Blair McDougall is a liar
This is “No” campaign director Blair McDougall, telling lies:
“There’s one thing that’s absolutely certain – if the nationalists get a Yes vote, Scotland will be leaving the UK and so we’ll be leaving the European Union.”
That’s a lie, isn’t it, Blair? It couldn’t possibly be any more clearly a lie. Nobody actually believes that Scotland will “leave” the European Union as a result of a Yes vote. No matter how much they deliberately spin, misrepresent and mislead about the EC President’s comments, nobody honestly believes that there will be so much as a single solitary day on which Scottish people are not EU citizens. (Unless, of course, they choose to stay in the UK and the Tories then take the whole UK out.)
Even the feeble semantic-hairsplitting defence that an independent Scotland might for a split second technically “leave” the EU while negotiations over the precise terms of membership were concluded and amended is anything but “absolutely certain”. Such a scenario is, in fact, a hugely unlikely, but strictly speaking astronomically-small theoretical possibility, so irrational that a lunatic might clutch desperately at it. Either way, we would in every meaningful sense remain in the EU.
The only absolute certainty here is that Blair McDougall is a liar.
OK Blair told a lie but that’s okay, because Alastair will be along shortly to get nuanced and contradict Blair.
In this way BetterTogether can get the benefit of the full-strength EU scare with Blair’s lie, and then, when they get called on it, they can wheel out Alastair’s nuanced comment where he says “OF COURSE Scotland would stay in the EU” as a rebuttal. Best of both worlds!
Blair McDougall is following up his bizarre article in the Guardian with this…
As far as I am aware I dont think I have heard the truth spoken by the No campaign yet , unless you count flipper darlings a Yes vote is irreversible but he then contradicts himself on a weekly basis so at present I dont know if we are in out or out in . The whole better together campaign so far has been one if lies , smears an innuendoes .
It wasnt the only lie he told in this interview either.
glad to see its being picked up on
On that interview.towards the end(maybe 25 minutes in) I recall hearing the interviewer saying the ‘Yes’ campaign has been running a very negative campaign according to some people. He was in actual fact talking about the better together campaign but called it the Yes campaign. He never corrected himself nor did Blair.
Freudian slip or subliminal propaganda?
What do you think?
And he’s not the only one http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/6689-labour-mp-dismisses-comments-from-irish-minister-over-independent-scotland-eu-membership
Interesting that it was Raymond Buchanan who conducted this interview, rather than Douglas Fraser who did the one with Blair Jenkins.
If nothing else, I’m sure Douglas Fraser would have been able to pronounce “McDougall” properly, rather than “McToogall”…
He also said that Norwegians pay 57% tax. I’m a permanent resident in Norway, and know for a fact that the tax code doesn’t allow for 57% tax. I’ve asked him where he got the 57% figure from, and am still waiting for his reply.
“UK Electoral Commission” – interesting Freudian slip there from McToogall.
” I recall hearing the interviewer saying the ‘Yes’ campaign has been running a very negative campaign according to some people. He was in actual fact talking about the better together campaign but called it the Yes campaign. He never corrected himself nor did Blair.”
That did indeed happen. I noticed it too. How strange that McDougall didn’t point out the error.
“He also said that Norwegians pay 57% tax. I’m a permanent resident in Norway, and know for a fact that the tax code doesn’t allow for 57% tax. I’ve asked him where he got the 57% figure from, and am still waiting for his reply.”
I’m sensing that there might be a long-running series in Blair McDougall’s Lies.
Blair also tells another porky @ 4.16 into the interview, where he states that the Irish Foreign Minister supports the No campaign’s line on Scotland’s need to re-apply for membership of the EU in the event of a Yes vote. Presumably he is referring to the (already widely debunked) unionist claim that the Irish Europe Minister had said this, despite her issuing a detailed and fulsome rebuttal of the unionist lie.
Obviously we can expect a lot more of this over the next 20 months; the Better Together camp obviously feel that a lie, if repeated often enough, will be accepted as truth!
Are the Scottish media ever going to scrutinise crtitically what the No campaign are saying? Are they ever going to challenge what they are saying? If they are not going to even attempt this, and it appears they are not, then it will be very surreal indeed.
There is an easy way to tell when Blair is lying – It’s when he opens his mouth.
“..nobody honestly believes that there will be so much as a single solitary day on which Scottish people are not EU citizens.”
They will be as long as they remain UK citizens.
In the unlikely event of a yes vote then Scotland will have to re-apply for membership as a new state. This is now not even challenged by the folk who not so long ago were declaring that a separate Scotland would automatically be a member without the need for any negotiations.
As you know, in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote Scotland will remain part of the UK until separation negotiations conclude.
I’m very interested in who in the EU has told the SNP that they will reverse their decision in NOT negotiating with non member states?
Have countries like Spain and Belgium indicated that they are prepared to negotiate with the SNP while Scotland remains part of the UK?
Just asking, like….
In case anyone is interested – yes, that was indeed me that asked the “positive case for the union” question asked 13 minutes in.
Seems to me the “positive case for the union” comes down to the Churchill Insurance dog argument:
“I SUPPOSE THERE’LL BE LOADS OF FORMS TO FILL IN!”
@Grahamski
Where you not the one who predicted that Ian Gray would comfortably win the 2011 elections? Are you saying that Scotland would be outside the EU when negotiating terms of membership after a Yes vote?
“In the unlikely event of a yes vote then Scotland will have to re-apply for membership as a new state.”
That’s odd. You seem to have answered a completely different question to the one you apparently posed to yourself, and answered it with an unsupported assertion to boot.
“I certainly did not at any stage suggest that Scotland could, should or would be thrown out of the EU. Scottish people are clearly citizens of Europe.” – Lucinda Creighton
“They will be as long as the Tories don’t win the 2015 election.”
Fixed that for you.
And the No campaign’s proposal on further devolution should the referendum return a NO to independence would be devolution to local councils and so bypassing Holyrood – just in case an SNP government is returned again to Holyrood. Authority and power thus remains at Westminster.
I’ve heard of the practise of coitus interruptus. Has the BBC abandoned the practise of interview interruptus, or does the BBC only apply interview interruptus with Independence supporters?
Blair McDougal was given an easy ride.
@Grahamski:
No Scotland campaign is being set-up to take a big fall on the EU, but just canny see it. Wait and see. It’s going to be a belter.
The Tories are not Darling’s friends. They’re planning to win in 2015 after all. Even Ed will sacrifice Scotland for a shot at No. 10.
Well that was an annoying way to waste half an hour of my lunchbreak.
The difference between the two Blairs is astonishing. Blair Jenkins tackles people’s questions head-on and engages with them. Blair McToogall acts like the politician he has always wanted to be and can’t resist getting a dig at Yes Scotland or the SNP into every question. You can see that for McToogall, this is all about getting a step up the career ladder.
There’s only one word to describe him: sleekit. I could have been watching Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy there and it would have made no difference.
Using Grahamski logic (flawed that it is) that means when there is a yes vote, the UK is no more and England, Wales and N. Ireland will also become new states and have to apply for membership to the EU as well.
Now staying on his logic, which state/states would be more likely to find the EU being sympathetic to their re-negotiations? Scotland with vast oil supplies, huge fishing grounds, 25% of Europe’s renewable energy (and growing). Or a state that has just spent the past few weeks threatening the whole of the EU that unless they got what they want in terms of further devolution of powers (Oh the irony), they would hold a referendum to leave?
I notice McDougall goes on to compound his porkies by stating that Salmond opposed the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Again unchallenged. Is Buchanan a journalistic incompetent?
The only truth McDougall gives is in answer to “Sam’s” concerns on what a No vote would mean. Blair states ” The answer to that is YES!”…….. Correct answer. Vote YES Sam!
Of course he lied he’s in the no camp. They can’t win by telling the truth.
I’d never heard of Blair McDougal until I read his article in the Guardian and recently watched him in this interview.
I doubt we’ll hear much from him in the future either. Unless of course lying outright in both print and on tv, without caring that millions of people understand what you are doing and are disgusted by it, becomes de rigueur for political discourse in Scotland.
One more talking head from Better Together forcing Scots in touch with the salient facts to do the decent thing and vote yes. If only to put these guys out of their misery.
I have absolutely no idea why they are even pedaling this line about the SNP opposing devolution. It does not stand up to any kind of a scrutiny. BBC Scotland are an absolute embarrassment as well. It they had any integrity they would be pointing this out because it is demonstrably false. It really is getting like Pravada.
@Grahamski:
“I’m very interested in who in the EU has told the SNP that they will reverse their decision in NOT negotiating with non member states?
Have countries like Spain and Belgium indicated that they are prepared to negotiate with the SNP while Scotland remains part of the UK?”
This is something I too have considered as a possible weakness in the SNP position.
However, on further reflection, I would say that the Edinburgh agreement commits the UK Government to approach the EU. After all, on the dissolution of the union, Scotland and the rUK will be in exactly “the same legal boat” as it were, so it would be imperative for both parties to sort out the details.
For what it’s worth I’m sure the UK will make a formal approach to the EU long before the referendum anyway.
@andrew_haddow
For what it’s worth I’m sure the UK will make a formal approach to the EU long before the referendum anyway.
Of course, if simply to clarify their own position. This process is most likely already underway, although the release of formal EU advice will most likely be kept under wraps by the Tories until it can do the most damage to Labour (by torpedoing the No Scotland campaign again). It’s certainly what I’d do if I was Dave.
Michael Connarty was on radio yesterday interviewed by Brian Taylor saying the same thing:
link to newsnetscotland.com
This is one lie that is going to run and run, because although the nature of politics leads me to believe the EU would want to retain Scotland, it can’t be definitively proven either way until after the indy vote. The annoying thing about people like Blair is that we know they will spin a particular line then, if in 2014 are faced with the facts of a yes vote, they will perform a smooth volte-face and pretend they never said these things (and then probably stand for office).
David Cameron and his EU referendum has, of course, holed the Better Together EU argument below the waterline, surprised it hasn’t sunk yet.
Mr Haddow,
According the EU president (and for that matter the Irish EU minister) the rUK and Scotland will not be in the same position. The rUK will retain the UK’s EU member state status and a separate Scotland will be the new state which needs to apply for membership.
I’m intrigued in what you think the Edinburgh Agreement actually is: to me it’s nothing more than the Section 30 order which the SNP spent the last year claiming they didn’t need; now they’ve got it they had to call it something different and opted for something which sounds like the latest installment of the Jason Bourne films…
Anyhoo, if the EA commits the rUK to negotiate for Scotland in the EU in the unlikely event of a YES vote what does it mean for the SNP administration in the event of a NO vote?
Are they committed to a Scotland within the UK in the far more likely event of a NO vote?
In regards to the EU, ask yourself this: if it’s such a foregone conclusion that Scotland would find itself outside the EU for even a nanosecond when we vote for independence, why have Westminster not leapt at the chance at getting the EU to clarify what the situation would be in this specific scenario?
The side which claims there is all this terrible uncertainty is also the side which can clear up this question in a flash.
muttley79 said:
I have absolutely no idea why they are even pedaling this line about the SNP opposing devolution.
I guess it is because the SNP didn’t take part in the 1980s constitutional convention, because the other parties in the CC refused to consider independence as an option. (It is like the Calman Commission refusing to consider independence as an option, then saying that the SNP don’t want more powers for the Scottish Parliament.)
However in the aftermath of John Major’s win in 1992 the SNP were part of ‘Scotland United’ that superseded the CC, and when the time came to campaign for the Parliament, the SNP were at the forefront. (Also I can guess that not many New Labourites were manning the Scottish Parliament campaign caravan outside the Scotland Office in St Andrews House.)
I watched an interview with the Czech EU official responsible for EU enlargement on the France 24 TV channel last night and he made it very clear that the EU wants to continue enlarging by adding other European countries providing they met the EU’s conditions of entry.
I think we can safely say that Scotland will more than meet those conditions with it having been a sub-member of the EU for 40 years.
@Grahamski
There will be no UK man. Can’t you see that? The UNITED Kingdom will be no more. Or maybe you are saying there will be a new state called ‘Rump United Kingdom’ which ipos facto means they will have to renegotiate their entry.
I’d be much obliged if you could show me a link that says this new state – r UK will retain the status of the defunct state that was the UK?
o/t, apologies. Dunc Hothersall is going on the Twampage today over WoS. Corrosive bile, he says. Actively damages debate, he says. Maybe you should all lay off Labour for a while, or start praising Better Together’s approach to excellent debate. Or something.
@Gramski
The EU President, and ALL EU officials are at pains to point out that they WILL NOT DISCUSS SPECIFIC CASES unless requested to do so by a member state. I know this is frustrating for you, as it is for me. So all we have is different variations of opinion. Some from career politicians (Barosso) others from legal experts and academics. I guess you take your pick.
However, at the end of the day, this will be a political decision, not a legal one. The EU is, if nothing else, a political animal.
So what are the wider politics? Who is likely, for political reasons, to side with rUK or Scotland? What are the political dynamics in each member country? Do they (i.e. germany) really want to diss Scotland which everyone agrees would be a nett contributor to the EU budget? And frankly, if they DID insist that Scotland starts again – even though they will remain members until THE DAY, then Scotland is big enough to look for alternatives.
This doesn’t change the referendum issue one iota. It will be YES for Scotland to decide for ITSELF, or No to let westminster decide. I know who I prefer to determine our future.
@Keef
It will still be there if there is a Yes vote as the UK refers to the United Kingdom, the monarchy.
@BM: Does Norway have a payroll tax (like “Employers” NI)?
What I find significant is the way the No Scotland campaign is trying to scare EU citizens resident in Scotland now. These make up 1.7% of the registered electorate.
My wife is considering approaching the French consulate to seek clarification over her status post a Yes vote and raise concerns over the increasingly xenophobic nature of the pro-union campaign (e.g. the pejorative references to ‘foreigners’ which we’ve been hearing from Alastair Darling, Ed Miliband et al.). Certainly the trend among our own ‘EU’ friends and colleagues, whilst previously being more inclined to ‘No’ due to concerns over the EU, is now towards Yes due to the much more likely prospect of the UK leaving the EU and the increasing apparent British unionist xenophobia noted.
Muttley, I’m not sure it would be. The UK wasn’t commonly called the UK until the absorption of the Irish Parliament in 1801… before that it was generally just called Britain. The 1603 union of the crowns (which will remain) is different to the 1707 union of the countries… think about it… Canada and Australia share the same monarch, but they are not part of the United Kingdom.
@ray
The least said about this Labour lickspittle the better.
Alpinal
“However, at the end of the day, this will be a political decision, not a legal one.”
Couldn’t agree more.
It is not in any member states’ interests to see other member states fracturing. Especially Spain, Belgium, Italy and France who have their own separatist movements who would take encouragement from a split in the UK.
“In regards to the EU, ask yourself this: if it’s such a foregone conclusion that Scotland would find itself outside the EU for even a nanosecond when we vote for independence, why have Westminster not leapt at the chance at getting the EU to clarify what the situation would be in this specific scenario?”
Mystifying, isn’t it? “Better Together” currently has a weak position based on deliberate misrepresentation, ie saying Barroso was talking about Scotland when he almost burst a blood vessel pointing out he wasn’t. However, if his position IS what they say it is, one letter from the UK Government will get that down in solid, incontrovertible black and white. So why wouldn’t they write it? We all know the answer to that.
“Dunc Hothersall is going on the Twampage today over WoS. Corrosive bile, he says. Actively damages debate, he says.”
He is? Woo!
muttley79 says:
4 February, 2013 at 1:50 pm
@Keef “It will still be there if there is a Yes vote as the UK refers to the United Kingdom, the monarchy.”
And presumably the UK will then be composed of 2 equal states, Scotland and whatever they decide to call the other bit.
Ray – that’s classic. I particularly love this tweet: “He actively damages debate. I engage in it.” Aye, he engages in it with a big bucket of pish, perhaps.
I believe Stu said anyone tweeting @dhothersall into his timeline would get unfollowed. Clearly Dunc took offence!
“I believe Stu said anyone tweeting @dhothersall into his timeline would get unfollowed.”
I didn’t threaten to unfollow anyone – as if, indeed, no longer being followed by me on Twitter could in any sense be conceivably considered a “threat”. I just asked if people would mind not doing it:
“Can people *please* stop retweeting this tedious arsebag into my timeline? Ta. MT: @dhothersall: wah wah wah wah wah SNP evil wah wah wah”
Support for the EU is slightly higher in Scotland than it is in the the UK as a whole. Among potential No and Yes voters there is a similar pro-EU/eurosceptic split.
The leaves me slightly confused about why this issue seems so important for the pro-union campaign. The prospect of Scotland leaving the EU upon independence could well encourage more Yes votes while the prospect of it remaining could do the same and likewise both could encourage No votes. In balance therefore, it probably won’t do anything at all.
Well, ok, that’s not true as when Dave releases the EU information confirming simple re-negotation from within for both successor states, better together will have been seen to be lying to the electorate in a big way and for a long time. That will not go down well at all, irrespective of peoples views on the EU ‘in/out’ wise. Could utterly destroy the pro-union campaign. No wonder Dave’s keeping that ace up his sleeve.
@Gramski
It is not in any member states’ interests to see other member states fracturing. Especially Spain, Belgium, Italy and France
So are you suggesting that if the Walloons and Flemish “separate” that BRUSSELS would be thrown out the EU? How exactly would they ‘resist’ the independent states that resulted, and how long would they be “outside” the EU? As I said, REALPOLITIK will determine this. Not hypothetical academic discourse.
So, I assume you would wish Westminster to ask THE QUESTION of the EU? They refuse to do so – why?
Incidentally, they also refuse to open the Treasure books to the Scottish Government and forgive me for being sceptical, but if they showed WITHOUT DOUBT that Scotland is a basket case, this would have been front page news.
So, let’s clear up the EU issue right now – Westminster, ask the question.
“We all know the answer to that.”
Indeed we do: as the government of an already existing EU member state, the UK is confident that its position is correct.
Why should they go to the EU for the SNP?
In regards to the “will there still be a UK?” argument, I had an email exchange with Professor William Naphy of the University of Aberdeen, who wrote a letter about it in the Herald last year. Perhaps his reply would be of interest here:
I think the real issue relates to two terms in the title: United Kingdom which is the ‘over-arching term’ and this relates to the second term ‘Great Britain’. The 1707 Union created a united (union) parliament for Scotland and England. This entity (Great Britain) was then united into an additional union parliament in 1801 when it (Great Britain) was united with Ireland to form the United Kingdom ‘Great Britain’ AND Ireland. So, as I tried to stress what ends with Scottish independence would be ‘Great Britain’. There could still be a ‘united kingdom’ but it is hard to understand since neither Northern Ireland (a province) or Wales (a principality administratively subsumed by England in the late Middle Ages) are kingdoms (as Ireland, Scotland and England were/are). However, the original 1707 Acts of Union (and there were two) remained in force after 1801 not least in preserving (pace the current Supreme Court) the distinctiveness and independence of the Scottish judiciary. Again, the key point is in the title. Ireland did not join England and Scotland as equals; it was joined with an entity comprised of two states called Great Britain. Yes, in reality, that union (1801) was dissolved in 1919/22 and it has been a fiction that something ‘Irish’ remained. But the important thing is that even in that fiction the distinctive character/place of Great Britain remained. It is ‘Britain’ that will cease to exist with independence. As I suggested this still leaves open the question of successor/secessionist state which keeps getting muddled in the discussion (a successor state would be in the EU/NATO; a secessionist state would have no national debt). My guess is that Scotland would argue for good terms as a successor state in relation to England, et al., who would want to retain the ‘privileges’ of the UK (e.g., veto on the UN Security Council) but who would also want to avoid allowing Scotland to walk away as a secessionist state. Most other bodies (EU, NATO, UN, etc.) would, I think, simply accept whatever was agreed by the two partners and accept both as successor states.
“It is clear” is the part that is demonstrably not true. Although to paraphrase Grahamski: “There are several opinions on this matter, but only the one that agrees with mine is correct”
Also, Mr Hothersall is superficially ‘reasonable’ until challenged on his views at which point he transforms into a petulant wean. Best ignored, not worth the bother of antagonising (although he is good at manufacturing offence)
I would have been better if the interviewer was not Brian Wilson’s brother-in- law.
@Grahamski says: Why should they go to the EU for the SNP?
Not for the SNP, for the rUK and with the added benefit of scuppering Labour ahead of 2015 (loss of Scots MPs). Dave’s got no chance of winning and keeping Scotland. I thought that was obvious; been confirmed by pollsters.
You don’t think the Tories are actually working honestly with Labour for Better Together do you? That’s a laughable concept; the Tories trying to secure up to 59 guaranteed MPs for the opposition. The Tories will do anything for power and Scotland’s lost to them already. Darling et al. are being set up for a very, very big fall.
@Grahamski (Apologies for mis-spelling your name, I just noticed!)
as the government of an already existing EU member state, the UK is confident that its position is correct.
So it doesn’t KNOW, it just asserts? Unless it has some other information that it is keeping secret. Or it does have information which contradicts its assertions and so, obviously, does not want to seek an “official” response.
Many leading European lawyers and academics take a different view. But, NO ONE KNOWS until ‘push comes to shove’, do they? So Westminster/NO campaign would rather Scottish voters did not know something that they could easily clarify before the vote. It hardly is in keeping with the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement, or in the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which ALL the pro-dependency parties INSISTED that the Scottish Government must agree to, sight unseen.
I call that hypocrisy, what do you call it?
Cannot edit my post – replace I with It
I would have been better if the interviewer was not Brian Wilson’s brother-in- law.
Is Raymond Buchanan Brian Wilson’s brother in law?
“Indeed we do: as the government of an already existing EU member state, the UK is confident that its position is correct.”
The police are usually confident that people they prosecute are guilty, dear. But all the same, we still don’t generally put people in jail just on their say-so.
“Why should they go to the EU”
So that their position couldn’t be easily proven to be a lie? Oh, wait, I see the problem now.
@Grahamski
A lot of people have asserted that “The rUK will retain the UK’s EU member state status and a separate Scotland will be the new state which needs to apply for membership.”, but none of them have backed that up with evidence in law or treaty.
As for the Edinburgh Agreement, maybe I’m reading too much into it, but its Memorandum of Agreement provides that “The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.” I take that as an indication that after a YES vote, the Scotland and rUK will recognise each other as successor states and as such formally approach the EU under the auspices of the UK.
As others have pointed out, the UK government could clear all this up in an instant – I wonder why they haven’t – or have they? 😉
Ahhh, right you are Stu – it was someone else saying “anyone tweeting X into my timeline will be unfollowed.” My most humblest apologies for even entertaining the idea you would tweet something so petulant and egotistical.
It’s uncanny how well you’ve captured the general form of Dunc’s tweets there, though.
muttley79
Yes, married to his sister.
It all makes sense now. The links between BBC Scotland and the Scottish and British Labour Parties would make for a interesting case study (or book) if we get a Yes vote. Certainly seems to be a close one…
“Indeed we do: as the government of an already existing EU member state, the UK is confident that its position is correct.
Why should they go to the EU for the SNP?”
Grahamski – both sides are confident that their own position is correct. However, only one side has it within their power to actually prove unequivocally who is indeed right.
I take it you wouldn’t disagree that the UK government has a duty to Scottish citizens? Therefore, it’s their duty to do what they can to ensure we can vote in the referendum armed with as many facts as possible. It is completely hypocritical for the UK government to claim there is “uncertainty” over the Scottish Government’s position, only to refuse to take the simple steps they can to get the issue put to bed once and for all in the next breath.
If independence really is a threat to Scotland’s place in the EU, then it is completely irresponsible for the UK government not to get absolute clarity from the EU that this is indeed the case. If they continue to refuse to do this, we can only assume they have something to hide.
@Marcia
Raymond Buchanan is Brian Wilson’s brother-in-law? I know by this time I shouldn’t be surprised at the number of BBC Scotland people who are connected to the Labour Party, but, yet again, I am.
By the way, Grahamski doesn’t come on here all that often, but every time he does I get the impression that something else is going on that he wants to distract us away from. Now what could it be today?
I’m sure he does everything in a ‘professional manner’. Cough.
@Marcia
I thought the Buchanan brothers were from Barra and BW’s wife from Lewis?
@Grahamski says: Why should they go to the EU for the SNP?
Its not for the SNP, the UK government are meant to govern for the benefit of the Scottish people, the Scottish people need to know the answers before voting in the referendum.
What you seem to forget (or i suspect just dont want to grasp) is that the Scottish government are the democratically elected voice for the people of Scotland. Regardless of who is in the hot seat (the fact that it is the SNP just pisses them all off) they should be treated as such.
The Scottish people need to know the details and the UK government are neglecting them by not providing them with the answer, What makes it worse is that we all know the reason they are not asking is because it would look favourably on independence. So in reality the UK government are putting England, Wales and NI best interests ahead of the interests of the people of Scotland.
Very dangerous game to play, Scottish people have a habit of voting out of principle if they think they are being screwed over.
Albalha
One of my friends from the WI knows them and wrote in to complain to the BBC, as she would after BW was interviewed by him and got a snotty letter back that he is not biased in anyway and deals everything in a ‘professional manner’.
Completely OT for a second; did anyone else notice during the BBC coverage of the Raith Rovers v Celtic match that UKIP had an advert at the ground?
Do they have a presence in Scotland?
PS That Blair bloke has one of them coupons you’d never tire of skelping with an old slipper.
There are good reasons why the UK won’t approach the EC, and they have much less to do with the independence debate than with the UK’s international relations. The issue of self-determination of peoples as against maintaining the territorial integrity of the nation state is utterly toxic, even within the EU -cf Kosovo and Cyprus in particular. The very last thing the UK will wish to do is shed a spotlight on the subject by asking for the EC’s legal opinion. To do so would embarrass the EC, and place a number of member states in an awkward position with respect to their own minorities. We maybe need to remember that the Edinburgh agreement is highly unusual and liberal in allowing a national minority the right to determine its own future. That’s not the case elsewhere. The risk of an independent Scotland not being recognised by states fearful of setting a precedent is a real one.
The solution, following a Yes vote, is for rUK and Scotland to agree a joint approach to the EU (and other relevant international bodies), in which it is made clear that the matter of territorial integrity has been resolved through consensual agreement between the two, has nothing to do with the ‘principle’ of self-determination, and has been negotiated on a domestic level which sets no international precedent. Under those circumstances, it would be highly likely that the EU would breathe a sigh of relief and welcome both states on board.
There are hints of this kind of co-operation in the Edinburgh agreement, and I imagine the issue has already been quietly looked at. What is certain is that it makes no sense for either side to become strident about the matter on an international level.
The idea what’s left of the uk after a Yes in 2014 won’t have to renegotiate with the EU is laughable.
Both Scotland and EWNI will be renegotiating. With 30% of fisheries, landmass, 20% of farming and 5 million citizens gone, EWNI and Westminster will be forced to renegotiate.
As for Spain and its own independence movement, it also has a vast fishing fleet which currently has access to Scottish waters, will they put their own fishing industry at risk to curry favour with Westminster? I think not.
O/T I see the Liberal Democrats in England now have a by-election on their hands after Chris Huhne has resigned his Eastleigh seat after admitting lying in court. That one will be interesting indeed.
The best thing about Blair McDougall is the fact that he unironically describes himself as a ‘Keir Hardie buff’ on his Twitter profile. It doesn’t show much in his politics.
“The best thing about Blair McDougall is the fact that he unironically describes himself as a ‘Keir Hardie buff’ on his Twitter profile.”
To be fair, Professor Ian Kershaw is a world-renowned expert on Hitler, but I don’t think he’s a Nazi…
Grahamski says:
4 February, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Alpinal
“However, at the end of the day, this will be a political decision, not a legal one.”
Couldn’t agree more.
It is not in any member states’ interests to see other member states fracturing. Especially Spain, Belgium, Italy and France who have their own separatist movements who would take encouragement from a split in the UK.
Neither would it be in the interests of the Spanish fishing industry and tourism industry, the Dutch spot markets and every other country in the EU that exports to Scotland (of which there are many) to have us “kicked out” of the EU.
Let’s get back to reality people. Scotland will NOT be kicked out of the EU in any way shape or form.
The EU needs Scotland and Scotland needs the EU.
This whole debate is f***ing nonsense and not even worth having.
GET REAL!!!
Buchanan is fast closing in on the standard of obsequiousness required when interviewing Labour representatives on the BBC, that standard being set in 2008 by Glenn Campbell before the Glenrothes by election when interviewing Lindsay Roy (remember him)?
Campbell outlined how Roy had been described (the source was never attributed, so the remarks were probably made up by Campbell) as an excellent teacher, and a role model providing inspirational leadership in his school. Campbell’s consequent searching question was ‘Do you accept that praise?’
Doug makes a really good point that if the UK government thought for a second that the EU would throw an independent Scotland out, it would have it clarified so that it could use the fact.
Yet, it steadfastly refuses to do this, although it is the only organisation that can do it; and the EU cannot offer an opinion unless consulted by the UK.
It prefers to speculate, but make that speculation sound like a certainty, on the basis, as usual, that it assumes Scots to be too stupid to work out the illogicality of their stance.
@Training Day
Yes, Buchanan is joining a list of BBC Scotland personnel who have/are fawning at the feet of SLAB in particular, and unionism in general. We have Glenn Campbell, Kirsty Wark, Jackie Bird, Magnusson, Renton, Bradshaw, Kaye Adams (she is probably a Tory though, certainly a unionist).
The only journalists in Scotland I have time for are Ian Bell, Ian McWhirter, Isobel Fraser, Bateman, Gerry Hassan (although he could do with variation of themes), sometimes Lesley Riddoch and Joyce McMillan, Bernard P, Kevin McKenna,
Slightly O/T,
This morning on SKY news, Portillo, emphatically stated that Britain did not need to be in the EU in order to collaborate with Nato, or to launch joint missions such as that with France in Mali. He also went on to say, and I am paraphrasing here, that the UK did not need harmonised tax rates or a common agricultural policy in order to collaborate with EU military on matters of defence. Essentially he was saying it was no business of the USA as to whether London voted to leave the EU or not.
However, the anti independence parties would like us to believe, that Scotland leaving the Union with England will somehow mean that Scotland cannot collaborate with Nato, and that it couldn’t possibly launch joint military missions with other nations, if it so chose to do.
The reality is, that David Cameron with his EU ‘NEVERENDUM’, has blown wide open the utter tosh getting spouted by the NO campaign and the BBC in Scotland. They argue that London could leave EU and still collaborate on defence, yet Scotland cannot possibly leave the UK and collaborate with the EU on defence.
Utter utter bollocks.
The garbage and lies coming from the Bitter together campaign regarding Scotland in Europe, become less believable with each passing day – even with the BBC’s unquestioning support.
@Muttley
Aye, not forgetting Gary Robertson and the delightful Hayley Millar!
One of my favourite examples of the oleaginous approach of BBC Scotland to Labour came in 2009, and was based on this story:
link to theglaswegian.co.uk
Newsnight Scotland ran with this as their main story, with Brewer interviewing Purcell in such gushing terms that you’d think the ex-cooncillor had provided a cure for cancer rather than supply some free parking at Xmas. Brewer then brought in Bill Jamieson of the moribund Scotsman, who was asked his opinion of this astonishing breakthrough. I well remember Jamieson, tears almost rolling down his cheeks in a near rapture, describing this provision of free parking as ‘positively inspirational’, while a humble Purcell muttered ‘aw shucks, tweren’t nuthin’ in the background..
I will refrain from direct comment on arms length companies set up by Glasgow City Council.
“..the Scottish government are the democratically elected voice for the people of Scotland.”
The Scottish Government is a devolved arm of the UK government. It is elected to look after devolved issues like education, health, transport etc.
It most certainly is not the voice of the Scottish people on reserved issues – it has no democratic mandate to make decisions on those matters. That’s why they needed a section 30 order for the referendum: they did not have the authority to call a referendum without Westminster’s permission. But don’t worry they got it and dressed the section 30 up as the ludicrously pompous Edinburgh Agreement..
“It most certainly is not the voice of the Scottish people on reserved issues – it has no democratic mandate to make decisions on those matters.”
This is one of the many problems facing Scots at present. Even when Scottish elected MPs are in Parliament – they rarely turn up to vote against proposals that their own voters have strong views on – where are you going with this?
@Grahamski
I have to agree that this is the reality which is EXACTLY why we need Independence. Scottish problems will only be properly resolved by a national Independent government, elected by and responsible to the Scottish voters, which reflects the considered will of the voters. Not this quasi-democracy we have now.
Thank you for eloquently pointing out the whole raison d’être of the Independence movement.
By the by, you did not respond to my last question about the “Edinburgh Agreement” and the findings of the Electoral Commission. Do you think that the pro-dependency parties insisting that the SG accept ALL the provisions of the EC in advance of the report’s publication (sight unseen) and then refuse to accept the EC’s strong recommendation to work together to resolve all these sorts of issues before the referendum is rank hypocrisy?
Rev Stu – very amusing indeed, you make a good point. Still, I think a few eyebrows might have been raised if Professor Kershaw had described himself as an ‘Adolf Hitler buff’ on his old University of Sheffield webpage. That biography’s a cracking piece of work incidentally.
There’s a lot of talk once again of BBC bias. Might I suggest we bring back the old adjective phrase ‘Glen Campbelly’ that once did the rounds on the old comments-allowed version of Brian Taylor’s blog to mark the gold standard of obsequious Labour Unionist reporting?
“That biography’s a cracking piece of work incidentally.”
It is indeed. A brilliant read and also good for knocking in nails with.
If it is as was asserted that Scotland is an entirely new state emerging from the UK then does it also not follow that they would bear no responsibility for UK debt ? Only assets in Scotland would be deemed to belong to Scotland ?
Scotland in that sense would put the rUK in a political position that would be unsustainable, the fury of the Daily Mail reader classes would be a sight to behold…
You can’t have it both ways.
@Kenny
Indeed this is my understanding of the terminology and implication of Scotland being regarded as a “New state”
There can be no “picking and choosing” by either side. It is either one thing or the other. Equal status with a share of debts and assets, or a “New” Scotland with a clean slate.
“PS That Blair bloke has one of them coupons you’d never tire of skelping with an old slipper.”
Violent threat. Unacceptable discourse. Cybernat. Activate Opprobium Response Team.
Muttley 79
Also Seonaig McKinnon (spelling?)who’s Education teller of bad news. Married to Peter McMahon who used to work for the Labour Party and is now Political Editor of the Scotsman.
’nuff said.
I see cooncilor Kelly is saying we don;t have a sense of humour if we didn’t laugh at the Observer cartoon , clearly he hasn’t seen Maggs Curran’s full on strop at Stu’s reporting on Twitter of her time as Terrahawks leader….
On the Norway tax, Tax is not much higher in Norway than the UK.
Country—Taxation—-Spending (% of GDP)
Norway — 42.1% —– 40.2%
UK ——- 38.9% —– 47.3%
One of these economies is sustainable, the other a joke. I wonder though, who would be willing to pay 4% more tax in a sustainable economy and the best standard of living in the world?
Rank/Country/HDI Index
1st… Norway 0.943
28th..UK…….0.863
I must say that my heart is warming to this idea that the Tories are secretly looking to offload us to bolster their re-election chances. I’m not sure I’m 100% in agreement but I do like the whole idea of Labour getting shafted by the Tories whilst not looking..
I’d suggest we’re starting to see a decline in Labour VI for the UK; looks to be down about 3% over January, giving a weak lead of ~7 points, which is really poor given the circumstances. May or may not be in part due to the EU referendum. Time shall tell.
Mr Alpinal
A clean slate where a separate Scotland has none of the UK’s assets?
No civil service, no defence, no postal system etc etc etc
Shurely shome mishtake?
@Grahamski
You’re being selective, again. It means that what is IN Scotland is Scottish, but NO debts of the rUK. I am quite sure a Scotland starting over with 1.5 trillion of oil assets, plus the exploitable renewables, a vibrant fishing and agricultural sector, fine medical and R&D but WITHOUT a share of the massive UK debts, Trident, illegal wars etc. etc. etc. would mange to find the investment just fine.
By the way, you STILL haven’t answered the question if you think that the [EDIT: pro-dependency] group in hypocritical about ignoring the EC recommendations.
@Marcia
One of my friends from the WI knows them and wrote in to complain to the BBC, as she would after BW was interviewed by him and got a snotty letter back that he is not biased in anyway and deals everything in a ‘professional manner’.
Well, if he was dealing with this in a “professional manner”, he would have taken the decision to rule himself out of interviewing Brian Wilson at all, on the grounds that doing so would risk a public perception of conflict of interest and, yes, bias. That would have been the professional thing to do. I also question the judgement of his boss in allowing this to happen. Or is this another example of an arrogant BBC Scotland not giving a damn what anybody else thinks?
Grahamski says:
Mr Alpinal
A clean slate where a separate Scotland has none of the UK’s assets?
No civil service, no defence, no postal system etc etc etc
Shurely shome mishtake?
Are you for real?
No postal service, no civil service?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that defence will require some work to put in place but for goodness sake man, there is a perfectly adequate postal service currently in operation in Scotland.
I think it’s called “The Royal Mail” of which Scotland has a stake in.
There is also a tax office in East Kilbride, a large civil service presence in Edinburgh amongst other places such as Oban, Galashiels, Glasgow, Inverurie etc etc etc. All of which service Scotland.
Once again Grahamski.
GET REAL!!
If there is zero civil service/civilian/social infrastructure in Scotland today as was inferred then setting it up would be a huge jobs boost and of course we should be asking ourselves why we’re getting such a raw deal today…of course there already is infrastructure but lets not let scaremongering get in the way. I mean voting YES clearly means we’re going back to the dark ages…..really naw it dis ….
@grahamski
They’d be paid for by tax receipts. And such services exist worldwide (so not hard to replicate), most of the infrastructure already exists alongside an educated population, so we’d manage I’m sure. Chances are there would be differences in size and scope of individual departments, but that’s one for the future.
Grahamski says:”don’t worry they got it and dressed the section 30 up as the ludicrously pompous Edinburgh Agreement.”
This is precisely the difference between those of us who support self-determination and those of us who support being governed from a foreign capital city.
We don’t see asserting ourselves as a nation state as being pompous at all. We see it as the natural order. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this, but why the continuous subservient mind-set? Are you embarrassed about being a Scot?
Grahamski,
As someone who was clearly brought up with the values, aspirations and battles for justice of the working class. I find your modern party orientated future vision sad.
I think its time that you had a long hard look deep down into your conscience and soul to realign your faith and values of the people in the area around you.
Your dogged approach to bluster and misrepresentation have not suited you for some time. I certainly do not believe that this is a situation that you feel at home with, rather one which your modern party follows. Sad that your party does not share your morals, they certainly do not feature in your comments.
I don’t know why anyone bothers to reply to Grahamski. He is a VERY well known troll whose natural habitat is the Scotsman’s comments sites. And he probably turned up today to try to divert the thread away from the main theme which is that “Blair McDougall is a liar”.
“And he probably turned up today to try to divert the thread away from the main theme which is that “Blair McDougall is a liar”.”
To be fair, all he’s succeeding in doing is drawing attention to the fact.
@commenter.
Fair point. Just to reiterate “Blair McDougall is a liar”
Better Together is founded on lies.
Couldn’t be clearer 🙂
Mr McHarg
My reference to the Edinburgh Agreement was to make the point that the SNP finally accepted the need for a Section 30 order but needed a way to disguise the fact – hence them re-naming the Section 30 order the Edinburgh Agreement – in the hope nobody would notice their embarrassing volte face.
I am neither embarrassed nor particularly proud about the place of my birth. I had no say in the matter so it deserves neither my embarrassment nor pride…
Aplinal says:
4 February, 2013 at 5:19 pm
By the way, you STILL haven’t answered the question if you think that the pro-democracy group in hypocritical about ignoring the EC recommendations.
Definitely shome mishtake!
Mr aplinal
The Better campaign has accepted all the EC recommendations.
Not sure what you mean..
“The Better campaign has accepted all the EC recommendations.”
I agree, though I’m not sure why you’ve capitalised that second word.
Grahamski
Not only is Westminster out of touch with Scotland, it is out of touch with England.
With the Independence referendum we have a fantastic opportunity to break free from their misrule and make our own way in the world.
What is so attractive about Westminster rule that makes you want to be controlled from London and why do you mock everyone who aspires to Independence for Scotland?
Can I agree with Commenter. Why are we even gracing Grahamski’s offerings with comment. His general policy is attack at half-wit level and it is usually best ignored.
There are only two points worth making (apart from the Rev’s excellent observation)
1. Any idea that the EU wants Scotland out of it is absurd
and
2. The man in the street is totally disengaged on this topic and has no interest in it whatsover.
That being the case it does no harm to encourage the Worse Apart team to continue wasting time and resources on it under the mistaken impression that they are somehow landing blows on the YES campaign.
O/T
I note they played God Save the Queen as the ENGLISH national anthem before the rugby on Saturday. Do we care? Or do we take it that mentally they have already waved us goodbye?
Grahamski,
The Scottish Government have played ball at each stage in order to smooth the process. They never have needed the section 30 as a requirement. It was offered by Cameron to prevent any legal challenges to the result – won’t matter if its a Yes or No vote here. The fact that the Scottish government delt with it quickly and without fuss is to their credit.
Regarding naming it the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ this is standard procedure to give legal agreements a name by which they are easily referenced. It happens throughout the world and is easy to look up.
How are you getting on denying yourself your principles?
Two points worth stressing. Firstly, Blair McDougall is a liar. Secondly, Grahamski is a troll.
@Holebender
INDEED!!!!!! That of course should have been “Pro-DEPENDENCY” group.
A major Ooops! Can you edit, Rev. Or is it too late.
@Grahamski
“The Better campaign has accepted all the EC recommendations.
Not sure what you mean.. ”
Now you’re just being deliberately a <fill in the blank>. Quelle surprise
Me at 2.26
It hardly is in keeping with the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement, or in the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which ALL the pro-dependency parties INSISTED that the Scottish Government must agree to, sight unseen.
I call that hypocrisy, what do you call it?
You did not respond.
Me at 4.20
By the by, you did not respond to my last question about the “Edinburgh Agreement” and the findings of the Electoral Commission. Do you think that the pro-dependency parties insisting that the SG accept ALL the provisions of the EC in advance of the report’s publication (sight unseen) and then refuse to accept the EC’s strong recommendation to work together to resolve all these sorts of issues before the referendum is rank hypocrisy?
5.19
By the way, you STILL haven’t answered the question if you think that the pro-dependency group is hypocritical about ignoring the EC recommendations.
Which are quite clearly to do with the Electoral Commission.
The Better campaign has accepted all the EC recommendations.”
No, they haven’t
Folks, If Grahamski came on this thread and told me Real Madrid were going to smash Broxburn Slaughterhouse and Tannery 2nd XI Reserves Ladies 6-0 in next seasons Champions League final, I’d put my mortgage on the ladies.
If the SNP said ‘Night follows day’, Grahamski would clearly argue that this was a pompous decision of the fat egotistical curry muncher Salmondski and assert his deeply held view that quite rightly, day follows night.
He is a fantasist, a Walter Mitty, an egocentric political activist so blinded by faith he has lost all reason and sensibility. He spins like no other, trolls poorly and has all the predictive qualities and track record of mystic meg.
Ergo, If Grahamski warns that Scotland would be chucked out the EU and have to scratch and beg its way back in, its a stone-waller that won’t happen.
Trust me.
“I note they played God Save the Queen as the ENGLISH national anthem before the rugby on Saturday. Do we care? Or do we take it that mentally they have already waved us goodbye?”
In fairness, it’s been used as the “English” national anthem for decades.
link to wingsland.podgamer.com
Rev. I am not sure the “Better Together” campaign in the strictest of senses here is the issue, as the EC recommendations request that both governments work together on behalf of the Scottish voters to provide them with clarity.
As far as I am concerned, the Westminster government is part of the pro-dependency / better together campaign. It has refused to cooperate with the Scottish government as strongly recommended by the EC. Therefore as I see it the “Better Together” campaign are hypocrites.
I tend to judge people by what they do, not what they say, and in this case Westminster is clearly doing and saying they will ignore the EC recommendations they do not like, while at the same time all the pro-dependency parties, which include the Westminster ConDem coalition were mouthing off about how the SG was OBLIGED to accept ALL the recommendations sight unseen. Rank hypocrisy. I will no longer respond to Grahamski – it really is a futile effort at meaningful discussion. I gave up these “debating” tricks when I left school.
Back OT: The references on your piece “Dear the EU …” nails the Blair McDougall lies quite clearly.
It certainly caught my attention,didn`t know who this Blair chap was,but he does appear to be a liar,and if he has this Grahamski chap backing him up,then this assertion seems to carry a lot of merit.
Grahamski,
The people of Scotland made their choice of government at the last Scottish general election who’s party just so happened to have a referendum for independence in it’s manifesto. If the people of Scotland were so set against it they could have voted for someone else.
But hey, that’s not a democracy is it? Not in the “conventional sense”.
You’re attempt at debate is unbelievably poor and lacks substance and / or fact. Entirely symptomatic of the whole No camp.
You sir are a bufoon.
I shall rise no longer to your tedious endeavour.
@Rabb
You’re attempt at debate is unbelievably poor and lacks substance and / or fact.
That’s precisely why I posted earlier that he’s at it and just trying to keep our attention away from something else……like maybe the communcations of his colleagues – see Quoted for Truth today.
BT were taken to task today on their fb page. Comments under Blair McDougall interview on the issue of asking The EU for clarification on Scotland’s position re it’s application/re-application of EU membership. Looks like they lost.
There are experts who are able to assess the veracity of an individual, by analysing body language, eye movement, etc. I would love such an analysis of Blair McDougal, as I do not think I would wish to buy used car from him.
Good point on the body language. I noticed that he said ‘err, err’ a lot. Haven’t watched more than 5 minutes of the interview as he was spouting pish and SNP accused nonsense.
He made me want to puke so I didn’t last much longer.
Another career politician in the making I am afraid. I would love to see him in a TV debate with Blair Jenkins. Would really show the difference up between the two sides.
We are still a long way off the date of the actual vote, but time is passing ever quicker. I think a lot is going to start happening at grass roots this year within the Yes Scotland side. They are way better organised right now.
A blast from the past: Fats McDee
link to wp.me