the SNP and the Scottish people on devolution, the vote of no confidence wouldn't have been lost.
2. But even then, all that would have happened was that Thatcher would have been delayed for a few months. The idea that Labour would have won in October 1979 when they lost in May 1979 is, frankly, fucking idiotic.
Years ago, Radio 4 had a programme with a title something like "What if?" Sort of alternate reality speculation. One of the topics was "What if the 40% rule hadn't been applied to the 1979 Scottish referendum?" The conclusion of the panel was that Scotland would have been independent within ten years.
The thinking was that Scotland suffered under Thatcher because the country simply had no means of doing anything about it. The Scottish MPs, being mostly unionists, wouldn't walk out and set up a rival administration. The panel believed that if the country had had a parliament of its own, that parliament would have taken Scotland out of the union on the back of the anti-Thatcher sentiment.
So next time some Labour-fan with a fixation on the historical drags up Thatcher and 1979, let's remind them about who introduced the 40% rule, without which Scotland would have had some means to defend herself. (And without which the SNP would not have voted with the Tories of course, though clearly that didn't actually affect anything – not in the way the 40% rule did.)
Oh, I forgot. Labour would prefer Scotland to have gone through all that rather than be an independent country, and they'd do it all again. Says everything, really.
1. Had Labour not betrayed the SNP and the Scottish people on devolution, the vote of no confidence wouldn't have been lost.
The SNP are not the Scottish People. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your original post – "This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room." – shows that you find it hard to make the distinction. 11 votes – not one abstention – ensured that a dogmatic zealot held sway over Scotland for 18 years. Treachery and betrayal on the scale of "unsullied principle" as your favourite quote sunny Jim Callaghan summed it up.
2. But even then, all that would have happened was that Thatcher would have been delayed for a few months. The idea that Labour would have won in October 1979 when they lost in May 1979 is, frankly, fucking idiotic.
Oh dear. Zealots can't be reasoned with only converted, eh? State of Conservative party at the time. Big division in Tory party with Thatcher as leader – she might not have survived her No Confidence gamble – who knows? But being seen as a winner and winning consequent election – Tory oppposition to her, down the toilet. How could they possibly oppose a winner like her thanks to the SNPs earlier support?
Oh, and where, in any post, have I implied, inferred or stated that Labour would have won a later election? Shake your head, open your eyes, and for heaven's sake don't swear at people with a different opinion – it lessens your arguments and makes you look a little bit silly and, dare I say, idiotic.
The SNP is not the Scottish people. The >50% of voters who voted yes for their own parliament in 1979 are the Scottish people – a democratic majority of them.
Your bitter clinging to an event which is bordering on history, while ignoring everything that has happened since (especially "New Labour") is very telling.
Morag – you seem like a nice person.
You said, "Awfully fixated on something that happened over 32 years ago,"
I'm going to paraphrase a quote that runs along the lines of "You don't know who you are until you know where you came from." The same applies to parties. The orginal post by RevStu makes a big deal of Lord Forsyth and Lord Foulkes agreeing regarding the reason for the ascendancy of Thatcher to government. I agree with them as do countless, not necessarily, "hate-blinded idiots", and I agree with Foulkes that it was treachery on the part of the SNP. It's why I posted.
But I'll let you into a secret. I am not a Labour sympathiser or supporter, so a lot of what you have to say after, well intentioned as it seems to be, is just laughable hot air as far as I am concerned.
I judge parties and politicians by actions. The SNPs 79 betrayal, for betrayal it was, would be easier to forgive – they were well miffed btw – if later actions weren't so odd and cynical. They withdrew support from the Scottish Constitutional Convention but were virtually at the front of the queue to take advantage of the consequent parliament which it later led to.
According to RevStu's argument Judas (SNP) shouldn't be blamed for the betrayal of Jesus (Scotland) it should be the Romans (Labour) because they did the actual crucifying. An odd way to view things.
I don't see it that way. Actions have consequences and the consequences are the result of the actions.
Don't call me Labour again. They betrayed humanity when they went to war in Iraq and if there's one thing I will always admire King Alex for it was his support for the impeachment of Blair.
So, sorry if I don't fit into your model of who or whom I support, but the reason I became interested in this blog was due to its claim that it's not affiliated to or connected with any party. That appeals to me. It's just kind of disappointing that it's so blatantly SNP and doesn't really harbour opinions which disagree with RevStu.
Hope this helps.
Well, there's a view that says Jesus instructed Judas to do what he did, in order that his destiny might be fulfilled…. Funny, I'm studying the St. John Passion at the moment, and am constantly reminded of the character of Pilate – not an evil man by many standards, just terminally weak and incapable of standing up against the mob. He knew what the right thing to do was, but he didn't do it. Not out of malice, but because it didn't seem politically expedient. Is that evil? It has certainly got him reviled by history.
How could the SNP have stayed in the Constitutional Convention, when it was decreed from the off that independence was not going to be discussed, considered or in any way allowed on the table? I agree their timing was badly out, because they walked off before it was clear to everyone what their reason was and that they had no alternative. You think they should have decided never to stand for Holyrood because of this? Get a grip.
You know what? This isn't really about the SNP, fundamentally. The SNP is the boat, it is not the journey and it is not the destination. This is about independence, and I'd stand behind Auld Nick in person if he was showing credible form in being able to bring that about.
Morag said:
"You think they should have decided never to stand for Holyrood because of this? Get a grip."
That's up to them. It just looked like cynical opportunism of the same kind exhibited in 79.
Morag also said
"This is about independence, and I'd stand behind Auld Nick in person if he was showing credible form in being able to bring that about."
Well the euphoria and lack of reason backs up the sentiment I suppose. Parallels with the feelings of the German electorate pre-1933 perhaps? (and don't go for the obvious with this one – not an aspersion on or comparison to King Alex – only a comparison to the feelings of the need for change in the electorate).
Longshanker
betrayal there was.
By Labour
Labour betrayed their promises.
They betrayed the SNP.
Either way though, Callaghan had a few months to go, the result would most likely have been the same
But that’s Labour for you, they’ll betray anyone
I note the latest Ipsos-Mori has the SNP on about 49% or something like that.
I feel for you, Longshanker. Maybe a nice hobby?
"The SNP are not the Scottish People. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your original post – "This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room." – shows that you find it hard to make the distinction."
Oh dear. Clearly we're taking this at a far too advanced level. We're going to have to talk you through some basics here. This is what I said:
"Had Labour not betrayed the SNP and the Scottish people"
So just so we can determine your reading level before we move on: what is the function of the word "and" in that sentence? Is it:
(a) To clearly and unambiguously separate "the SNP" and "the Scottish people" as being two distinct and discrete entities?
(b) Well, you see where we're going with this, don't you?
"Oh dear. Clearly we're taking this at a far too advanced level."
Clearly.
Discuss the collective implication of "us" in the sentence: "This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room."
Your sentence I believe.
Forsyth and Foulkes weren't talking about a collective, they were talking about the actions of the SNP turkeys – not the Scottish people or the general public.
(b) Well, you see where we're going with this, don't you?
Yes, you're becoming ever more shrill, angry, abusive and ridiculous. Wee Scotlander in thrall to King Alex's charisma I think. Poor you.
Read your original post from the beginning. Take your time. You're clearly finding it hard to make the distinction between the SNP and the Scottish people and the general public. The blog states it's not affiliated to any party – yes?
Labour didn't betray the Scottish people, the SNP did when they voted in the same lobby as Thatcher. The Scottish electorate thought so too. The Scottish electorate returned a risible 2 seats when the turkey SNP leader at the time was sure they could double their count to 22. So, ultimately, they even betrayed themselves in their arrogant hubris. You suit them, you really do.
49% in the latest opinion poll, I believe.
Sorry, but isn't it about time to stop crying and join the 21st century?
Morag
Opinion polls don't count – votes do – stop repeating yourself, it proves nothing and it's a bit tedious.
"Sorry, but isn't it about time to stop crying and join the 21st century?"
Who's crying? One of the symptoms of of blind zealots following their chosen doctrines is the inability to accept wrong behaviour when it comes from their own side. RevStu appears to be arguing that because Labour committed a wrong it therefore excuses the SNP from their subsequent wrongdoing. This kind of whitewashing of history and twisted reasoning is potentially dangerous and reeks of a zeal bordering on fanaticism. Now that is something to cry about.
“Forsyth and Foulkes weren’t talking about a collective, they were talking about the actions of the SNP turkeys – not the Scottish people or the general public.”
Blimey. Did anyone see the goalposts? I was pretty sure they were right here, and then whoosh!
RevStu said:
"Blimey. Did anyone see the goalposts? I was pretty sure they were right here, and then whoosh!"
That's right. They still are. The whoosh is your inability to answer a straight question. So I'll put it to you again.
Discuss the collective implication of "us" in the sentence: "This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room."
Completely ignored. Twice now.
Go on – explain your use of "us" in a manner which shows that it's discrete and distinct from the SNP, Alex Salmond and the people of Scotland. You even copied it into your reply which had the laughably cheap aside that you were operating at too advanced a level.
If people disagreeing with your opinion is too much for you to handle in a reasonable or cogent manner maybe you should stop your blog and just campaign for the SNP direct.
Oh, and remind me not to ask you to take any penalty kicks if we're ever on the same football team.
"Discuss the collective implication of "us" in the sentence: "This is how they talk about us when we’re out of the room." "
You dodged my question, why should I bother with yours? Especially when you're talking about a completely different sentence to the one I actually challenged you on. But for the record, "us" in that sentence means "Scottish people who believe in self-determination", not the SNP or even necessarily supporters of independence, but the vast majority of Scots – of all parties – who consistently say in polls that they believe the referendum should be controlled by Holyrood, not Westminster.
"Who's crying? One of the symptoms of of blind zealots following their chosen doctrines is the inability to accept wrong behaviour when it comes from their own side. RevStu appears to be arguing that because Labour committed a wrong it therefore excuses the SNP from their subsequent wrongdoing."
Sigh. The SNP did no wrong. A vote of confidence was held in the Labour government. They – quite rightly – did not have confidence in the Labour government, because the Labour government had reneged on its promise to them and to the Scottish people. They therefore acted with total honesty and voted with their consciences. The outcome is irrelevant. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't bring a fair reward, such as when you trust Labour to honour a deal as if they were gentlemen.
Longshanker is an obvious troll with a bee in his bonnet. He's not going to admit to anything and will constantly shift the topic and recycle inaccurate unionist and nat-bashing media garbage and spout emotional bigoted nonsense cobbled from such sources. Hence his "King Alex" favourite and goalpost shifting. He'll never take his blinkers off even if you had a parade of witnesses and endless documents and evidence to counter him. It'll be the same act every time. Notice he'll rarely talk about the topic at hand or the topic of the post and instead shift the goalposts and force it into another topic. Reality and rational thinking won't come into it. He'll simply go on like a stuck record to try and "win" by attrition (either through foolish and genuine belief in it or as part of the troll act). I don't know where you dig up or drag in these cavemen from. There must be some office HQ under a bridge in London where they are sent out ASAP to buzz around uselessly as soon as any forum or website – on any subject, from gaming to politics – based in these isles is set up. Every area seems to have their own.
Long in shanks, short on brains. Ignore him until he finds a new hobby.
You dodged my question, why should I bother with yours?
No dodge. When I said you find it hard to make the distinction I made a direct link to your original post statement referring to "us". You admit that the "us" means "Scottish people who believe in self determination" yet the sentence is directly followed by the quotes from Lord Foulkes and Lord Forsyth who are referring to the SNPs actions in 79.
Ergo – You find it hard to make the distinction between the Scottish people and the SNP. And then you rabbit on about polls and Scots and referendum wishes. Errr. Whoosh! Was that the goalposts I saw before me.
You said "They therefore acted with total honesty". You're having a laugh right?
I have more than a passing acquaintance with my local SNP MSP and even he, in private conversation a couple of years back, admitted that 79s actions were "regrettable".
Shodan
King Alex – Radio Scotland – Watson's Wind Up (No longer commissioned regrettably). Ever heard of comedic irony? Thought not.
RevStu knows how to formulate an (mistaken) argument. You don't, so don't bother me with your insignificant stereotypical cybernat postings again. Thanking you in advance.
RevStu said: "Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't bring a fair reward, such as when you trust Labour to honour a deal as if they were gentlemen."
Except it wasn't the right thing. Sunny Jim was still open to negotiation even though his backbenchers had inserted the 40% rule and the act as it stood had to be repealed.
Blind venegance, "sullied principle", and self serving belief that an election would deliver double the number of SNP MPs in the subsequent election motivated the SNP. Breathtaking arrogance, hubris and lack of foresight led to the betrayal of Scotland under the guise of patriotism. Last vestige of a rogue and a'that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7972582.stm
Listen to the speeches on this page and pay special attention to the rightly deserved lampooning of the SNP by Michael Foot. He knew what was coming and knew it should be guarded against. Myopic young SNP didn't. They deserved the mockery which came their way. Total honesty indeed. That's your best one yet.
"Ergo – You find it hard to make the distinction between the Scottish people and the SNP. "
The SNP are included among those who believe in self-determination for the Scottish people. No contradiction whatsoever. Now I have to explain Venn diagrams to you as well as the word "and"? That's quite a leap.
"You said "They therefore acted with total honesty". You're having a laugh right?"
No. It was a vote of confidence. Did they have confidence in Labour? No, for very good reasons. Therefore there was only one possible honest way to vote. It's really not hard to understand, is there a grown-up nearby who can help you?
"Regrettable" and "dishonest" are not the same things. If someone asks you "Am I a total cunt?", and you think they are so you say yes, and they punch you in the face as a result, you may well regret your answer but that doesn't make it dishonest or dishonourable.
RevStu said: "The SNP are included among those who believe in self-determination for the Scottish people."
You're being obtuse to the degree of no credibility while also admitting to the point being made.
Both Lords discuss the SNPs actions in 79 and according to your last post they're also talking about the Scottish people. You prove the original point and don't even have the nous to realise how ironic your "grown up" jibe is.
You then atttempt to deflect the argument being made here around the semantics of the word "and" in a sentence which I did not even directly refer to regarding my claim that you suffer from the inability to see the difference between the SNP and the Scottish people. Err. Check the post and check what I said.
Patronising people when you're so blatantly wrong and have been caught out by your own ludicrous sophistry has its own consequences. I'll leave you to work that one out if you're capable. I'll even send you a venn diagram – you quite plainly need it.
If the Scots perception at the time was that Labour had betrayed the Scottish people the Scottish people would have punished them for it. They didn't. The SNP, instead, were punished for their sullied priniciples. The Scots voters, to their credit, saw to that. The SNP expected to double their vote. Instead they were wiped out. No matter what you say on the matter – even though it completely lacks credibility – thems the facts. 11 MPs reduced to 2 – the Scottish people did that – the Scottish people are not the SNP.
"and according to your last post they're also talking about the Scottish people"
SOME of the Scottish people.
"The SNP, instead, were punished for their sullied priniciples."
No, they were punished for upholding their principles. It happens sometimes, like with Labour just four years later. That's why Tony Blair abandoned all Labour's principles so he could win.
"the Scottish people are not the SNP"
You seem awfully insistent on angrily denying something that absolutely nobody has ever said.
You can squirm around trying to distract from the issue with semantic hairsplitting all you like. The fact is, the SNP acted with principle and Labour didn't. Labour were entirely and solely responsible for the fact they lost the vote of confidence – all they had to do to win it was keep their word – but even if they'd won it they'd have been kicked out in five months anyway. And having lost the vote of confidence, Labour were responsible for being thrashed in the election, because they couldn't convince the voters to believe in them.
Those are the facts. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe anything else, and you really, really need to get over it. It's been 33 years. You sound like an Englishman STILL going on about Diego Maradona’s handball in 1986. I’m bored now.
Longshanker doesn't want to hear about opinion polls.
Maybe he doesn't know about the actual poll in 2011. 45% for the SNP, was is not? Of actual ballot papers stuffed into actual ballot boxes?
And that's 2011, which is a lot more relevant than 1979.
Bored now.
It was Labours turn to be Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament? Who the hell does he think he is?
It is for the Scottish parliament to decide, not on "We had it last, so you can have it next" Thats not democracy!
Having listened to much of the debate I am amazed that at least three of the Noble Lords accuse Mr Salmond of being clever. How terrible that the first Minister of Scotland should be clever perhaps we should replace him with an idiot to please Westminster.
the Scottish people are not the SNP"
"You seem awfully insistent on angrily denying something that absolutely nobody has ever said."
No, it was just a repeat – with some people repetition is the only way to get through – of a truism you're clearly having difficulty with in differentiating.
Repeat ad infinitum; "This is how they talk about us when we're out of the room"
You said that. Not "this is how they talk about SOME of us when we're out of the room." So where's the semantic hair splitting other than yours?
Nobody's saying Labour weren't thrashed in the 79 election, but not in Scotland. That thrashing was reserved for the SNP. A double humiliation and a confirmation by countless Scots that "treachery" is punished where it's perceived. It's why, unlike you, I have always had faith in the Scots electorate and in Scots voting trends. You, on the other hand, made the ridiculously offensive presumption that Scots who believe that 79 was an act of treachery by the SNP were "hate-blinded idiots". Another clear example of your lack of nous regarding irony.
The SNPs Scottish Parliamentary victory in 2011 reflected the will of the Scottish voting people at that time. They punished the Liberals for their Westminister cousins shenanigans and sent a clear message to the Tories and Labour that they are not providing a viable alternative for Scots votes.
Actions and consequences all over again.
"I'm bored now. "
Apologists and zealots usually do get bored when they're found out. Fairly standard, if somewhat dull, distraction tactic. Usually follows the failure of hysterical and aggressive diatribe intended to beat those who disagree into submission.
"You sound like an Englishman STILL going on about Diego Maradona’s handball in 1986."
This statement shows you up as a "Wee Scotlander" trading on the currency of English stereotypes. It's a trait I sadly detect in too many of the SNP supporters I deal with on a day to day basis. Dear dear, I bet you think of yourself as being progressive.
Still waiting for an anti-Scottish jibe – though "You sound like an Englishman.." is pretty close considering its intent.
"You said that. Not "this is how they talk about SOME of us when we're out of the room.""
The person saying "us" is the one who gets to decide who it does and doesn't refer to, love. You may not have noticed, but this is an openly and explicitly independence-supporting blog, which talks chiefly to those who support self-determination and independence.
"You, on the other hand, made the ridiculously offensive presumption that Scots who believe that 79 was an act of treachery by the SNP were "hate-blinded idiots"."
No, I said YOU were, which is clearly the case. You're the only one who extrapolated it to anyone else.
"This statement shows you up as a "Wee Scotlander" trading on the currency of English stereotypes."
Yaaaawwwwnnnnn. I live in England. Have done for 21 years, and off the top of my head my social circle is 100% English. They're a fine and lovely people and I haven't a bad word to say about them, save for their unfortunate tendency to vote Tory. They do still go on about the Hand Of God at the slightest opportunity, though.
And I'm afraid my boredom isn't a debating gambit. You're just really, really boringly stupid and bigoted and talking to you makes me feel weary and sad. I persist only out of a sense of duty and a misplaced faith in reason.
Beat you on the "time lived in England" stakes. I served nearly 25 years (24 years, 9 months and 16 days). I still have many friends there.
Mostly (except the LibDems who seem to be inhabiting an entirely different universe), they express envy of the Scots, for having a party they can vote for which is a real alternative to the Tweedledum-Tweedledee Westminster stitch-up.
The person saying "us" is the one who gets to decide who it does and doesn't refer to, love.
Oh sorry. I must have lost sight of the football pitch as well as the goalposts, honey bunny.
.
"You, on the other hand, made the ridiculously offensive presumption that Scots who believe that 79 was an act of treachery by the SNP were "hate-blinded idiots"."
No, I said YOU were, which is clearly the case. You're the only one who extrapolated it to anyone else.
I fully understand that being found out can be wearisome and a bit embarrassing. Ask Alan Cochrane – eh? So, taking it slowly, let's reconsider the following:
RevStu says:
February 2, 2012 at 6:37 pm
"Where in my reply does it say that Callaghan blamed the SNP? I do though, and countless other Scots like me."
By which you presumably mean "hate-blinded idiots".
Seems pretty reasonable to me that you're also referring to "countless other Scots". No extrapolation or Venn diagram required. "Idiots" is in the plural – yes? Or is this another case of where the person making the presumption that countless other Scots are "hate blinded idiots" gets to decide what it means and who it's aimed at?
This statement shows you up as a "Wee Scotlander" trading on the currency of English stereotypes."
Yaaaawwwwnnnnn. I live in England.
So what am I to presume? That you can't possibly be a Wee Scotlander trading in English stereotypes as a vehicle for insult and denigration because you live in England? You're a scream. You made the comparison using a tired stereotype – not me – or is this yet another case of where the person saying it gets to decide what it means?
"And I'm afraid my boredom isn't a debating gambit."
So why refer to it other than to signal that you want to close the argument due to having lost the argument.
"You're just really, really boringly stupid and bigoted…"
"…really, really…". Oh really! For someone who so freely trades in denigrating and offensive language, cheap insults, semantic sophistry, crass stereotyping, and narcissistic reasoning, this statement surpasses itself for demonstrating your complete lack of nous regarding irony. It really, really does.
"…talking to you makes me feel weary and sad."
When you lack stamina for and the courage of your convictions it can often make you feel weary and sad. Maybe you're not so pro-independence after all. Go back to your constituency and prepare for English football commentators making references to 1966.
"I persist only out of a sense of duty and a misplaced faith in reason."
The only sense of duty you've displayed is a sense of duty to your own bruised ego. Substituting "…faith in…" with '…ability to…' makes much more sense for this sentence.
So RevStu. Just because you're bored with an argument doesn't mean that the issues raised are going to go away. I'll refer you to your apirational Ghandi quote underneath your logo.
"First they ignore you"
"I'm bored now" signals that you want to ignore the points raised by me. I concede that this isn't the first thing you did, but it's what you want to do now.
"then they laugh at you"
Plenty of examples "You're just like an Englishman…", "Now I have to explain Venn diagrams to you as well as the word "and"?" etc.
"then they come to fight you,"
I've taken on board some of the points you made regarding the intial act of treachery and I fully appreciate why apologists have to view the events of 79 that way. But they're really really isn't much fight in you, only sophistry and bluster.
"and then you win"
By which I mean, you have clearly lost. So many of the traits and actions which you ascribe to the big bad Unionists are prevalent in your posts on this page (and permeate your blog). So not only do you undermine yourself as a bit of a hypocrite, you show yourself up as a Wee Scotlander unable to brook any opinions other than those which fit into your particular brand of nationalist dogma.
It's no wonder you're bored, weary and sad. You really really have to question the motivation of someone prepared to semantically dissect words and their meaning depending on whether they're spelled with a capital letter or not. Speaks volumes about their threshhold for each of the aforementioned traits. And, dare I say it, makes them sound boring, wearisome and sad.
“Seems pretty reasonable to me that you’re also referring to “countless other Scots”.”
Sigh. See if you can spot the clue. I’ll help you out a little:
“By which YOU presumably mean”
Really, though, keep it up. You’re winning the SNP around 70 new members a day. Far be it from me to stop you.
Sigh. See if you can spot the clue. I’ll help you out a little:
“By which YOU presumably mean”
I see now. Another instance where the person who says it gets to decide who it does and doesn't refer to. Should have known – sorry.
"You’re winning the SNP around 70 new members a day."
Delusions of grandeur, megalomania, reality displacement and complete irony bypass – all encapsulated in one sentence. You surpass yourself sir and I take my hat off to you. At that rate I should be on a retainer. But oh, hold on a minute. You said it.
Are you boys still here? Don't you have anything better to do?
Sheeeeshhh.