Remember, we own you
Posted on
August 03, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
They tried their best, bless ’em. Held it in as long as they could.
But it always comes out – twice in three minutes, on this occasion – in the end.
Hailsa.
Ah yes. Well we’ve all been waiting for it, haven’t we?
Any chance you could do everyone up here a favour and report on Scottish athletes at The Games? The Herald did a good job this morning, but usually it’s difficult to find out who is Scottish and what events they are in. I’d like more information – surely I’m not the only one?
I have a theory that some of the weeping on the podium -eg Chris Hoy’s – is caused by the medal winner having to listen to God Save the Queen. I’d weep too.
I don’t know about the other athletes, but Chris Hoy is an out and out unionist, proud to be British and all that guff. Sorry to disappoint Shirley.
Channel 4 later tweeted an apology for the “mistake”. How can something like that be a “mistake”?
Bill C
So what if Chris Hoy is a unionist? Are you saying then he is “anti-Scottish”.
It is precisely comments like that which turn away support.
It is also rather worrying that some people hold such views. One hopes they never, ever get a position of influence.
One thinks they have held positions of influence since 1707
Bless Channel 4 News, Old Nat. It appears that the mistake was that they didn’t know which country they broadcast in. Silly old sausages. It makes you a little dubious about the veracity of the rest of their news though, doesn’t it?
On the first day I seem to recall, John Humphries talked about the English women’s football team, and then stuttered as presumably a producer told him that the country was actually called GB.
…
According to the official Limpics website the UK has 22 medals. http://www.london2012.com/medals/medal-count/
According to the unoffical wikipedia website Scotland has 7 medals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Olympic_medallists#2012_London
That means fully a third of Channel 4’s “English” medals were won by Scots! Better yet, 4 out of the UK’s 8 golds (50%) were won by Scots. (That includes team events with at least one Scot on the team.)
Here’s a list of Scolympians er Scottish Olympians .. um .. well possibly maybe, adopted? whatever: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18907121
Ach I don’t know. We complain when they try to include us, we complain when they ignore us. I would quite like to go about calling the UK ‘England’ to reflect the reality of the situation but as I am not English I would just come across not as ignorant but bitter.
I wonder if you could have a breakdown of the GB medal winners who did not go to public school (england) or private school (scotland)? This question follows overhearing a conversation on the bus today. One gentlemen said that nearly all the rowing and cycling medal winners seem to come from priviledged backgrounds.
I like Jessica Ennis. And Victoria Pendleton is quite a heroine to me.
What the heck that has to do with anthing beyond wanting your heroines to win, is a bit beyond me.
They are people. They are not doing what they do in order to do us down.They are doing what they do in order to win.
We should have more of their DNA in us, if we want to win a certain referendum.
a hahahaha hohohoo heheehhe more more more!
Peninsula,
WTF?
Barbarian wrote: “So what if Chris Hoy is a unionist? Are you saying then he is “anti-Scottish”.It is precisely comments like that which turn away support.It is also rather worrying that some people hold such views. One hopes they never, ever get a position of influence.”
One senses a certain chippiness in your response, old fruit.
If Chris Hoy is indeed a staunch Unionist, then he is no friend of the independence movement. Many hold that to be pro-Union is to be anti the bests interests of Scotland and its people.
This is a political calculation. Now clearly, in the opinion of those who hold that view, it could be legitimately argued that to be acting, as they see it, against the best interests of the nation, is to be anti-Scottish on its face.
Is Tavish Scott being anti-Scottish when he conspires with the Tory-led Westminster Government to cleave Shetland from Scotland and facilitate its annexation by a de facto English successor state, in the event Scotland votes yes to independence and the Union is dissolved?
Does the fact that this is designed solely to deny the people of Scotland, revenues derived from their oil, gas, and fishing resources, evince Tavish Scott’s anti-Scottishness, and indeed, his treachery?
When Michael Forsyth was appointed Thatcher’s enforcer in Scotland, and implemented policies that devastated industry in the Central Belt, against the express wishes of the Scottish people, was he acting in a way that could reasonably be characterized as anti-Scottish?
Is it possible to act against the best interests of one’s own country yet still be a patriot?
Is it possible to fight tooth and nail to deny the people of Scotland their right to become masters of their own house, yet credibly claim to be their servant?
Can one plausibly bow and scrape, and swear absolute fealty to a foreign power, yet demand to be considered one’s own man?
One wonders, doesn’t one?
Britain’s Andy Murray has got to a final but I suspect he will be Scoatish after losing to Federer, could be worse, he could be Norn Iron
How shite is the ‘Team GB’ concept? At least Team Englandl would have covered everything but the elephant polo 🙂
cheers
charlie
cmon the new SPL
Re Sir Chris, I sent an e-mail to his website after the last Olympics suggesting that he focus some efforts on obtaining a Velodrome for Scotland.
Unfortunately, I got a snottogram from his father for my efforts, effectively telling me not to trouble my little Scottish self with such matters.
I’m sure the official team GB press release after the first or second women’s football match declared “English women on their way” or words to that effect…
The fact is many people in England think the UK is the same thing, give or take some annoyance in Scotland.
As for Wales, many English also genuinely think it is really part of England except for Rugby and well who cares about Northern Ireland anyway?
Harsh. True.
OT – Magnus Gardham, formerly of the Daily Record, has joined the Herald team as its new political editor.
Deary Me!!! And I was actually starting to see some decent coverage in the Herald too.
Gardham? oh well, that’ll save me £1.30 every sunday then
Sneekyboy,
I heard this was in the pipeline a few weeks ago. but wasn’t sure if it was true.
I don’t think even the Hootsmon has anyone in Gardham’s league.
Some on here would do well to learn the following facts,since they clearly dont know them. HM government commissioned a Prof Gavin McCrone to report back on the strength of an independent Scotland economy, which he did and it was an embarrassingly strong case for independence. Every Unionist politician has since lied to every man woman and child in Scotland for at least thirty years whilst the contents of this report was suppressed.
Since then a closed door meeting has redrawn the maritmie boundary somewhere north of DUNDEE !
The so called Barnet formula gives Scotland a share of UK expenditure in line with population (in theory)when Scotland contributes far in excess of our fair share to the exchequer. We are in effect disadvantaged right away.Its worse than this because any additional expenditure in England for whatever reason should be matched by a pro rata payment to Scotland,THERE ISN’T so even the Barnet formula which short changes us,is further eroded by excluding major expenditure.London recieves £1.14 for every pound she allegededly contributes by contrast,and the accounting /head office is in London only, the good or services are produced elsewhere more often than not.
We are not accusing Unionists of being anti Scottish,WE DONT HAVE TO ! The facts are there for all who care to open their eyes and see. Ripping an enitre nation of its wealth is pretty anti Scottish I would say ! Im sorry but you are either pro Scotland or against her,and whilst “being unaware” was probably a legitimate excuse before you knew this, it isn’t now !
Can we just put this maritime boundary north of Dundee canard to bed? If you look out to sea from Dundee or even Carnoustie all you will see is Scottish waters. The maritime boundary (for fisheries only) was changed from a line of latitude at the border to a line of equidistance heading off north eastish from the border to a point where it meets the international boundary with Norway somewhere due east of Carnoustie. But you have to go a long way out to sea from Carnoustie to reach that boundary.
Now, I agree that the way the change was made was wrong and underhanded, but I get sick of people spouting off that the waters you dip your toe in at some beach at the mouth of the Tay are English. They’re not.
It should be noted that, even though the fisheries boundary was changed, the oil & gas jurisdictional boundary was not. That remains a line of latitude at 55° 50′ North, which will be a strong negotiating position when the time comes for dividing the assets.
Mmm – Grahanski in the comments section of the Torygraph, in one of Cochers rants, is saying that you faked these twitter postings.
They are getting worried aren’t they?
Holebender wrote :“The maritime boundary (for fisheries only) was changed from a line of latitude at the border to a line of equidistance heading off north eastish from the border to a point where it meets the international boundary with Norway somewhere due east of Carnoustie”
.
I have no idea what that means but my sense of it is that it disadvantages Scotland, and if so, why is that more tolerable than gerrymandering the seabed boundary?
.
Holebender wrote: “It should be noted that, even though the fisheries boundary was changed, the oil & gas jurisdictional boundary was not. That remains a line of latitude at 55° 50? North, which will be a strong negotiating position when the time comes for dividing the assets.”
.
You mean currently we’re only getting partially f***ed? Why should we have to negotiate boundaries? Should that seabed boundary not be set at the latitude of Scotland’s east coast border with England where the sand meets the sea?
It seems to me the negotiations of which you speak revolve around the extent to which Scotland will get reamed – “Could you bend over a little more old thing, and shift left a tad: ah, that’s better. You see Jock, it’s all about compromise!”
We’ve had three hundred years of that and counting.
I didn’t say it was tolerable, I was simply expressing my frustration at the sloppy use of language so often exibited when people sound off about something they clearly don’t understand very well. Indeed your own comment clearly states that you don’t understand it, but that doesn’t stop you expressing your outrage at something you don’t understand but just assume you’re getting shafted by it anyway. Wouldn’t it be better to educate yourself before reaching a conclusion?
Let me try to make things a bit easier for you. The usual convention for deciding international maritime boundaries in the absence of any prior arrangement is to draw a line which is an equal distance between the nearest points on the coasts of the two countries. Now, the fisheries boundary which was rushed through is just such a line. However, previous lines between England and Scotland have been set more-or-less at the line of latitude which extends from the end of the land border, and that’s why I said it would be important when it comes to divvying up the assets.
Now, to get back to my original point, the line of equal distance runs north eastish from the end of the land border. Everything north and west of that line belongs to Scotland. Everything you see when you look out to sea at, say, Dunbar is north and west of the line so I just get bothered when people state in their ignorance that paddling in the sea at Carnoustie somehow puts your feet in England.
BTW, there is very little oil or gas in the “disputed” slice of the North Sea so if it can be traded for something else during negotiations it wouldn’t be such a great loss as some people seem to think. I’d sooner get out quickly and cleanly than waste years wrangling over every dot and comma. If that chunk of the North Sea is the price we pay for ridding ourselves of Westminster, so be it.
Barbarian, in response to your rather rude comment. I did not say Chris Hoy was anti-Scottish I said he was “an out and out unionist” which he will happily confirm. I am puzzled that my comment “would turn away support”. Support from what exactly? Let us be clear about one thing, a unionist supports the union a nationalist supports independence i.e. the right of the Scottish people to determine their own future. Simples.
I am sorry that you would be worried if I “ever get a position of influence”, therefore, let me reassure you, I have no thoughts of political office. However, more worringly from your point of view perhaps, is the fact that in the SNP leadership, we have some of the most talented politicians in these islands.
Independence will happen whether unionists are anti-Scottish or not, of that fact we can all agree on.
@Holebender : Do put a sock in it, there’s a good chap. I really have no concern about your particular inability to suffer those you consider fools, gladly, but do make up your mind – either you consider the current boundaries equitable or you do not.
In your first post you imply the fishing-rights boundaries are not (quote:”Now, I agree that the way the change was made was wrong and underhanded”), yet you excoriate those who, on the basis of YOUR information, would object to that implied inequity. Of course, perhaps when you charge that, the way the change was made was wrong and underhanded, you mean that the change itself was fair and equitable. How would one know given such sloppy use of language?
Now is it that because they may not have the grasp you think you have, of the geography and the legal ins and outs, that you feel others have no standing upon which to venture an opinion on the fairness of the inequities you seem to say exist?
.
Holebender: “I just get bothered when people state in their ignorance that paddling in the sea at Carnoustie somehow puts your feet in England.
.
Never mind about where others may think they are paddling when in Carnoustie, it is an irrelevance. Dumb it down a bit. Try to contain your ire at the ignorance of others and answer clearly the basic question: are the current fishing boundaries and the current oil and gas boundaries, equitable or not?
You might also care to state the your area of expertise. What’s your professional background?
“Grahanski in the comments section of the Torygraph, in one of Cochers rants, is saying that you faked these twitter postings.”
Bless him. He truly has no shame whatsoever.
CW, if you prefer to wallow in ignorance that’s your affair.
At no time did I say the fishing boundaries were equitable (or inequitable) and that was not my point. My actual point seems to be beyond anything you are willing to learn so I will leave it at that.
For anyone else who has any interest, a part of the North Sea which is so far offshore as to be out of sight from land is not the same as a beach at Carnoustie and anyone who can’t tell the difference and believes that the waters lapping that beach belong to England needs to try looking at a map. Like, for example, the one included with the original statutory instrument. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/made
Maybe this will help…
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/
There are some good links within the comments.
@Holebender : So now we know, you have no real opinion or alternatively no real clue whether the current fishing-rights boundaries and the current seabed natural resource boundaries, are equitable or not.
Upon what basis then do you scold others for offering ignorant opinion, when you yourself have clearly demonstrated you inability to offer an informed one?
It would be true to say would it not, that with respect to these salient issues, you have nothing of any practical use to offer at all? Well, nothing except an object lesson in the follies of hubris.
And about your credentials – why your reticence in revealing these?
Tearlach wrote: “Grahanski in the comments section of the Torygraph, in one of Cochers rants, is saying that you faked these twitter postings.”
.
You’d think he’d be too busy sewing the the ends of his ankle bracelet together again after that ticking-off from the beak, to bother lying about this trifle. Coupled with all that rowing, the poor man must be exhausted.
Never mind, when all this is over it’ll be time to tabulate this session’s expenses, then down to the boozer for a pint and a fight. Free at last, free at last!
Seasick Dave,
Thanks for the link. I note that someone called Holebender is amongst the commentators. I have no idea whether the boundary is merely administrative rather than sovereign. If it is the former, then it would be ‘all change’ if and when we get independence. If it is the latter, then we’d need to go to arbitration, would we not?
CW, I take it from your repeated demands for credentials that you are one of those who accept arguments from authority, who acquiesces to his “betters” while discounting anyone who isn’t in the right group regardless of the strength of the argument or knowledge of said wrong un. I have more respect for a well informed well made argument than for some blowhard with a string of letters attached to his name.
My argument has never been about the rights and wrongs of the way the fisheries resource was grabbed. My argument is that when independence supporters make wild claims (e.g. the border is at Carnoustie) which are easily disproved and discredited it does the independence cause no good but, rather, tarnishes all other arguments from the same source. Our case is good enough and right enough to stand on its own merits and win the day so let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by promulgating spurious claims.
I think this matter has been done to death now, so I’m not going to continue.
@Holebender: You cannot string two sentences together to answer the questions that have been asked of you. Let me therefore frame them so that they may be answered by a single word:
Are the current fishing-rights boundaries equitable – YES or NO?
Are the current oil and gas boundaries equitable – YES or NO?
You claim expertise in this area by asserting that others here are ignorant of the facts and you are not. We know that because you have told us it is so – again, and again, and again.
It is therefore reasonable to enquire of your professional background and how you came to be an expert on these issues and in this field. Was it self-study or formal study backed by hands-on professional experience?
Are you a lawyer specializing in international law on matters of seabed boundary allocation, or perhaps a cartographer, or a journalist for the Carnoustie Guide & Gazette, who writes a weekly satirical column on ignorant nationalists trawling local waters in search of a mythical English border?
I agree, if your argument stood on its own merits then that would indeed be enough.
The problem is you offer no argument, only assertion and invective, and most of that revolves around the non-sequitur of in whose jurisdiction nationalist ignoramuses in the water off Carnoustie think they are paddling.
Isn’t it in fact true, that with respect to the issues related to the fairness and legality of the natural resource boundaries in question as currently drawn, you have no comment because you have absolutely no clue whatsoever?
Further, doesn’t your continued refusal to furnish any account of the training and learning that is the foundation of your alleged expertise, lead one inevitably to the conclusion that you are most probably, naught but a unalloyed chancer with no standing to offer expert or even considered opinion, on any of these matters?
. . . ’nuff said.
Nine paragraphs attacking a stranger on the internet in a blog comment section. None actually addressing the topic at hand. Time well spent for a troll, I’m sure.
Appleby wrote: “Nine paragraphs attacking a stranger on the internet in a blog comment section. None actually addressing the topic at hand. Time well spent for a troll, I’m sure.”
And you managed the same in just one paragraph – surely the mark of a master troll. Congratulations.
Calm down, calm down.
I don’t think that the Westminster carpetbaggers were particularily interested in the paddling rights and whelks at Carnoustie but were more interested in the oil and gas fields that lay beyond.
There is a serious point here amongst all the flaming. The way that that boundary issue is presented to voters by the ‘yes’ campaign should be clear cut and not subject to debate. Craig Murray appears to have genuine expertise in this area and it is certainly worth everyone reading what he had to say on the issue in the link that Seasick Dave gave. For reference again:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/
The map in that article appears to clarify the issue. Is it reliable for oil and gas though or does it, as Christian Wright appears to be saying not apply to oil and gas?
We need to know.
Christian, Appleby, Holebender: wind it down a notch or two, eh? The point you’re arguing over is so arcane I can’t even work out what it actually is, so it seems unlikely it merits this much vitriol.
douglas clark writes: “The map in that article appears to clarify the issue. Is it reliable for oil and gas though or does it, as Christian Wright appears to be saying not apply to oil and gas?”
I did not say it did not apply to oil and gas seabed resources, that would be holebender and my initial comments were predicated upon the assumption that he knew what he was talking about :
.
holebender wrote “The maritime boundary (for fisheries only) was changed from a line of latitude at the border to a line of equidistance heading off north eastish from the border to a point where it meets the international boundary with Norway somewhere due east of Carnoustie . .
It should be noted that, even though the fisheries boundary was changed, the oil & gas jurisdictional boundary was not. That remains a line of latitude at 55° 50? North, which will be a strong negotiating position when the time comes for dividing the assets.”
.
These assertions WRT oil and gas, appear to be directly contradicted by Craig Murray’s article where he states:
“In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish ("Tractor" - Ed) Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.”
The question is, who does one believe? It is at that point I looked to verifying the bona fides / credentials of those offering allegedly expert but contradictory testimony.
With respect to Mr Murray, this was an easy chore (I didn’t have to ask) – he offers:
“I should explain that I was the Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark (Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries, as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very few people in the World – single figures – who have more experience of actual maritime boundary negotiation than me.”
.
His claims to expertise in this field are substantial and detailed enough to be checked and verified.
The issue of whether or not the Unionist government deliberately queered the pitch in the late 1990’s to facilitate the pillaging of Scottish natural resources in the event of a future dissolution of the Union, is not a trivial matter, economically, OR politically. It is important to establish a clear and easily communicated narrative.
Were these changes equitable in the round, or did they disadvantage Scotland?
Indeed, it seems to me that if the 1999 shenanigans of Blair and that “Father of the Nation”, Dewar, can be clearly and unambiguously demonstrated (the redundancy is deliberate) to disadvantage Scotland in the event of the Union’s dissolution, then we have irrefutable evidence of Labour treachery that sinks the “better together” argument below the waterline.
I do not think it even need be PROVEN to be deliberate and malicious, for the action is intentionally larcenous on its face. It is a quintessentially anti-Scottish act, in that it only has substantive effect AFTER DISSOLUTION, offering sole benefit to an English successor state.
There is no way to spin this as being in Scotland’s interests. It neatly ties Labour in London and in Scotland, to the ultimate and naked betrayal of the Scottish people and the much touted principles of collaborative union.
A zero-sum game – we lose, they win. It is the smoking-gun-execution of a caper by allegedly patriotic Scots Unionists, where untold billions of pounds are smuggled across a border to England by simply moving that border. I’d bet Blair and Dewar had a good ol’ chuckle at that bit of slight of hand.
This issue has nt been given the prominence it deserves. What we need is greater clarity. What we don’t need is carnival-barking flim-flam obscuring the truth and diluting the message.
Sneekyboy,
Don’t give up on The Herald just yet. Or at least The Sunday Herald. Ian Bell alone is worth £1 30. He’s got a very good piece in yesterday (5th August) about The Olympics. A few of the commenters on this thread would probably like it
Christian Wright,
Sorry for the wrong attribution of a comment between you and Holebender.
This is, however, generating more heat than light.
I do not believe that the article by Craig Murray suggests, implies or reasons that whatever was agreed between Blair and Dewar would have any force whatsoever in international maritime law.
Craig Murray was asked – in the comments – what he thought might happen.
He had this to say:
“That is a long discussion – there are numerous precedents from all over the world. The Cameroon/Nigeria determination by the International Court of Justice, and the Gulf of Maine US/Canada judgement also by the ICJ, are perhaps particularly relevant in a number of ways.
Frankly I could draw a line on a map which I think its the fairest boundary, and I can draw a line on a map which I think should be Scotland’s opening position in a negotiation or court case. The two would not be the same. But either would be very very far from the current Westminster imposed boundary. The key thing now is to repudiate that boundary, and then go for negotiation or court, rather than propose your exact alternative now.”
Seems entirely reasonable to me. We should not surrender anything whatsoever in negotiations with Westminster. That includes the segment of Antartica and the other remaining vestiges of Empire such as the Falklands. Indeed, a mature democracy – such as our own – shouldn’t leave anyone in the slums of Mauritus bereft of their home in Diego Garcia. We can use the independence negotiations as a force for righting some other wrongs too. We are not the only folk to feel the sting of a zombie empire’s death thows.Some have sufferred even worse than us……