How times change
We followed a bit of a long and winding road ourselves to stumble across this rather excellent piece from the Scotsman archives today, and owe a major hat-tip to alert reader “Alexandre Dumas” for a hefty helping hand. It comes from the paper’s editorial leader column of the 26th of March 2007, less than two weeks before the Holyrood election that saw the first ever SNP government.
We’re not sure which is our favourite bit. See what yours is.
THE SNP’S LONG AND WINDING ROAD
(no byline)How many referendums might it take for the SNP to secure an independent Scotland? One in Scotland might seem the obvious answer. But a change in the British constitution would require a UK-wide referendum, too. A third may be required to ratify the negotiated settlement, which could turn out to be significantly different from popular preconception. Assuming the answer to all of these is “Yes”, a further referendum may then be required on whether an independent Scotland should apply for membership of the EU, from which most legislation now emanates anyway, taking the final tally to four.
The prospect of a chain-reaction series of referendum votes – starting with a vote only to authorise the parliament to enter into negotiations on separation – may seem bizarre. And by the time the process is finished, the public may have grown heartily weary of the prolonged uncertainty. But there are issues here of democratic legitimacy and the need for Scotland to be sure that if constitutional change is undertaken, it should be the considered and settled will of the Scottish people, not a random walk through the ever-changing, “will-o’-the-wisp” mood swings of the political anorak set.
Debate on the “chain reaction” road to independence was effectively kick-started by a welcome weekend clarification by SNP leader Alex Salmond that his party, if elected, would plan to call a vote on independence by 2010. This at least lightens some of the fog that had descended following remarks by party donor Sir Tom Farmer that the party might not pursue a vote on independence and needed time to prove itself.
But no sooner has one mist lifted than others have rolled in. Constitutional experts point out that, because of the limited powers of the Scottish Parliament, the referendum will only be able to ask the Scottish people if they are willing to begin negotiations on independence – rather than a straight question on whether they are in favour. This, it is envisaged, would lead to the UK government, as guardian of the constitution, calling a further referendum on whether the UK should undergo a break-up.
All this would suggest that independence would not be a sudden event, but a process, and one that could take more than four years to complete, requiring the SNP to win a second election. According to John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, even if Scotland votes in favour of initiating negotiations, time must be allowed for these negotiations to take place, followed by a possible second UK-wide referendum on whether to go ahead with the break. However frustrating this may be for the independence “fundies”, this cannot be settled by blind rush.
We wonder if this is still the Scotsman’s position. Perhaps we’ll ask.
We’ll possibly look at the scaremongering reports after independence in the same light in which we look at this on right now.
I have to say, Rev, catching up on your posts at the end of the day has yielded a boiling cauldron of witchcraft from the Daily Mail and the Hootsmon complete with eye of the toad and just plain old bollocks. I confess I am suddenly feeling rather queasy. You don’t mind if I leave you lot to it for the rest of the evening?
O-oh … where’s that bucket?
My favourite bit is ‘Prof’ Curtice never changing. 🙂
We should be constructing a Perfidy Collection which will run until the day after we vote to be independent. I’m not sure who should be leading at the moment (and I would leave out elected politicians – they have compelling personal reasons to lie and deceive). My list would start with
Prof Curtice
Kay Adams
Glenn Campbell
Kenny Farquarson
Magnus Gardham
Tom Gordon
I could go on all night
Do we really think that a list of perfidious Scots – ("Tractor" - Ed)s for having a different vision of Scotland’s future, apparently – with the unspoken threat of ‘Truth and reconciliation’ committees and ‘first up against the wall’ come glorious independence is helpful? The nation is being asked its opinion. That opinion is likely to be split, for all sorts of reasons. Whatever the outcome, the ‘Aye’s and the ‘Naw’s will still have to share the same country. Let’s not play up to the image of nationalists, and the SNP in particular, as dictatorial Stalinists who brook no dissent. All I ask of Scots is that they work to improve Scotland, not that they agree with me as to how it could be improved.
I’m with Jiggsbro on this one. Highlighting specific misdeeds is one thing, conducting personal witch-hunts is another.
@jiggsbro and the Rev. my god what a pair of nervous nellies. The truth is that the persons named by Dave McEwan Hill are perfidious in this time of our Nations struggle for independence. Talk of “truth and reconcilliation committees” and “first up against the wall” comments are all in your own heads.
I’m still laughing at “constitutional experts” in the second last paragraph !
@Jiggsbro and Rev.
Do you actually believe for one moment that those people mentioned by Dave McEwen Hill will work to improve Scotland. They have shown no sign of it so far and by their current actions seem determined to keep Scotland shackled to a State whose views are very often inimical to ours. Why would they change?
Edward 1 of England. (Longshanks) said, ”A man does good business when he gets rid of a turd”
I would take this a step further and add, You just can’t polish a turd.
I agree with jiggsbro.
Although Buchanan should certainly be exiled (to Ireland, Denmark or Latvia).
“Do you actually believe for one moment that those people mentioned by Dave McEwen Hill will work to improve Scotland.”
Why wouldn’t they? If Scotland votes for independence, they’ll have lost – there’s no point in carrying on the fight. I don’t think the average Unionist is going to try to spitefully destroy Scotland from within if it votes Yes. They’ll either make the best of (what they see as) a bad lot, or they’ll bugger off, either of which is a good thing.
There are folk that are Unionist through ignorance, and there are Unionists that know very well the evil they conduct against the country they profess to love.
There is a big difference betweent the two.
History will judge.
Do you actually believe for one moment that those people mentioned by Dave McEwen Hill will work to improve Scotland.
Yes. I just believe that their vision of an improved Scotland will be different to yours or mine. These are not people that hate Scotland. They’re people who have a different opinion on how best to love it.
OK what about people who aren’t on that list? Foulkes, Forsyth. Wallace, Danny Alexander, Darling, Brown? Does that logic apply to them?
It doesn’t in my opinion. Their misdeeds must be re-told again and again, lest they seek and somehow attain ANY power in an independent and free Scotland. I’m not suggesting hanging them from the lamp posts, but merely reminding people that these people did absolutely everything in their power to prevent the Scots from determining their own government, and should therefore not have the privilege to represent Scots in that free Scotland.
Its just shite isn’t it.
Let’s write any old nonsense to scare the upstarts back into their box. Let’s make them believe that they have to jump through this hoop, that hoop, another hoop and, just for good measure, lets throw in another.
Oh, and lets get John Curtice to say a few words as he’s good at the old bullshit and he’s always on the BBC and everybody knows that the BBC is the voice of truth and…
…anger is an energy is a concept they still haven’t got their heads round yet so I hope the Hootsmon and the London press keep this kind of shite up.
Can anyone really countenance the appearance of Ian Davidson in the Scottish Parliament?
Like it TheRoughBounds! Edward I said in French ‘Bon besoiogne fait gy du merde se delivrer’ pretty much your translation on leaving Scotland in 1296 thinking that after deposing John Balilol as King, Scotland was done for. [Of course, Murray, Wallace and Bruce proved different!]
Aside from the French language, it probably sums up a Daily Mail-type attitude to today’s Scotland. We should not be surprised that a number of Scots ‘perfidies’ think we are still shit!!
We should definitely not alienate these ‘perfidies’ on independence. They are entitled to their view, and change is harder for some than others. Remember there was opposition to a Scottish Parliament before the referendum in 1997, that opposition is almost non-existent now. That will happen with independence too.
Anyway, aren’t we sympathetic to those that suffer Stockholm Syndrome? :p
If anyone doesn’t think that’s going to happen….think again. I said here only a few weeks back that I predicted that McLeish and Chisholm would probably be the first high level defectors……McLeish is already teetering on the brink. This is survival for them, and some of them, frankly, don’t deserve a second chance.
As with most things these days, the market will decide if the perfidious gain employment in Scotland. Truth and Reconciliation sounds attractive, but is perhaps a little over dramatic. I myself can not remember any Scot, nationalist or otherwise, being “necklaced” simply for being Scots. The suggestion actually goes some way to belittling the suffering in South Africa. For those that are expecting an overnight revolution come independence, I would suggest they ready themselves for a disappointment. Change will be gradual, as our institutional civic landscape is remoulded to serve the democratic interests of Scotland.
Still, is it really unacceptable to name and shame, so long as it is done with grace and wit?
Might have to intoduce a pledge of allegiance to Scotland for the naysayer…..
Once Scotland is independent then most of the unionists will fade into the background as they know themselves the damage they have done to the country and that politically they have shot their bolt.
There will be few who will still spew forth their bitterness but by and large they will accept the outcome.
In 5 years time we will be like any other independent nation and the bitterness of unionism will be a thing of the past.
OK what about people who aren’t on that list? Foulkes, Forsyth. Wallace, Danny Alexander, Darling, Brown? Does that logic apply to them?
That logic applies to everyone. That’s the beauty of logic. While I don’t believe most politicians love anything other than power and themselves, I don’t doubt that they believe they love their country, nor that they believe that the union is good for their country. If we can’t debate with them, if we can’t correct their disinformation and distortions, if we can’t provide the facts to counter their lies, if we resort to labelling people with different, honestly-held opinions as ‘("Tractor" - Ed)s’ who must not be allowed to gain power in Scotland, then we deserve to lose. I’d quite like an independent Scotland to be a democracy, where the voters decide who can have power and anyone is free to aspire to it. Even people with different views to me. Even people like you, who think having a different view is a ‘misdeed’.
Tomorrow’s Sunday Herald front page:
http://twitpic.com/c850py
The real ‘big beasts’ survive as long as they do because they’re adept at camouflage. Remember the euphoria when New Labour finally kicked the Tories out? That May morning? Remember how good that felt?
Here we are, almost 16 years later, and a lot of the faces we rejoiced at seeing the back of are still there. They’re like haemorrhoids, or warts – just when you think you’re rid of them, they come back. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking that a fresh political landscape in Scotland will be jam-packed with new faces and ideas, but how painful and difficult is it going to be to accept the same old faces wearing differently-coloured ties?
Appreciate Rev’s point about them doing their best, elsewise buggering-off, but where could they bugger-off to? They’re professional politicians FFS!. This is what they do. Of course they’ll switch allegiance and ‘see the light’ as and when they have to – does that mean they can or should be viewed as any more trustworthy than they are right now?
Sobering thought indeed – is there a realistic prospect of someone like Danny/Douglas Alexander holding a position of influence? The very thought of seeing the likes of Curran/Ingram/Reid/Foulkes holding-forth in a Parliament they’ve sought to discredit and diminish at every turn is truly nauseating.
Maybe best to just vote ‘No’ after all…(wee smiley)
“I’d quite like an independent Scotland to be a democracy, where the voters decide who can have power and anyone is free to aspire to it.”
The voters can only truly decide if they are made aware of these guys’ misdeeds. Like I said, I’m not advocating hanging or hate campaigns, just the provision of the facts, the facts which we all know to be true; that these people LIED to the people of Scotland to keep their cosy jobs in Westminster. Now, if a candidate were running in any election the UK and a newspaper exposed them as a compulsive and malicious liar, I for one would not shed a tear, because the public deserve to know just WHO is representing them and where their interests really lie.
You can compile all the lists you want once the referendum is won. But until it is won, I can think of few more futile activities. And it is not yet won. Not by a long chalk.
The ‘Usual Suspects'(US) list is well fixed in all minds and it’s important to do a little morality audit for each of these characters.
It will not have escaped the common-joes of this land that the utterances of certain people – namely the (US) are not only negative and pole-different to what independent Scots want to hear, but they are LIES. Big black whoppers and therein ‘lies’ the story.
I can accept that statistics are there to be displayed in various forms, which albeit are misleading, but they are not untruths and it is in the power of the reader to seek further information to expose the actuality – of course, who will do that – and thereby we have the power of the misleading message.
But lying to Parliament, at Westminster or Holyrood is a different kettle of fish – if found out it should be dealt with – but witness Blair’s 45 mins WMD’s and Iraq’s destruction, to see how it is not dealt with and if using this as atypical, we can assume that lying is frequent and unregulated.
Focus this more on Scottish interests and it would be a fair bet that ‘screwing the jocks’ passes for most of the trading done there. But here’s the rub, where there is a lack of will to call it ‘lying’ it will thrive as it is doing and Westminster is just not a healthy place for Scotland’s future governance any longer.
Who then, could be fingered as more likely to be in this lying trade than the Usual Suspects and I like the idea, that if we have to live with such pond-scum come independence, then the very least that should be done is to extract an oral and signed oath to honour Scotland above all else, which I hope sticks in most of their gullets and they choke! Fair doos!
“, I don’t doubt that they believe they love their country, nor that they believe that the union is good for their country.”
Politicians at Westminster and their corrupt media are unionist because they believe it’s best for them. It has bugger all to do with their country.
I’m sure there are many people out there who are no voters because they believe that’s best for Scotland, and that is totally fair. However, many of them will believe this because of decades of lies and propaganda they’ve been spun by those politicians and journalists. Lies which are designed to do down our country and the people here, and have never been “in Scotland’s interests”.
And that is a huge distinction. These people are, for their own gain, lying, smearing and creating propaganda AGAINST their country. That is a wholly different thing to taking part in a democratic, decent debate about our future. If we were simply doing that, it would be great. We’re not – we’re trying to fight for our country’s independence against a powerful Westminster political class and media that is trying to prevent it for their own ends.
Agreed Barontorc.
All I’m suggesting is that we deploy the same method with the same vigour after the referendum to expose those who have no real interest in Scotland but only in themselves. If we’re are trying to protect Scotland now by exposing those who pose a threat to democracy, then that certainly should not stop post 2014; if anything it should continue even more so to prevent the worst of the troughers continuing to ply their trade in the new fledgling state.
I can’t see any logic in a ‘clean slate’ scenario. Liars don’t become paragons of virtue because of a referendum result. And why, incidentally, should this morally questionable amnesty only apply to politicians?
It’s a noble enough thought, but back in the real world, Scotland will have to protect herself most from those who would seek to do her harm from within.
Stevie – you’ll never stop troughers and people putting themselves before their country. That always happens, in every country, and will happen post independence. It’s just human nature. The normal tools of democracy and a healthy press should – in theory – be what’s needed to combat that, as in every country.
It’s a really big issue right now because it’s an existential one. It’s about the independence of our country, and we have a UK government and its media all wholly against and lying, creating propaganda and really doing the country down day after day.
The issue is now. Post 2014, if we win independence, it will be over and, as has been said before, these people will either come on board (for their own interests) or melt away, or leave the country. At that stage, there will be no point in recriminations. Though if we get a No, God help us all because they will remain in charge and they will recriminate to their heart’s content to make sure this can never happen again.
The perfidious list is people who consider only their own interests. They will never work for any country or community, the only service they understand is self-service. They are the narrowest of nationalists: each is a nation of one. I’m afraid they will all be back at Holyrood after independence, without a blush.
Cath, where I agree with you in principle that troughers ‘cannot be stopped’, it is nonetheless incumbent upon us to attempt to reduce such phenomena as much as is humanly possible and make sure that the fledgling state of Scotland’s governance is not infected by the same selfish diseases as Westminster. If we really are to have a clean slate, if we really are setting about making everything in the new Scotland as best as it can be, then it is our duty as Scots to ensure that the political system is modern, fair, democratic, open and replete with those who have Scotland’s best interests at heart…..that by definition means protecting her from the ravages of the old politics, those who have vested business interests and who are prepared to put them first before the people of Scotland.
There is an enormous difference in the make-up of Holyrood and Westminster; we should strive to keep it that way.
Making lists is a dodgy business – Orwell’s reputation, for some, is tarnished because he did just that, probably with the best of intentions.
It’s an unpleasant fact that all of our ‘names’ are sure to have been noted somewhere – taking the moral high ground might feel good, but the identities of those we’re up against can’t be entrusted to collective memory alone.
Rev – I have to disagree with you – some of these people are already working to destroy Scotland as it’s the only way they know to keep us in the Union. I suspect some of them will continue to undermine when our nation is once again independent after the YES vote.
I appreciate the concern shown for the future of an independent Scotland, and the negative effect unionists in certain positions can have. Yes, there are those who’s political outlook does not correspond with those seeking independence. Who will decide who they are and what is to be done with them? Kangaroo courts and lynchings? All because they hold a political outlook which is felt to be unacceptable. I want no part in that Scotland. I do not see how such discrimination could sit with our shiny new constitution, which I hope will grantee civil liberties to all.
I find it difficult to fathom what can only be described as the complete hysteria with which some people are approaching the subject of politics and political reporting in an independent Scotland.
No one, absolutely no one, has suggested hangings, lynch mobs, kangaroo courts or exile to Siberian salt mines. What is being suggested is that the same level of vigorous political scrutiny that is being applied now, is applied after a Yes vote to ensure the very best for Scotland.
Those people suggesting a complete and total amnesty for, it is assumed, unionist politicians, an erasing of their past and the beginning of a new political career on unblemished virgin white paper, are obviously blind to the fact that after a Yes vote those same politicians seeking careers in a new Scottish parliament will expend every waking hour and every breath reminding everyone of all the things the SNP promised but have failed to deliver on day one of independence. Their complete and utter blind hatred of the SNP will not disappear overnight, and most certainly will not go away by yelling from every Edinburgh rooftop that all unionist sins are forgiven; if anything, that will invigorate their hatred even further and give them them a new pulpit from which to spew their sermon of lies and bile. These are politicians, their primal instinct is survival and their MO rarely changes throughout their careers. Expect no Damascene conversions in 2014.
The public deserve to know who is seeking to represent them. They deserve to know exactly where a politician’s allegiances lay and lie. How our elected representatives vote in the commons is a matter of public record, and for good reason too; that isn’t a kangaroo court, that’s how a modern democracy should function.
One of this site’s primary functions is to provide factual information to undo the propaganda emanating from the No camp through the MSM, and in doing so has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there is a concerted effort to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate. Consequently, it has again been demonstrated beyond doubt that there are politicians, some of whom will seek political careers in the parliament of an independent Scotland, who have knowingly, wilfully and maliciously lied to and, in various ways, deceived the people of Scotland; it simply cannot be argued now that these nefarious doings were perpetrated through a love of Scotland, or an alternative political vision of a United Kingdom, particularly since every single one of those politicians bar none stood to gain personally from keeping that broken and inequitable union together, their actions thus far suggesting an ‘at all costs’ mentality.
I personally don’t think that these lowlifes deserve a seat in that new parliament. Thankfully however, the consensus is that Scotland should be a beacon for modern democracy, and the decision about who sits in that parliament won’t fall solely to me, but to the people of Scotland, hopefully forearmed with all the relevant information about just who, exactly, is seeking to represent them.
Thanks SC. Of course no one suggested lynching, though the logical conclusion of some of the earlier comments was uncertain. As you say, Scotland seeks peaceful change, though some of the earlier posters had suggested Scotland’s legacy and degree of social division would be similar to that after the fall of apartheid South Africa. I felt this to be a somewhat distasteful exaggeration, so I thought I would counter it with my own, in order to emphasis a possible conclusion of discrimination.
Personally, I agree with the points that you have made. I also think the Scottish population is sufficiently sophisticated to run their own affairs successfully, once they have the ungarnished facts available to them. As far as unionist politicians are concerned, I suppose they will gather support based on their policies and presentation. That is how democracy works, isn’t it? Though I think they may have a hard time selling the union in an independent Scotland, free of the BBC.
There is a glimmer of hope that social media will play a major role in the referendum outcome. It is my hope that this online influence will continue thereafter and hopefully replace the printed and broadcast media; I sincerely believe that this will aid the new democracy in ways that were unimaginable in the past. It’s an opportunity for a new freedom of press and expression that has immense potential to reshape the Scottish political landscape.
If there are people willing to vote for this vermin, even armed with all the information about how they attempted to thwart the democratic process, then so be it. That is democracy after all.