Tonight's televised debate

[Martin_T]

I'm not expecting many replies which bear up under scrutiny. Your question is a corollary. It will be easier to answer when there is no compelling argument offered for keeping Westminster as our major law makers. To be going on with. The Union was a product of the early days of Empire in Europe. It made the west of Scotland rich for a few, but the politics that produced it bankrupted the rest of Scotland. (read up on Darien). For the last 100 years Scotland has suffered massive population displacement, high rates of poverty, poor housing and transport, a much higher than average mortality rate in Imperial Wars, and restrictions on our ability to exploit all our natural resources, both human and mineral for our own improvement. The rest of Europe has realised that small independent nations thrive in the modern world. The Union is an anachronism of the 1900s, and its replacement with a strong social and economic partnership (playing to each others strengths), between Scotland and the remaining U.K. would be the best way for all the communities to maximise our mutual benefits.

 

In that case I'm not sure why I'm going to bother continuing this debate then. Your debating style is arrogant, condascending, dis-respectful and pathetic. If someone like you was ever to be involved in the Scottish government then God help us.

 

"The rest of Europe has realised that small independent nations thrive in the modern world" - Yup that'll be why Europe in the form of the EU, is moving closer and closer to being a federalised super state. Single currency, single constitution and centralised government.

 

...and Darien (1690's) occurred before the act of union (1707)and was one of the main driving forces behind the formation of the UK as it proved that Scotland lacked the infrastructure and resources to truly become part of the global economy. Yes, English ships did not help the colonists like they could have done, but if Darien had been planned and though through properly then they should not have needed to.

 

In my opinion the current devolved structure is the most suitable for Scotland. It allows us political and economic autonomy whilst having defence and foreign policy handled by the UK government, giving us a voice on the world stage that we simply wouldn't have as a small independent state. Furthermore we can avoid the massive financial and social costs of a divorce from the UK and the loss of support from both the UK government and temporarily the EU (we'd have to re-apply for membership which can take years). Plus any thought that our economy can be propped up by oil reserves, which will certainly run out in the next 100 years if not sooner, is very fanciful indeed.

[Martin_T]

Until someone explains why Clegg is on Prime Ministerial debates, and why the BBC are not in court for breaching electoral law, intelligent people will continue to rail against this undemocratic farce.

 

Perhaps because his party have circa 20 to 30% from the UK electorate and field candidates throughout the UK? Heck, they even have the second most parliamentary seats in Scotland. All be it that is one the idiosyncracies of our ludicrous voting system.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

In that case I'm not sure why I'm going to bother continuing this debate then. Your debating style is arrogant, condascending, dis-respectful and pathetic. If someone like you was ever to be involved in the Scottish government then God help us.

 

"The rest of Europe has realised that small independent nations thrive in the modern world" - Yup that'll be why Europe in the form of the EU, is moving closer and closer to being a federalised super state. Single currency, single constitution and centralised government.

...and Darien (1690's) occurred before the act of union (1707)and was one of the main driving forces behind the formation of the UK as it proved that Scotland lacked the infrastructure and resources to truly become part of the global economy. Yes, English ships did not help the colonists like they could have done, but if Darien had been planned and though through properly then they should not have needed to.

 

In my opinion the current devolved structure is the most suitable for Scotland. It allows us political and economic autonomy whilst having defence and foreign policy handled by the UK government, giving us a voice on the world stage that we simply wouldn't have as a small independent state. Furthermore we can avoid the massive financial and social costs of a divorce from the UK and the loss of support from both the UK government and temporarily the EU (we'd have to re-apply for membership which can take years). Plus any thought that our economy can be propped up by oil reserves, which will certainly run out in the next 100 years if not sooner, is very fanciful indeed.

 

We'll see how much the highlighted part holds true with the current Greek crisis, particularly if Portugal is the next domino to fall.

[Big D]

Perhaps because his party have circa 20 to 30% from the UK electorate and field candidates throughout the UK? Heck, they even have the second most parliamentary seats in Scotland. All be it that is one the idiosyncracies of our ludicrous voting system.

 

So why exclude a representative of the party that governs devolved issues in Scotland? This was originally posited as Leaders Debates. That was quickly changed to exclude specific Parties' leaders. It is now Prime Ministerial Debates. It is impossible for Clegg to become Prime Minister. The big 2 Unionists won't allow it, even if it was possible for his Party to gain a majority of seats. So why is he allowed to be on these Debates?

[Auld Reekin']

In that case I'm not sure why I'm going to bother continuing this debate then. Your debating style is arrogant, condascending, dis-respectful and pathetic. If someone like you was ever to be involved in the Scottish government then God help us.

 

"The rest of Europe has realised that small independent nations thrive in the modern world" - Yup that'll be why Europe in the form of the EU, is moving closer and closer to being a federalised super state. Single currency, single constitution and centralised government.

 

...and Darien (1690's) occurred before the act of union (1707)and was one of the main driving forces behind the formation of the UK as it proved that Scotland lacked the infrastructure and resources to truly become part of the global economy. Yes, English ships did not help the colonists like they could have done, but if Darien had been planned and though through properly then they should not have needed to.

 

In my opinion the current devolved structure is the most suitable for Scotland. It allows us political and economic autonomy whilst having defence and foreign policy handled by the UK government, giving us a voice on the world stage that we simply wouldn't have as a small independent state. Furthermore we can avoid the massive financial and social costs of a divorce from the UK and the loss of support from both the UK government and temporarily the EU (we'd have to re-apply for membership which can take years). Plus any thought that our economy can be propped up by oil reserves, which will certainly run out in the next 100 years if not sooner, is very fanciful indeed.

 

Not only did they "...not help the colonists...", in some cases they (or freebooters from other seafaring nations, given licence to do so by the "blind eye" of the English crown and navy) actively harassed and engaged in actual piracy against the Scottish ships supplying the Darien colony and against the colony itself. At the time, the English crown did everything they possibly could to ensure the failure of Darien, just short of declaring outright war: an undeclared war against the colony was effectively in place.

[Big D]

In that case I'm not sure why I'm going to bother continuing this debate then. Your debating style is arrogant, condascending, dis-respectful and pathetic. If someone like you was ever to be involved in the Scottish government then God help us.

 

"The rest of Europe has realised that small independent nations thrive in the modern world" - Yup that'll be why Europe in the form of the EU, is moving closer and closer to being a federalised super state. Single currency, single constitution and centralised government.

 

...and Darien (1690's) occurred before the act of union (1707)and was one of the main driving forces behind the formation of the UK as it proved that Scotland lacked the infrastructure and resources to truly become part of the global economy. Yes, English ships did not help the colonists like they could have done, but if Darien had been planned and though through properly then they should not have needed to.

 

In my opinion the current devolved structure is the most suitable for Scotland. It allows us political and economic autonomy whilst having defence and foreign policy handled by the UK government, giving us a voice on the world stage that we simply wouldn't have as a small independent state. Furthermore we can avoid the massive financial and social costs of a divorce from the UK and the loss of support from both the UK government and temporarily the EU (we'd have to re-apply for membership which can take years). Plus any thought that our economy can be propped up by oil reserves, which will certainly run out in the next 100 years if not sooner, is very fanciful indeed.

 

Two failures out of two dozen. Martin, your opinion of my debating style suggests that since you have difficulty refuting my arguements you'd rather call me names and run away. I hope for once I'm wrong. That arrogant enough for you? But just to quickly pick up on a couple of things. We would not have to reapply for EU membership. Despite the EU lawyers continually telling the Unionists Scotland would be assimilated, they continue to lie to you about this. No one expects oil to prop up the country, although proper use of the next hundred years revenue would be nice. Scotland is the renewable energy powerhouse in Europe. We have about 25% of the potential European capacity. I think that might help our balance of payments indefinately. Ask yourself why the London Parties are refusing to invest in this literal windfall to the level required. Why are they continuing to shovel money into nuclear fuel dumps? And I'm still waiting for an answer to my original 5 pieces of legislation question from anyone.

[Auld Reekin']

Not only did they "...not help the colonists...", in some cases they (or freebooters from other seafaring nations, given licence to do so by the "blind eye" of the English crown and navy) actively harassed and engaged in actual piracy against the Scottish ships supplying the Darien colony and against the colony itself. At the time, the English crown did everything they possibly could to ensure the failure of Darien, just short of declaring outright war: an undeclared war against the colony was effectively in place.

 

Before anyone jumps in, for "crown", read "parliament"...!

[Martin_T]

Two failures out of two dozen. Martin, your opinion of my debating style suggests that since you have difficulty refuting my arguements you'd rather call me names and run away. I hope for once I'm wrong. That arrogant enough for you? But just to quickly pick up on a couple of things. We would not have to reapply for EU membership. Despite the EU lawyers continually telling the Unionists Scotland would be assimilated, they continue to lie to you about this. No one expects oil to prop up the country, although proper use of the next hundred years revenue would be nice. Scotland is the renewable energy powerhouse in Europe. We have about 25% of the potential European capacity. I think that might help our balance of payments indefinately. Ask yourself why the London Parties are refusing to invest in this literal windfall to the level required. Why are they continuing to shovel money into nuclear fuel dumps? And I'm still waiting for an answer to my original 5 pieces of legislation question from anyone.

 

Where exactly have I called you any names during the course of this debate? I've said your debating style is arrogant and condascending, which is entirely different from name calling. I asked you to provide a constructive argument for independence and I've yet to see it. According to the linked article below, Scotland's entry into the EU would not be automatic. But given you want us out of one Union and in another, it would seem irrelevant anyway.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Doubts-over-automatic-EU-entry.3335953.jp

[Big D]

Where exactly have I called you any names during the course of this debate? I've said your debating style is arrogant and condascending, which is entirely different from name calling. I asked you to provide a constructive argument for independence and I've yet to see it. According to the linked article below, Scotland's entry into the EU would not be automatic. But given you want us out of one Union and in another, it would seem irrelevant anyway.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Doubts-over-automatic-EU-entry.3335953.jp

 

The Hootsmon. They're impartial. Scotland has been a nation in the past, and there is a definite social and political difference to most of the rest of the U.K. Like the dozens of other independent nations in Europe, we should be choosing how to use our resources to maximise the benefits to the majority of Scots. I am not saying we would have more resources, but we could choose to use them intelligently and spend on hospitals, schools and sports facilities; rather than Wars, WMDs and ID cards. It's what normal grown up countries do.

[shaun.lawson]

Ulysses versus Shaun: match abandoned.

 

Pools Panel assessed: Shaun has no evidence, but his argument sounds probable. Score draw.

 

Next please!

 

http://www.lrb.co.uk...atcher-thatcher

 

The most interesting take on this election that I've yet seen.

 

That is a very, very astute article. Incidentally, my doctorate was on Namierite politics, and how indispensable they are to any view of how British government operates.

[Gorgiewave]

That is a very, very astute article. Incidentally, my doctorate was on Namierite politics, and how indispensable they are to any view of how British government operates.

 

 

Where can one read or buy your thesis?

 

How about a really, really monster post?

[shaun.lawson]

Where can one read or buy your thesis?

 

How about a really, really monster post?

 

I fear you'll be waiting for a very long time.

 

Of course, it's quite wrong that the politics of personality and patronage still play such a huge role - but the bottom line is, they do. Both aspects, indeed, affect us all in the world of work: it's frequently not so much a case of what someone knows, but who they know.

[kitster]

I fear you'll be waiting for a very long time.

 

Of course, it's quite wrong that the politics of personality and patronage still play such a huge role - but the bottom line is, they do. Both aspects, indeed, affect us all in the world of work: it's frequently not so much a case of what someone knows, but who they know.

 

 

tweet. i'm sure you do.

[The People's Chimp]

http://www.lrb.co.uk...atcher-thatcher

 

The most interesting take on this election that I've yet seen.

 

Thanks for posting that. Very astute indeed.

[The People's Chimp]

I fear you'll be waiting for a very long time.

 

Of course, it's quite wrong that the politics of personality and patronage still play such a huge role - but the bottom line is, they do. Both aspects, indeed, affect us all in the world of work: it's frequently not so much a case of what someone knows, but who they know.

 

Go on, get it fired up on http://shaun.lawsons.thesis.blogspot.com

[Gorgiewave]

Go on, get it fired up on http://shaun.lawsons...is.blogspot.com

 

Aye, great work. It's turning into a popular clamour. Come on, proportional representation, let there be no affront to democracy on JKB.

[davemclaren]

These 3 way debates are just marginalising the other parties and ensure that our democracy becomes even more personality based. Not a good thing imo.

[Commander Harris]

These 3 way debates are just marginalising the other parties and ensure that our democracy becomes even more personality based. Not a good thing imo.

 

completely agree. ?When one 90 minutes appearance from a party leader can shoot that party up the polls by 16 points (or whatever it was) it makes me a sad panda

 

 

are there really that number of "floaters" who are so easily swayed by a few slick words on a television broadcast?

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

completely agree. ?When one 90 minutes appearance from a party leader can shoot that party up the polls by 16 points (or whatever it was) it makes me a sad panda

 

 

are there really that number of "floaters" who are so easily swayed by a few slick words on a television broadcast?

 

But the reason so many were swayed is the complete failure of the two old parties. Most people want Labour out, but really don't trust and aren't convinced by the Tories. The failure of the ancien regime is precisely what Salmond's tapped into so successfully in Scotland; the desire for something different helped propel Obama to the US Presidency, and Ken Livingstone to the London Mayoralty when running as an independent. This is what the Lib Dems are tapping into now too.

 

Put simply: if either Labour or the Tories were effectively led or trusted by the electorate, there'd have been no Lib Dem bounce at all. As it is, the Lib Dems have gained about ten points: five points from both the Tories and Labour, more or less.

[Gorgiewave]

But the reason so many were swayed is the complete failure of the two old parties. Most people want Labour out, but really don't trust and aren't convinced by the Tories. The failure of the ancien regime is precisely what Salmond's tapped into so successfully in Scotland; the desire for something different helped propel Obama to the US Presidency, and Ken Livingstone to the London Mayoralty when running as an independent. This is what the Lib Dems are tapping into now too.

 

Put simply: if either Labour or the Tories were effectively led or trusted by the electorate, there'd have been no Lib Dem bounce at all. As it is, the Lib Dems have gained about ten points: five points from both the Tories and Labour, more or less.

 

When was the first time you referred to Labour and the Conservatives as "the old parties"?

[shaun.lawson]

When was the first time you referred to Labour and the Conservatives as "the old parties"?

 

About ten days ago.

 

Mind you, when I was eight, we had a class election at school during the 1987 campaign. As the Alliance candidate, for my speech, I designed and cut out a little paper seesaw which I used to complain about the "silly seesaw" of Tory, Labour, Tory and Labour again.

[davemclaren]

But the reason so many were swayed is the complete failure of the two old parties. Most people want Labour out, but really don't trust and aren't convinced by the Tories. The failure of the ancien regime is precisely what Salmond's tapped into so successfully in Scotland; the desire for something different helped propel Obama to the US Presidency, and Ken Livingstone to the London Mayoralty when running as an independent. This is what the Lib Dems are tapping into now too.

 

Put simply: if either Labour or the Tories were effectively led or trusted by the electorate, there'd have been no Lib Dem bounce at all. As it is, the Lib Dems have gained about ten points: five points from both the Tories and Labour, more or less.

 

The irony in the above is that the Liberal Democrats are even older then Labour.

[2NaFish]

i can see clegg using the term a 'thick of it' style moment of desperation.

[shaun.lawson]

The irony in the above is that the Liberal Democrats are even older then Labour.

 

That's if you view the Lib Dems as the Liberal Party in modern form. Some of us view the Lib Dems as a completely new party (and let's face it: the Liberal Party were scarcely Social Democrats), founded barely 20 years ago.

[2NaFish]

i can see clegg using the term a 'thick of it' style moment of desperation.

[davemclaren]

That's if you view the Lib Dems as the Liberal Party in modern form. Some of us view the Lib Dems as a completely new party (and let's face it: the Liberal Party were scarcely Social Democrats), founded barely 20 years ago.

 

I do view them as the Liberal party in modern form given that;'s where most of their membership came from.

 

I think you are missing the point in that all these debates do is legitimise these 3 parties as the only parties to vote for in the election. Just another nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.

 

In the past the Liberals would have been against that I suppose.

[Commander Harris]

That's if you view the Lib Dems as the Liberal Party in modern form. Some of us view the Lib Dems as a completely new party (and let's face it: the Liberal Party were scarcely Social Democrats), founded barely 20 years ago.

 

That's if you view New Labour as the Labour Party in modern form. ?Some of us view New Labour as a completely new party founded barely 15 years ago. ?

[Gorgiewave]

About ten days ago.

 

Mind you, when I was eight, we had a class election at school during the 1987 campaign. As the Alliance candidate, for my speech, I designed and cut out a little paper seesaw which I used to complain about the "silly seesaw" of Tory, Labour, Tory and Labour again.

 

 

Pics please. I take it it lasted from straight after assembly to home time? Then the same again the next day.

[shaun.lawson]

I do view them as the Liberal party in modern form given that;'s where most of their membership came from.

 

I think you are missing the point in that all these debates do is legitimise these 3 parties as the only parties to vote for in the election. Just another nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.

 

In the past the Liberals would have been against that I suppose.

 

These debates legitimise these three parties as the only parties in the UK capable of forming a government in Westminster. That was apparent before this campaign in any case. The way to avoid that in the future is to vote Lib Dem, get PR, and ensure all parties are equally represented.

 

Incidentally - much of the Lib Dems' membership actually came from the SDP; and following the Lib Dems' formation, the Liberal Party continued to exist entirely separately.

[shaun.lawson]

That's if you view New Labour as the Labour Party in modern form. ?Some of us view New Labour as a completely new party founded barely 15 years ago. ?

 

Haha! But their campaign literature doesn't say "New Labour". It simply says: "Labour".

[shaun.lawson]

Pics please. I take it it lasted from straight after assembly to home time? Then the same again the next day.

 

No chance of me finding any pics from that! The whole thing lasted just one class - and the ******* Tories won.

[Commander Harris]

Haha! But their campaign literature doesn't say "New Labour". It simply says: "Labour".

what's in a name? ?that which we call Labour; by any other name would reek of shite.

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

Ulysses versus Shaun: match abandoned.

 

Pools Panel assessed: Shaun has no evidence, but his argument sounds probable. Score draw.

 

Next please!

 

If I ever need someone to rig a boxing match, I'll know who to ask.

 

 

 

http://www.lrb.co.uk...atcher-thatcher

 

The most interesting take on this election that I've yet seen.

 

The most interesting analysis of the state of the main political parties in Britain that I've seen for quite some time.

[Commander Harris]

These debates legitimise these three parties as the only parties in the UK capable of forming a government in Westminster. That was apparent before this campaign in any case. The way to avoid that in the future is to vote Lib Dem, get PR, and ensure all parties are equally represented.

 

Incidentally - much of the Lib Dems' membership actually came from the SDP; and following the Lib Dems' formation, the Liberal Party continued to exist entirely separately.

 

are they not The Continuity Liberals? ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. excuse my flippancy, I hope I'm not annoying people after real debate. ?

 

 

[davemclaren]

These debates legitimise these three parties as the only parties in the UK capable of forming a government in Westminster. That was apparent before this campaign in any case. The way to avoid that in the future is to vote Lib Dem, get PR, and ensure all parties are equally represented.

 

Incidentally - much of the Lib Dems' membership actually came from the SDP; and following the Lib Dems' formation, the Liberal Party continued to exist entirely separately.

 

So If I have enough money to fund the deposits in most seats in the UK I'm entitled to get on the telly? Even you must see that there are serious issues around these debates or are you just drunk on the illusion of electoral success?

[Ulysses]

That's if you view New Labour as the Labour Party in modern form. ?Some of us view New Labour as a completely new party founded barely 15 years ago. ?

 

All three main parties are (in their different ways) recent creations.

[shaun.lawson]

So If I have enough money to fund the deposits in most seats in the UK I'm entitled to get on the telly? Even you must see that there are serious issues around these debates or are you just drunk on the illusion of electoral success?

 

No, I don't see where the issues are, and never have. If the SNP, PC, the DUP, SF, UUP or SDLP were UK-wide parties, then I'd expect them to be represented in these debates. But they're not; so they aren't.

[Ulysses]

are they not The Continuity Liberals? ?

 

 

Nope, they're the Real Liberals.

[Commander Harris]

All three main parties are (in their different ways) recent creations.

twas kinda my point, in a rather frivolous way. ?

 

 

 

[davemclaren]

Ulysses versus Shaun: match abandoned.

 

Pools Panel assessed: Shaun has no evidence, but his argument sounds probable. Score draw.

 

Next please! ?

 

 

 

I agree with you ( I think ). If the UK government ever became mad enough to fire a nuclear missile they wouldn't need US permission, Of course they might well regret it afterwards ala Eden.

[davemclaren]

No, I don't see where the issues are, and never have. If the SNP, PC, the DUP, SF, UUP or SDLP were UK-wide parties, then I'd expect them to be represented in these debates. But they're not; so they aren't.

 

 

So a party that contested all English seats but none of the other nations should also be barred?

[shaun.lawson]

So a party that contested all English seats but none of the other nations should also be barred?

 

Yes.

[davemclaren]

Yes.

 

 

Assuming they won them all they could form the next UK government. I thought that was the criteria you were suggesting?

[Commander Harris]

Yes.

 

poor Labour

 

edit: I read that as not all of the other nations, i.e. not fully UK-wide

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

Assuming they won them all they could form the next UK government. I thought that was the criteria you were suggesting?

 

Any party able to form a UK government is not going to restrict its chances by only fielding candidates in England, is it?

[davemclaren]

Any party able to form a UK government is not going to restrict its chances by only fielding candidates in England, is it?

 

 

As another (in)famous poster would say, I smell backtracking here.

[Ulysses]

No, I don't see where the issues are, and never have. If the SNP, PC, the DUP, SF, UUP or SDLP were UK-wide parties, then I'd expect them to be represented in these debates. But they're not; so they aren't.

 

UKIP have candidates in 573 constituencies, and have agreed not to run candidates in a further 10 in order to give Eurosceptic candidates a clear run. UKIP won 13 European Parliament seats in 2009, so it's not as if they are a fly-by-night outfit.

[shaun.lawson]

As another (in)famous poster would say, I smell backtracking here.

 

Clearly something is amiss with your nose.

[2NaFish]

No, I don't see where the issues are, and never have. If the SNP, PC, the DUP, SF, UUP or SDLP were UK-wide parties, then I'd expect them to be represented in these debates. But they're not; so they aren't.

looking at the big coloured-in constituency map of britain no party is really uk wide.

 

'cept the liberals who do alright all over.

[shaun.lawson]

UKIP have candidates in 573 constituencies, and have agreed not to run candidates in a further 10 in order to give Eurosceptic candidates a clear run. UKIP won 13 European Parliament seats in 2009, so it's not as if they are a fly-by-night outfit.

 

Why don't they have candidates in other constituencies too? As I said, it's a question of which parties are capable of forming a government in Westminster. Which rules out the Greens as well as UKIP. Not necessarily forever; that's a question of the electoral system, and it changing.