The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Official: Britain is unsaveable

Posted on April 30, 2013 by

This is Labour leader Ed Miliband on Radio 4’s “World At One” yesterday:

soundwave2

(From 16m 12s on iPlayer.)

“I think people are asking this very very important question about the country, which is, y’know, are our problems so deep that NOBODY can actually make a difference to them? My emphatic answer is yes.”

Ours is too, though to a slightly different question.

We have to presume, of course, that Miliband simply misspoke, so flustered was he by a mildly challenging interview in which he appeared agitated and angry throughout. (Starts at around 8m on iPlayer.) The serious point underlying our cheap mockery is that the Labour leader is, as a left-wing English friend of ours said on listening to the car-crash of an interview this afternoon, “categorically unelectable”.

As far as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned, then, Miliband spoke the truth, albeit by accident. (Which is the only way most UK politicians ever DO speak the truth these days.) Only Scotland can still escape a Tory government lasting until at least 2020. The day of decision is coming ever closer.

Print Friendly

    167 to “Official: Britain is unsaveable”

    1. Cath says:

      I had an English teacher who wouldn’t mark work at all as she believed “English can’t be taught”. Always wondered why the f**k she chose teaching English as a career in that case.
       
      This seems the same from Ed. “Vote for me – I have no ideas and don’t believe we can make any difference because the UK is fundamentally screwed but vote for me anyway, just because. Oh and for listeners in Scotlandshire, the UK is wonderful and leaving it would be a terrible, terrible thing.”
       

    2. Training Day says:

      Oh dear, someone will need to tell Johann that Ed has pre-empted the debate, working group, extended debate, commission, further debate, report and subsequent ongoing debate on the unsaveability of the UK. 

    3. JuanBonnets says:

      Listened to this after you linked it on twitter, but missed this absolute howler of an admission. It really came across that he got aggressive and patronising, even attempted to shout the interviewer down because he is just incapable of answering simple questions. No wonder the Tories are still looking good in the opinion polls, if this is their opposition. Evil and incompetent ideas are apparently better received than a vacuum of ideas.

    4. Doug Daniel says:

      If Labour are serious about offering an alternative to the Tories, they need to ditch this numpty NOW and elect someone more radical. But they won’t, because the people surrounding Miliband feel exactly the same way as he does, and I suspect they know fine they’re not going to win in 2015 and don’t want to be the bag carrier.
       
      There is no credible alternative to independence.

    5. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Ladbrokes will currently give you 11/10 that Ed Miliband will NOT be UK Prime Minister before 2020. That sounds like free money to me.

      http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/british-politics/ed-miliband-specials

      In fact, I seriously might go and stick a hundred quid on it right now.

    6. pmcrek says:

      Starting to think if a UK general election was occurring before the referendum it would lift the yes vote to around 80% after the result. Miliband has no chance of winning and Labour cant realistically get rid of him until after he loses at least one important election. Just a shame the coalition shows no prospects of collapsing before the referendum.

    7. dmw42 says:

      Congratulations to Martha Kearney for being the first at the state broadcaster to say ‘jam tomorrow’. 🙂
       

    8. Its not surprise the labour party are unelectable.  Just had a quick look at their official web site. There are no policies at all. No links at the foot of the page The nearest I can find is some …we are for mommy’s apple pie stuff …social justice, strong community and strong values, reward for hard work, decency,rights matched by responsibilities .
      Its hard to disagree with any of those, but no actual idea of how these may be achieved. I was looking for a policy on trident for my blog, but nothing.  They are scared to say anything other than ‘we’re not the tories’ 
       

    9. Stevie says:

      “””Cath says: 30 April, 2013 at 12:24 pmI had an English teacher who wouldn’t mark work at all as she believed “English can’t be taught”. Always wondered why the f**k she chose teaching English as a career in that case.””””

      She meant she can’t teach English – I teach English and it can indeed be taught. English is full of rules – many English teachers haven’t actually read a grammar book.  It is true that it has been badly taught since the 1960s, grammar is something English teachers don’t do. 
      English is a grammatically simple language and there is an argument that one can pick up one’s maternal language and speak it correctly but when it comes to a written language the you need to work at it.
      The world is full of crap English teachers but the comment that your English teacher made shows much about her ignorance of the mechanics of her trade.

    10. Jiggsbro says:

      Ed really is a gift that keeps on giving. It’s good to know that we’ll go into the referendum reasonably certain that the UK wouldn’t be voting Labour in 2015, and even if they did, Ed wouldn’t change a thing. “Vote Labour: we’re not the Tories, but we could be if you give us the chance”.

    11. dmw42 says:

      From an online comment in the Telegraph:
       
      I feel better now. I didn’t fully understand labour’s alternative policies, but it is now clear that their leader doesn’t either, so what chance have I got?

    12. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I’m officially deeming this far enough in to go off-topic momentarily, so: holy Jeebus, now I understand why some of you are so pissed off with the comments regime on Newsnet Scotland. 15 minutes between comments! A length limit of roughly three sentences! I’ve never seen the like, except maybe on the Herald or Labour Hame.

    13. ecossenkosi says:

      I have complained to Newsnet  on various occasions about this, but it has fallen on deaf ears

    14. Boorach says:

      @ Rev Stu
       
      Be thankful that your comment made it to the thread, as for a second…..!

    15. HandandShrimp says:

      Is it only 15 minutes at Newsnet now? I flounced out when they made it 30 minutes..that and deleting some comments I made Davidson (or was it Lamont). It was agood flouce though :/
      On topic, there are those that have been banging the “we are all doomed” thing about the UK for a good while now. Money Week over egg the pension liabilities in my opinion but even so it doesn’t make for pretty reading. UKOK? UKKO more like
        http://www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain

    16. Morag says:

      RevStu said:
      I’m officially deeming this far enough in to go off-topic momentarily, so: holy Jeebus, now I understand why some of you are so pissed off with the comments regime on Newsnet Scotland. 15 minutes between comments! A length limit of roughly three sentences! I’ve never seen the like, except maybe on the Herald or Labour Hame.
       
      It’s not just that.  If you piss them off so that they put you on pre-moderation, it can take many hours or even days for a comment to appear.  Who even remembers by then that they posted a comment, never mind goes back to see if there is a reply?  Who’s even going to notice comments that appear so belatedly?

      Despite the fundraiser and the £12,000 for a “full-time journalist” for a year, I’m not convinced they have anyone nannying the site anything like full-time during the working day.  This is not good, if you have a lot of people on pre-moderation.  It really makes commenting pointless, if you’re in that category.

      Also, it doesn’t take much to piss them off, and once they are, that’s you on pre-moderation for life.  Nobody is going to exert themselves to approve your comments, and in the end you just wander off and do something more interesting.

    17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Finally completed the epic 51-minute chore of posting 500 words of comment. Won’t be trying THAT again.

    18. pmcrek says:

      I think Newsnets difficulty is that they are attempting to be a “proper” newspaper online with a mainstream newspaper-like moderation policy backed with only 1/1000th the resources. I can see why they have the post time limit but it is the most annoying thing to deal with.

    19. Linda's Back says:

      I see Newsnet Scotland as a different type of online news source .  There is no point in having two identical “Wings” where some people can ramble on with 2000 word dissertations .   Wings is edgier  and much more irreverent  which is great but there is room for a different approach.
      Meanwhile back at Miliband.. Labour’s Truth Team  is  upset that they can’t manipulated the latest IPSOS MORI polling data.
       Mark Ferguson on the Labour List blog, which quotes “a Labour source” as saying “Mori (sic) consistently brief highly-selective data to create misleading impressions.” 
      24% of the public said that they agreed that Ed Miliband was ready to be PM and 66% that they disagreed. It is hard to see how this could possibly be interpreted as anything but a poor result for Miliband. 
      Similarly, Labour under Mr Miliband cannot claim to be doing better in voting intentions than were the Tories under Mr Cameron. In the April 2008 poll, the Tories had a nine-point lead (40% to 31%), the same margin as Labour’s lead at the moment (38% to 29%). In the July 2008 poll, the Tories had a twenty-point lead (47% to 27%) 

    20. handclapping says:

      So the question do you want to be on the Titanic or the lifeboat just got a little more difficult … or not?
       
      “Bugger the spacebergs, I dont know where were going but full warp speed ahead, Scotty.”
      “Aye, aye, Captain TwoEds.”

    21. Macart says:

      Well that answers the question on lack of policy then. If the problems are unfixable why bother?
       
      This guy wants to lead the UK? 
       
      FFS!

    22. Gordon Hay says:

      Seems the youngsters in this BT puff haven’t been listening to Millipede –
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxbAu3LphYM
      though they probably have been taking lessons from Lamont on reading from a script!

    23. muttley79 says:

      @Macart
       
      Well that answers the question on lack of policy then. If the problems are unfixable why bother?
       
      Precisely.  It is a strange thing for a leader of a major political party to say with only around two years to go to a general election.

    24. Macart says:

      @muttley 79
       
      As interviews go, that’s almost right up there with Sarwar and Lamont’s wreckage of a couple of weeks ago.

    25. james morton says:

      the problem solving mechanisms in the UK are fundamentally broken. Westminster is controlled by fiscal simpletons who think social housing is the main driver of the benefit bill, and think it can be solved by making people homeless. they think food banks are ok but seem clueless to the implications to the economy of families relying on charity than being able to spend money in supermarkets. they think making folk work for benefits, benefits the economy.
      their politics is informed by an outdated belief in thatcherisms tina & they are so disconnected from the daily concerns of the voter. 
      they are so swivel eyed on indyref that it borders on farce.
      they delight in Scotland appearing feeble & dependent on handouts, but are oblivious to theirony of their position. it’s time we left.

    26. RossBoss says:

      I’m glad you’ve started focusing on the antics of Ed Miliband as of late. I often look him up on Youtube just to watch him and imagine this utter uninspiring, awkward looking incompetent as the leader of a country.
       
      Here’s a great example of why he is the most embarrassing man in politics:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI

    27. proudscot says:

      I tend to agree with the above posters who criticised, albeit mildly, the Newsnet site. While I approve of their policy of discouraging abusive posts or derogatory comments aimed at political opponents or personalities, my personal opinion is that the term “("Quizmaster" - Ed)” is a quite legitimate and accurate description of the likes of Alan Cochrane or Severin Carrell, whose own articles are full of unacceptable abuse of Alex Salmond and the SNP, and are forever talking Scotland down, obviously to please and suck up to their English press employers. However, I do find Newsnet’s 15 minute rule very restrictive and off-putting when taking part in any discussion or exchange of views on a thread.
      Milliband? Pink Tory toff. And that’s his good point.

    28. EdinScot says:

      If im right in interpretating what Ed Milliband said in that clip then basically what he is saying is ”the games’ up the pole”… it feels like we are a in a ruddlerless ship heading as we speak for apocalypse now.  Its clear this man has nothing to offer, except a continuation of an already accelerating right wing agenda which we are witnessing with the blue Tories .  Ed will prostitute himself for the middle England vote to get his grubby hands on the keys to number 10 for his own ends.  That’s all that matters to him and his laughingly named Labour party.  He has nothing to offer Scotland except his ‘One Nation’ bollocks.  Thats why he left the Slab conference in Inverness with no comment to make on anything.

      I just cant see a Scotland voting to remain under the control of Camerons’ Tories or Millibands’ red Tories.  I think the people here are savvy enough to grab their chance and vote YES to a brighter better future.  I beleive we are witnessing the end game of the Union.  How lucky are we to get the chance to exit stage left next year. 
       

    29. Rod Mac says:

      ecossenkosi says:
      30 April, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      I have complained to Newsnet  on various occasions about this, but it has fallen on deaf ears
       
      ============================================================
      You’re lucky I got banned for making a complaint, bad day when your comments as a nationalist are more welcome in the Scotsman than a so called Nationalist publication, words like petard and hoisted come to mind

    30. Cath says:

      “the people surrounding Miliband feel exactly the same way as he does, and I suspect they know fine they’re not going to win in 2015”
       
      I’m not convinced they actually want to win the 2015 election. I suspect they honestly have no clue at all, as Ed says. They are unreconstructed Blairites, who know nothing but neoconservative policies that have failed totally. But they don’t have any alternative. If they did, they would be shouting those from the rooftops. And the alternatives are not so radical really. They are out there – but the current labour leadership isn’t ready or willing to grasp them.
       
      So I suspect they’re happier letting the Tories take the flack for doing what they’d be doing themselves if they were in power.

    31. Morag says:

      EdinScot said:
      I just cant see a Scotland voting to remain under the control of Camerons’ Tories or Millibands’ red Tories.  I think the people here are savvy enough to grab their chance and vote YES to a brighter better future.  I beleive we are witnessing the end game of the Union.  How lucky are we to get the chance to exit stage left next year.
       
      Seriously scared person here.  Titanic or lifeboat, indeed.  I’ve been working for independence for 20 years, because I knew we’d do better.  It was an aspirational goal.  Now I’m desperate for independence because I’m in a flat panic about what’s going to happen to us if we don’t get it and this bunch of lunatic incompetents is left in charge.

    32. Elizabeth says:

      o/t
      Just been out delivering Yes Scotland leaflets. I went into the library and asked where I could leave a few. “Oh we’ve no room for that”  she said, “and…hmm…. it’s political so I don’t think so”. 

    33. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Seriously scared person here. Titanic or lifeboat, indeed. I’ve been working for independence for 20 years, because I knew we’d do better. It was an aspirational goal. Now I’m desperate for independence because I’m in a flat panic about what’s going to happen to us if we don’t get it and this bunch of lunatic incompetents is left in charge.”

      That’s about my view in a nutshell, only even worse because I don’t even have a partial barrier between me and the blue/red Tories.

    34. Doug Daniel says:

      proudscot: “While I approve of their policy of discouraging abusive posts or derogatory comments aimed at political opponents or personalities, my personal opinion is that the term “("Quizmaster" - Ed)” is a quite legitimate and accurate description of the likes of Alan Cochrane or Severin Carrell, whose own articles are full of unacceptable abuse of Alex Salmond and the SNP”
       
      Fair enough, but we all know what happens as soon as the word is uttered/typed, so why must people persist in using it?
       
      It’s like a goalkeeper who keeps trying to play a clever pass to his defender, even though the same move has already caused him to concede three goals. The crowd are shouting “why do you keep doing it?!?! Just stop doing it! Play the simple pass!”, yet he ignores them, because he’s determined to prove some sort of point.
       
      That’s what it feels like when you see someone using the word “("Quizmaster" - Ed)” in an independence debate. It doesn’t need to be done, and it just gifts unionists with an easy escape route from whatever debate they’re currently losing.

    35. Rod Mac says:

      Hopefully this information you have dug up rev gets a wider audience

    36. EdinScot says:

      Ditto Morag.  I think all the scare stories about currency, the EU, Nato et al from the NO side/Media are a smoke screen to what a NO vote will actually mean for all of us here in Scotland.  If we can get that to penetrate the psyche  of all us eligible  to vote then i think the penny will drop just exactly what its all about.  I take absolutely nothing for granted and as the vote count begins on 18/9/14, my eyes will be half peeking through my fingers.  Hope for a better Scotland drove me on when i canvassed from door to door on a rain lashed  monday night  in winter on a Bathgate estate over twenty years ago.  We havent come all this way for nothing.  Its written in the stars Morag that we must win this fight.  I think we will.

    37. Morag says:

      RevStu said:
      That’s about my view in a nutshell, only even worse because I don’t even have a partial barrier between me and the blue/red Tories.
       
      And you still won’t have one after a Yes vote.  You need to come home, in the medium term.  I did it nearly 7 years ago, and I can tell you first-hand, it feels absolutely wonderful.

      Regarding the panic about getting a No vote, I’m slightly comforted by the comparison with May 2011.  I felt the same then about the possibility of getting Iain Gray as FM.  Instead of working for an SNP vote just because that’s what I do, it was personal.  I was petrified that my fellow-voters wouldn’t recognise the consequences of reverting to a traditional Labour vote until it was too late.

      And look how that turned out.

    38. pmcrek says:

      Quick OT, BBC Newsnicht are “begging” for audience members for a debate on independence. Dont forget to put down on the application that you dont support Independence and that you vote Labour, otherwise you wont get selected.
       
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22358121

    39. Tattie-boggle says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      30 April, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      “Seriously scared person here. Titanic or lifeboat, indeed. I’ve been working for independence for 20 years, because I knew we’d do better. It was an aspirational goal. Now I’m desperate for independence because I’m in a flat panic about what’s going to happen to us if we don’t get it and this bunch of lunatic incompetents is left in charge.”
      That’s about my view in a nutshell, only even worse because I don’t even have a partial barrier between me and the blue/red Tories.
      ME TOO I’m Terrified for my kids future and my elderly mother because if it’s a No vote it signals  the green light for a Scorched Earth policy in Scotland

    40. Albert Herring says:

      “I have complained to Newsnet  on various occasions about this, but it has fallen on deaf ears ============================================================You’re lucky I got banned for making a complaint, bad day when your comments as a nationalist are more welcome in the Scotsman than a so called Nationalist publication, words like petard and hoisted come to mind”
       
      Me too. After giving a donation too 🙁

    41. Dan777A says:

      Hate to break it to you Rev but your comments on NNS have just been deleted, they want you to submit them as an article as they say they were too many. Good luck getting them to publish that lol!

    42. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “And you still won’t have one after a Yes vote. You need to come home, in the medium term.”

      As I’ve said before, I won’t be able to bear to come home if we’ve been so cowardly, craven and pathetic as to vote no. I’ll be ashamed to be Scottish for the rest of my life if that happens.

    43. Morag says:

      My point was, when we get a Yes vote.  We’re in the lifeboat – better not to stay on the Titanic if you can avoid it.

    44. Patrick Roden says:

      29/04/2013 – World at One (BBC)
      Ed Milliband when admiting that the Labour Party needed to admit that the last Labour Government got a number of things wrong:
      Ed Milliband “We (Labour Party) got it wrong on BANKING REGULATION !!!
      So can we assume that Johan et al will no longer attempt to point the finger at the SNP and Alex Salmond citing Alex’s so called letter of support for Fred Goodwin.
      Ed has admitted that the Labour Party was responsible for poor banking regulations.
      Nice one Ed.
       

    45. Dramfineday says:

      You wasted your 51 mins Rev – you’ve been “Admined”. Welcome to the club, I was daft enough to accuse them of being slow of the mark covering a topic last June and I was bounced into pre-mod – I’m still there. Aw Well.

    46. Yesitis says:

      Alex Salmond interview on 7pm Channel 4 News.

    47. deewal says:

      Heads up. Interview with AS on Channel 4 news coming up tonight apparently.

    48. Daisy says:

      Rev,
       
      Came home this month after 27 years enforced absence, it feels amazing to be able to contribute in any way possible to inform the debate. I understand your position, if it’s a No this time around, a Tory Govt in 2015 will concentrate the minds of those who chose Dante’s Inferno or didn’t bother turning up. I am the eternal optimist & opine that too many of us are working for the betterment of humanity & in the early days of a better nation.
       
      Daisy

    49. Jiggsbro says:

      Quick OT, BBC Newsnicht are “begging” for audience members for a debate on independence
       
      Interesting. As a non-Scottish Scot, I fit their requirements, so I might give it a shot. But I’m wondering what two questions I might want to ask, given that I have no set views on independence/devolution/voting intentions 😉 Any ideas for devious questions that might make it past the BBC filter, but still allow the Yes representative(s?) to make some solid points, would be very welcome.

    50. Linda's Back says:

      Fantastic 2 nil win for the  NO campaign this evening.
      Plenty of coverage of disagreements over currency but no mention of Paddy Ashdown’s intervention.
      Then BBC vox pop in Orkney finds someone to blame the Scottish government for an engine failure in the Hamnavoe  ferry.
       
       

    51. Jiggsbro says:

      You’re lucky I got banned for making a complaint, bad day when your comments as a nationalist are more welcome in the Scotsman than a so called Nationalist publication
       
      I always got the impression that Newsnet was run by people who joined the SNP because they believed all the tripe about Salmond being a dictator and thought they’d fit right in. I’d like to direct people to their site for one or two articles rebutting Unionist myths, but I’m always worried that undecided people will read the rest of their output, much of which is whinging paranoia.

    52. Jiggsbro says:

      Then BBC vox pop in Orkney finds someone to blame the Scottish government for an engine failure in the Hamnavoe  ferry.
       
      I do wonder whether visitors to Scotland, who absorb a little of our media output, might go away thinking the FM is called Alex Salmond-Accused.

    53. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “My point was, when we get a Yes vote. We’re in the lifeboat – better not to stay on the Titanic if you can avoid it.”

      Absolutely. Yes changes the picture dramatically.

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/where-the-heart-is/

    54. Juteman says:

      My account was blocked at Newsnet. Fair enough if i said something out of order. Despite 2 emails asking why i was blocked, i never recieved a reply.
      Such is life.

    55. Morag says:

      Absolutely. Yes changes the picture dramatically.
      http://wingsoverscotland.com/where-the-heart-is/
       
      You may note I commented on that at the time….

    56. CameronB says:

      See Dundonians, they never know when teh haud thier wheeshts.

    57. Lianachan says:

      I was blocked at Newsnet too, despite being a firm independence enthusiast who never making any insulting or offensive comments.  I think my crime was to have occasionally criticised the SNP and to complain about Newsnet’s censorship and hypocrisy.  I don’t definitely know, though, as I was never extended the basic courtesy of a reply to any of my emails.
      The irony of the deletion or RevStu’s comments will be lost on them.

    58. HandandShrimp says:

      Newsnet is an excellent source for articles but they might as well bin the comments section. It just doesn’t work. My flounce was that the moderation was heavier handed than the BBC. For all the Guardian has its faults the moderators there have been pretty kind to me (as long as I stay out of Bidisha threads 🙂   )

    59. Craig M says:

      Yeah, let’s stop moaning about Newsnet. Unless you want to do the job for the Unionists. There is precious little independent journalism available in Scotland. Let’s keep what we have and not undermine it.

    60. SCED says:

      The Devolution, or further Devolution, ploy is falling apart for the Together camp.
      The Welsh are complaining about delays in more money for Wales because the UK Gov is dragging it’s feet. The Welsh FM said giving the money would show Scotland Devolution works and that would head off Independence. But the UK Gov has also refused to commit to giving control of Corporation Tax in Northern Ireland because Scotland might ask for that too.
      The UK Gov cannot afford to give more Devolved powers, either politically or financially, to all these countries. Apart from anything else, the English regions would demand more too.
      This would mean the centralised control of revenues and bully power would be substantially reduced.
      The only thing they could do is promise more devolution then renege after the Referendum or the General Election.
       
       
       

    61. Vronsky says:

      Sorry to spoil the party, but isn’t it just a slip of the tongue?  Muddleband said yes when he meant no.  It’s absurd to believe that the man who wants to be PM would say that he can’t  solve the problems facing the country so if he seems to have said that, he’s just fumbled a word.  There’s plenty of evidence from his other interviews (lots of them on YouTube) that his mouth moves faster than his brain.  Not that that requires an electrifying turn of pace.
       
      Concerning lifeboats, I think we should all stay on the Titanic and sing along with ‘Nearer my God to Thee’.  I’ve heard a rumour that the lifeboats aren’t safe, you know… 

    62. bunter says:

      Listened to Canavan on BBC newsdrive stating that his preference is for a Scottish pound and Im wondering whats going on. Could it be that the SNP are playing the NO campaign and  their media puppets along, selling them a dummy,  with the ” a YES vote is a vote for A.S. and the SNP”usual pish, then along come YES who say, well actually this is not an election for a government but a decision as to whether we want to be a normal country, to bring the powers back home first,  based on the general contents and options  of the  white paper.
      I would like to think that the SNP are being used to draw the fire from the main target which is YES, who will then come to the fore and turn all the arguments on their head.
      Just bamboozeled at the moment and probably clutching at straws at what seems to be mysterious and incoherent strategy…DOH!
       
       

    63.  
      CameronB says:
      30 April, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      See Dundonians, they never know when teh haud thier wheeshts.
       
      As a Dundonian, can I ask, what have I missed?

    64. cynicalHighlander says:

      The comments are reading like a hate fest again, sad.

    65. john king says:

      Gordon Hay says:
      30 April, 2013 at 2:55 pm

      Seems the youngsters in this BT puff haven’t been listening to Millipede –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxbAu3LphYMthough they probably have been taking lessons from Lamont on reading from a script!
       
      I see they’re not too keen to invite comments on that video, 
      I wonder why?
      I  stopped when the kid said we get free university access and the next one spoke about the security of , then cut it off I really could not stand to listen to any more of that pish, one they will look back on that and wonder what the hell were they thinking?

    66. Castle Rock says:

      @Craig M
       
      Totally agree. 
       
      Why people want to attack or undermine another independence site is beyond me.  If some people took a slight step back and considered what they were posting before jumping in and slagging off another site then the independence movement would be far better off.
       
      It’s getting boring reading who has a bigger readership or who has a better moderation policy than me.  If you don’t like a site or don’t agree with their moderation policy then find a site that suits your needs and stop whinging about it or highlighting it here.
       
      Its fairly pointless asking some people to grow up as they’ve clearly got their own axe to grind (and I suspect their own agendas) so no matter what I or others might say they will still try and undermine other sites.
       
      It really is tiresome, damaging and diversive and it’s about time that some people started to grow up and understand the damage they are doing to the independence movement.
       

    67. Morag says:

      Sorry, I have no intention of forming a lock-step with everyone who supports independence, to the exclusion of all criticism.  It’s not healthy.

    68. HandandShrimp says:

      Castle Rock
       
      I don’t think anyone is slagging Newsnet’s output. It is a good news site. Let’s get that clear. However, a hell of a lot of us fellow independence supporters have been bumped from Newsnet for, well, a lot of us are not exactly sure what for.
       
      Newsnet is primarily a news site not a comment site. This is a discussion blog where comments are positively welcome. The two are not in competition. A moan about moderation is not a moan about independence.  

    69. Castle Rock says:

      @HandandShrimp
       
      Sorry I don’t agree.
       
      Some people are slagging off Newsnet and are using their moderation policy to have a go.
       
      I don’t agree with one of Bella’s contributors but so what, I choose to ignore the articles, it doesn’t make Bella a bad site and I won’t slag them off for having that person contributing.
       
      Constructive criticism is healthy, negative comments and jumping on a bandwagon is not.

    70. Jiggsbro says:

      There is precious little independent journalism available in Scotland. Let’s keep what we have and not undermine it.
       
      Newsnet undermines itself by being what it criticises, only with a bias to independence. It seems to serve no purpose other than stoking the self-righteous indignation of the McGlashans. Let’s improve what we have, rather than keeping anything because it’s better than nothing. Let’s criticise what we have if what we have isn’t good enough. I’d be embarrassed to direct any undecided voters to Newsnet.
       
      What will undermine the Yes campaign is the sort of Stalinist control over opinions and criticism that Newsnet imposes and the calls to stifle any criticism of any independence-minded output. We don’t have to be the dictatorial control freaks that the Unionists paint us as, you know. But if we are, you can be sure they’ll make hay with it. We all agree on one thing: independence. If we happen to agree on other things, so much the better. If we don’t, I don’t see why that should stop us working together for what we do agree on. The Yes camp is a broad church.

    71. Indion says:

       
      Diversity is strength.
       
      Unity is recognising that diversity is strength.

    72. HandandShrimp says:

      Castle Rock
       
      OK, well I haven’t had time to read every comment here yet. However, my constructive criticism is that Newsnet is an excellent news site that could do with reviewing their comment moderation policy to make it a more interactive and friendlier community. They don’t have to take any notice of course. I will still read their articles and add to their hit count and just as you ignore a contributor on Bella I will continue to ignore the comment section.

    73. Marcia says:

      In defence of Newsnet (although I don’t comment there) is at the time of their birth,  they did not want the comments after each article to end up like the Scotsman or the then Herald which were at that time down at sewer level. The Herald stopped their open forums but the sewer still exists over at the Scotsman. It maybe at time be preaching to the converted. They should ask some Unionist to pen a piece for their reasons for voting No.

    74. Jiggsbro says:

      I don’t think anyone is slagging Newsnet’s output.
       
      I am. Much of it is dreadful and more biased than the media it criticises. There are good, valuable articles in amongst the  self-indulgent, whinging, paranoid, victimhood, but it’s clearly only interested in preaching to the choir and then carefully conducting the choir’s response. It’s worse than useless as a source for the undecided, because the (unrepresentative) picture it paints of those in favour of independence would probably scare off as many as it would attract.

    75. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      NEWS FLASH!
      MONEYWEEK has just confirmed in a recent article, “The End of Britian”, that Britain is indeed unsavable!  
      http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain/
      This article is dynamite, and provides the perfect rebuttal of all the deception and scare stories peddled by the anti-independence BitterTogether mob.  The danger of a NO vote to Scotland economic future are laid bare in this article, and in indeed in acute detail. This is essential reading for those looking for independent ammo for doubters and nay sayers, and should be pushed to the forefront public awareness; in the spirit of National Collective outing of the dirty donation of the dodgy Taylor. 

    76. Castle Rock says:

      @HandandShrimp
       
      Thanks, good response.
       
      Each to their own.

    77. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      People, please can we all get back on topic.
      “Britain is Unsaveable”
      We have a victory to work towards here, and time is short.
      Rev, hope you agree!

    78. Silverytay says:

      AmadeusMinkowski     Well said ‘   I was beginning to wonder what site I was on .   I thought for a minute that the aliens had managed to abduct the Rev .

    79. Indion says:

      Channel 4 News ?@Channel4News 2h
      Video: Alex Salmond tells #c4news an independent Scotland would keep pound, but control its own taxes and spending – http://bit.ly/12i1Wly 

      Agreed! See above! 

    80. Bill C says:

      Fellow supporters of Scottish self determination, I appeal for calm.  We have much bigger problems to worry about than who said what on that site or this site. We are in a struggle (I would use the word fight, but that implies violence and I’m sure that is not on anybody’s agenda, on here at any rate) for our country’s liberty.  At the moment we are not winning but neither are we losing. However we will lose if we bicker among ourselves. I have been a supporter of independence for well over 40 years, I have been riduculed, threatened and attacked because I wish my country to to be the same as any other normal country on this planet.  We are within grasp of something I never dreamed I would see in my lifetime – an Independent Scotland as envisaged by Wallace, Bruce, Wilson, Baird, Hardie, McLean and hundreds of thousands of other ordinary Scots who have gone before. For Scotland’s sake desist from petty squabbling and witness the big picture. We are close, so close, please do not throw away what may be our nation’s only chance to be free.

    81. Morag says:

      Sorry, but I fail to see how anyone is throwing away our nation’s only chance to be free by sniping about NNS’s moderation policy.

      Get over yourself.

    82. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @ silvertay
      Thank you for reaffirming the notion that this primary objective is developing a community of informed activists who not only can inform the curious who enter herine, but also provides  knowldedge, insights and understanding that can be brought to bear on building up a grassroots boots-on-the-ground campaign to reach those who never venture online, or at least never go beyond MSM drivel.
       
      @Bill C
      Excellent input. You said it not only with historic perspective but also so much more eloquently than I did! We need people like you 🙂

    83. Breeks says:

      I don’t understand you fellas attacking Newsnet. I bet Better Together is laughing it’s socks off tonight. And all for what? Better the Trolls you know?
      Bizarre and sad.
      You talk about Newsnet undermining the YES vote? Have a word with yourselves eh?
      See ya at the polls in 2014. I think I’m done here.

    84. scottish_skier says:

      Video: Alex Salmond tells #c4news an independent Scotland would keep pound, but control its own taxes and spending 
      I see. A bit like Devo Max then.
      Not full, super, complete, utter, absolute, couldn’t possibly be more independent, but rather the next logical step.
      I can see why this has the pro-union camp with their knickers in a twist.
      Still have no ideal why Darling is telling the nervous ‘That’s categorically not independence you are voting for!’. Surely that’s counter-productive with respect to his cause?

    85. Bill C says:

      @Morag – You are entitled to your opinion and I thank you for your obvious input to our noble cause, however I believe your tone at times to be disappointing, inexperienced and unnecessarily combative. We have but one set of enemies – those who would see our country chained to Westminster.

    86. Morag says:

      Interestingly, a great deal of the criticism levelled at Salmond in this respect is to the effect that what he’s proposing isn’t “real independence”.  Snow had a real go at him along these lines.
       
      I was puzzled by this, but what SS says makes some sense of it.  Rather than attack the sensible and measured proposals, it’s easier to erect a straw man of “proper independence” then slag off the SNP proposals for not being that.  It comes over very strangely from unionists though.  Not “don’t take this radical and perilous step”, but “don’t bother doing this because it’s not what we thought you wanted”.  Odd.
       
      Thinking about Salmond’s proposals as being “devo-max friendly”, makes it easier to understand.  Will it work though?  It almost sounds as if Snow is saying, “look you’re only offering devo-max, don’t you want more?”  Is it really wise for the unionists to be pointing this out to people?

    87. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Sorry to spoil the party, but isn’t it just a slip of the tongue?”

      Yes, of course it is. The article goes on to point that out. But in fact, although he said it accidentally, it IS actually true.

    88. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Constructive criticism is healthy”

      Constructive criticism is exactly what they got, and have now deleted all trace of.

      That’s their call and I’m not making a fuss about it, but it does seem to back up a lot of what people had already been saying about them for months. They asked a question, I told them the answer, they didn’t like the answer and they wiped it. They’re no different to LabourHame, they’re just on our side. Hey ho. Let’s move on.

    89. Bill C says:

      @AmadeusMinkowski – Thank you
       

    90. Morag says:

      BillC, as an SNP activist for over 20 years, I don’t take kindly to being called inexperienced, even if you are boasting about 40 years.

      This is an internet blog.  The constant exhortations to lock-step with all other independence supporters and stifle all dissent by what comes over as the Stalinist thought police is frankly tedious.  This is RevStu’s blog.  If he wants to ban criticism of NNS then he has the right to do that.  I do not believe he has.  In fact, I recall him being quite supportive of free speech.

      I have only criticised NNS’s moderation, but I have some similar reservations about the editorial content to those Jiggsboro expresses.  I really don’t take kindly to pretentious “fellow independence supporter” lectures telling me I have no right to say so.  Only Rev Stu has that right, in the context of WoS.

    91. Morag says:

      RevStu said:
      Constructive criticism is exactly what they got, and have now deleted all trace of.
      That’s their call and I’m not making a fuss about it, but it does seem to back up a lot of what people had already been saying about them for months. They asked a question, I told them the answer, they didn’t like the answer and they wiped it. They’re no different to LabourHame, they’re just on our side. Hey ho. Let’s move on.
       
      I’d be interested to know which article you posted your comments on, as I didn’t see them before they were removed.  What was the general thrust of what you said? (This was my experience also. I pointed out an error in an article, and was put on permanent pre-moderation for my pains. I prefer I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN.)

    92. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Morag: I posted this on the “100,000 readers” page (had to do it in four parts over the course of an hour, but I went to the trouble because I wanted to know for sure that someone had at least tried to tell them it):

      ————————————-

      “Sadly, despite seeking clarification months ago from the BBC, we remain mystified as to their criteria for determining what media outlets are deemed allowable in the broadcaster’s regular promotion of other news vendors – both in their online and broadcast services.”

      Guys, I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but nobody’s fooled. You’re a partisan site like the rest of us, not a “news vendor”.

      The Scotsman et al might have a clear pro-Union agenda, but they conceal it with at least a figleaf of balance. The Herald employs Ian Bell, Harry Reid and Iain Macwhirter as regular columnists. The Record employs Joan McAlpine in the same capacity. The Scotsman often features George Kerevan, Ewan Crawford and numerous other pro-indy voices on a more intermittent basis.

      Where are your pro-Union articles? Where’s even the PRETENCE of balance? It’s non-existent. You write in an extraordinarily partisan manner, which is fine – I do too – but you appear to be trying to suggest you’re not, which is patently ridiculous.

      The tone of many of your pieces is extremely and openly hostile to the other side in a way that The Scotsman would never countenance. Your headlines in particular are often so transparently biased that they anger a lot of people on the nationalist side – who feel their intelligence is being insulted – let alone those in favour of the Union.

      And finally, your censorship of comments far exceeds that of most of the Scottish mainstream media, which is remarkably liberal in that regard. (Except the Herald.) What sort of example is that to be setting of a better Scotland?

      (Incredibly, I was even told I couldn’t post this comment because I’d “recently” added the previous one, and was told to “try again later” – though not how MUCH later – and when it was finally allowed I was told it was too long even though the box said I had 21 characters left and it was barely three sentences anyway. Even the Herald or Labour Hame are less restrictive.)

      You’ve done amazingly well to garner 100,000 readers despite such stupendous user-hostility, and I congratulate you sincerely on the feat, but popularity alone doesn’t make you a “news vendor” or Jeremy Clarkson would be one.

      (Quite apart from anything else, no remotely respectable news provider would STILL not have something as basic and fundamental as a Search function after all this time. It’s scarcely believable on any level, and not at all believable if you expect to be taken seriously as a news source.)

      Although you refuse to mobilise the power of your readership for the benefit of the rest of the online Yes movement, for reasons I can’t begin to understand in the context of achieving the goal of independence, the fact is that you’re NOT any different to blogs just because you adopt the stylings of a newspaper and have more frequent updates.

      You do what you do well, and your work is valuable and appreciated. But take it as the frank and candid advice you’d get from a true friend, because that’s what it is – don’t hold your breath expecting anyone, and especially not the BBC, to ever see you as something you’re absolutely and plainly not.

    93. Morag says:

      Oh wow man.  Respect.

      That is so far beyond my trivial sin (of pointing out an arithmetical error in an article complaining about the BBC’s arithmetical errors when reporting the local council results a year ago) that I fully expect you to be IP blocked from even reading the site!

    94. muttley79 says:

      @Scottish_Skier
       
      I see. A bit like Devo Max then.
      Not full, super, complete, utter, absolute, couldn’t possibly be more independent, but rather the next logical step.
      I can see why this has the pro-union camp with their knickers in a twist.
      Still have no ideal why Darling is telling the nervous ‘That’s categorically not independence you are voting for!’. Surely that’s counter-productive with respect to his cause?  
       
      I agree with that.  There is a hardcore support for independence in Scotland of about 30 per cent (35 per cent at max).  Additionally, Salmond knows that Devo Max was a popular option as the polls have been saying that for years.  The Unionists had their chance for a more powers option in the referendum, but refused it (whether it was even deliverable is irrelevant now).  Salmond would be aware that the Yes campaign can appeal to Devo Max supporters by making independence as close to Devo Max as possible, with the knowledge that independence supporters will vote Yes anyway.  After all, it is up to the SG to define what independence is in the White Paper.  It is certainly not up to Darling to define it.  In addition, the No campaign has nothing to offer Devo Max supporters because they turned down the option of a second question, and Lamont followed that up with her income tax proposals being rejected by Miliband.     

    95. Morag says:

      Hmmmm.  Is this the next Cunning Plan?  After having induced the unionist parties to insist that Dev Max must not appear on the ballot paper, we dress up independence as pretty much Devo Max, and invite the media to lambast the proposals for being nothing more than Devo Max?

      Oh.  I feel a bit stupid now.

    96. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “That is so far beyond my trivial sin (of pointing out an arithmetical error in an article complaining about the BBC’s arithmetical errors when reporting the local council results a year ago) that I fully expect you to be IP blocked from even reading the site!”

      I haven’t bothered trying to comment again, because I’m sure I’m in moderation at the least. Thing is, I don’t actually mind the censorship – I made my point, don’t care if it stays up and a big fight in the comments does nobody any good – but the reason given for deletion is so pathetic it’s a bit embarrassing. “You should submit this sort of thing as an article”. Yeah, right, that one’d be all over the front page.

    97. Bill C says:

      @Breeks – I agree that the pettiness of this particular debate is doing nothing more than creating howls of laughter in the bunkers of the naysayers, however to lose your contribution to this site only benefits the enemies of Scotland. I would also remind everyone that every independence movement suffers the parasitical damage inflicted by the agent provocateur, it is important not to allow ourselves to become victims of such intent.

    98. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I agree that the pettiness of this particular debate is doing nothing more than creating howls of laughter in the bunkers of the naysayers”

      I don’t. I don’t think it matters a toss. I made some constructive criticism, it got deleted, end of story. It’s just some words on the internet, adults having a debate, and I’m not about to undertake some sort of vendetta as a result. If anyone tries to make a story out of “two indy websites have a disagreement about something”, they’ll just look stupid and draw attention to both sites, so let them if they want to.

    99. Albert Herring says:

      “AmadeusMinkowski says:NEWS FLASH! MONEYWEEK has just confirmed in a recent article, “The End of Britian”, that Britain is indeed unsavable!  

      http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain/ “

      This article may well be “dynamite”. Please note though, it is also a sales letter.

    100. Bill C says:

      @Morag – As I said earlier, your tone is disappointing and I believe unhelpful to our cause.

    101. Morag says:

      RevStu said:
      – but the reason given for deletion is so pathetic it’s a bit embarrassing. “You should submit this sort of thing as an article”. Yeah, right, that one’d be all over the front page.
       
      I was gobsmacked when I saw they really made that suggestion.  I thought the poster who reported it was being satirical.

    102. Castle Rock says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      “…they asked a question, I told them the answer…”
       
       
      But they never asked you a direct question so you couldn’t have told them “the answer”
       
      Why are you attacking a pro independence site?

    103. muttley79 says:

      @Morag
       
      Hmmmm.  Is this the next Cunning Plan?  After having induced the unionist parties to insist that Dev Max must not appear on the ballot paper, we dress up independence as pretty much Devo Max, and invite the media to lambast the proposals for being nothing more than Devo Max?
       
      I reckon it will be as close to Devo Max as possible.  The meaning of independence has changed anyway from what it would have been in the 1970s for instance.  It is not a good sign for the No campaign if the Unionists start jumping up and down about it, because it simply is not up to them to define it.  When the White paper is published in the autumn then all will be revealed no doubt.  
       

    104. Morag says:

      Well Bill, I find your tone extremely annoying, though frankly I struggle to see how a bunch of comments this far below the line on a blog can be either helpful or unhelpful to “our cause”.

      Get over yourself.  RevStu calls the shots here.  If you want to moderate comments, start your own blog.

    105. Morag says:

      Anybody listening to Newsnicht at the moment?

    106. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

      So lt’s get this right. Labour are saying Britain’s fucked. Labour are telling Scotland to fuck off regarding more fiscal powers.
      What an opportunity for the YES campaign. Vote NO for no hope. Vote YES for hope. 

    107. Bill C says:

      Rev – My comments were not intended as criticism of anyone’s point of view, simply an appeal for unity and a recognition of the magnitude of the struggle and enemy we face.  

    108. Yesitis says:

      Morag
      Anybody listening to Newsnicht at the moment?
       
      Those bullying, humourless cyberNats.
      *shakes head and sighs*
       

    109. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “My comments were not intended as criticism of anyone’s point of view, simply an appeal for unity and a recognition of the magnitude of the struggle and enemy we face.”

      Constructive criticism is part of unity, which is why I don’t delete yours. Think of a decent Rangers fan sitting next to some mouth-breathing thug belting out The Sash and No Surrender non-stop for 90 minutes. What serves the club’s cause best? The first guy sitting in silence, or suggesting that maybe his colleague isn’t helping? Speaking up might be futile, but should he not at least try?

      (NB It pains me to have to pre-emptively say this, but ANALOGY IS NOT EQUIVALENCE, mmkay?)

    110. muttley79 says:

      Who said that about cybernatz?  Was it Simon Pia again?

    111. Morag says:

      If I hear one more “appeal for unity” or reference to “our noble cause”, I will probably SSCCCCCRRRREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMM…….

      I’m beginning to think the unitrolls who accuse the SNP of being some sort of Stalinist hive mind, brainwashed to obey the iron discipline of the party machine, has some truth in it.  I never got that impression before, but here it is, large as life.

    112. Morag says:

      Who said that about cybernatz?  Was it Simon Pia again?
       
      Don’t think so.  It wasn’t David Torrance either, for once.  Wait for iPlayer?

    113. Yesitis says:

      Muttley
      Who said that about cybernatz?  Was it Simon Pia again?
       
      Gordon Brewer mentioned CyberNats on Newsnight talking about comedienne Susan Calman`s treatment at the hands of the abusive CyberNats.

      I think it was supposed to be a semi-humourous piece.

    114. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @Albert Herring
      Have you read the article
      http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain/ 
      If so, I’m confused by your comment. Why? Well, first, the entire BitterTogether campaign for why Scotland should stay with UKpl is really one big dodgy sales letter ;  the data of the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commision confirms its dodgyness! 
      http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017
      However,MoneyWeek’s appraisal of UKplc is based on solid and extensive data; if there were major inaccuracies in their judgement, UKplc would be all over them with rebuttals. Also, if you want another perspective on the fate of UKplc, you might peruse the authoritative recent work of Jim Cuthbert “The Mismanagement of Britain”.
      http://radicalindependence.org/index.php/new-report-on-uk-economy-radical-independence-briefing/
      Both articles reach the same conclusion. UKplc is a sinking fast.

    115. Bill C says:

      @Morag – I am sorry that you find my tone to be “extremely annoying”, I have no intention to annoy anyone, however, perhaps at the risk of being “extremely annoying”, I would advise that to tell someone to “get over” themselves x 2 is not the best way to win a debate or help to win an independent Scotland. I wish you a good evening.

    116. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @ ronald alexander mcdonald
      Well put! For further ammunition, you might want to peruse Money Weeks article titled “The End of Britain”
      http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain/ 
      or 
       Jim Cuthbert “The Mismanagement of Britain”.http://radicalindependence.org/index.php/new-report-on-uk-economy-radical-independence-briefing/Both articles reach the same conclusion. UKplc is a sinking fast.
      You have to give it to Milliband/Labour. At least their being honest about the fate of UKplc ! 😉

    117. Morag says:

      Muttley79 said:
      I reckon it will be as close to Devo Max as possible.  The meaning of independence has changed anyway from what it would have been in the 1970s for instance.  It is not a good sign for the No campaign if the Unionists start jumping up and down about it, because it simply is not up to them to define it.  When the White paper is published in the autumn then all will be revealed no doubt.
       
      It’s the strategy implications of this that have only just begun to dawn on me.

      It took me a while to figure out what was going on with all the assertions that Salmond wanted a Devo Max question on the ballot paper.  The media were putting over the theory that he had given up on independence and was going to hit us all with a terrible blow when he revealed that he was actually going for Devo Plus.  I don’t know Salmond all that well, but I know him well enough to know that if you cut him in half you’d find “independence” written all the way through like a stick of rock.

      Then someone from the SNP – a junior backbencher – came on Newsnicht and explained it.  I was seriously impressed.  I thought the media would finally get it but they never did.  It was an absolute blinder.  Devo Max off the ballot paper, and the unionist parties did it to themselves.

      Now, he’s positioning independence to look awfully like Devo Max, and the media are playing right into his hands again.  Ooooh, why would anyone want to vote for such an anaemic proposal as yours, it’s not real independence!

      I stand in awe.

    118. Morag says:

      Bill, if you decide to vote No because I told you to get over yourself, that’s too bad.

      You were the one who started attacking other posters and trying to dictate what they were allowed to say. If you can’t take the heat, you know what to do.

    119. Bill C says:

      Rev – It is your site and you are entitled to take whatever stand you think appropriate, however I record my dissent. I also wish you a good evening.

    120. Ghengis says:

      Meanwhile over at NewsNetScotland The Scottish pound is reported as outperforming the UK pound at a Hong Kong exchange. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/7292-backing-for-scottish-pound-from-unlikely-source
      A de-facto Scottish currency is forming. That’ll put the frighteners on Westminster 🙂 . of course it could be subverted and manipulated by the forces of darkness .., Aye I mean of course those with the killer sports bags 😉

    121. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It is your site and you are entitled to take whatever stand you think appropriate, however I record my dissent. I also wish you a good evening.”

      Let’s all have pleasant dreams and get back to work in the morning…

    122. Randomscot says:

      I remember Newsnet in its earlier incarnation, when it was one of a few blogs that became popular as the BBC Blether with Brian, which had been doing a kind of job in linking Indy folk together to exchange info, started the heavy moderation, probably because they realised the service they were inadvertantly providing.
      I saw the new Newsnetscotland born, the schism and split when the “journalist” left them, leaving much confusion and a temporary hijacking of the site.
       
      I saw the moderation go out of its way to protect a tiny group, possibly one or two people with multiple accounts, of right-wing fantasists who have an opinion of themselves in Scottish history similar to that of the Prieury de Sion had in the French, and at least the Prieury knew it was fictional.
       
      That mod policy has hardened. Not only has the Rev been censored off, but my point about them now becoming what they were established to counter, and the replies, have also been modded off.
       
      You don’t have to agree with everything a blog does. I don’t agree with everything RevStu does, though I do not think my donation means I own him and if he says something I disagree with then I should get my money back, but the blog, if it aspires to be a source of news, should be even handed, and not a vanity project

    123. tartanfever says:

      Albert H – well pointed out about that bloody Moneyweek article. As much as anything else, it is a massive sales pitch to subscribe to the publication – and of course the most effective way to do that is to SCARE THE S**T out of everyone.
      Now I’ve no doubt there is a lot of good information in there, which has been pointed out at least three times on this thread, so in the interest of balance, people clicking on that thread will spend the next 20 minutes reading the biggest infomercial out there.

    124. Albert Herring says:

      AmadeusMinkowski 
      Yes I have read it, and there may well be some truth in it. However it is a sales letter which invites people to subscribe to their magazine, and therefore to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
      Jim Cuthbert’s piece is another kettle of fish altogether.

    125. Bill C says:

      @Morag – I attempted to draw a line under this unproductive dialogue, however some of your comments culminating in “Bill, if you decide to vote No because I told you to get over yourself, that’s too bad” stir me to respond.
      So let me be clear:
      1. Hell will freeze over before I vote No.
      2. I do not “boast” of being a lifelong supporter of Scottish independence, experience can be useful.
      3. Division is defeat.
      4. Petty point scoring is juvenile.
      Again I bid you good evening and in the context of this discussion, goodbye.

    126. HandandShrimp says:

      tartanfever
       
      Yes, that is indeed so. I posted the Money Week link much earlier in the day with a short note to say that they have really over done the pension liabilities, throwing in the kitchen sink and the bath tub.
       
      It is a plug, not just for the magazine but their suggested safeguards and portfolio of investment recommendations. Strip all that out and it is still a sobering set of figures and there are no easy fixes for the UK. A situation that is hardly improving at the moment nor likely to improve..a point Ed might be trying to introduce to the debate.

    127. Bill C says:

      @Rev -“Let’s all have pleasant dreams and get back to work in the morning”. Amen to that.

    128. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @tartanfever
      The MoneyWeek article “The End of Britain”
      http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain/ 
      combined  to Jim Cuthbert’s article 
      “The Mismanagement of Britain”.
      http://radicalindependence.org/index.php/new-report-on-uk-economy-radical-independence-briefing/
      provides an excellent and definitive knock out punch to any blethering about the safety of staying with UKplc. The fact that one article is by a commercial publishing house, and the other by an independent writer with no direct financial insentive is a STRENGTH, since they CORROBORATE one another; that helps convince the uncertain.
      Further, you say MoneyWeek is seeking to “Scare the Shit out of Everyone”, but this is precisely what the co-opted MSM is doing against the Independence movement EVERY DAY!. So, I find it strange that you would encourage those on this thread not to read what MoneyWeek has written about UKplc; remember, this Magazine claims to be the UK’s best selling financial magazine. So, why wouldn’t we want to refer to it in helping others to see all will not be well if Scotland chooses to stay with UKplc. If they want to go deeper, then Cuthbert is waiting! 

    129. Morag says:

      Randomscot said:
      I saw the moderation go out of its way to protect a tiny group, possibly one or two people with multiple accounts, of right-wing fantasists who have an opinion of themselves in Scottish history similar to that of the Prieury de Sion had in the French, and at least the Prieury knew it was fictional.
       
      Oh yes.  That.  If you big up the SDA, you’re teflon.  Unctious, oily praise of NNS is all that’s left now on the article RevStu posited on.  And it’s coming from the posters who regularly post commercials for the SDA, or lionise that fantasist prat Wilkie who goes around claiming that he and a couple of mates forced the Council of Europe to force Tony Blair to grant devolution.  No pre-moderation for them.

      I don’t really mind.  I read the articles I’m interested in, but mainly the ones that are signed by a real person.  The anonymous ones are mostly propaganda and it’s hard to trust a writer who won’t even put a pseudonym to their work.  I seldom read the comments these days.  No skin off my nose.  If people like the site, that’s great.

      What I do object to are sanctimonious prefects coming over here to Wings and trying to enforce a similar no-dissent policy which RevStu has never endorsed.

    130. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @HandandShrimp
      Sorry, didn’t see your earlier post on “The End of Britain”; I defer to your precedence here.
      I thoroughly agree with your summary that the article provides  
      “a sobering set of figures and there are no easy fixes for the UK. A situation that is hardly improving at the moment nor likely to improve.”
      We should therefore be using it to help those who believe there is some financial security and certainty associated with Scotland remaining within UKplc. It couldn’t be further from the truth.
       

    131. Morag says:

      BillC said:
      @Morag – I attempted to draw a line under this unproductive dialogue, however some of your comments culminating in ”Bill, if you decide to vote No because I told you to get over yourself, that’s too bad” stir me to respond.
      So let me be clear:
      1. Hell will freeze over before I vote No.
      2. I do not “boast” of being a lifelong supporter of Scottish independence, experience can be useful.
      3. Division is defeat.
      4. Petty point scoring is juvenile.
      Again I bid you good evening and in the context of this discussion, goodbye.
       
      But dammit, you don’t go!

      So what could you have meant when declaring that my telling you to get over yourself (something you badly need to do by the way) was not helping to win an independent Scotland?  It doesn’t influence you towards a No vote.  Do you seriously think that me telling you to get over yourself below the line in comments on a blog, once the comments are well into three figures, is going to influence someone else to vote No?

      If you are what 40 years of “experience” produces, I hope to hell I never need to clock up that many.  Humourless, sanctimonious proselytising from the thought police is not attractive.

    132. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      Self-parody anyone?

    133. Morag says:

      Amadeus, I’ve read MoneyWeek before, and it’s very true that they over-egg the cake to try to get you to buy their magazine.  There’s no doubt foundation of truth to what they say, but it doesn’t do to swallow it whole.

      Scaring the shit out of everyone in pursuit of your own agenda isn’t pretty when the unionist media do it, and it isn’t pretty when MoneyWeek does it.  I don’t really see the difference.

    134. Indion says:

       
      Stage 1 Referendum:
       
      Q  ” Should Scotland be an independent country? ”
      A   YES wins
       
      Stage 2 Negotiations whilst still part of the UK:
      rUK:  But sharing our central bank and currency isn’t independence as we know it! The best we can offer before the UK General Election is a confederal union* within the UK. We’ll be better together that (devo-max/indy-lite) way!
      Sco:  It’s our central bank and currency too! And right now we need the full fiscal autonomy of political independence and full fiscal autonomy to deal with our share of the deficit and debt successive Lab & ConLib maladministrations at Whitehall & Westminster have racked up. So what we are offering you is a confederal union* outwith the UK, but with the rUK. We’ll be best together that (interdependent) way!
      [* each paying a pro-rata amount for shared services (there being no point in needless duplication)]
       
      George Kerevan scores some of the most salient points of the Sco gov’s case for a continuing currency union over at Newsnet.  But this aspect is one I expect everyone in the British Isles would want to see settled quickly because the currency market sharks will be circling weak positions.
       
      So my ‘take’ is that Osborne did not come to tell Sco that sharing sterling couldn’t be done, but that he wanted the credit for getting the Sco gov to agree to the conditions it’s going to get that it seems to want anyway. If the markets think otherwise given the state of the UK economy closer in 14 months time, it’s he that will be playing with fire if the Sco gov has a forced to fallback position. And it will. 
       
      For want of a name, what we’ve been watching is pre-negotiations under the usual UK guise of fear and doubt to belittle our natural aspirations.
       
      I’ll be voting YES regardless which way that or any part of the negotiations might turn out to be. Moreover, I can see no downside for any devo-max or indy supporters not doing so either.
       
      Whether it’s skimmed or full fat, we’re going to go thirsty for a fit for purpose democracy and economy without it.  And I for one am parched enough already from the UK well of discontent.
       
            
       

    135. HandandShrimp says:

      Amadeus
       
      You are right and the thing is Ed and Ed and Dave and George all know this. I am pretty sure Alastair knows this too. They are on the one hand fully aware what is facing the UK and yet blithely telling us we are better together. They don’t actually know what the future holds (although the financial Armageddon of Money Week is an extreme rather than a most likely outcome)

    136. pmcrek says:

      AmadeusMinkowski
      No offense to you personally but that MoneyWeek article reads like a marketing leaflet, its  almost like a bizarre cult recruitment drive. I tried digging around and it appears they are blacklisted from wikipedia for some reason.

    137. Bill C says:

      @Morag -In the language of our ancestors -‘Oidhche mhath’.

    138. Morag says:

      In the language of W. S. Gilbert…..

      Oh hell, what’s the use.

    139. Morag says:

      Indion, I’m not sure I entirely follow that.  Nevertheless, we’re not going to turn into North Korea overnight on independence day, so obviously a relationship has to be worked out.

    140. Ghengis says:

      The simple answer to the claim that: Using Sterling and the BOE interest rates and as lender of last resort will not be independence is simply this:
       
      At the moment we control only 7 percent of our revenues rising to 15 percent with the Scotland act.
       
      Voting Yes means we will control 100% of our revenues ..  As 3rd richest country in the EU and 8th richest in the OECD we wont be looking for a bailout …. ever.
       
       

    141. Bill C says:

      @Morag – “Oh hell, what’s the use.”  When asking a question best to use a ? . LoL. Hail Caesar!

    142. Barontorc says:

      Just my tuppenceworth on Newsnet’s publication policy. Like almost everyone who has commented on here, the concept of NNS in the earlier days was a revelation for genuine comment denied by the propagandist/trolls at the Herald and Scotsman.
      However, this certainly had  changes wrought to it after a certain date when restrictions were enforced with a 30 minute time elapse between comments and then a rule on length of comment, which didn’t seem to have any word count control and then a proscribed but secret lexicon of unacceptable words.
      But, what appears to be a common failure/refusal to respond to emails as to why posts were not appearing or regarding their moderation policy, is a serious no,no, in any marketing terms and it is quite sad.
      That said – there are many lively contributors who are very content with WOS, despite the odd interplay upsets that spring up from time to time and long may it continue to be restrictive free and free for all to enjoy. Thanks Rev Stu!

    143. Indion says:

       
      Morag
       
      We’re in a currency union.  We’re going to stay in that currency union for the foreseeable future through transition, but would be culpably negligent if not preparing for an alternative fallback arrangement, ostensibly for negotiations but more realistically if the rUK gets into unsurmountable difficulties (which I doubt).
       
      When it gets down to brass tacks, Osborne would wish his climb down to be seen as a concession by his UK audience.
       
      The relationship will be of a confederal nature because it’s the only the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty and Scotland’s people’s sovereignty can share.
       
      The extent of that sharing will be pragmatic as befits our social union and prevailing economic conditions to best achieve a co-ordinated reduction of our respective deficits and debts. Because of compounding interest, the latter is inexorably headed for 100% of UK GDP @ circa £1.5 trillion by 2015.  (It would have been sooner, but for the limited success of a 20% devaluation, QE measures and unorthodox Treasury/BoE bookeeping that kicked the can down the road pending the procrastination of political will in the eurozone.)  
       
      Pass on ‘North Korea’!?

    144. Indion says:

       
      Ghengis @ 12:55am
       
      And as befits our lateral sharing and vertical lending of sovereignty, we should decentralise as much as possible of our democracy from central government so that no tier is too big too fail nor too small to succeed.
       
      We don’t need more politicians and officials at Holyrood more than we need proven politicians and officials at and from local government in an altogether much more participative democracy than hitherto.

    145. scottish_skier says:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22358118

      Scottish independence: Damage to UK’s reputation ‘inevitable’ say MPs

      Poor wee didums.

      Of course the best way to limit such a thing is facilitating Scottish independence, not fighting it. The Tories have that worked out.

    146. Macart says:

      @scottish_skier
       
      Well not without making it glaringly obvious to the rest of UKPLC. They send up their most reviled ministers to stir up the populace. They launch a few deeply unpopular and divisive bills. They allow Labour/better no to make final word statements on currency and the EU then helpfully stab them in the back. I mean, short of just coming out and saying cheeriebye and lets divvie up the DVD collection, they can’t do much more to help. 🙂

    147. scottish_skier says:

      Comres poll suggests possible 250 seat gain by UKIP in the English council elections.

      http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7372

      This is an interesting caveat and one that may have quite an impact on Scotland.

      ‘UKIP make large gains’ type headlines are not exactly conducive to being ‘Better Together’. Certainly, short of a Tory majority, big UKIP gains would be in at least second place in terms of giving the Scots electorate a large push towards Yes.

      UKIP gains will certainly overshadow any protest vote Labour gains/Tory losses.

    148. tartanfever says:

      Amadeus Minjkowski – Don’t accuse people of saying things they didn’t say. I have not told people not to read that bloody Moneyweek article – I simply pointed out that it is also a massive marketing strategy and they will be reading the biggest infomercial out there.
      All in the fairness of balance, you understand – but please refrain from accusing people of things they clearly have not done.

    149. tartanfever says:

      Question for you SS. What do you think those voting UKIP at present will do in the 2015 GE ?
      Will they stick to their guns, vote UKIP in the hope of forming a coalition with the Tories ?
      Or will they realise their best bet of a European referendum is with Cameron and so revert back to a Tory vote ?
       

    150. Silverytay says:

      It was just as well that I was in bed last night when I was watching the North British news at 10.25 .    When they started interviewing Dennis Canavan and the Greens and linking other groups other than the S.N.P to the Yes campaign ‘ I thought I had entered the twilight world .
      I posted previously that I was beginning to think that A.S had set a trap for the unionists over sterling and every day that passes just strengthens that belief .
      The thought that other people in Scotland are now pushing for Scotland to have its own currency away from sterling must be giving Osborne and Darling nightmares .

    151. Macart says:

      @skier
       
      ‘UKIP make large gains’ type headlines are not exactly conducive to being ‘Better Together’.
       
      Agreed. The Tories have made it quite clear that Better Together is Labour’s baby. UKIP are aware they won’t get anywhere in a GE as are their voting base. The disturbing general lurch to the right by the English electorate doesn’t bode well for Labour in 2015 and Con central are fully clued up. I’m sure they’ll be able count on those UKIP soft votes for a GE. They’re not so much stabbing their buds in the back as eyeball to eyeball now. Ed and Lamont’s recent car crashes have highlighted their lack of ability, vision and hell pretty much all leadership qualities. They’re making themselves completely unelectable with only a little help from their friends.

    152. Boorach says:

      Am extremely concerned for the good folk of Brora (both of them) this morning with what looks to be a warship heading into it’s harbour! Westminster getting it’s retribution in first?

    153. Marcia says:

      Re the UKIP chances in the English elections tomorrow. The sudden rise in the opinion polls for them could be a problem for them too. It could be that a lot of paper candidates who they put up with no chance a month ago might find themselves elected. Not all will be suited to being a councillor and it also saps the local organisation if their activists become councillors.
      I look back to the local elections after Hamilton in 1968 and quite a number of SNP councillors elected found it hard going. The same thing happened in 1977 when the SNP became the administration overnight in a few places with no experience of local government. Thankfully the party has matured since then.

    154. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @tartanfever
      I don’t !   There is clearly a misunderstanding here, which I’m happy to clear up with the aid of phrasal verbs! ; a grammatical term favoured by linguists.
      I previously wrote
      “I find it strange that you would encourage those on this thread not to read what MoneyWeek has written about UKplc”
      Perhaps if I had not written the disjoined phrasal verb structure above (bold-face), but rather expressed the concept in a more direct composite phrasal verb form, e.g. discourage to read, then you would see that you misapprehend my statement. I agree that you never said not to read, but I never alleged that you did. 
      Truce? 
       

    155. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      UKplc Infomercials !
      It just occurred to me that tartan fevers critique of the Money Week article, as simply a large infomercial, provides a perfectly neat way to encode the largely tendentious output of the Main Stream Media regarding Scottish Independence. Their output functions as UKplc Infomercials.
      Anyone think this might catch on? 🙂

    156. dmw42 says:

      I haven’t had the chance to read through the full FAC report but, needless to say it is heavily biased towards rUK’s self- interest, and bugger what the people of Scotland think. I’ve extracted some of the quotes below and the report can be accessed from this link http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/64302.htm
       
      However, in the event that the Scottish Government continued to assert that Scotland was a co-equal state, significant consequences for the RUK and for the broader international community could arise…
       
      It is for the EU itself to determine in accordance with its regulations whether and how Scotland would become a member. There are no specific EU treaty provisions applicable to Scotland’s situation nor any direct historical precedents upon which interested parties can draw…
       
      In the event that the RUK and Scotland continued to disagree over who would inherit what, there are on the face of it only a few formal codified rules of international law that govern such events. The two multilateral agreements that formally address the question of state succession have limited international support and in any event, the UK is not a party to, and is therefore not bound by, either…
       
      They were clear that it would be prohibitively difficult and costly to find any other site for Trident outside Scotland…There would also be a greater chance that the RUK’s relationship with its key allies and traditional defence partners, including its privileged relationship with the US, which is at least partly sustained by nuclear and security co-operation, would come under scrutiny and review if it did not retain its nuclear deterrent, which of itself could serve to fuel the views of some states that the RUK was a power in irreversible decline…
       
      Other witnesses claimed that the emergence of Scotland as an independent country could give rise to perceptions overseas that the UK’s weight and influence is in decline
       
      We heard from a number of witnesses that proactive political and diplomatic management of the situation would be required to prevent objections arsing from key states. Thus far, it is not clear that the UK is doing this, partly because it has chosen to state, as a policy position, that it is confident Scots will vote to stay as part of the UK. The problem with this strategy from an international perspective, is that “countries are finding it difficult to assess their own response to independence since they are not getting much response from Whitehall“…
       
      No doubt Stu will be reviewing and giving his expert analysis in due course.

    157. Aplinal says:

      @Indion
       
      I am sympathetic to the idea of devolving power to its lowest appropriate level.  this is after all the concept beloved of the EU; Subsidiariy.   Many people shie away from this when they look at the “quality” of local councillors etc.  I can understand this nervousity (is that a word?).  However, maybe it’s time that local officials were REALLY made accountable to their constituency?  
       
      An Independent Scotland does not need all the trappings that the UK suffers from.  We do not need the multiple layers of governance, often overlapping and confusing.  Whitehall and Public Administration in general is not very efficient.  They have been trying for over 150 years to improve it, so far with limited impact.
       
      We WILL have the opportunity to rewrite HOW Scotland is governed, we can’t afford to lose this chance.
       
      On the AS interview.  I commend on NNS [hope that’s OK with everyone ;-)] that I thought this was one of AS poorer interviews against, admittedly a very poor interview by Jon Snow.  He – Snow – has gone down in my estimation.  Poorly researched (or perhaps NOT?) and overly aggressive.  Far too many interruptions.  Time for AS and others to say.  “Look, if you continually inter up me when I am trying to answer, your viewers may think you don’t want to hear the answer.”  Or some such. I know there is 18 months to go, but it is mightily frustrating at times.  
       
      <head in hands> Play the long game, Aplinal, the long game.

    158. Doug Daniel says:

      Just feel like sticking my oar in about the MoneyWeek article. It reads like one of those emails you get after filling in a test online that says “do you want to find out more? Just buy our book and you can find out the full results of your test! Buy our CD-ROM for the full programme!” and so on.
       
      It’s basically MoneyWeek going “OMG the economy is going to die! But don’t worry, we know how you can avoid it! But first, we’re going to hammer the point home relentlessly that the economy is going to die, so that you’re desperate to know how to avoid the crash! Okay, we’re almost done telling you why it’s going to die, and by the way, we were right about all these other things too! Right, here we go, here is how you can avoid the crash:
       
      Take out a subscription to our magazine, and we’ll tell you.”
       
      Even if some of it is good analysis (and it isn’t), it’s just too long and ranty to be of use to anyone. But here’s the thing – according to them, the problem is basically the welfare state. They’re saying the economy is buggered because of all the debt built up from pensions etc. But if that were true, the debt would have started rocketing up almost straight away. It didn’t, it started rocketing up under Thatcher. It’s not the welfare state that is the problem, it’s Thatcherite economics. But they don’t identify that.
       
      The thing they DO identify – a generous welfare state – is something we’re supposed to be arguing in favour of, as a sign of how Scotland can do things differently from rUK. So how does it help to convince people that we need independence to stop our welfare state being attacked by the Tories by using an article that, erm, attacks the welfare state?
       
      I mean, their graphs don’t even seem to be using real-terms debt values, so of course the debt in the 1930s was less than the debt in the 70s, for example. I just can’t take analysis that fails on such a basic level seriously.

    159. Morag says:

      Indion said:
      Pass on ‘North Korea’!?
       
      That was just shorthand for the meme where you’re only “truly” independent if you have no contact at all with any other country.  The way some commentators are going on, North Korea is the only independent country in the world, and if we’re not going to aspire to that, what’s the point?

    160. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @Doug Daniel
      Excellent, and funny, review of the MoneyWeek article. Thanks for that. I should say that my enthusiasm for this “Infomercial”, was that it parallels the UKplc infomercials against Scottish Independence provided by the MSM. Fighting fire with fire so to speak, for those who don’t go deeper than headlines. For those presented with such a contradictory alarmist views will suffer  dissonance, and that might provide the opening for them to be open to question the assumptions they have come to rely on from the MSM. In that sense, the MoneyWeek article can be a means to and end, for those who instinctively feel they don’t need to go deeper than a headline. Break that assumption, and then you have an opening. One can then point to Cuthbert and the Fiscal Commission for authoritative input on the economic issues around Independence. We need strategies for getting to the Don’t Knows and the Soft Nos, and I’m constantly looking for ways to make in-roads there.

    161. Barontorc says:

      AmadeusMinkowski  – ‘phrasal verbs’ indeed – we just don’t get that sort of grammar precision on inferior blogs. This site’s an education tool as well as being anarchic, free, sh*t stirring and a thoroughly enjoyable pursuit. Weel done Cutty Sarks all!

    162. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @Barontorc
      Mastery of phrasal verbs increases the precision with which ideas can be expressed. It also allows one to identify when the Media and or Politicians are using them to mislead/deceive. They presume, rightly, that they can focus the majority of listeners/readers onto just one of the verbs in the phrase, knowing that the auxiliary components of the phrasal verb, which may radically modify the meaning, will go unnoticed. This then is a form of subliminal messaging so to speak. In this way they get their intended, though tendentious, effect, while being safe from being legally caught out. 
      Hail Caesar!

    163. lumilumi says:

      @Amadeus & Barontorc
       
      As someone who’s studied linguistics and English to MA level, may I gently point out that while your point is valid, you’ve got the terminology mixed up.
       
      Phrasal verbs are verb + preposition, such as ‘look up’ (search), ‘write down’ (make notes) etc. What Amadeus seems to be referring to is the whole verb phrase (VP) in a sentence. The VP can be very simple, a single verb (The cat sat on a mat) but often it can include a whole litany of prime and auxiliary verbs, sometimes separated by other words (“I wouldn’t presume to imply that you didn’t know your native language” – first VP bolded (second, subordinate VP being “didn’t know”)).
       
      But Amadeus is right, use of complex verb phrases allow for the insertion of all kinds of verbs that are, grammatically, being negated or hedged. In my example above, I’ve been able to insert the word ‘imply’ to insinuate that actually I am implying exactly what the following subordinate clause says. Which, by the way, I’m not implying or thinking at all! It’s just an example that I thought up (there’s a nice phrasal verb) in a hurry. 😀
       
      Political speeches are written very carefully and politicians are trained in public speaking: what words to use and not to use, how to seem to be saying something different that what you’re actually saying, how to appear to be answering questions while putting across your own view etc.
       
      In that light, Ed Miliband’s slip of the tongue is quite a delightful Freudian slip. He privately thinks that the UK is doomed, we’re all doomed… Except, Scotland has a get out jail free card, if the people have the sense to vote YES in 2014.

    164. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @lumilumi and @Barontorc

       
      Excellent input lumilumi, and I understand exactly where your coming from. I’m actually very excited to have come accross a linguist; not formally trained in that myself, but have been enthralled with it on a private basis of late.
      Now, I purposefully used the term phrasal verb for a vareity of reason reasons which follow; and please do correct me or provide alternative scenarios. First, there is no agreement among linguists on grammatical nature of composite verb structures as appear in, for example,

      I want to see a YES result in 2014! 🙂

      Some would argue that the phrasal unit “want to see” FUNCTIONS as a single verb; hence the reasonableness of the term phrasal verb; a verb comprised of verbs.
      This is what you are calling a verb phrase, but this reification places the concept of phrase at the forefront (i.e., the principle noun) and this de-emphasises the FUNCTION of the unit.
       
      Lumilumi, given your example, The cat sat on a mat, and presuming that here you interpret the unit “sat on” as what you call phrasal verb, I’m interested in your grammatical view on the sentence below.

      The Bitter Together fell to 10% on election day! 🙂

       In particular, from your standpoint which unit is the phrasal verb? Looking forward to your response.
      Hail Caesar!

      1 May, 2013 at 3:59 pm Barontorc

    165. AmadeusMinkowski says:

      @lumilumi and @Barontorc

      Oops.
      Mis-typed the question sentence in my previous post; correct version follows.

      BitterTogether’s share of the vote  fell to 10% on election day! 

       

       
       
      1 May, 2013 at 3:59 pm Barontorc

    166. Indion says:

       
      Morag @ 9:56am:  Yes, no one is an island unless sadly saved to themselves.
       
      Alpinal @ 9:41am:
       
      My understanding from Prof Christopher Harvies is that ‘subsidiarity’ is a loose translation from the German meaning that no tier of governance further from folk should of itself assume any responsibility of a tier closer to folk, or indeed folk themselves. The attitude is ‘don’t take it upon yourself to do for me what I’m at liberty to and capable of doing anyway – and certainly not without my consent in the first place in all circumstances. 
       
      Like safe areas and safe havens, Major’s back to basics civil servants applied subsiduary not subsidiarity: ie top-down power retained devolution rather than bottom-up power attained decentralization.
       
      Our very being – in person and plural – is our sovereignty. Hence, building our nation state from bottom-up should prevent future imposition from top-down.
       
      I’d go for low rise too!    
       

    167. lumilumi says:

      AM @1.52013 3.59
       
      Sorry, noticed your reply only now. 🙂
       
      A phrasal verb is when a distinct verb+preposition is one unit that has a distinct meaning, e.g. “I looked after my nieces yesterday” (=babysat, not just looked at them.)
       
      A verb phrase, which can contain complex verb structures, functions as the main verb in a sentence. A noun phrase functions as the subject, and another noun phrase may function as an object or complement (=complementing the VP, sometimes these are called prepositional phrases)
       
      [The cat]   [sat]   [on a mat].
      NP               VP       NP (or PrepP)
      subject       verb     complement
       
      [BT’s share of the vote]   [fell]    [to 10%]    [on election day!]
      NP                                         VP         PrepP           PrepP
      Subject                                 verb  complement   complement
       
      Anyway, we’ll be thrown into Quarantine by Rev for going so wildly O/T! 😀
       



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top