What’s all this “we”, paleface?
Posted on
March 26, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Remember how Unionists endlessly cite World War 2 as the definitive example of great British “togetherness”? Turns out they might be over-egging that one a bit. From today’s Scottish Daily Express (print edition only):
Of course, that was a long time ago. Things are different now.
Oswald Mosely was perhaps the most famous right wing agitator of the period, but let’s face it the buggers were everywhere. From those and such as those on down in every corner of the British Isles. There always seems to be a niche for some twat with a complex to tub thump about superiority and the way others should know their place. Still its nice to know that we were all in it together eh?
Mmmmm, I suppose if the alternative was the entire country, Scotland England and the rest, falling, it might have been an unavoidable sacifice. Maybe the historians will give us an opinion.
There used to be an opinion that the subs should be parked in Central London. Well it looks like you couldn’t afford to park a mini in Central London any more. According to the BBC “London’s top ten boroughs alone are worth more, in real estate terms, than all than all the property of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, added together.” ?
Having read the article I am surprised. The BBC. Broadcasting a very good reason to leave the union. Someone must have missed the memo.
link to bbc.co.uk
Ehh.
I pointed this out on the campaign facebook page.
By the simple geography of these islands, WWII invasion of Scotland before London had fallen would have made little strategic sense. The best way for Germany to take the UK out of the war would have been a full scale invasion of the SE with an aim to knock out central Government and force a surrender. Invading Scotland during that would have only served to tempt forces away from that front and make the job easier. Therefore, this defence plan, brutal though it may be, is probably the sensible option.
Be mindful also that this defence plan would have been drawn up without what we know now about the Nazi Operation Sealion. link to en.wikipedia.org
The defence and offence plans seem to match well.
Interesting they highlight Angus, or am I reading too much into the anti-SNP subtext?
Militarily the premise of abandoning Scotland to defend the South is stupid – the Nazis would have had a much harder time fighting their way down through Scotland’s inhospitable, mountainous terrain and poor roads. Blitzkrieg isn’t much use in the Drumochter pass, with all your tank divisions lined up in single file on the A9 like sitting ducks.
The article just reveals the extent to which Scotland was – and is – seen as completely expendable and essentially worthless by London, and blows the great “shoulder to shoulder against Hitler” propaganda to smithereens. The reality, exposed here, is that Westminster would have dropped us like a hot scone.
@Morag
I agree. Being ex-military I think that it would be impossible for conventional forces to defend such a large landmass/coastline and defend the south coast of England against invasion at the same time. My guess would be that the British would have formed a line of defence at Haidrians wall it being built on a natural obstacle.
I would also like to think that the Germans would have found that the Scottish Resistance would have given them a right good run for their money.
Change “Nazi” to “zombie” in the article and it kinda makes sense…
But… but… Arthur Donaldson!
And to think unionists try to paint Arthur Donaldson as a Nazi sympathiser…
It’s that old trick of accusing your opponent of the thing you’re guilty of yourself. Check his wikipedia page out, particularly the anti-Semitic poem he wrote. You don’t even have to look far to see that the fascist movement in the UK (The Right Club, British Union of Fascists, the Nordic League etc) was awash with Tories – interesting parallels with the current rise of UKIP and the normalising of anti-immigrant views. Naturally, the former Nazi-supporting Daily Mail and the likes are right behind them, except instead of promoting anti-semitism, it’s now anti-immigration. All following an economic crisis, where people are looking for easy scapegoats.
It’s depressing how precisely history repeats itself. Let’s hope it doesn’t repeat itself TOO precisely, as I have no desire to find out what it was like to live through a proper war.
@Craig
I’d say that’s a spot on assessment. Any invasion from north to south would have had to fight the length of the isles to get to the power base of the UK. It would have proved far too costly and wasteful an effort offensively or defensively. As you say a brutal choice, but probably a sensible one militarily and clearly a morale killer had it come to light earlier than it did. The thought that senior military and government office considered sacrificing any area of the British isles would have been devastating to the public at the time.
I was half expecting a quote from a German Officer –
“Zee Scotlander is too poor – vee shall just be passing through to target our main objective, London. You are welcome to your little country..’
@albalha,
They make a point of saying that Captain Ramsay, one of the leading British Nazi sympathisers of the time, was a Unionist MP, so I don’t think there’s a hidden anti-SNP agenda here.
It reinforces the fact that the biggest ("Tractor" - Ed)s against Britain have always been found among the ranks of the British aristocracy and ruling class (Mosley, Cliveden Set, Cambridge Five, etc.) rather than among Scottish or Welsh nationalist groups, much as unionists would like to believe otherwise.
@Rev. Stu
I understand what you are saying but my guess would be that they would have landed in the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay. Then shootie in down the A1. That’s the route the English used to invade Scotland in reverse. (Supply ground troops from the sea etc.) “The Disinherited” Scottish knights (Those who fought with England during the wars of independence) successfully invaded Fife in the 14th century.
I agree that it would be impossible to carry out Blitzkrieg in the highlands (A9) and southern uplands (M74). However they would have learned a lot of lessons in Norway.
“Ach, und zees Schotlanders vill be no match for der Wehrmacht. Ve haf only to restrict zehr tradtional diet of shortbread und condensed milk und zey vill be at our mercy, hein?!”
I used to be a speech bubble writer for Commando comics, you know.
Could there be any connection between this story and the enigma of Rudolph Hess;s flight to Scotland?
Did the British govt seriously feel threatened by the prospect of a German invasion? The German invasion fleet was river barges towed by tugs. Britain had >>80<< destroyers and several light cruisers in the Home Seas fleet alone, while the German surface navy was tiny in comparison. (Aircraft were irrelevant; attempts to bomb the German invasion fleet when they were berthed 4-abreast in French ports utterly failed to do significant damage.)
In the the words of Malik Hendersneuse, that's all stick-chuck though.
“The reality, exposed here, is that Westminster would have dropped us like a hot scone.”
As they would like a shot if we were actually a drain on resources rather than propping up the ailing UK economy.
“I understand what you are saying but my guess would be that they would have landed in the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay.”
Perhaps, but the article seems to suggest them coming from much further north. And as Tasmanian notes, they were staggeringly ill-equipped to land troops anyway. They’d have had a job getting across the Channel in their flat-bottomed barges, the North Sea would have been something else entirely. They’d have done well to get 5% of their invasion force to shore if they aimed for the Firths.
If Germany had won the air battle in 1940, the south couldhave been attacked with impunity. Only radar enabled the smaller British forces to always be in the right place at the right time against the Luftwaffe. German spy planes had seen the radar masts go up but thier boffins reckoned they were for long range shore-to-ship telemetry and didn’t consider them strategically important… as for sacrificing peripherals to protect the core, Indians still remember Churchill’s order to divert grain going to a famine inBangladesh to Britain for the war effort, millions of Indians died as a result.
Tasmanian: “Did the British govt seriously feel threatened by the prospect of a German invasion? The German invasion fleet was river barges towed by tugs.”
Well, Hitler had just conquered most of Western Europe in about…what…twelve weeks?
One country after another, many of whom had not believed in the possibility of a successful Nazi invasion, had been pummelled and subjugated in short order.
If I’d been in charge of the defence of Britain at that time I think I would’ve needed a bucket under my chair, which would have had to be regularly taken and emptied by a junior member of staff.
It’s hard to overstate just how fearsome the German war machine was in comparison to those of every other European state, and the British weren’t really equipped to fight the war until two years after they’d declared it (as usual).
There was also the risk, early on, of the Germans getting their hands on the French fleet – hence Chruchill’s controversial order to sink it at harbour.
I look forward to this story being reproduced en masse in 2014 when we start celebrating the start of the first world war.
John Lyons – that is an excellent point!
“Well, Hitler had just conquered most of Western Europe in about…what…twelve weeks?”
He hadn’t had to cross any seas to do so, though. The Wehrmacht was incredibly well-suited to the requirements of the conquests of Poland, Belgium and France. It had absolutely nothing of any practical use when it came to a sea-based invasion. Without complete air superiority they’d have had absolutely no chance.
The point is that Britain could probably have divided its forces in two by type without much reducing its overall strength. Keep most of the RAF in the south with most of the land forces in the north and the Germans would have been stretched far beyond their limits. The Luftwaffe would have been close to useless over the Highlands – what little of it would have had the range to be there at all.
On Arthur Donaldson, this was a great article…
The Grand Old Man of Scottish Nationalism
O/T apologies. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in a written answer to how many claiments would be affected by the ‘bedroom tax’ yesterday stated that “around 60,000 will be living in Scotland”.
i) I think that he’s some 20,000+ short, and
ii) around 60,000 is still 60,000 WAY TOO MANY!
A serious invasion would never have worked. We have established that. BUT as a diversionary tactic the Germans would have been daft not to at least cause some kind of a stushie in Scotland. Possibly a couple of small highly mobile forces employing “hit and run” tactics.
Perhaps worth consideration, but losing Scotland would have been a massive psychological blow to the war effort, I could easily see Britain, especially in the early days of the war, coming to terms with Germany shortly after such an event.
Frankly, early on, Germany didn’t need to or want to conquer England, all it had to do was punish England so hard it was willing to come to the table early and then he could concentrate on Drang nach Osten.
I think the main reason the Germans gave up on Operation Sealion was that they saw the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard ranged against them and gave up, concentrating instead on mass producing nun costumes for the various spies they parachuted into England instead. Talk about alternative histories….
I don’t speak German, but a quick Google check apparently claims that Germany wouldn’t have invaded Scotland at all back then because we were “Zu winzig, zu arm, zu dumm”.
Sounds kinda familiar…
“as a diversionary tactic the Germans would have been daft not to at least cause some kind of a stushie in Scotland.”
Was the British main naval base not in Scapa Flow in Orkney? I believe the first air raid and first British death was on Orkney. Also there were air bases in various places – Montrose was one. So a lot of British power would have been concentrated in Scotland, yet not well defended as most defence was concentrated in the SE, protecting England.
So I’d imagine an invasion or trouble causing in Scotland could have been strategically a good move for Germany.
None of this is really news though, is it? The UK stock of Trident is dumped on Scotland for the same reason. We are expendable, far away from the important London/SE and good for a dumping ground for the most dangerous weapons and sites, without too much need to bother putting resources in, since we’re expendable.
Only slightly O/T. I can’t remember the source but I think this may be a true story. In mid-1940 an American journalist reported a joke currently circulating in Scotland: “Aye, it’ll be a long war if the English surrender”. Anyone know a source for this?
Field Marshal Ironside believed that Scotland might have to be sacrificed as he could not protect Scotland without making the south coast of England and London more vulnerable to Nazi attack.
I kind of understand that in the context of a scene from one of the Star Trek films – might be The Wrath of Khan – in which Spock takes the decision to sacrifice himself, though it means certain death, to protect either the starship or his home planet – (I’ll need to watch it again). Captain Kirk protests and tries to stop him, but Spock insists on sacrificing himself. Why? Because, he says, “Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
This is a phrase that has always stuck in my mind with respect to the relationship, generally, between Scotland and England and its implications for political and economic decision-making at Westminster. In the context of the UK, we in Scotland, despite our rich, natural resources, are always going to be “the few” on account of our smaller population, and those in the south, due to their much larger population, are always going to be “the many”. To follow Spock’s reasoning, any UK chancellor or military leader is compelled to make decisions aimed at meeting the needs or protecting the security of “the many”, even at great cost to “the few”. Hence, for example, Scotland’s fisheries are considered an expendable sacrifice if the net effect is to help secure a benefit for the UK as a whole which then meets the needs of the many in the south at a cost only to the few in the north. Similarly, income from Scotland’s resources such as oil and gas will be used to support the many in the south; infrastructure investment will be aimed at London and the south-east due to their high density population; even the BBC licence fee will be used for the benefit of the many, therefore we get London-centric broadcasting, etc. Any why? “Because logic dictates……..that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
This, to me, is one of the greatest arguments for independence……we need to vote Yes, so that we, in Scotland, become “the many”, with all the benefits that go with that as to remain “the few” means that our needs and security are always vulnerable to sacrifice. And that’s not a legacy I want to leave to my children.
So, Better Together? As the article asks….What do you mean “we”, Paleface?
“This is a phrase that has always stuck in my mind with respect to the relationship, generally, between Scotland and England and its implications for political and economic decision-making at Westminster. In the context of the UK, we in Scotland, despite our rich, natural resources, are always going to be “the few” on account of our smaller population, and those in the south, due to their much larger population, are always going to be “the many”. To follow Spock’s reasoning, any UK chancellor or military leader is compelled to make decisions aimed at meeting the needs or protecting the security of “the many”, even at great cost to “the few”. “
Precisely. That’s an argument I’ve deployed a few times when idiots are whining on about how an independent Scotland would have “no influence” on the Bank of England if we were in a currency union, as if we do now. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England. That’s entirely proper. It would be completely wrong if it chose a course of action that benefitted 5m Scots at the cost of 60m English. Which is why our current “influence” on it isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on because it doesn’t exist.
@Scott
Interesting article about Muirhead and Donaldson. I have to admit I was taken with the photo in the top left hand corner as well… 😀
“we need to vote Yes, so that we, in Scotland, become “the many”, with all the benefits that go with that as to remain “the few” means that our needs and security are always vulnerable to sacrifice”
But that’s how politics works – the political parties always focus their attention and funding on the areas with the most voters, for obvious reasons.
At present Scotland is the ‘few’ and England is the ‘many’. After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.
“I look forward to this story being reproduced en masse in 2014 when we start celebrating the start of the first world war”
But this story is about the second world war?
” After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.”
Which is precisely why more devolution is needed, and other areas should have more autonomy. This is not just an issue about Scotland, or the Western Isles but about how the UK is governed generally.
Look at the way Liverpool and the North of England were treated by Thatcher. Badly as Scotland has been treated, I can’t think of any single incident at bad as Hillsborough for sheer demonisation of innocent people by both the media and political elites.
The way the UK government is set up doesn’t work.
If Westminster wanted to give the islands more sovereignty, home rule, or whatever else the unionists claim to want to give them that is in their power right now, and has been for 300 years. As it has with Scotland more generally, and regions of England. They haven’t, and they won’t. Because it suits those in the south to have as many “fews” as possible to hammer, and as many of their resources to exploit.
“Which is precisely why more devolution is needed, and other areas should have more autonomy”
Agreed. I’m with the Scottish Greens on that – they want want to see more power and accountability transferred to local authorities and communities after independence.
Unfortunately other parties within the independence movement seem to want the exact opposite – more power centralised at Holyrood.
“on the Bank of England if we were in a currency union, as if we do now. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England”
Exactly. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people now, and it will continue to do so after independence if we’re in a currency union.
Which is why its important that we get our own currency as soon as possible, rather than keeping the pound for “well into the next decade” and remaining economically shackled to rUK.
Oh it is definitely a troll. Other parties who want powers returned to lower levels are “centralising” while the all-wonderful unionists who want to keep it all in London are all for localism. Through the looking glass idiocy that could only come from the No camp.
Which is precisely why more devolution is needed
I agree, being of liberal (social) and democratic leanings, thus an SNP voter (they wave a yellow flag for a reason), I too support decentralisation of powers. With respect to the Highlands and islands being remote; this is why they have the strongest support for the SNP and Liberal Democrats in Scotland historically due to these two parties being liberal democratic (well the LD’s used to be) and supportive of home rule/devolution etc.
For example, the Western isles voted 65% SNP in 2011; an incredible majority. ~50% of the vote for the SNP (or Lib Dems) in the highlands and islands is widespread.
Still, I agree entirely about having our own currency and central bank here in Scotland. I don’t think we should remain with Sterling any longer than it takes to secure independence. It’s very self-sacrificing of the No campaigners down in England to be helping us make this argument rather than arguing for what would be by far in their own best interest, ie Sterling.
For now though, keeping the same currency is fine. If you genuinely believe others setting your interest rates and controlling your monetary policy is bad, then you should absolutely be on the YES side though, since we’re far worse off than that now.
”After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.”
The Scottish highlands and Islands were deliberately depopulated during the clearances. Prior to that crime against humanity around 50% of the people of Scotland lived north of the highland line.
If Scotland had had a similar population growth to Denmark since 1900, we would now have a population of over 10 million.
An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens. There’s lots of good arable land there, after all, and food production is yet another of our great under-exploited advantages.
The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people now
I’m not sure it does. It takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest amount of money, which can be found in the City of London. The end result is the same for Scotland, but large parts of England also suffer the same inappropriate medicine.
“Other parties who want powers returned to lower levels are “centralising” while the all-wonderful unionists who want to keep it all in London are all for localism”
Who on earth is suggesting or even implying that any unionist parties are for ‘localism’?! As you correctly say, they want to keep the reserved powers at Westminster.
However within the independence movement, the Scottish Greens want further decentralisation after independence – with local areas and communities given more autonomy and power – whereas other parties want the new powers we’ll gain centralised at Holyrood.
RevStu: “The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England.”
Well… some of England anyway.
“Job losses in the North are a price worth paying to curb inflation in the South” –
Ex-Governor of the Bank of England, Baron Eddie George, talking about the North-East of England.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
If they really don’t care about the social impact of a London-centric monetary policy on most of England either, then what chance have we got? This should’ve been taken as a signal for Scotland to jump ship at the time. The MPC has never really taken our needs into account, and never will, Union or no Union.
“An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens”
I’m afraid that is unlikely, the worldwide trend is now towards greater urbanisation.
@Cath
I agree we should prop up the pound for a while after independence, but only for a while as it is a sinking ship.
Jeannie – your ‘needs of the many’ scenario – I’m not sure. You say Scotland are the ‘few’ and the ‘south being the many’. That may well be true in terms of straight population.
However, I’d argue that in terms of ‘being ripped off’ virtually the whole of the UK feeds London at their own regional expense, they just won’t admit it to themselves.
In this scenario it’s the needs of the few over that of the many.
Same thing could be said about the bankers.
“However, I’d argue that in terms of ‘being ripped off’ virtually the whole of the UK feeds London at their own regional expense”
This is certainly true.
link to bbc.co.uk
“I agree entirely about having our own currency and central bank here in Scotland. I don’t think we should remain with Sterling any longer than it takes to secure independence”
So you agree that we shouldn’t keep it for “well into the next decade” then?
I think plans should be put in place now to transition to a Scottish currency as soon as possible – even if they are only back-up plans, they may well be necessary.
@Cath
Perhaps we’ve underestimated the full impact of McCrone’s report. There is always the danger of an overly hardened currency. Almost impossible to trade in and elevating the value of goods. Maybe being tied to the weaker and devalued pound Sterling isn’t such a bad idea? 😀
Even if the invasion point had been the Firth of Forth, and the first German plane shot down I remember being told was over the Firth, abandoning the bridgehead and chokepoint of the Borders would be daft.
As well as the factories and resources of the Central Belt.
But good Unionists like Magaret Curran keep pointing to WW2 as one of the great strengths of the Union that bind us together.
This blows that notion out of the water
Fellow Scots, open your minds, and cast aside your emotions and fixed, half -baked ideas about WW2 .
You’ve been sold a pup and have invested so heavily in it, that you refuse to believe you’ve been duped. 99% of you are working on false premises.
I was duped too, but not completely.
I was born just after the war ended, and as one does when one is young, one just absorbs what is thrown at you…..and that was pretty simple………
……….Britain and Empire, as it was then, all good. Germany and Hitler all bad, demonic even.
Then by chance, I got to meet Germans and heard their side of the story, which had a very different slant to it.
For them, Der Krieg, The War, was all about the East, Russia, and above all the ‘bolsheviks’.
The West, Scotland, England, France, the Low Countries and Norway was like a holiday camp in comparison.The Germans really weren’t all that interested or bothered by us….Britain that is.
Russia was the big one.
Well, that set me off on a trail.
What was it about Russia that got the Germans so worked up? What really was all this’ bolshevismus’ that the Germans kept harping on about?
Then it suddenly hits you……..that I know nothing about Russia, yet that was what the war was all about.
Most people think they know about Russia, until you ask them some questions.
Few would be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it and if they did then their information would be hopelessly out of date and wrong.
Get on the internet and push your way past the ‘official’ narrative and get into the reports of journalists that were there in the twenties and thirties.
Scotland was once a big player in Russia in the days of the Tsars. The giant Baltic shipyard, founded by Murdoch McPherson on the banks of the Neva(St Petersburg’s Clyde), is still operating there today.
The Tsars supposedly tyrannised the peasantry who rose up in revolution and overthrew them. Wrong…..hopelessly wrong.
At the time before the revolution, Russia exported more grain to the rest of the world than the USA, Canada and Argentina COMBINED. The standard of living was in fact as high as any in West Europe and the diet and lifestyle infinitely healthier.
Yet a couple of decades later, after the revolution, people were starving in their millions all over, what became the USSR, with vast labour camps where people in their millions were ground in to the dust….people like you and me.
Scots and Russians are very similar in temperament and tastes.
Do some research into Russia and you will end up understanding the Germans, the Russians and WW2 a lot more clearly.
one of my scources
link to bibliotecapleyades.net
But remember to cross-check so as to confirm what has been written.
The Russian archives opened(well maybe not all of them) in 1991, so that will make the job easier.
Oddly enough our Western press don’t seem too keen on harping on about this.
Once you’ve read the above reference than you’ll understand why.
I have written this because it pains me to see my fellow countrymen, uncharacteristically, floundering about like ignorant dupes, making an exhibition of themselves.
What happened to those cool, rational heads that could cut through the rubbish, bluster and blethers and get to the heart of a matter, looking facts squarely in the face?
This does not bode well for an independent Scotland which will require cool, sensible heads combined with a bit of wile and guile, if it is to survive what could be a rather turbulent ride, from time to time.
I’ve just read all of that and I have no idea what your point is.
@Scottish Skier … We must have a more federalised Scotland after independence me thinks.
Talking about quick sacrifices during WW2, Churchill was quite happy to give up the six counties of Ulster if Eire came into the war supporting him. I wonder what our DUP friends thought of that little nugget when they cling onto Queen and Country as if London thinks warmly of them.
Also during WW2 there was a propaganda documentary called ‘This England’ which was shown in cinemas throughout the country and abroad. Showing the plight of the plucky Englanders and their stiff resolve against the Nazis. No mention of the other constituent parts fighting for their lives though! There was such an outcry that it was pulled and retitled This Britain in Scotland, Wales and NI. It’s listed in an old Halliwell’s film guide of mine but I can’t find it anywhere.
I’ve just read all of that and I have no idea what your point is.
The Jooz. Worse than the Nazis, who weren’t bad people really.
Apparently.
Maybe he thinks we’re the Scottish Government.
For anyone who missed it Channel 4 recently aired a programme called Churchill and the Facist plot. The programme dealt a great deal with the Conservative M.P. Ramsay and his “Right club.”
link to channel4.com
“The Germans really weren’t all that interested or bothered by us….Britain that is.
Russia was the big one.”
I guess that explains the invasion of Poland, France, Norway, Belgium, etc. and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, as well as the Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Friendship and Borders. Eh, no, wait…
From the link:
“Illuminati (Masonic Jewish) banking cartel.”
Oh dear.
There is really no need for the central belt to become “the many” in an independent Scotland, unless, of course, your creative thinking is limited by the belief that the only option we will have is to replicate the existing structures and mistakes of Westminster. I’m fairly sure, though, that that is not the intention of the Scottish Government.
By using our funds wisely, we could upgrade and improve much of our infrastructure, especially in terms of transport links, energy and IT and spread out government jobs across the country, to Inverness, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen (there is already a considerable number of government posts in Glasgow), for example. That way, we can avoid recreating in the central belt the overheated London economy with its off-the-scale house prices. Improved transport links and reduced energy costs would also make many of our cities and towns more attractive places for business in the private sector.
We could also allocate extra funds from the crown estates to coastal and island communities and allow them to thrive and create jobs in the way best suited to their needs and their particular environment, thus avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.
That’s the beauty of a small population and good natural resources – it’s far easier to meet the needs of all of the people and to spread the wealth around. And we will also have the benefit of hindsight, learning from the mistakes of others so we don’t repeat them.
However, if we stay within the UK, I’m afraid that in terms of resource allocation, we’ll always be “the few” – and why should we settle for that when we can have something much better? And, more importantly, why should our kids settle for that? Or our grandkids? Or our old people?
We just need to get cracking now and start dreaming of the Scotland we want to live in. Let’s not be held back by a lack of imagination.
Big decisions are there to be made after independence around land ownership, use, and repopulation. The party that’s prepared to bite the bullet there will be the one that gets my vote.
I suppose it was being Jewish that lead Stalin’s mum to send him to Tblisi to train as a Christian Priest in the Georgian Orthodox Church.
We don’t need this ant-semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion shite
Norsewarrior said:
Unfortunately other parties within the independence movement seem to want the exact opposite – more power centralised at Holyrood.
You mistake necessary expediency for a policy principle. One of the ways Westminster has been trying to undermine the SNP government in Holyrood is to push for “more devolution” to council level. It’s a way for the unionist parties to exert influence and cause policy trouble, when they are out of power in parliament. Therefore, the SNP government has had to be careful about how it deals with councils.
After independence this imperative will no longer be there. If the SNP continues in government after 2016 there is likely to be a freer hand at council level, because that is essential SNP policy.
@ Rev S Campbell,
Please read at least some of the link provided and tell me then which side you would have signed up for if you were a German in 1939.NSDAP(German National Socialist Worker’s Party) oder(or) Kommunistische Partei ( International Communist Party, sponsored by the USSR)
That is the point.
Well, I had relatives in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War
And others exterminated by the Nazis
Work it out for yourself
Macart said:
Perhaps we’ve underestimated the full impact of McCrone’s report. There is always the danger of an overly hardened currency. Almost impossible to trade in and elevating the value of goods. Maybe being tied to the weaker and devalued pound Sterling isn’t such a bad idea?
Much as I’d like to see a Scottish currency in principle, I acknowledge that this is an emotional desire, not a practical one. Sterling would suffer significantly if it lost the backing of Scottish assets, and it is not in Scotland’s interests for the currency of her largest trading partner to go down the tubes.
At the same time McCrone deserves to be listened to. Currency hardening to an embarrassing degree. We don’t want to be in the situation where nobody can afford to buy the things we want to export, or to come on holiday here. A proper currency union is in the best interests of both nations, and Westminster knows that too. This “you won’t be allowed to use the pound” is so much bullshit.
“Please read at least some of the link provided and tell me then which side you would have signed up for if you were a German in 1939.NSDAP(German National Socialist Worker’s Party) oder(or) Kommunistische Partei ( International Communist Party, sponsored by the USSR)
That is the point.”
I’m kinda busy. If you’re not going to help me out a bit I just don’t have the time.
Stu
I think he’s saying that Jews are bad and that the Nazis had the right idea.
It’s not a thesis I can find much sympathy for
@tartanfever
I would agree. Spock says that “logic dictates that the needs of the many OUTWEIGH the needs of the few”. He didn’t mention whether the opposite scenario is therefore illogical, but I wish he’d given it a bit of thought, just the same.
Norsewarrior said:
“An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens”
I’m afraid that is unlikely, the worldwide trend is now towards greater urbanisation.
Difficult to say. Scotland isn’t “the world”, and has different imperatives from many countries only now emerging from third-world status.
If you travel to somewhere like Norway, which wasn’t visited with the “clearances”, you find villages and small towns in geographical positions where we have heaps of stones. The problem we have, as opposed to the Norwegians, is that while their townships grew organically and were incorporated into service networks as they were established, we’re looking at places without a mains water supply or electricity. We’re also dealing with a bunch of people who don’t want repopulation, because they want to preserve “the wilderness” – even though it’s an unnatural wilderness.
I don’t know if it’s possible to establish services and build up viable communities in the deserted landscapes, but I wouldn’t criticise anyone for looking at it as a medium-to-long-term objective.
My wife met Gordon Barclay who did the research behind this article in Luncarty last summer. We have WW2 era anti tank ditches and anti tank defences still clearly visible on our property in Perthshire.
There was a real concern that an invasion would come and that it would start in Angus or Fife using the long, flat sandy beaches as a bridge head.
The Nazis would then have to come south, across the Forth, possibly near Stirling because the Forth was heavily defended at South Queensferry.
So the idea that England was ready to dump Scotland if the invasion started there is not surprising because the historical evidence confirms where Britain though the invasion might start.
And using Scotland as just another resource to be used/discarded to the benefit of London/England/British Empire continues to this day; Faslane/Dounrey/Coulpourt/Scapa Flow/Dundreggan/North Sea Oil & gas blah, blah, blah …
When will the zombies in Scotland waken up & realise that their wee country has been getting shafted these past 800 years.
@AWoLsco
When your reference’s critique of Stalin is that he was a five foot one bisexual Jew methinks you’ve lost it…
Funny how people (Unionists) have started to go on about Holyrood wanting to centralise power and favouring the Central Belt. The fact that the current administration’s power base is generally located furth and north of the Central Belt (whereas, for example, Labour’s, such as it is, is highly concentrated in the middle) should shoot that particular fox, I’d think.
And all this guff about giving the Cooncils more freedom, is just another way of trying to take power from the SNP and giving it to Labour in the Councils (and look how they handled all those transportation projects that Transport Scotland had to come in and sort out for them). No wonder those troughers are squealing – they’ll soon have nowhere to hide.
The same story (almost word for word) from last weekend’s Mail On Sunday:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
“Big decisions are there to be made after independence around land ownership, use, and repopulation. The party that’s prepared to bite the bullet there will be the one that gets my vote.”
The SNP are currently dedicated to independence for Scotland, which is a vital prerequisite for everything that comes after – a new constitution, more local control. economic growth, vastly improved infrastructure. Once we have independence, that will be the point where everyone – within the SNP and beyond – will have the freedom to take all they imagine and make it reality.
That will include many people from the highlands and islands whose passion lies in things like land reform and local control, and who will fight for that. There really isn’t a huge central belt presence in the SNP. Glasgow, for instance, is solid Labour and it’s Glasgow where the unionist control, the media control etc all flows from. That centralisation is very much a product of the union.
And yes, as said before, the unionists are using that power and control, their corrupt networks, sectarianism, talk of partitions and anything else they can find to fight that basic right to independence, which will allow everything else to happen.
Jeannie said:
I would agree. Spock says that “logic dictates that the needs of the many OUTWEIGH the needs of the few”. He didn’t mention whether the opposite scenario is therefore illogical, but I wish he’d given it a bit of thought, just the same.
Spock logic doesn’t apply here at all. Spock was actually mis-stating the position. If he hadn’t done what he did, he was going to die anyway, with everyone else. He, even seen as “the few”, didn’t have needs different from the “many”. He just had no way to save himself. He did have a way to save everyone else.
Might be appropriate in wartime, if there was no way to save Scotland from invasion, but England could conceivably hang on if it didn’t try, and so offer hope and a base to liberate Scotland later. I just don’t quite get the feeling that’s what the OP report was talking about.
In peacetime, as regards political priorities, the “few” always get shafted. It’s not even a question of, well you are 10% of the whole, so every tenth decision will be taken for your benefit rather than for the 90%. Every single time, we have to think of the majority.
They’re not even wrong. It’s a perfectly justifiable position. But every time, we lose our industries, and our fishing rights, and our poor are evicted at the hands of a law devised to solve a London problem, and so on. Every single bloody time.
And if the Scottish government begs to differ, and chooses to use devolved powers to be different and implement uniquely Scottish policies, we are reviled for having something the English don’t have, like free university places or prescriptions. Instead of celebrating such differences as a benefit of devolution, we are spat upon. And when the Scottish government does something Westminster really doesn’t like, like not privatising the NHS or not allowing new nuclear power stations, Westminster starts to figure out how this can be stopped.
That’s why we need out of this.
Actually “solid Labour” is an exaggeration. The SNP are penetrating in Glasgow, but it’s still Labour controlled. Places like North Lanarkshire which are central belt are also heavily Labour.
“If the SNP continues in government after 2016 there is likely to be a freer hand at council level, because that is essential SNP policy”
Yes I’m sure Salmond will be more than willing to give up some of his newly-won power to the (partially) Labour-controlled councils.
@jeannie
Re centralising in the central belt so much of it is currently pretty bleak and could do with more investment much like other parts of Scotland.
As you say it’s about new imaginings, let’s hope it happens.
@AwoLsco
at12.58pm
I spent several years stationed in Germany during the 70s. During this time I met numerous Germans. A lot of them had served in WW2 or had family that had.
Not a single one that I met admitted to fighting the British/Americans. Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.
Strange that.
“And all this guff about giving the Cooncils more freedom, is just another way of trying to take power from the SNP and giving it to Labour in the Councils”
So when the independence-supporting Scottish Greens say they want the councils to have more power its because they’re trying to take it from the SNP to give to Labour?! Is that seriously what you’re trying to argue?
@Morag
“I don’t know if it’s possible to establish services”
Many places in the remoter parts of the country even now not yet have mains water, but use local sources of supply such as a nearby loch. Some have been upgraded to mains supply in recent years after operating in this way for many years. I don’t see electricity being a huge problem, and there may be exciting possibilities in the fields of renewables such as wind, local hydro and hybrid technologies. I’m sure there’d be plenty of people currently festering in unemployment in our cities who would jump at the chance to start afresh, given a bit of training and encouragement!
Also, it doesn’t have to be done all at once.
@Morag
Very much agree. We want to govern ourselves not cut our noses off to spite our faces. The neighbours are friends, family and trading partners. To me it makes perfect sense to do as little economic harm as possible for all our sakes.
So, some people want the councils to have more power, others think cooncillors should have as little free choice as possible in the name of everyone’s sanity.
What bearing does that have on the independence debate?
Ally McCoist on board
link to facebook.com
Albert, I do know what you mean. There are quite a few houses round here that don’t have mains water – big, posh houses at that. And I know of at least one holiday let that has nothing – a wind turbine, solar panels, oil or LPG heating and water from a burn. And it’s lovely.
However, I think mains water, electricity and a telephone landline are still what people look for in a real settlement, and that operating a real village or small town without them is still not really desirable. Who knows what the future will bring though.
“What bearing does that have on the independence debate?”
What bearing does an article about what some people apparently planned during WW2 have on it?
Someone else may have linked to this but it seems relevant. ‘A second rate country’
link to bbc.co.uk
“We want to govern ourselves not cut our noses off to spite our faces”
But that’s exactly the point – without our own currency and central bank we won’t be able to properly govern ourselves – we’ll still be economically shackled to rUK, with their central bank controlling our currency and interest rates and making decisions for the benefit of London, not Scotland.
“we’ll still be economically shackled to rUK, with their central bank controlling our currency and interest rates and making decisions for the benefit of London, not Scotland”
I get weary when people expect a land of milk and honey to magically appear, complete and perfect, in the first 24 hours after independence.
“Not a single one that I met admitted to fighting the British/Americans. Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.
Strange that.”
Yes, strange……but probably true…..and very easy to check up on(I bet you didn’t bother)……provided they don’t lie to you…..which Germans tend not to do, because they aren’t usually very good at lying. They can be economical with the truth however with strangers…..just like anyone else…..until they trust you and see what YOUR angle is.
Rather a lot, if you think about it.
O/T but for anyone who doesn’t know, it appears we have had a response from Labout to the SNP’s pledge that SNP controlled councils will NOT evict tenants over the bedroom tax fiasco.
link to snp.org
I wonder how long it will be before other Labour run councils follow suit, not too long I suspect based on the behaviour of past Labour councils.
“there may be exciting possibilities in the fields of renewables such as wind, local hydro and hybrid technologies.”
Yes, Eigg has an entirely renewables driven electricity supply and much of it has been done, and is maintained by locals. It’s a great place because as soon as you’re there you’re aware of energy use, recycling and not creating rubbish etc, Such a different mind-set to a city.
And yes, re currency you’re right Sterling would be best for both, at least to start with. I just like playing devil’s advocate sometimes with unionists (or pretendy indy-supporting unionist trolls) who are arguing both that we shouldn’t be “separate” and must stay under London rule in everything, but simultaneously that the current plans are “not independent enough” and we should be screwing England totally by junking Sterling as well. Seems like a very dangerous game for Darling et al to be playing.
BBC Scotlandshire’s take on the story.
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
Norsewarrior
Quite a lot, as WW2 is referred to repeatedly by your fellow Unionists as a Talisman to togetherness that Independence would spoli, conveniently forgetting the Irish, Indian, Canadian, Czechs, Poles, Australians,. French, Americans, West Indian, New Zealanders and the rest of the Commonwealth and Allies involved who feela connection without political Union.
References t this have been mentioned more than once on this page, you should try and keep up. I know forgetfulness and lack of comphrehension are two tools in the toolbox of trolls, but when it’s on the same page, you just show yourself up
“Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.”
Italians say ‘erano tutti partigiani’ – they were all partisan fighters, i.e. in the resistance. To be fair, they say it with a wink.
“Quite a lot, as WW2 is referred to repeatedly by your fellow Unionists”
What on earth gives you the warped impression that I’m a ‘unionist’?! My position on independence is blatantly clear – I’m strongly in favour of it and I want a fuller version of it than you SNP fanatics.
You really need to get past this deluded belief that anyone who even slightly criticises the SNP is automatically a ‘unionist’ – that belief is damaging our chances of getting indepedence.
There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.
I see Ms Baillie thinks you will disappear in a wee wooden boat with the funds Rev Nice of her to be concerned for your welfare
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
Norzzzzzzzzzz
“a land of milk and honey”
That’s what the UK government thinks! #McCroneReport
“I get weary when people expect a land of milk and honey to magically appear, complete and perfect, in the first 24 hours after independence.”
Where does that quote of mine suggest or imply anything of the sort?
I think we should keep the pound for a transition period of a couple of years and then get our own currency and our own central bank – only that will allow us to fully govern ourselves and not remain economically shackled to rUK.
Like the Scottish Greens I think that a timetable and plans should be established for this transition to our own currency – rather than nothing being done about it, and us being told that we’ll keep the pound “for well into the next decade”.
As someone not in the SNP (or any political party) criticising the SNP is not any kind of button to me.
It’s your whole “Well I believe we should do this, except everything is going to be shite” schtick that gives you away
The “you are goin to put me off independence” is another classic.
If you actually did believe in it you’d know that the YES Campaign for Independence is a broad church of which the SNP is only a part, and post Indy, as with many countries, the political landscape would be different.
Again, it’s only Unionists who pretend that Indy=SNP
@Arbroath1320
Re your link. What a disgrace!
I hope the people of Aberdeen and beyond get to hear all about this.
DNFTT
Who is this NOarsewarrior chappie? Because I smell shite.
OT: New Better Together zany road sign poster on social. And they aren’t campaigning for devolution either anyway but status quo, which presumably would be represented by arrows pointing downwards using their own interpretation.
“The “you are goin to put me off independence” is another classic”
Where did I suggest I’d be put off independence? I was talking about others like me – those inclined towards independence but who don’t like or support the SNP.
“If you actually did believe in it you’d know that the YES Campaign for Independence is a broad church of which the SNP is only a part”?
No it isn’t, thats one of the main problems with the Yes Campaign, it isn’t a ‘broad church’ in the slightest.
Yes it kindly allows other parties and organisations to join it, but EVERY independence policy it promotes is an SNP policy – it doesn’t promote the policies of any other party or organisation.
For example – it promotes the idea that Scotland will become an EU member and retain the monarchy after independence – those are both SNP policies that are opposed by a number of other independence parties including the Greens and the SSP.
“Who is this NOarsewarrior chappie? Because I smell shite.”
Get your mummy to change your nappy then.
@Arb
Jeez Arb they hardly waited till the ink was dry. You’d think they were ‘deliberately’ trying to become about as popular as a fart in a lift.
I don’t think anyone who disagree when I say that in order to win the referendum we need to attract a large number of people who aren’t SNP supporters to the cause.
That is why it is vital that the Yes Campaign actually becomes in reality what it pretends to be – a broad church of which the SNP is only a part rather than the main dominating controlling force.
The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties – not just SNP policies.
I don’t think anyone would disagree when I say that in order to win the referendum we need to attract a large number of people who aren’t SNP supporters to the cause.
That is why it is vital that the Yes Campaign actually becomes in reality what it pretends to be – a broad church of which the SNP is only a part rather than the main dominating controlling force.
The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties – not just SNP policies.
@Norsewarrior
Look, Norsewarrior, most of us, who frequent this blog, as far as I know, support independence. Some of us support the SNP. Some of us support some of the SNP’s policies but not all of them. Some of us are members of the SNP. Some of us support the policies of other parties. Some of us support other parties entirely. Some of us are members of other parties. Some of us support no particular party. Some of us have joined Yes Scotland and are working perfectly cooperatively with people of other parties and people of none. Our differences are not a problem for us because we all want the same thing at the end of the day – independence.
But it’s becoming clear that although you may well support independence ,as you say you do, you’re using this site mainly as a forum to slag off the SNP. If that’s what you want to do, fine…that’s entirely up to you, but there are other sites where you’ll get a warmer welcome using this approach than you have here and where your efforts will no doubt be more appreciated.
Alternatively, keep using this blog, but for god sake tone down the anti-snp rhetoric. I’ve only got one nerve left and you’re getting on it!
If you really want a republic, with a Scots pound, Scots central bank, a referendum on coming out the EU, and/or any other signs of “further independence” than that currently being mooted for transition it’s very simple indeed: vote Yes. A Yes vote allows for democracy within Scotland to then provide any and all of these things if enough people want them.
A no vote leaves all of the unobtainable, impossible and totally outwith our control.
That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to. That is dictatorship. Independence will happen first, with as little radical change and as smooth a transition as possible – which is common sense. Many people would have preferred the extra step of devo-max or federalism along the way, rather than even more radical change.
The shape Scotland takes after independence will be decided democratically, as every other democracy works. Hence, if you support Yes, support it. Then argue about currency after 2014. There’ll be plenty of time, even between then and independence day if you’re really keen.
The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties
The Yes campaign shouldn’t be promoting any policies. And it certainly shouldn’t be co-opted by Unionist trolls trying to conflate independence and SNP policies. We have the BBC for that.
@creag an tuirc
Shite!
Norsewarrior
dearie me, you really are sub-par
You say it explicitly here
“There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”
That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to.
What they usually mean is “Yes to independence, but not this independence. Some other, better, independence, that someone else might propose, some time in the future. So No to independence.”
Which is why Norsewarrior is claiming he isn’t a troll. Because he’s a Billy Goat Gruff.
“But it’s becoming clear that although you may well support independence ,as you say you do, you’re using this site mainly as a forum to slag off the SNP”
What I’m trying to do is to make clear to the people here, who mostly appear to be very dedicated to the SNP, that we need to convince a large number of non-SNP supporters to vote yes if we hope to win the referendum.
The way to do this, clearly, is NOT to attack and abuse as a ‘unionist’ or a ‘troll’ anyone who dares to have a different viewpoint from the SNP on what is best for Scotland after independence.
I share the view of the (independence-supporting) Scottish Greens that we should transition to our own currency sooner than the SNP plan – and for this I’m being called a ‘unionist’ and a ‘troll’?!
“The shape Scotland takes after independence will be decided democratically, as every other democracy works”
So the people of Scotland will get a referendum on the EU, Nato and currency before we become EU and Nato members and form a currency union will we?
Now then, how could any yes voter be put off voting yes by SNP policies and actions? Smells like shite to me too.
“That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to”
Well I’m not saying that, so you can’t be referring to me.
Regarding currency for example I clearly stated that I’d keep the pound for a transition period while setting up a timetable to eventually transition to our own currency.
Yep, all the obvious symptoms. Terminal case. Very sad. The next of kin will be informed. Obit in the Scotsman that no-one will see, yes, sad, very sad.
“The Yes campaign shouldn’t be promoting any policies”
Why are they promoting the SNP’s policies then?
“What they usually mean is “Yes to independence, but not thisindependence. Some other, better, independence, that someone else might propose, some time in the future. So No to independence.””
Well again that’s not me – I’ve clearly stated that I intend to vote yes even though I want a fuller version of independence than the SNP are offering.
“Now then, how could any yes voter be put off voting yes by SNP policies and actions?”
I said ‘potential’ yes voter, obviously someone committed to voting yes won’t be put off – but its the potential yes voters we need if we hope to win the referendum.
And, as I said, potential yes voters could be put off by the attitude of SNP fanatics like you towards anyone who doesn’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.
Likewise the 40% of Scots who are opposed to the EU could be potentially put off from voting yes by the fact that the SNP plan to make Scotland become an EU member by independence day in 2016 before the next election without giving the people of Scotland any say.
“So the people of Scotland will get a referendum on the EU, Nato and currency before we become EU and Nato members and form a currency union will we?”
We are ALREADY members of the EU and NATO. Independence itself will not change that – why the hell should it?
However, post independence, yes, we will have all those choices. If people vote for parties offering those policies, that is exactly what we’ll get. Because we will have, as a country and people, the independence to choose it.
“We are ALREADY members of the EU and NATO”
No we aren’t, Scotland isn’t a member of either the EU or Nato.
“insert tumbleweed gif here”
God, trolls are tiresome. And it’s all the same-old, same-old arguments as well. Still, at least they are very obvious.
The defence of Scotland in the future.
Obviously a good navy and air force( now more consisting of drones and missiles rather than expensive pilots and fiddly temperamental expensive fighters) is essential…….plus…..A gun in every home issued by a local militia commander to the men in his locale. of his choice, and which he will train( roughly the Swiss model.)
Those unwilling or unable to serve pay higher taxes.
Civil defence. Who has talked of this?
If there is one country where you have a chance of surviving a nuclear attack, it is Scotland….but you’ve got to go underground.
How much food do you have? Have you got a cellar with its own air filter and air and water supply?
No, like most, you live in cloud -cuckoo land hoping it will never happen.
The Swiss and the Swedes are more clear -headed on this than we are.
They are getting on with civil defence. THAT’S the sign that a government really cares………. Putting the safety and security of its citizens first.
THAT’S why you should go for independence…..to make Scotland secure….and modern. The days of the Thin Red Line at Balaclava are over. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s the future.
DO SOMETHING about it. Demand good civil defence…..and just for once….think about VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME, LABOUR AND ENTHUSIASM for the country that gives you your freedom religion and laws…..to which you owe……EVERYTHING.
You know, Norsewarrior, I’m beginning to think you’re actualy a secret SNP plant, using the old bluff and double-bluff method to confuse people who support other parties and get them to change their vote to the SNP.
If I could be bothered (which I can’t), I’d go back over your comments since yesterday and count just how many times you’ve mentioned the SNP, thus raising their profile. The rest of us hardly ever mention them, other than in response to you. If you’re trying to get readers to notice the SNP, you’re certainly doing that, just not, I suspect, in the negative way you intended. In fact, I suspect your tactics are having the effect of driving any fair-minded person TOWARDS the SNP, not away from them.
Wings readers are already very well aware that voting for the SNP is a completely separate issue from voting in the referendum. Please don’t insult their intelligence by feeling you need to point it out to them. You’ll just piss them off.
A couple of days on this site has really opened my eyes to the disdain and hatred the SNP fanatics have for those of us independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.
Merely having a different vision to the SNP on an independent Scotland, or suggesting ways in which the SNP’s independence strategy can be improved, is enough to have these people attacking me as a ‘unionist’, a ‘troll’, a ‘prick’, ‘shite’ and a ‘sleekit wee liar’.
Clearly they only pay lip service to the notion that independence is a broad church in which all views are welcome – in reality the only welcome view is one which sticks rigidly to the SNP’s and doesn’t dare to even slightly criticise them.
I don’t care personally what you people think about me, but what I do care about is the fact that your attitudes and behaviour are damaging to our chances of getting independence.
This has turned into quite a strange thread.
Norsewarrior – “There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”
Repeat ad nauseam.
Classic!
“Wings readers are already very well aware that voting for the SNP is a completely separate issue from voting in the referendum. Please don’t insult their intelligence by feeling you need to point it out to them”
Where did I say anything about the readers here? I’m talking about the general public – in particular the undecided ones – who don’t have the political interest to read sites such as this.
It is crucial that independence, and the Yes Campaign, are shown to be more than just the SNP to such people – and clearly the Yes Campaign only promoting SNP policies and ignoring the views and policies of other parties and organisations isn’t likely to do that.
@AWoLsco
Your previous comment on “A gap in the market”
“@Morag
I’m just a new boy here. A fellow Scot. Were all supposed to be jolly lads and lassies in this together, aren’t we?
Thanking you, in advance, for your patience and forbearance.”
Hypocrite!
Well again that’s not me – I’ve clearly stated that I intend to vote yes
Yes, dear. But you’re lying, you see.
I think if the SNP were to change their position on negotiating membership of the E.U. after independence, to offering a referendum on whether Scotland wants them to negotiate membership of the E.U. the no vote would drop away very quickly, as I do not believe that support for the EU in Scotland is anywhere near as strong as the SNP appears to think it is.
The better Together are holding up the no vote as people expect the Tories to give them a referendum on the EU membership.
@Norsewarrior
“A couple of days on this site has really opened my eyes to the disdain and hatred the SNP fanatics have for those of us independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”
If this were true, you must have just got the interenet yesterday and have only ever visited this site, what’s your opinion of the Britnats, have you ayes been open anywhere by them?
Guardian reporting there may be up to 30 posts cut at the Scotsman and SOS
link to guardian.co.uk
“Yes, dear. But you’re lying, you see.”
And now we have another one – I’m apparently ‘lying’ when I claim to be an independence supporter!
Clearly these SNP fanatics like ‘jiggsbro’ are of the view that you can only be an independence supporter if you back the SNP with unquestioning devotion and that anyone who criticises them, or who suggests a different version of an independent Scotland to the SNP version, is automatically ‘lying’ about being an independence supporter.
It is this kind of odious fanatical attitude that is damaging our chances of getting independence.
We should all support England in the 2014 World Cup finals – the further they progress the greater the clamour for independence will become.
“I think if the SNP were to change their position on negotiating membership of the E.U. after independence, to offering a referendum on whether Scotland wants them to negotiate membership of the E.U. the no vote would drop away very quickly”
Exactly! Polls suggest that around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU – if the SNP were to offer us a referendum on EU membership rather than planning to negotiate for Scotland to become an EU member without giving us a choice, then a large number of those Scots would be inclined to vote yes.
Of course, because our view on independence strategy differs from the official SNP independence strategy we’ll be branded as ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ by the denizens of this site.
Norsewarrior is a classic example of the passive-aggressive troll that frequents blogs such as these. Comes in being reasonably polite, etc., feels him/herself to be ‘accepted’ then becomes more and more argumentative, then offensive, then banned from the site. Goes on to other sites to rubbish the site he/she was banned from. Job done! Pathetic, of course, but therein lies the life of a troll.
‘If it walks like a duck…’etc.
Rev!
This No-arse is hijacking the website!
Point of order, I’m a Zealot, not a fanatic.
As you were.
Clearly these SNP fanatics like ‘jiggsbro’
And yet, curiously, you have even less evidence that I’m an ‘SNP fanatic’ than you claim everyone else has that you’re a troll. Which kind of makes you…a troll. A troll in a heffalump trap, in fact. Enjoy.
“then becomes more and more argumentative, then offensive”
Apart from the fact that the only offensive behaviour is being directed at me, rather than coming from me.
“And yet, curiously, you have even less evidence that I’m an ‘SNP fanatic’ than you claim everyone else has that you’re a troll”
My evidence that you’re an SNP fanatic is that you think I’m a ‘liar’, a ‘unionist’ and a ‘troll’ simply because I favour a different version of independence to the SNP’s and simply because I’ve been critical of them.
You have no other evidence to back up your claims about me, so presumably they are purely based on the fact that I’ve criticised the SNP and don’t support the party – which would make you an SNP fanatic.
WoS is obviously being seen as a threat to those who would hide the truth.
The Scottish Greens have been very critical of a number of the SNP’s independence policies and strategies, does that make them ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ too?!
On this subject…
My best mate is a strong supporter of the SNP but supports the union; does triathlon proudly wearing his union jack shirt and all that. However, he feels increasingly uncomfortable due the demonsiation of the SNP. It’s like you must support a unionist party if you support he union; no exceptions. Almost cult-like with no dissension allowed.
If you support the SNP you are ‘anti-English’ etc (which, incidentally would mean he hates half himself). Given the polls show a significant chunk of SNP voters do not support independence, I guess he’s not alone. Anyway, this ‘you must support a unionist party/must not support the SNP if you don’t want independence’ is putting him off the union; potentially turning a definite No into a Yes.
The pro-union campaign is supposed to be inclusive, yet does not accommodate e.g. SNP or Green voters who don’t support independence. This contrasts greatly the YesScotland campaign who have welcomed people of all political hues (e.g. Labour for Independence, Libs for Independence), including some prominent Tories as I understand it.
I feel the pro-union campaign needs to be more inclusive and reach out to non-unionist/pro-independence party voters lest it put these off voting No in 2014.
Norse – what are you going to do then about the EU ?
It seems that the SNP at present will not offer a vote on EU membership if Scotland were to become independent, but possibly the Tories in Westminster will in 2016/17 (if they keep to their promise)
Are you going to vote ‘No’ to independence so that allows you to have a vote on EU membership through Westminster ?
Are the Greens against EU membership then? I hadn’t heard that.
Jimmy Hill would be a great recruiting sergeant for the Yes campaign – is he still going? I’m sure he would appreciate a gig. It would be tongue-in-cheek, of course (not unlike Specsavers sponsoring the referees) but could be very effective, especially with older age groups, and would give us a chance to bore the young ‘uns endlessly about past World Cup adventures.
‘We love Jimmy Hill, he’s a Yes, he’s a Ye-ess!’
@Juteman
“WoS is obviously being seen as a threat to those who would hide the truth.”
I imagine we are going to see more Norsewarrior types gravitate to WoS as the referendum approaches. You can see already how this thread has been well and truly hijacked.
Anyone put off voting Yes because of SNP policy needs sitting down and a good talking to, gently. There are lots of them I know for a fact but if we can persuade them I think we’ll win easily. As the polls say people want all their decisions made here. I really think that explains the gap. The world beyond Yes is just so exciting – monarchy, eu, nato, currency – we decide, in a fair, caring democracy. Haud me back.
“This contrasts greatly the YesScotland campaign who have welcomed people of all political hues”
But that’s the problem, while Yes Scotland allows these others to join, it is still promoting nothing but SNP policies – EU membership, the monarchy, etc, despite many of the other parties being opposed to those policies.
Members of the general public who look at the Yes Scotland website will see it promoting nothing but SNP policies, making them think it is nothing but an SNP mouthpiece.
That’s why it needs to actively show that its inclusive of all independence parties and organisations, not just pay lip service to that idea while in reality doing nothing about it.
@norsewarrior
What on earth gives you the warped impression that I’m a ‘unionist’?! My position on independence is blatantly clear – I’m strongly in favour of it and I want a fuller version of it than you SNP fanatics.
Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing? After all, it was the SNP success in 2011 that is enabling there to be a referendum in the first place. There is differences between the SNP and other pro-independence parties, such as the SSP, the Scottish Green Party, non aligned supporters and Labour for Independence etc. However, the referendum is about where the power over Scottish affairs should be concentrated, at Westminster or Holyrood. That you say we need to have policies for the referendum makes me suspect even more that you a Unionist.
You have no other evidence to back up your claims about me, so presumably they are purely based on the fact that I’ve criticised the SNP and don’t support the party – which would make you an SNP fanatic.
Well, yes…if you’d done nothing other than criticise the SNP. But you haven’t, which makes your logic just as suspect as the rest of you. Which makes you a troll, looking for something to bash the SNP – and by association, independence – with.
By the way, people being honest generally stress that they are being honest, not that no one has any evidence that they’re being dishonest. That’s the preferred course of liars who are self-deluded enough to imagine their lies are not transparent.
Of course, because our view on independence strategy differs from the official SNP independence strategy we’ll be branded as ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ by the denizens of this site.
Hmmm…there are around 44,000 denizens of this site.
At Saturday’s conference, Alex Salmond welcomed his 25,000th member to the SNP. According to you, Norseman, there are 44,000 SNP supporters on Wings. I do believe you’ve single-handedly managed to increase support for the SNP by approximately 19,000 in the course of two days. You’re their best-kept secret.
Okay, I think it’s time we calmed down a little and stopped calling people names. Norsewarrior, whatever their motivations may be, is perfectly correct in pointing out that it’s possible to be a Yes supporter without being an SNP one. On the other hand, he/she is doing the same thing they’re bemoaning in others, by insisting that Yes is an SNP front, and invited suspicion by coming in initially with an idiotic argument about the SNP being somehow responsible for the Edinburgh trams.
Nevertheless, let’s see if we can keep this civil, because then we’ll soon see who’s arguing in good faith and who isn’t. Flinging labels around only enables deflection.
Germany were not equipped for invasion across the North sea , however some defence plans did exist in Britain as would be expected. I a m not surprised that Scotland would have been left…..its a military fact we didn’t have the forces to cover every eventuality. Only a few months ago we were told that if the Faeroes invaded London would bomb our airports.
Currency wise the rUK and BOE will prefer a currency union with Scotland as well. The demand for GBP will strengthen the pound. If there is less demand there will be pressure on the pound. Currency like everything changes value with demand, if we suddenly reduce demand for GBP by 10% and also have Scotland selling GBP denominated assets for Newcurr(you see what I did there) then its a big downward pressure on the pound.
In these circumstances Scotland would arguably have MORE influence over the BOE policy than today.
As regards WW2, our view of the situation is tainted by history(we won) plus much simplified. There was a lot of anti war resistance before the war due to proximity to WW1 and the rise of the socialist movement. This idea we were all united against the bad Nazi’s is nonsense. The concentration camps were only public knowledge in the UK AFTER the war.
“Norse – what are you going to do then about the EU? It seems that the SNP at present will not offer a vote on EU membership if Scotland were to become independent…Are you going to vote ‘No’ to independence so that allows you to have a vote on EU membership through Westminster?”
No, I still intend to vote yes. I’m actually in favour of Scotland becoming an EU member myself, I just believe that such a decision is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to make.
I also think that offering an EU referendum will give us a better chance of winning the referendum – we know that around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU and at present they are faced with the choice of possibly having an EU referendum in 2017 if they vote no, or Scotland becoming an EU member without them having a choice if they vote yes.
Following on from my earlier post, I had a look at the better together site. It says ‘cross party’ but only seems to involve the three main UK parties. There is no mention of ‘SNP for the Union’ or ‘Greens for the Union’ even though polls suggest a decent proportion of voters of these parties don’t support independence.
Also, policies advocated by better together such as tuition fees and renewing trident seem to be entirely unionist party orientated. It’s like if you vote for the union you must accept only unionist party policies.
I can see where my best mate is coming from in now questioning his intent to vote No (he supports no tuition fees and an end to trident etc BTW).
“A secret plan to the nazis take Scotland”
What an utter joke!
The last thing on the mind of the Germans was an invasion of Scotland.
Every country the Germans invaded in Western Europe had to be done as a response.
They weren’t the intiators.
YOU, the British government were the troublemakers….every time.
1) Poland
…. a recently much expanded, artificially expanded creation….most of which was German. The Germans were only taking back what was theirs in the first place. Same with the artificially Versailles created…’Czechoslovakia'( now fittingly defunct)
2) France. If you don’t want to be invaded…..then don’t invade Germany first.
3) The Low Countries. Don’t be so low, and if not readily defended, then don’t secretly confer with the enemies of Germany, otherwise she won’t pay much attention to your ‘neutrality’. Same applies to Denmark.
4)Norway. The British violated Norwegian neutrality first of all by mining its waters to prevent shipment of Swedish iron ore from Narvik.
The British were all set to invade but Hitler and the Wehrmacht beat them to the punch…..and then when they did try, a British army of 26,000 was seen off, tail firmly between its legs, by 4-5,000Austrian mountain troops and German sailors.
5) Britain. Britain had a go at invading Germany. they were utterly useless and Hitler obviously allowed the British to escape from Dunkirk in the forlorn hope that they would see sense. But no.
It was all this backs to the wall guff and ‘standing alone’ nonsense.
Not content with that, the British idiots begin bombing Germany and then get terribly upset if Germany bombs them back.
Some mothers do have ’em.
“Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing? After all, it was the SNP success in 2011 that is enabling there to be a referendum in the first place”
Let me use an analogy. Imagine you support a football club and your manager has enabled you to get to the cup final. He then starts to mess up his tactics and strategies, which you fear is endangering your chances of winning the cup.
Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?
Rev
Please, please, please ban the troll.
Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing?
I’m sure independence supporters are entirely welcome to attack the SNP, if they disagree with them in policy. It’s when the attack is not on policy, but on the ‘fanaticism’ of the SNP, that supposedly allows no dissent or discussion, that it becomes transparently a Unionist troll.
Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?
Which do you imagine you’re doing when you yell abuse at him?
“However, the referendum is about where the power over Scottish affairs should be concentrated, at Westminster or Holyrood. That you say we need to have policies for the referendum makes me suspect even more that you a Unionist”
But obviously we need to have at least outline policies if we’re going to win the referendum! The average undecided person in the street isn’t going to be convinced by the notion that independence can be anything we want it to be, they are scared of change – they want to know what they’re voting for!
“But obviously we need to have at least outline policies if we’re going to win the referendum!”
No, we don’t. (Whoever “we” is.) The referendum is not about policies. Every time you outline a policy and link it inextricably to independence, you alienate everyone on the other side. Policies are for elections. The referendum is about a principle.
” Anyway, this ‘you must support a unionist party/must not support the SNP if you don’t want independence’ is putting him off the union; potentially turning a definite No into a Yes.”
It works the other way as well. I’ve been both Lib Dem and Labour, and may well have continued to vote Labour for Westminster. However they have now identified themselves with nothing but aggressive unionism, British nationalism and tribal hatred of the party now forming the Scottish government. A Scottish government I happen to think is doing a good job.
That was what pushed me into the SNP last year, and from No to Yes last year. And they can forget any vote for them at Westminster – they have made it very clear indeed a vote for Labour is nothing at all but a vote of confidence in Westminster and the union. Which is daft, as I really don’t think there are that many people out there who vote Labour purely for the union.
Norsewarrior,
I am a member of the SNP. I joined because I want independence and I saw them as the best way of achieving a referendum and hopefully all of us achieving that objective.
I have no idea whether, after 18th Sept 2014 I will stay with them or not. If we get the constitutional reforms I think are necessary, and the Icelandic model for doing that is very persuasive, every other issue under the sun can be determined in a proper, democratic way.
For instance, I have been a republican for longer than I have been a nationalist. Do you think that I wouldn’t want to talk with like minded people after we are free about that sort of thing, with a view to becoming a republic?
First things first please.
“Well, yes…if you’d done nothing other than criticise the SNP. But you haven’t”
What else have I done apart from offer the SNP constructive criticism and outline the version of independence that I favour over the SNP’s version?
I think I just figured out what Better Together’s next poster sound bite will be: “Not an SNP supporter but voting yes in 2014? Well vote no because THE SNP HATE YOUR GUTS!”
Risible.
“Norsewarrior, whatever their motivations may be, is perfectly correct in pointing out that it’s possible to be a Yes supporter without being an SNP one. On the other hand, he/she is doing the same thing they’re bemoaning in others, by insisting that Yes is an SNP front”
I’m not saying the Yes Campaign is an SNP front, just that it may appear that way to the average undecided member of the public who looks at the Yes Scotland website or hears any of their public announcements, and see that they’re only promoting SNP independence policies to the exclusion of all other party’s policies.
As I said, it is crucial that independence is shown to be something that will be of benefit to everyone in Scotland, whatever their political leanings, not just to SNP supporters.
@Norsewarrior
Here we go, simple question. What has been your debating experiences with the Britnats/Unionists when putting your case forward for Scottish Independence?
“there are around 44,000 denizens of this site. At Saturday’s conference, Alex Salmond welcomed his 25,000th member to the SNP. According to you, Norseman, there are 44,000 SNP supporters on Wings”
Well that’s the way it seems! I’ve had nothing but vitriolic attacks and abuse on this site purely for daring to criticise the SNP’s independence strategy and for disagreeing with their version of independence.
I’m sure many of the users of this site are like me – moderate independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion – but unfortunately the minority who do appear to be SNP fanatics seem to have the louder voice.
Personally I think Norse warrior has a good point to make over the EU. I think we should have a referendum on how we want to relate to our European neighbours, in,out or trade agreement only.
Unfortunately it seems that those sensible debates can’t be had because the referendum Yes/No option is completely polarising the population. It’s one or the other. Of course, in the main we have to thank the media for this, especially the BBC who have done their utmost to reduce the debate to a couple of soundbites.
We all get involved, we get frustrated, angry even, and that leads to a negative place. It’s one of the reason’s I personally detest facebook and twitter (but realise they do have a role to play in ‘spreading the word’. )
Time to chill out I think.
“Here we go, simple question. What has been your debating experiences with the Britnats/Unionists when putting your case forward for Scottish Independence?”
Well they generally disagree with it and don’t accept my arguments. Some of them are also abusive.
@norsewarriror
Let me use an analogy. Imagine you support a football club and your manager has enabled you to get to the cup final. He then starts to mess up his tactics and strategies, which you fear is endangering your chances of winning the cup.
Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?
I am not sure why you think things have gone wrong with the Yes campaign. Why have you decided that they have? The polls are showing a narrowing of the gap between the No and Yes campaigns. That would indicate that something is going right.
“I’m sure independence supporters are entirely welcome to attack the SNP, if they disagree with them in policy. It’s when the attack is not on policy, but on the ‘fanaticism’ of the SNP, that supposedly allows no dissent or discussion”
Where did I suggest the SNP themselves are fanatical? I’m suggesting that you and others on here are SNP fanatics – because you attack and abuse anyone who criticises the party or who disagrees with their version of independence, not that the party itself is fanatical.
I’m an Independent (Margo M when I was able too living in Lothian and independent at council levels) + SNP voter. May lend my vote to the Greens in the future, possibly a proper Labour party too. Hell, I’d even consider a soft right economic party on my second vote if I felt things were getting too unbalanced in the chamber. Depends on the policies on offer, trust in the party etc. That’s fairly standard I’d have thought.
“Personally I think Norse warrior has a good point to make over the EU. I think we should have a referendum on how we want to relate to our European neighbours, in,out or trade agreement only”
I genuinely don’t understand why the SNP aren’t willing to give us one.
As I said, surely promising us a referendum on whether we want Scotland to become an EU member or not is likely to boost the yes vote?! Around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU – at present if they vote yes they face Scotland becoming an EU member without them having a choice, which may well put off many of them from doing so.
@Norsewarrior
Could you give us a taster of what your arguments for Independence are?
Rev, I’m not one for censorship but the newly resident troll is really tedious and is stopping mature debate on the site. I know he might just come back with a new nom de guerre but isn’t it worth considering the “block” button?
“I am not sure why you think things have gone wrong with the Yes campaign”
I’m not saying the campaign has ‘gone wrong’, merely that it can and must be better if we are to win the referendum, and that the SNP’s strategy, in some areas, needs to be modified and improved.
The two examples that I’ve provided are that the Yes Campaign needs to actively show that independence is for everyone by promoting independence policies from across the spectrum, not just the SNP’s. And that the SNP could offer a referendum on EU membership.
AWoLsco,
You do realise two things I take it?
Firstly 8 out of every 10 German soldiers that were killed in WW2 were killed by the Russians, see here:
link to english.ruvr.ru
Secondly that Hitler was not a particularily attractive leader.
What if the Germans had invaded Britain?
Would it really have been a hell on earth?
Not a bit of it.
The people of the Channel Islands got on fine with the Germans.
Same with the French. It was a laugh a minute for both the Germans and the French.
Standards of discipline in the German army were exceptionally high…..on Hitler’s direct orders. As one old Frenchman wryly remarked to me….”They ran the place better than we did ourselves” I asked him about the Americans. I didn’t catch all he said, but I did distinctly hear the word “Merde”.
Same with the Norwegians. The factories were humming day and night and the Norwegians were very well paid.
“We are good Germans during the day and patriotic Norwegians in the evenings”
…….went the expression of the times.
Something familiar about that makes a wee bell ring in the mind of this Scotsman.
Where have I heard something like that before?
“Could you give us a taster of what your arguments for Independence are?”
Certainly.
Three of my arguments are that Scotland will have the opportunity to run its own affairs and look after its own finances; that we’ll be more likely to elect a properly left wing government; and that we won’t be dragged into any more illegal wars.
What about you?
There are SNP policies I disagree with and I am a member but the main one of independence first is what should take precedence over everything else.
Without independence we limit the possibilities and the choices open to Scotland.
“No, we don’t. (Whoever “we” is.) The referendum is not about policies. Every time you outline a policy and link it inextricably to independence, you alienate everyone on the other side”
Exactly! And that’s what the Yes Campaign are doing by promoting the policy of being EU members and retaining the monarchy.
While you’re perfectly correct to say that independence is about principle rather than policy its a very difficult thing to promote a blank principle to the undecided voters we need to attract – they want to have some idea what independence will mean.
That’s why the Yes Campaign should be suggesting a variety of different possibilities and policies from across the spectrum – in order to give voters some idea of what independence may mean, but also to avoid alienating anti-EU Scots for example by only promoting EU membership as Yes Scotland is currently doing.
I do think a party which advocated and EU referendum/withdrawal might do reasonably well in an independent Scotland (2016 elections?). However, it probably have to be more left leaning.
After all, Norway apparently didn’t want to join the EU as the latter was seen as too ‘right-wing’.
🙂
@Norsewarrior
Self determination, don’t care about any argument/debate. I have faith in the people of Scotland to get us up and running, It’s a shame that generally they don’t have faith in themselves.
why do I get the feeling AWoLsco would be happier subjecting me and mine to a touch of Zyklon B
Norsewarrior
The YES Campaign are doing no such thing. One party in the YES Campaign has that policy. Other parties in the YES Campaign want to abolish the Monarchy. Others want out of the EU
The YES Campaign as you have been told AD-NAUSEAM is not the SNP, the SNP are only part of the YES campaign
Acknowledge this and we might respect you, continue to conflate the two and you confirm our impression of you
Independence is about becoming independent. What we do after that is up to us, though parties are free to put their own aspirations forward, they are not set in stone, the electorate decide
“That’s why the Yes Campaign should be suggesting a variety of different possibilities and policies from across the spectrum”
We – you (assuming you are a genuine Yes voter), me, all of us here and everyone on the street – ARE the yes campaign. It isn’t a political party, it’s a grassroots movement. So instead of tiresomely going on about “they should do this etc” and seeking to create division, why not simply put forward a positive vision for the future Scotland you want to see? If that includes arguing we should have our own currency and EFTA, that’s fine – you will not be the only one in the Yes campaign arguing that, many do.
If, OTOH you’re a unionist troll, why not just be honest?
“The YES Campaign are doing no such thing. One party in the YES Campaign has that policy. Other parties in the YES Campaign want to abolish the Monarchy. Others want out of the EU”
I’m afraid they are. As I already said earlier, parties within the Yes Campaign do indeed want to abolish the monarchy and not become EU members, but their views aren’t being promoted by Yes Scotland.
The only policies that Yes Scotland is promoting are those of becoming EU members and retaining the monarchy – a quick glance at the website will see that clearly: “An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union”, “the Queen will remain Head of State in Scotland”.
“The YES Campaign as you have been told AD-NAUSEAM is not the SNP, the SNP are only part of the YES campaign”
The problem is that they are the major dominant controlling part. As I said, the only policies that Yes Scotland promotes on its website and whenever Blair Drummond makes a public comment, are SNP policies.
Its website is full of references to what the Scottish Government will do and what they want, with no mention of other parties or their independence policies.
To a general member of the public the SNP and the Yes Campaign are effectively one and the same – that’s what needs to change.
Still, it’s quite touching that the unionists, with no arguments of their own, have had to resort to pretending to be Yes supporters.
“why not simply put forward a positive vision for the future Scotland you want to see? If that includes arguing we should have our own currency and EFTA, that’s fine”
That’s exactly what I have been doing! Unfortunately, because my vision of an independent future Scotland differs from the SNP’s version, you and others have attacked and abused me for expressing it!
@ Douglas Clark.
“Firstly 8 out of every 10 German soldiers that were killed in WW2 were killed by the Russians, see here:”
Indeed. I made that point earlier….that for the Germans the ‘war’ meant the war in the east and the war in the west was looked on as a bit of a picnic.
“Secondly that Hitler was not a particularily attractive leader.”
I disagree. I visited Berchtesgaden as a youngster and looked out on the same views as Adolf Hitler.
“This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
I have done my research and I think my gut instinct was right.
He comes out of this as rather an amiable old buffer, with more than a bit of the Bohemian about him. A bit of a dreamer with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about honour and duty.
I have to confess that the more I read about him, and especially the accounts of all who came in direct contact with him, then the more intrigued I become.
Europe’s greatest enigma of modern times.We are talking of him today as though he were still alive. Isn’t that remarkable?
Late to the keyboard today but not through the Troll Haze that most of what I was going to say has been said so this is a bit of a potpourri.
Albert Herring. I agree with your re-population of the Highlands and I suspect you also mean as I do, in a completely different manner than simply trying to resurrect some romanticised ideal from the past.
My ‘vision’ is that the new towns which will be required in an independent Scotland (I expect the population to rise rapidly to somewhere around 8-10 million before slowing towards the end of the century) could, in large part, be created so that there is only perhaps 20-30 miles between them all the way round a ‘Highland loop’ which would extend from the Central Belt up the A9 to Inverness, down the Great Glen and West coast route back to West Central.
There are many reasons for doing this. too many to start listing right now.
Re Nazi connection with Angus, only one I could think of was the Queen Mum’s connection to Glamis and her alleged predilection in that respect. Churchill’s relationship with Angus, or at least Dundee, by the time he made the reported comment was definitely of the hate-hate variety.
WWII – the actual thoughts and strategy of the Germans re Britain I confess I know very little about. However, if it were me looking at invading Britain, I think it would depend whether I preferred a long term strategy with more chance of success or a faster but much riskier attempt.
If the former, then Scotland would be attractive. Yes, Highland terrain would be harder to take, but by the same token, it should be easier to defend a bridgehead were one established. A very reasonable chance then that they could use that to assemble enough military resource to take the Lowlands. An ensuing England defending entrenchment on the Border then would mean it was just a question of time before there was enough military build up in Scotland to invade.
“This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to characterise that as ‘thought’.
Well I never knew that YesScotland was being led by a safari park!
Stu, the attempts to ‘Scotsmanify’ the site are evidently having some success. Action required.
“Unfortunately, because my vision of an independent future Scotland differs from the SNP’s version, you and others have attacked and abused me for expressing it!”
Erm, no. We’ve pulled you up for being a deeply tedious troll.
I also support an EU referendum, and possibly EFTA rather than the EU, and tend to argue for a Scots currency rather than Sterling, though mainly to wind up unionists. And oddly, no one here, or indeed within the Yes campaign or SNP has ever so much as raised an eyebrow, far less “attacked” me for it. Being able to take these kind of decisions is the whole point if independence.
Well I never knew that YesScotland was being led by a safari park!
That’s why norsewarrior is so upset.
Or would be, if he wasn’t a Unionist troll.
Norsewarrior
Last time. As Stu will point out when prodded, the Yes votes is about Independence, that is it. Not SNP, SSP, Green or anyone elses pur vision of what to do with that, but what Scots want and choose to do.
I’m sorry Stu
, I reiterate my opinion of him, just as I do of AWoLsco
Now guys regarding Noarsewarrior. he/she is obviously a troll. Who else would spend so much time and effort wasting peoples time dragging an argument round and round for no other reason than to spread dissent and hostility?
At a quick count he has posted 43 comments on this thread alone. I am sure many of us are fed up with his/her rantings. They are so tedious that I automatically skip over them now. I sugest that we all do the same.
Good idea, man in the jar. Just like our great leader and safari park Blair Drummond always says, “keep your hands in the car and don’t feed the trolls”.
Apparently Hitler was “an amiable old buffer”. Who knew?
“I also support an EU referendum, and possibly EFTA rather than the EU, and tend to argue for a Scots currency rather than Sterling”
So why are earth are you attacking and abusing me for expressing support for those things?!
“That’s why norsewarrior is so upset.”
I’m not upset, I’m just very frustrated that you and others are damaging our chances of getting independence by attacking and abusing anyone who dares to criticise the SNP or whose views on an independent Scotland differ from the SNP’s version.
Hhmm. Norseman, your passive-aggressiveness is becoming more obvious.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe you are here in good faith, only to troll and cause animosity and disruption. As I stated above, your behaviour is so glaringly obvious and typical of the type of troll I believe you to be that it is difficult to come to any other conclussion. Having had to deal with the likes of you and other trolls with their trademark signs of trolldom on my own and other websites, and witnessed it on many other site forums and comment-enabled sites, after a while you start to get a ‘nose’/feeling/instinct for trolls and you are definitely setting off alarm bells. If proof arrives that you are not a troll, then I will apologise to you wholeheartedly. Until then…
Well done hijacking this thread, by the way, full marks for that!
@AWOLsco
I disagree. I visited Berchtesgaden as a youngster and looked out on the same views as Adolf Hitler.
“This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
I have done my research and I think my gut instinct was right.
He comes out of this as rather an amiable old buffer, with more than a bit of the Bohemian about him. A bit of a dreamer with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about honour and duty.
I have to confess that the more I read about him, and especially the accounts of all who came in direct contact with him, then the more intrigued I become.
Europe’s greatest enigma of modern times.We are talking of him today as though he were still alive. Isn’t that remarkable?
Your tribute to Hitler is genuinely stomach churning and despicable. The man has the mass murder of 6 million Jews on his hands. Hitler’s legacy will always be Auschwitz, Treblinka and all other the other death and labour camps. His regime was almost certainly the most evil one in history (which is quite a feat). Hitler’s Germany had literally no place for Jews, social democrats, socialists, disabled people, and many more. He was no philosopher or bohemian as you call it. Hitler was a devotee of Clausewitz and total war. The German invasion and conduct in the Soviet Union was sub-human, and without a shred of humanity. The orders came from the most senior levels of the Nazi regime. Hitler bears the most responsibility by far for the Nazi crimes against humanity. He died as he lived, like a rat.
Norsewarrior,
We are both alike to an extent. I am not an SNP member or an SNP supporter. I like some of their policies but I dislike others.
I too have raised my concerns about the Yes Scotland campaign but my support for independence is rock solid. My fear is that Yes Scotland are trying to build a brand and let me assure you it takes more than 18 months to build a brand.
Even as a non politcal member of my local Yes group, I feel we MUST utilise party logos in Yes litterature. I have raised this locally and gained support.
People identify themselves whether we like it or not with these logos. It’s an emotional reconcilliation that “wur ane” are in support of a Yes vote.
We need to see Labour for indy, Scottish Greens, SSP, SNP, LibDem for indy logos plastered all over the shop alongside the Yes logo. People can identify emotionally with them.
The public perception of this being an “SNP thing” would be shot down overnight.
Better Together see this as a political battle. It’s not, it’s about winning the hearts and minds of a nation and asking them to choose the brighter path we have found for them and our children.
Once that’s acheived we can sort out the bells and whistles of Europe, Monarchy etc.
Thios will be OUR decision!!
Rant over!!!
“the Yes votes is about Independence, that is it. Not SNP, SSP, Green or anyone elses pur vision of what to do with that, but what Scots want and choose to do”
Yes of course it is about the principle of independence, but for the hundredth time – merely presenting ‘independence’ as a blank principle isn’t going to convince the undecided voters we need to win the referendum!
If the notion of independence alone was enough for them then they wouldn’t be undecided would they?!
They need to have some idea of what independence will mean – and that means presenting possibility policies and idea from across the political spectrum in order to try and entice them to vote yes.
My post above at 5.22pm should, of course, be directed to @Norsewarrior and not Norseman. Apologies.
Sorry for off topic, but it looks like the Scotsman are letting go 1/4 of their editorial staff. Mixed feelings, while I personally dont like the Scotsman much as a paper, its never good to hear people losing their jobs.
link to bbc.co.uk
“We need to see Labour for indy, Scottish Greens, SSP, SNP, LibDem for indy logos plastered all over the shop alongside the Yes logo. People can identify emotionally with them. The public perception of this being an “SNP thing” would be shot down overnight.”
Dennis Canavan spoke at the SNP conference at the weekend, and received a standing ovation. Two standing ovations, in fact. And that was for a speech all about independence being so much wider than just the SNP and which included “bet you never thought you’d see this day”.
Independence will be won – and it will be – by everyone coming together: SNP, Labour for Indy, the Greens, SSP and folk of no party at all. And once it’s won, after a very short time, people who weren’t won over before will wonder why the hell they weren’t. If it isn’t won, Labour will suffer because their own voters, who they’ve been lying like crazy to, will wake up to the truth too late. Ultimately, I don’t think that will happen, because even for many in Labour, that thought must be too harsh to contemplate.
Norsewarrior
I have read pretty much the same type of comment on the Scottish online papers. You claim to be a YES supporter then go on to either dis the SNP or espouse unionist policies. Odd behavior. I will not engage in a lengthy debate with you as this has been futile in the past. So I will only make one comment.
This is a vote for ALL of the things you want to be possibly available in Scotland if a Scottish political party puts them to the people, and gets elected into government. The YES campaign goes out of its way to repeat the mantra ad nauseum that they do NOT speak for any of the political parties. It is the MEDIA that continually tries to conflate the two things. I think that you are intelligent (see posts passim) so show that intelligence and enter the debate about INDEPENDENCE and not any particular party’s policies.
Will you vote YES on 18 September 2014?
“Mixed feelings, while I personally dont like the Scotsman much as a paper, its never good to hear people losing their jobs.”
Yeah, I feel quite sorry for journalists. It’s easy for us to bash people for poor journalism and bias. But if you’re working for BBC Scotland or the Scotsman, and you’re having a certain editorial policy pushed on you, and at the same time they are also wielding a big jobs axe, that must be hell. Can you imagine that? You’re not going to be the one that goes against the boss, are you?
My only real hope is that things like today’s fund raising success for Wings shows there might be a different way, and some of the most talented journalists, ones who perhaps aren’t happy with the editorial lines, might decide there is some way to jump ship and do something different.
Isn’t it strange that the terrible twins turned up on the day that Wings readers were celebrating the amazing success of their fundraiser?
One floods the site with tasty treats for search engines, like the ‘SNP fan*****’ phrase, and the other extols the virtues of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
I got a good sniff of both, from the start, so, from my point of view, this discussion was dead at the first rush.
As an ex-soldier, I think I’d have fixed them, flanked them and f***** them, by now.
@Albamac
I was musing on that remarkable coincidence myself.
For me the whole idea of independence is about: Hope vs Fear and Ideals vs Utility, so all that contrived crap about whether certain policies will make people vote Yes or No is a bit of a red herring (no offence Albert).
Dcanmore;
There’s a 1941 film titled ‘This England’ listed here. Is this the one?
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=this%20britain%201940%20movie&cp=12&gs_id=44&xhr=t&q=this%20England%201940%20movie&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=this+England+1940+movie&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44342787,d.d2k&fp=c6e2ee3dbab9f1d9&biw=1038&bih=490
There is only one thing I can’t stand more than a unionist troll, and that’s a unionist Trojan troll.
@ muttley 79
“Your tribute to Hitler is genuinely stomach churning and despicable.”
I thought it might not meet with the approval of some.
“The man has the mass murder of 6 million Jews on his hands.”
Quite sure about that? What a nice round figure. Still, a bit less than the 66million Christians bumped off thanks to crooks like Ulyanov(lenin), Bronstein(trotsky, Alistair Darling’s darling), and the mighty midget Josy Dugashvilli(Stalin).
“Hitler’s legacy will always be Auschwitz, Treblinka and all other the other death and labour camps. ”
Ah yes, the ones where all the dead have been tele-transported into the heavens.
No bones, no ashes, no teeth. Teeth are extraordinarily difficult to destroy. I know i’m a vet. If you accuse someone of murder, don’t you think you should make an effort to provide some evidence?….say, for instance, the odd dead body or two?
“His regime was almost certainly the most evil one in history (which is quite a feat).”
Rubbish. I know many who lived through it. For many it was the first and rather a brief spell of prosperity in their largely miserable lives.
Who in Britain even remotely entertained the idea of owning a car in the thirties, and driving on a motorway?….but German workers did.
“Hitler’s Germany had literally no place for Jews, social democrats, socialists, disabled people, and many more.”
That’s largely true…but your inclusion of the disabled is a trick to get sympathy.
The disabled and wounded were well looked after….probably better than here.
No NHS here in those days, laddie. The British were the meanest and stingiest sods under the sun when it came to looking after the wounded and disabled.
“Hitler was a devotee of Clausewitz and total war”
That can’t be true….otherwise there would be few French, Norwegians, Danes etc alive today. My uncle even bombed them and was shot down by a German fighter……but they let him live…..and very fairly he was treated too.
“The German invasion and conduct in the Soviet Union was sub-human, and without a shred of humanity.”
………While the Soviets were paragons of virtue….ho ho……and were not signatories to the Geneva Convention.
“The orders came from the most senior levels of the Nazi regime”
What orders?
“Hitler bears the most responsibility by far for the Nazi crimes against humanity”
No, he doesn’t.
“He died as he lived, like a rat.”
No. He had more guts in his little finger than eith