Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[dobmisterdobster]

eh?

 

you say that manufacturing in scotland was decimated by the dreaded london as if this happened only to scotland. it was a way the democratically elected government of the time felt the UNITED KINGDOM should go, more in england lost jobs because of this than in scotland, and yet unionists are the ones using it, o'rielly.

 

PS i'm not a unionist

 

The No camp made false promises about shipbuilding in 1979 and they are still doing it in 2014 despite a 91% decline.

[TheMaganator]

What's your point? Mock outrage?

 

What does her child have to do with this as well. I've seen this mentioned a lot. But what's the point in mentioning her child as you did a post above.

 

You do also realise if this did start from a tax paid party officer it's not exactly a good thing to have government officials do these types of things. In fact it's sick. I've yet to see proof of this. But to flippantly reject it is absolutely nonsensical. If it's true it's come form one of the first ministers officials he or she should be sacked as frankly it's unacceptable conduct from such a person. IMO of course. I'd expect that if it was a Cameron adviser or an adviser to Lamont or Rennie or Davidson too before I get branded a hypocrite.

 

What's really hypocritical is that the folk who are ranting and raving about this are the folk on both sides who'd happily do so if the boot was on the other foot.

 

It's pish like this which infuriates me about this whole debate. The future of this nation is better being decided by tossing a coin.

 

It has been confirmed. The guy has apologised and it has rightly been rejected.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27795389

 

I wonder how much of our money has been used to pay these goons who smear those who speak out against the government?

 

I am genuinely amazed at the reaction of some on here 'who cares?' etc. The Nats are lucky of the JK Rowling intervention has kind of put this to the back pages. This is one of the most shocking revelations of the campaign thus far for me.

 

And the argument that Salmond takes abuse holds no water. His is the party of a majority government. That government is smearing those normal people who speak against them. They must have a fairly shady view of democracy and free speech. You'd expect this from the online loonies - but from the First Minister's office?!

 

Whatever way you dress this up, engage in whataboutarry or defelction this is a complete and utter disgrace.

 

Yet his followers and apologists will keep voting for him.

[JamboX2]

 

People getting worked up about JK Rowling , she is a good friend of Gordon Brown and his wife , gives money to the Labour Party .

No shock she would support No .

 

Scottish Labour need to be careful with their staunch no stance standing side by side with the Tory party , UKIP and the Lib dems .

There lack of accepting or giving the yes supporters in the Labour movement some place might come back to haunt them .

 

http://m.scotsman.com/news/john-connell-the-yes-movement-within-labour-1-3439537

 

Interesting point. However, I disagree that Yes is the best bet for Labour governments or that those who are disliked will go if yes wins. As I've said before, the likes of Douglas Alexander and Murphy and many of the MPs would be likely to return to sit in Holyrood. They are Members of Scottish Labour after all. They'd also add the necessary weight Scottish Labour sometimes lacks at Holyrood.

 

The argument of shackles is an insteresting one. On tuition fees, health care reforms, school reforms and legal issues they've always pursued a distinct narrative since devolution from the UK party. As have welsh labour. They are currently discussing how say the council tax freeze benefits the well off the most and is underfunded resulting in cuts. Yet are lambasted as Tories for it. Socialism or social democratic policies (if you prefer) aren't always universalist, and aren't always fair to everyone. Pay more tax for better services is a basic element of any left wing argument to me.

 

If we vote Yes I reckon we are more likely to see a centrist, to centre right SNP running Scotland for a long while to come and doing it along the light nationalistic lines and populism we've seen, because being told things may be hard but the benefits good never wins, saying it's win win does. Look at the Yes campaign and he SNP for that. At times any difficulty is scaremongering. Much like any SNP campaign - no graduate endowment means we need to rob college budgets to fund universities? Never an issue, how dare you speculate such fears and peddle myths...

[jack D and coke]

 

 

What's your point? Mock outrage?

 

What does her child have to do with this as well. I've seen this mentioned a lot. But what's the point in mentioning her child as you did a post above.

 

You do also realise if this did start from a tax paid party officer it's not exactly a good thing to have government officials do these types of things. In fact it's sick. I've yet to see proof of this. But to flippantly reject it is absolutely nonsensical. If it's true it's come form one of the first ministers officials he or she should be sacked as frankly it's unacceptable conduct from such a person. IMO of course. I'd expect that if it was a Cameron adviser or an adviser to Lamont or Rennie or Davidson too before I get branded a hypocrite.

 

What's really hypocritical is that the folk who are ranting and raving about this are the folk on both sides who'd happily do so if the boot was on the other foot.

 

It's pish like this which infuriates me about this whole debate. The future of this nation is better being decided by tossing a coin.

My point was that people crying about who called somebody a bad name is incredibly childish and boring and is used by both sides I might add to try make the other look bad and I can't be arsed with it anymore. We have decision to make in 90 odd days that will shape all our futures and I'm done with people crying about somebody called them something on the internet. I've just came off a Facebook page that was calling Salmond and Sturgeon everything under the sun all facts wrong and effing and c'ing after reading something similar about JK Rowling and it's time everybody just grew up and stopped claiming to be outraged by it, it happens it's a very emotional issue and things are getting heated and I suspect they will get much more so the closer we get. On the issue earlier the guy should be sacked definitely but I'm sure anybody who sticks their head up on this issue has to get the tin hat on and prepare to take the flac and stop the whingeing because it comes with the territory.

[coconut doug]

It has been confirmed. The guy has apologised and it has rightly been rejected.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-27795389

 

I wonder how much of our money has been used to pay these goons who smear those who speak out against the government?

 

I am genuinely amazed at the reaction of some on here 'who cares?' etc. The Nats are lucky of the JK Rowling intervention has kind of put this to the back pages. This is one of the most shocking revelations of the campaign thus far for me.

 

And the argument that Salmond takes abuse holds no water. His is the party of a majority government. That government is smearing those normal people who speak against them. They must have a fairly shady view of democracy and free speech. You'd expect this from the online loonies - but from the First Minister's office?!

 

Whatever way you dress this up, engage in whataboutarry or defelction this is a complete and utter disgrace.

 

Yet his followers and apologists will keep voting for him.

This is not a smear. It is one factual error. She is not "normal people" she is a political activist and a member of Labour's shadow cabinet.

What sort of person would not accept an apology in such circumstances?

 

The spad should get the sack though as it was a fundamental error.

[JamboX2]

My point was that people crying about who called somebody a bad name is incredibly childish and boring and is used by both sides I might add to try make the other look bad and I can't be arsed with it anymore. We have decision to make in 90 odd days that will shape all our futures and I'm done with people crying about somebody called them something on the internet. I've just came off a Facebook page that was calling Salmond and Sturgeon everything under the sun all facts wrong and effing and c'ing after reading something similar about JK Rowling and it's time everybody just grew up and stopped claiming to be outraged by it, it happens it's a very emotional issue and things are getting heated and I suspect they will get much more so the closer we get. On the issue earlier the guy should be sacked definitely but I'm sure anybody who sticks their head up on this issue has to get the tin hat on and prepare to take the flac and stop the whingeing because it comes with the territory.

 

Indeed. I don't think this woman was expecting such a battering. And her outrage was not at the SNP or Yes Scotland, but folk posting as Yes voters.

 

Totally agree though. Stuff like this has ruined the debate. It ruins politics, it's ruining this now. Fact is some guy who is close to the FM started this bile off, may not have used the terms but it is he who kicked this off. The fact he's done what he's done should equal an immediate apology, condemnation of what's happened and such like. That's honourable and proper. Not all this "oh it's not our fault" "they're all at it" stuff.

 

Fact is, the whole debate from day 1 has been an acrimonius and childish series of events to which no one should be proud of, and irregardless of outcome I'll be glad to leave behind. When asked in future years how "great" or "interesting" all this was by future generations, when I'm old and grey, I'll tell them how petty and parochial it all was at times.

 

Want to look to the last "great" Scottish politicians and debates? See the Great Debate of 1992 between the Scottish leaders of the day, or the devolution process up to the death of Dewar. Those were the debates we should be seeing monthly. Broadcast from a variety of townhalls. Speech from both sides followed by a rebuttal and then a q&a. Nah, both sets of politicians would rather preach to their own and build up these closed doors events.

 

Lets get all this done and move on.

[JamboX2]

This is not a smear. It is one factual error. She is not "normal people" she is a political activist and a member of Labour's shadow cabinet.

What sort of person would not accept an apology in such circumstances?

 

The spad should get the sack though as it was a fundamental error.

 

Can normal people not be political activists and party members?

 

If not, then there in lies the fundamental flaw of our political life.

 

I get where you are coming from, bearing in mind she accepted an advisory role to the Scottish Labour shadow cabinet on careers issues and she has had dealings with the SNP on such matters too. However, some of the stuff I read about her today from WOS and in general on Twitter, wasn't correction of a factual error. It was a personal attack. The line between pointing something out and full blown abuse is a fine one at times.

[jambos are go!]

Support for Independence was and is not strong enough for a referendum to be called IMO. In many ways the SNP were coralled into it by their surprise majority in 2011. Scotland should not now or ever be put through this divisive process again unless there is more substantial/majority support for constitutional change being expressed in elections and public opinion. IMO.

[systemx]

But just why is someone paid from the public purse(A govt adviser)sending such an e-mail.Surely when the special adviser becomes the story he has to go.

[djf]

Survation poll in tomorrow's Daily Record has No: 53% , Yes 47% without DK's - 44 / 39 when DKs are included.

 

Supposing a Cameron re-election in 2015 Yes leads 54 / 46

 

No article up yet.

Edited June 11, 2014 by djf

[coconut doug]

Can normal people not be political activists and party members?

 

If not, then there in lies the fundamental flaw of our political life.

 

I get where you are coming from, bearing in mind she accepted an advisory role to the Scottish Labour shadow cabinet on careers issues and she has had dealings with the SNP on such matters too. However, some of the stuff I read about her today from WOS and in general on Twitter, wasn't correction of a factual error. It was a personal attack. The line between pointing something out and full blown abuse is a fine one at times.

Of course normal people can be political activists and party members. The question is can political activists and party members be described as "normal people". In this case it seems they can, as at the Better Together/ No thanks event Alistair Darling was described as the only politician to speak at the event. I think it was a misrepresentation to ignore the fact that Ms Lally is in the Labour cabinet, on their policy review committee and secretary of her local branch. Others may not see such political involvement as proof that she is a politician but surely Mr Gunn is entitled to ask.

Sensitive though i am i still can't see where WOS indulges in a "personal attack" or "full blown abuse" as you suggest. Perhaps you could be more specific. I actually don't think that the line between "pointing something out" and "full blown abuse" is a fine one, as you also suggest. I think the differences are stark. I'm not offended when somebody points something out if i am wrong or have omitted something. That is an entirely different thing to full blown abuse however i could be wrong and perhaps you be more specific as to why Ms Lally should feel so offended that she will not accept Gunn's apology for a factual error. WoS is not about personal attacks and the site has warned against it many times. It is about exposing a biased media as well as promoting independence.

What people say on Twitter is a different matter. There are, it seems many nasty people willing to make numerous unpleasant attacks on individuals but Gunn and the Scottish government cant be held accountable for that. Incidentally I tried to find the quote about quislings from a "prominent yes blogger" but it was not prominent on my search results.

I dont know what the world is coming to when the Labour Party are sharing a platform with the Tories and using the Telegraph and the Murdoch press to get their message over. Most insidious of all though was Lamont's comments that there was a concerted personal attack by the yes campaign on an "ordinary mum".

[ToadKiller Dog]

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/200-fine-for-newport-man-who-sent-yes-campaign-employee-sectarian-facebook-message-1.417019

 

A story you won't likely read in the national news .

No fuss being made about it done through the police and the chap fined .

 

Seems a sensible way rather than a media nonsense . I take it the Labour Lady has went to the police over the vile tweets ?

I hope so as the link shows such people can be punished .

Real orchestrated media fuss over little .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jack D and coke]

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/200-fine-for-newport-man-who-sent-yes-campaign-employee-sectarian-facebook-message-1.417019

 

A story you won't likely read in the national news .

No fuss being made about it done through the police and the chap fined .

 

Seems a sensible way rather than a media nonsense . I take it the Labour Lady has went to the police over the vile tweets ?

I hope so as the link shows such people can be punished .

Real orchestrated media fuss over little .

Like most of these cases no evidence of the abusive tweets is ever really found. Maybe two people say a swear word out of a hundred tweets and all hell breaks loose. It's a cry wolf scenario IMO.

[IMA MAROON]

I don't agree that a referendum shouldn't have been called, the SNP had a majority in the Parliament and it was a manifesto promise, however - I do have some sympathy with the view that perhaps a majority of over 60% should be required for such a monumental change to our constitution and I say this as a life long supporter of Independence. Turn out is also going to be interesting, there is a distinct possibility that give or take a couple of % there could be 1/3 for Independence, 1/3 pro Union and 1/3 who don't vote (so therefore don't care either way) - where would that leave us and how do you move on from that?

 

Yep. The only people voting should be the ones that want Scotland to separate. If you want a change you vote for a change and you leave the rest of us out of it. If two thirds of the population want to split then we split. That's the way it should have been.

 

Dragging everyone else into their vote. They are just trying to force things through.

[IMA MAROON]

That is not actually what I said. If you care enough about the Union you should use your vote to demonstrate this, if you don't vote then you are happy to accept either out come. The Yes campaign should not have to beat the No and the Don't cares.

 

You could in fact lump all the non voters in with whoever wins, so if Yes get 51% and you add in the lets say 1/3 of people who are happy to go along with the result but don't bother voting, then that is a very sizeable majority.

 

A lot of people will not be voting because they are happy enough with what they have got and don't see the point.

 

The SNP are hoping for a low turnout as it is the only way they will win.

[djf]

The current divisiveness in Scotland would be nothing compared to the anger present if the ~40% backing independence hadn't got a referendum as promised by the SNP imo

[reaths17]

 

That is not actually what I said. If you care enough about the Union you should use your vote to demonstrate this, if you don't vote then you are happy to accept either out come. The Yes campaign should not have to beat the No and the Don't cares.

 

You could in fact lump all the non voters in with whoever wins, so if Yes get 51% and you add in the lets say 1/3 of people who are happy to go along with the result but don't bother voting, then that is a very sizeable majority.

 

you dont vote because your totally pisht off with politics or lazy not because your happy either way. the seperatists are the ones trying to sell, if you dont get over 50% of voters you by rights havn't really got the backing of the voting public and infact because seperatists are selling it should be a straight case of independence needing 51% of the voting public and no shouldn't in reality need to collect a vote as they ain't trying to sell anything.

 

trying to claim the disollusioned 3rd haha, checking the death registry next.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

She can say what she likes. If her opinion is a media event then it's worth a mention.

 

Everyone resident in Scotland is entitled to a view for the sake of clarity.

 

In that case I don't understand your original point

[2NaFish]

you dont vote because your totally pisht off with politics or lazy not because your happy either way. the seperatists are the ones trying to sell, if you dont get over 50% of voters you by rights havn't really got the backing of the voting public and infact because seperatists are selling it should be a straight case of independence needing 51% of the voting public and no shouldn't in reality need to collect a vote as they ain't trying to sell anything.

 

trying to claim the disollusioned 3rd haha, checking the death registry next.

 

They're not trying to sell anything, but are called "better together"? Still, it doesnt affect you, because there is no difference, right?

[reaths17]

 

 

 

They're not trying to sell anything, but are called "better together"? Still, it doesnt affect you, because there is no difference, right?

 

you, me and all the rest of the general public, will if were lucky generally be unaffected while the politicians play musical chairs. but i fear that we the public will be burdened with the cost of this charade and as such be worse off.

 

as i've said i'm no unionist but i'm fu** if i'm paying for a bunch of asole politicians to play games.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What else does he mean then? The explanation afterwards is pretty clear too.

 

"Blood and soil" was the interviewer's phrase, not his. The New Statesman's initial reporting was unbelievably inaccurate.

 

He then says: "If you ask any nationalist is there any circumstances in which you would not vote for independence, separation, the answer's got to be 'no' because it is about people who define themselves by their national identity."

 

It's nice and easy for the Nats to use the connection to pretend that Darling is comparing them to people who murdered millions of Jews or started World Wars but what he's saying is that Scottish Nationalism is about national identity, nothing else. I'm not sure I agree with his point of view (in fact I don't) but the Nazi connection isn't his.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Find this result of recent polls more interesting than the yes/no poll .

http://www.betternation.org/2014/06/exclusive-june-holyrood-poll-by-survation/

 

Looks like Labour could be out of power for a bit longer in Scotland and possibly the UK as the Tory support down South grows and the economy improves from some in the Home Counties .

 

Maybe a big tactical error by Labour in Scotland ( not that they really have a say ) standing beside Tory, lib dems and UKIP staunchly to save the Union . They may save the Union but have to accept being 2nd at Holyrood for a long long time to come .

 

Would like to see a bigger Green Party influence in Holyrood also something that will never happen in Westminster, so happy with the predictions for them

Edited June 12, 2014 by ToadKiller Dog

[JamboX2]

 

Find this result of recent polls more interesting than the yes/no poll .

http://www.betternation.org/2014/06/exclusive-june-holyrood-poll-by-survation/

 

Looks like Labour could be out of power for a bit longer in Scotland and possibly the UK as the Tory support down South grows and the economy improves from some in the Home Counties .

 

Maybe a big tactical error by Labour in Scotland ( not that they really have a say ) standing beside Tory, lib dems and UKIP staunchly to save the Union . They may save the Union but have to accept being 2nd at Holyrood for a long long time to come .

 

Would like to see a bigger Green Party influence in Holyrood also something that will never happen in Westminster, so happy with the predictions for them

 

Did anyone really expect Labour to win in 2016?

 

Their aim should be to force the SNP into minority government again. Step by step. That way the opposition can influence and amend government policies in ways they cannot now.

 

Do you suggest Labour backing yes would = Labour Government in 2016?

[ToadKiller Dog]

 

 

 

Did anyone really expect Labour to win in 2016?

 

Their aim should be to force the SNP into minority government again. Step by step. That way the opposition can influence and amend government policies in ways they cannot now.

 

Do you suggest Labour backing yes would = Labour Government in 2016?

 

I imagine labour taking a less hostile approach would increase support in Scotland

 

So labour don't want to win the next Holyrood election ?

 

Nice picture of Red Top ED

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunNewspaper/status/477091872201265153/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_content=477109519907303424&utm_campaign=tom_watson&utm_medium=fb

[JamboX2]

 

Of course normal people can be political activists and party members. The question is can political activists and party members be described as "normal people"

 

Yes. Yes they can. You just said so in that first sentence.

 

. In this case it seems they can, as at the Better Together/ No thanks event Alistair Darling was described as the only politician to speak at the event. I think it was a misrepresentation to ignore the fact that Ms Lally is in the Labour cabinet, on their policy review committee and secretary of her local branch. Others may not see such political involvement as proof that she is a politician but surely Mr Gunn is entitled to ask.

 

Did BT deny her political involvement? All she said was "I''m an ordinary person". It's not a denial of any political involvement. She's also shared platforms with the SNP on carers issues. She just said she was ordinary. Run of the mill. Never got up and said "I've never been involved in politicos nor do I advise Labours cabinet team". I can see how by intimation it's a denial, but it's not a denial in a flat sense.

 

Sensitive though i am i still can't see where WOS indulges in a "personal attack" or "full blown abuse" as you suggest. Perhaps you could be more specific. I actually don't think that the line between "pointing something out" and "full blown abuse" is a fine one, as you also suggest. I think the differences are stark. I'm not offended when somebody points something out if i am wrong or have omitted something. That is an entirely different thing to full blown abuse however i could be wrong and perhaps you be more specific as to why Ms Lally should feel so offended that she will not accept Gunn's apology for a factual error. WoS is not about personal attacks and the site has warned against it many times. It is about exposing a biased media as well as promoting independence.

 

Whilst that WOS article was subsequently corrected it ran on unsubstantiated information on her being related to a former Labour councillor. Which has I turn been used as a stick to beat her which is not true. That's not good, decent or accurate reporting. In fact you could've went to the PCC if it was a newspaper with how poor an piece that was and how it breaches journalistic codes. Luckily for WOS they're online and not subject to any press regulation.

 

I think she's not accepting the apology because she feels vilified and abused by the fringe of butters on the internet who were stoked up into a furore over this due to Mr Gunn's inaccuracy. It's her right to make her mind up. Why question it?

 

I suppose her Labour membership will be used against her here too. I think we should be mature about this. The woman was attacked by a variety of people and sites as a liar. She herself doesn't feel she's lied. As I said above all she said was she was an ordinary person. And from the sounds of it she isn't a full time adviser to Labours Shadow Cabinet but a part time activist (I can't see being a branch secretary being a full time job like Mr Gunn's) who's experiences have informed Labour policy on carers. There, to me, was no intent to mislead people on her political persuasion or involvement in politics at all. I'm interested and active in politics. Am I not ordinary.?

 

What people say on Twitter is a different matter. There are, it seems many nasty people willing to make numerous unpleasant attacks on individuals but Gunn and the Scottish government cant be held accountable for that. Incidentally I tried to find the quote about quislings from a "prominent yes blogger" but it was not prominent on my search results.

I dont know what the world is coming to when the Labour Party are sharing a platform with the Tories and using the Telegraph and the Murdoch press to get their message over. Most insidious of all though was Lamont's comments that there was a concerted personal attack by the yes campaign on an "ordinary mum".

 

Labour are officially a party of the Union based on a belief in the solidarity of working people across the UK. Or to nationalists they are in it to feather their nests. I don't think it's right on the latter as those in the party are sincere in that view (and I've met and know many who are and are). Much like Nationalists are sincere in their belief Scotland will be a better land in all ways without being in political union with England Wales and Northern Ireland. Which is fair enough and sincere to them.

 

I think the cyber bullying etc is the ugliest aspect of Scottish politics, and it's sickening. I've heard neither side disown these clowns. All I've heard is they're nothing to do with me. I'll be honest I've not read Lamonts comments because last night I was sickened by all of this.

 

As for Mr Gunn. He clearly attempted to spin the story the Telegraph was running (SNP are also currying favour with the centre right press shock horror there) and caused this to snowball as it was clear he thought it was a club to beat No with.

 

Now on two fronts he should go;

 

1. It was wrong and he's a government employee on the public purse and used his position to attack an ordinary member of the public with what was I. Itself a lie of her being related to a former high up councillor in Labour and made other remarks questioning her character. That's not on imo if you are on the public purse.

 

2. Mr Salmond claims he runs a positive media camp which doesn't engage in this style of politics. What we have seen his a senior aide of his engage in negative campaign tactics. From that I gather he's broken party policy on media campaign activities. In that regard, as positivity is a key plank of the Yes and SNP campaigns it might be a good idea for Mr Gunn to be disciplined or moved on.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

I imagine labour taking a less hostile approach would increase support in Scotland

 

So labour don't want to win the next Holyrood election ?

 

Nice picture of Red Top ED

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunNewspaper/status/477091872201265153/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_content=477109519907303424&utm_campaign=tom_watson&utm_medium=fb

 

So half heartedly campaign for the Union?

 

If their rank and file want yes then it'll happen, ie yes will win. The party will not in any case win 2016. Not saying they don't want to win, but the party can't win. The SNP have an inbuilt majority of seats now. In a pr system that will take a while to erode. Look to Ireland and Finna Fail for that. Best I can see Labour doing is 40ish seats and pulling the SNP into minority, from there to 2020/2021 it's anyone's game for the election after as that's when you should really see tiredness and divisions emerge in the SNP. Especially if they lead Scotland into independence and don't get everything they wanted from negotiations.

 

Personally I don't want more SNP government, don't trust them frankly. Deliver well on certain issues but always take the quick fix. Currently ruining the police and justice system here as well. Armed police allowed to patrol without a single vote had on it nor a manifesto commitment to it. A centralised Scotland where councils are afraid to step out and try a different way from what government is doing and a group of SNP backbenchers who lack individual opinions and are so regimented they may as well be one person. Not the party for me.

 

I'll hold my hopes out for a Labour-Green government in 2020/21.

[Alba gu Brath]

Talking of Labour, another high-heid yin has gone to Yes.

 

 

Labour are in a funny position. Was talking to some of their activists at the Meadows Fest last week. At first, a couple of young student types told me that Labour for Indy was a myth. Got speaking to an older woman though who admitted she knew some members who were for it. She also seemed quite happy, and understanding, to hear criticism of the likes of George Robertson, Davidson, Miliband and Reid. Funny as they seem so tribal when quoted in the news.

 

Think that the 'Labour vote' will be key to getting a Yes win. Still not confident but the polls do appear to be still narrowing.

[2NaFish]

 

 

 

 

you, me and all the rest of the general public, will if were lucky generally be unaffected while the politicians play musical chairs. but i fear that we the public will be burdened with the cost of this charade and as such be worse off.

 

as i've said i'm no unionist but i'm fu** if i'm paying for a bunch of asole politicians to play games.

 

the general public will be unaffected but the general public will be much worse off.

 

you're a card.

[Alba gu Brath]

So half heartedly campaign for the Union?

 

If their rank and file want yes then it'll happen, ie yes will win. The party will not in any case win 2016. Not saying they don't want to win, but the party can't win. The SNP have an inbuilt majority of seats now. In a pr system that will take a while to erode. Look to Ireland and Finna Fail for that. Best I can see Labour doing is 40ish seats and pulling the SNP into minority, from there to 2020/2021 it's anyone's game for the election after as that's when you should really see tiredness and divisions emerge in the SNP. Especially if they lead Scotland into independence and don't get everything they wanted from negotiations.

 

Personally I don't want more SNP government, don't trust them frankly. Deliver well on certain issues but always take the quick fix. Currently ruining the police and justice system here as well. Armed police allowed to patrol without a single vote had on it nor a manifesto commitment to it. A centralised Scotland where councils are afraid to step out and try a different way from what government is doing and a group of SNP backbenchers who lack individual opinions and are so regimented they may as well be one person. Not the party for me.

 

I'll hold my hopes out for a Labour-Green government in 2020/21.

 

Interesting the SNP's populism is much worse than the Labour Party's many misdemeanours from Iraq to PFI. I guess it's not impossible that a Labour-Green coalition could happen. Here's hoping it's post-indy.

 

Greens pleased with the latest polls btw:

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/uncategorized/scottish-greens-welcome-latest-indyref-and-holyrood-polls/

[willie wallace]

I have tried to keep an open mind regarding the JK Rowling announcement but have to admit that i have failed.Fair enough if she wants to vote no but to give ?1 million quid to to the anti independence campaign is pushing it a bit in my opinion.

There is no excuse for some of the comments but we all know what the internet is like and i am sure she and everyone else knew it was likely to happen.

No more Harry Potter for me

[Gorgiewave]

Why is giving a million quid to the No vote "pushing it a bit"? Are Chris and Colin Weir's contributions also "pushing it"? Is it the principle of giving a lot of money or what?

[jack D and coke]

Why is giving a million quid to the No vote "pushing it a bit"? Are Chris and Colin Weir's contributions also "pushing it"? Is it the principle of giving a lot of money or what?

I agree both are pushing it and have invited criticism on themselves really. There should be a limit on donations tbh and it should well short of those amounts, they're ridiculous sums of money from one person or couple.

 

Nobody should be able to have that much influence on any political campaign.

[JamboGraham]

 

Nobody should be able to have that much influence on any political campaign.

 

Ironically the act of them making the donation (and the associated media coverage) is arguably the greatest benefit to the campaign. In reality how much difference is one million pounds of leaflets that go straight in the bin, party broadcasts that no one watches and political events that only the decided will go to really going to make.

 

On the other hand the JK Rowling coverage was pretty much wall to wall this week...

[JamboX2]

 

 

Interesting the SNP's populism is much worse than the Labour Party's many misdemeanours from Iraq to PFI. I guess it's not impossible that a Labour-Green coalition could happen. Here's hoping it's post-indy.

 

Greens pleased with the latest polls btw:

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/uncategorized/scottish-greens-welcome-latest-indyref-and-holyrood-polls/

 

Tbh, I am not going to vote for a man like Salmond if I fundamentally don't trust him to lead the country. Irregardless of yes or no, I dislike the man and how he operates. I do not see in him someone who I think is competent and able enough to lead a nation or be a national leader. He's too bombastic, too egotistical and struggles inherently to work across the political spectrum. I'd go as far as to say he brought some of the worst elements of Westminster politics to Scotland and Holyrood. On top of that I don't think on education, justice and health and Wellbeing policy there's been much good done, and in fact looking at some measures of these things we are going backwards, academic achievement especially is showing a slowing of social mobility irregardless of free tuition. Health inequalities are also stagnant. After 7 years of government in which to do things to change this it appears there are major issues with their policies and how they are arguing they should go forward by sticking to what they've done before.

 

If it wasn't for the independence issue I'd say they are a dull and up imaginative Government. Good administrators. Not great thinkers.

 

Hence why I don't chose to vote SNP.

 

As for Labour, I'm encouraged by a number of policy muttering a of late. As I am by the Greens, although the laters opposition to nuclear power I disagree with.

 

If there's a yes or no vote I expect an SNP government of sorts in 2016. I don't want that to be the case, but I expect it will be the case. If we are independent and we get the SNP my votes will be as worthless as they are now for Westminster as my constituency is now a SNP majority and the list vote offers little variety of out come in my region, democracy certainly sucks at times.

Edited June 12, 2014 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

 

 

Think that the 'Labour vote' will be key to getting a Yes win. Still not confident but the polls do appear to be still narrowing.

 

True. Though from some of the stuff that we hear from yes posters you'd think Labour was the devil incarnate.

 

To me, Labour voters and members will vote yes. How many I don't know. It's a non-political event, or so it should be (try telling parties that).

 

My issue is that I think Yes opens the door to a more centre right Scotland than many expect it to be. Labour people included. And the vanguard of that will be Salmond, Russell and Swinney. The SNP left is not the force it once was and the centrists and those to the right are likely to feature more than the left in future, looking at the junior ministers show this to me.

[JamboGraham]

 

the list vote offers little variety of out come in my region, democracy certainly sucks at times.

 

Never really understood why the list is regional, always thought it should be a vote for a local representative and a nationwide vote for a party. Let's be honest can anyone name any of their local list MSP's?

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

 

Never really understood why the list is regional, always thought it should be a vote for a local representative and a nationwide vote for a party. Let's be honest can anyone name any of their local list MSP's?

 

Alison Johnson, Neil Findlay, Kezia Dugdale, Sarah Boyak, Tory and formerly Margo.

 

We should move to STV. Makes more sense and is more proportional and reflective than the list system. Also near ensures no majorities.

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

Alison Johnson, Neil Findlay, Kezia Dugdale, Sarah Boyak, Tory and formerly Margo.

 

We should move to STV. Makes more sense and is more proportional and reflective than the list system. Also near ensures no majorities.

 

Fair play...I just looked up mine and to my surprise realised that two party leaders in Scotland come from my regional list...

Edited June 12, 2014 by JamboGraham

[coconut doug]

Yes. Yes they can. You just said so in that first sentence.

 

 

 

Did BT deny her political involvement? All she said was "I''m an ordinary person". It's not a denial of any political involvement. She's also shared platforms with the SNP on carers issues. She just said she was ordinary. Run of the mill. Never got up and said "I've never been involved in politicos nor do I advise Labours cabinet team". I can see how by intimation it's a denial, but it's not a denial in a flat sense.

 

 

 

Whilst that WOS article was subsequently corrected it ran on unsubstantiated information on her being related to a former Labour councillor. Which has I turn been used as a stick to beat her which is not true. That's not good, decent or accurate reporting. In fact you could've went to the PCC if it was a newspaper with how poor an piece that was and how it breaches journalistic codes. Luckily for WOS they're online and not subject to any press regulation.

 

I think she's not accepting the apology because she feels vilified and abused by the fringe of butters on the internet who were stoked up into a furore over this due to Mr Gunn's inaccuracy. It's her right to make her mind up. Why question it?

 

I suppose her Labour membership will be used against her here too. I think we should be mature about this. The woman was attacked by a variety of people and sites as a liar. She herself doesn't feel she's lied. As I said above all she said was she was an ordinary person. And from the sounds of it she isn't a full time adviser to Labours Shadow Cabinet but a part time activist (I can't see being a branch secretary being a full time job like Mr Gunn's) who's experiences have informed Labour policy on carers. There, to me, was no intent to mislead people on her political persuasion or involvement in politics at all. I'm interested and active in politics. Am I not ordinary.?

 

 

 

Labour are officially a party of the Union based on a belief in the solidarity of working people across the UK. Or to nationalists they are in it to feather their nests. I don't think it's right on the latter as those in the party are sincere in that view (and I've met and know many who are and are). Much like Nationalists are sincere in their belief Scotland will be a better land in all ways without being in political union with England Wales and Northern Ireland. Which is fair enough and sincere to them.

 

I think the cyber bullying etc is the ugliest aspect of Scottish politics, and it's sickening. I've heard neither side disown these clowns. All I've heard is they're nothing to do with me. I'll be honest I've not read Lamonts comments because last night I was sickened by all of this.

 

As for Mr Gunn. He clearly attempted to spin the story the Telegraph was running (SNP are also currying favour with the centre right press shock horror there) and caused this to snowball as it was clear he thought it was a club to beat No with.

 

Now on two fronts he should go;

 

1. It was wrong and he's a government employee on the public purse and used his position to attack an ordinary member of the public with what was I. Itself a lie of her being related to a former high up councillor in Labour and made other remarks questioning her character. That's not on imo if you are on the public purse.

 

2. Mr Salmond claims he runs a positive media camp which doesn't engage in this style of politics. What we have seen his a senior aide of his engage in negative campaign tactics. From that I gather he's broken party policy on media campaign activities. In that regard, as positivity is a key plank of the Yes and SNP campaigns it might be a good idea for Mr Gunn to be disciplined or moved on.

Of course ordinary people can be political activists but in some cases the process is not reciprocal. Gordon Brown could not be described as a normal dad in this context and It is debatable whether someone who is in the Labour shadow cabinet, policy review committeee and the constituency secretary can be described as an "ordinary mum". In this context ordinary relates to politics since she was speaking at a political event. It meant that she was not exceptional but clearly given the posts she holds, she is exceptional. She is also a Better Together activist. IMO Gunn is entitled to ask the Telegraph questions to find out just how "ordinary" she is.

 

I don't know if BT denied her political involvement but i do know that The Times stated that Alistair Darling was the only politician to speak at the event. I presume they were told this by a BT press officer or assumed it from Ms Lally's statement that she was an ordinary mum. IMO BT were trying to portray her as somebody with no political involvement which wasn't true. This would be in similar style to No Borders who apparently tried to pass off actors as ordinary citizens. We have a pattern and of course they know that a compliant media ask no questions so maybe that's why Mr Gunn felt the need.

 

More relevantly you and others continue to bleat about this "vile abuse" that was so "sickening" but can't point me to it. I note that as you are unable to find any vile abuse in Gunn's comments you are now blaming him and wos for the twittering of some extremists. I wish you could explain to me how "internet nutters were stoked up into a furore over Mr Gunn's inaccuracy". So Gunn thought she was related to Pat Lally and this unleashed a torrent of abuse on Ms Lally. What has Pat ever done to elicit this reaction? You say Ms Lally was" attacked by a variety of people and sites as a liar". What did they accuse her of lying about?

 

Finally you accuse Gunn of "making remarks questioning Ms Lally's character". I have not seen this and it was not referred to in parliament during FMQ's but if you can show me these comments i will gladly change my opinion on the matter.

[Gizmo]

Like sticker-gate the Project Fear/Better Together/No Thanks campaign actively look for opportunities to smear their opponents.

 

Jim Sillars was furious at those who gave them ammunition. http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/open-letter-called-cybernats/

 

He is also quite certain that the state apparatus is being used to undermine the YES campaign.

 

But to me the point of all this is; if they, Naw or whatever they have re-branded themselves as this week, require to attack the messengers and have a deliberate strategy to do so, they clearly have no conviction in the argument they put forward.

[ToadKiller Dog]

I see auld Queenie has said no twice to Cameron as he tried to get her to take sides and defend the union .

She remains neutral .

 

[TheMaganator]

 

I agree both are pushing it and have invited criticism on themselves really. There should be a limit on donations tbh and it should well short of those amounts, they're ridiculous sums of money from one person or couple.

 

Nobody should be able to have that much influence on any political campaign.

The Weirs have contributed over 80% of the entire Yes funding. That's (totally legitimate & allowed) but pretty shocking IMO.

 

JK's donation is 1/5 of what the Weirs have contributed.

 

I'm not sure if there are limits on individual donations?

 

I took part in an interesting debate - 'is setting limits on political donations a surpression of free speech?'. the room was pretty evenly divided

[TheMaganator]

I see auld Queenie has said no twice to Cameron as he tried to get her to take sides and defend the union .

She remains neutral .

Of course she does.

 

I think she'd be deviatsted if we voted Yes though.

[TheMaganator]

Like sticker-gate the Project Fear/Better Together/No Thanks campaign actively look for opportunities to smear their opponents.

 

Jim Sillars was furious at those who gave them ammunition. http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/open-letter-called-cybernats/

 

He is also quite certain that the state apparatus is being used to undermine the YES campaign.

 

But to me the point of all this is; if they, Naw or whatever they have re-branded themselves as this week, require to attack the messengers and have a deliberate strategy to do so, they clearly have no conviction in the argument they put forward.

So what does Salmond's advisor contacting the Telegraph to undermine Lally's credibility say about his belief in his msg?

 

EDIT: that letter - well meaning but levels of paranoia

Edited June 13, 2014 by TheMaganator

[JamboX2]

 

I see auld Queenie has said no twice to Cameron as he tried to get her to take sides and defend the union .

She remains neutral .

 

You mean the headline is "Queen sticks to her constitutional role"? Shocked.

[JamboX2]

 

Of course ordinary people can be political activists but in some cases the process is not reciprocal. Gordon Brown could not be described as a normal dad in this context and It is debatable whether someone who is in the Labour shadow cabinet, policy review committeee and the constituency secretary can be described as an "ordinary mum". In this context ordinary relates to politics since she was speaking at a political event. It meant that she was not exceptional but clearly given the posts she holds, she is exceptional. She is also a Better Together activist. IMO Gunn is entitled to ask the Telegraph questions to find out just how "ordinary" she is.

 

I don't know if BT denied her political involvement but i do know that The Times stated that Alistair Darling was the only politician to speak at the event. I presume they were told this by a BT press officer or assumed it from Ms Lally's statement that she was an ordinary mum. IMO BT were trying to portray her as somebody with no political involvement which wasn't true. This would be in similar style to No Borders who apparently tried to pass off actors as ordinary citizens. We have a pattern and of course they know that a compliant media ask no questions so maybe that's why Mr Gunn felt the need.

 

I'd say a politician is someone who holds an elected office. Mrs Lally does not. She holds a party office and is therefore a party activist. Not a politician.

 

Compliant media? BT get slated in the press for running a terrible campaign and a failing one. It's not exactly compliant. Yes gets a free

ride from some writers and broadcasters - Riddoch, McKenna, Hassan, Robertson, the Herald Group... It's not black and white. Nor a conspiracy.

 

 

More relevantly you and others continue to bleat about this "vile abuse" that was so "sickening" but can't point me to it. I note that as you are unable to find any vile abuse in Gunn's comments you are now blaming him and wos for the twittering of some extremists. I wish you could explain to me how "internet nutters were stoked up into a furore over Mr Gunn's inaccuracy". So Gunn thought she was related to Pat Lally and this unleashed a torrent of abuse on Ms Lally. What has Pat ever done to elicit this reaction? You say Ms Lally was" attacked by a variety of people and sites as a liar". What did they accuse her of lying about?

 

Gunn gave them the ammunition they needed via the telegraph letter. Gunn shouldn't go for the twitter rankings. Gunn should go because he tried to spin a story with inaccurate information about Mrs Lally's background, even though he must've known she'd worked with his boss before in relation to carers issues.

 

The lie they accused her of was not being a politician. I don't think she. She's clearly a political activist and party officer. That does not make her a politician, who to me is someone in elected public office.

 

Wings ran an article on this inaccurate information, to which he later added a note later saying we are now unsure if she is related to Pat but she's still in Labour. Now how many folk on Yes stages and adverts have been SNP supporters or those of their allies and in party positions? I'm going to guess a few. Why? Because parties want security in who they pick as being on message.

 

Finally you accuse Gunn of "making remarks questioning Ms Lally's character". I have not seen this and it was not referred to in parliament during FMQ's but if you can show me these comments i will gladly change my opinion on the matter.

 

Is calling someone a liar not questioning the trustworthiness of someone and in effect not questioning her character?

[ToadKiller Dog]

 

 

 

You mean the headline is "Queen sticks to her constitutional role"? Shocked.

 

You should check up on her real powers and ability to use them her role is by no means passive .

 

Clearly Dave Cameron thinks she is able to intervene as he has asked her twice .

 

 

Edited June 13, 2014 by ToadKiller Dog

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

You should check up on her real powers and ability to use them her role is by no means passive .

 

Clearly Dave Cameron thinks she is able to intervene as he has asked her twice .

 

Call Me Dave can think that all he wants. Fact is the Queen would not find such a move pleasant for her. The role of he monarch is to provide a neutral head above the political sphere. Her reserved powers are now largely vested in the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament.

 

Whilst it is true she technically has the power to declare war, anull acts of parliament and to abolish parliament, it is highly unlikely amd impossible to imagine, any British monarch doing so. Parliament has become the sovereign power in the UK. And whilst many yes folk don't like that either, what it actually does is hand sovereign power to the people to be exercised by their representatives who we hold to account.

 

HRH is not a free citizen. She is an institution bound by the conventions of the constitution. She has no vote and no right to a political opinion in public. If Call Me Dave wants that to change he should bear in mind that FOI and 30 year rule papers have shown that the Palace had a poor view of the Tory hero Mrs Thatcher and her policies. If anything old Lizzie's a bit of a red haha.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You should check up on her real powers and ability to use them her role is by no means passive .

 

Clearly Dave Cameron thinks she is able to intervene as he has asked her twice .

Of course. There is no written constitution.

 

However, Her Maj knows her limits unlike Cameron.

[TheMaganator]

Call Me Dave can think that all he wants. Fact is the Queen would not find such a move pleasant for her. The role of he monarch is to provide a neutral head above the political sphere. Her reserved powers are now largely vested in the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament.

 

Whilst it is true she technically has the power to declare war, anull acts of parliament and to abolish parliament, it is highly unlikely amd impossible to imagine, any British monarch doing so. Parliament has become the sovereign power in the UK. And whilst many yes folk don't like that either, what it actually does is hand sovereign power to the people to be exercised by their representatives who we hold to account.

 

HRH HM is not a free citizen. She is an institution bound by the conventions of the constitution. She has no vote and no right to a political opinion in public. If Call Me Dave wants that to change he should bear in mind that FOI and 30 year rule papers have shown that the Palace had a poor view of the Tory hero Mrs Thatcher and her policies. If anything old Lizzie's a bit of a red haha.

 

FTFY

 

Did she not dissolve an Australian Parliament once because they were getting up to miuschief?