FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ Triple whammy of good news in Scotlnd today, first the Scottish government offrered the NHS a 4% pay increase as oposed to the pathetic 1% in England and Wales, then it turned out in 2020 we supplied 97% of our electrcity needs by renewables,not bad given when the govenrment started the aim to reach 100% in 2011 we only produced 37%. And finally the government have done something I have been advocating for years, made everyone an organ donor unles you choose to opt out, rathertthan other way around.You have to hand it to the SNP- they know how to use the last days of government business before an election! }}

How do you think Salmond launching a new party might impact things? I would think the last thing the SNP needs is a split vote.

{{ Oddly it probably wont be a split vote thanks to the voting system. What he is proposing is that people vote for his party as second choice on the list, thus adding more pro-independence voices to the parliament- the SNP are in latest polling set to gain a very slim majority, but thats based entirely on the first vote choice not the 2nd list vote (if it affects anyone itll probably be the Greens, who tend to pick up votes on the second list option).
So in practice it might actually increase the independence vote, but more likely I supect it will come to nothing at all, he is yesterdays man. And this more than anything shows what a danger the mans ego is. }}

{{ Interesting response from the Scottish Unionist oppositon parties, headed by the Tories, to Salmond forming the Alba party-

'Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross has requested a meeting with Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie in a bid to "rediscover the Better Together spirit".
Mr Ross will ask his counterparts to sign a Unionist manifesto which pledges to vote against a second independence referendum regardless of the result in May's election; rule out a coalition or confidence deal with any party who seeks to hold an independence referendum in the next parliament; and agree to form a pro-UK, anti-referendum coalition if the opportunity arises.'- BBC

Or to put it in plainer language, if the people of Scotland dont vote the way the Unionist parties want they will ignore our vote and just pretend it didnt happen.
Be interesting to see if Scottish Labour in particular bite, as it was the 'Better Together' campaign an dthem standing shoulder to shoulder with Tories that was nail in their coffin up here last time. }} }}

Or maybe to uphold the "once in a generation" premise of the original... so to stop the SNP going against the will of the people the last time they had the chance to vote.

If Scotland ever votes to go its own way there will not be a vote to rejoin the Union so it is right (in my opinion) that it doesn't get to vote to leave every 5 minutes because that places less significance on the decision and is more likely to go whichever way the public is feeling on the day, which I think is what the SNP are always counting on.

{{ The 'once in a generation' thing is meaningless. The rule in Westminister for example is that anything said by a previous administration cannot be binding on the next administration. Thats why Boris can ignore anything May did or said and do the opposite. But apparently if its a Scottish government (and it suits England) then they are bound to something someone once said forever more! It also has no legal basis whatsoever, its not in the devolution settlement, its not in the Sewel Convention either.

And the idea that Scots are just acting on a  whim is insulting. Polling has consistently showed a lead for independence for the best part of a year now and as the last referendum showed just under half the country wanted it last time. Many have spent their entire lifetimes campaiging for independence. Its not some fad cooked up by the SNP. THe SNP exists and govern as an expresion of the will of the people, not the other way round. }}

The "once in a generation" thing is indeed nonsense. The view that you cannot vote every year on a matter such as sovereignty on the short term whims party politics is in part legitimate, but a new vote must be allowed by significant changes in circumstances. That should cover both major changes in support in the population and other internal or external circumstances (like being taken out of the EU by English and Welsh votes).

I do not believe a majority in an independent Scotland would ever support rejoining the UK, simply because a solid part of any resistance to independence is from conservatism and not substantial political issues. Also Scotland's current devolution situation is simply untenable, and the Brexit referendum just showed that Scotland as part of the UK will for the foreseeable future be ruled to the contrary of the general bent of its population. If the UK wants to avoid independence it is its move to get devolution sorted, if the regressive Brexit move have not put paid to that possibility with the majority of Scots.

I also do not doubt that if Scottish independence should be a debacle a reentry into the UK would be on the cards. This time probably with a much more sensible devolution agreement..

Balanced takes on the Salmond situation. That the people who orchestrated the entire Salmond debacle calls him unfit for office..

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19193033.snp-say-alex-salmonds-unfit-office-doesnt-mean-people-wont-vote/

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,old-girls-club

{{ I'd say an issue with that article is the SNP and general support for independence is way higher among younger voters aged 16-30. For them Salmond is a relic of the past. And his admittance of inappropriate behaviour even though it never reached the level of criminal activitity will remain an issue for so long as he shows absolutely no signs of acknowledging it was inappropriate. As best stated by the SNP's youngest member Mhairi Black-

“Alex Salmond has yet to show any reflection, remorse, or basic understanding of his own unacceptable behaviour.
Makes me wonder if the women standing for his new party have been offered a makeover yet, like he did with me in 2015.”

Another odd thing about that article is the criticism leveleled against Sturgeon's slow approach to a 2nd independence referendum. It might be too slow for the hard core SNP member, but for the general population the SNP have to prove first that they can govern properly. That is what persuades the majority the leap to indepncne is worth the gamble and when Salmond was in power it was also his strategy. And I would suggest that the polling figures for Sturgeon, consistent for what is now years, showing her as not only a popular leader in Scotland, but the most popular by far in the entire UK, and far above the numbers Salmond ever achieved reflects the majority view- good governance first, independence after.

Salmond has also outlined no plans for how to deal with Westminster refusal to grant a 2nd vote. Just having a majority independence Parliament wont change that- there is a majority independence parliament now with SNP and Green votes and it hasnt changed anything. The Tories say regardless of the election result they will not grant a 2nd vote. So even if the SNP win and Salmonds new party come second (unlikely but even so) it changes nothing in regards to Westminsters position.

By far the biggest risk to the SNP strategy is not the pace towards independence, but the risk of any government who remains in power for a very long time- things will go wrong, some things will not be achieved to the levels promised, or good old fashioned corruption or scandal will occur.
I think what we are seeing at the moment is more down to Salmonds infamous ego than anything else.}}

If the SNP is attracting a younger demographic all the better for independence to also appeal to older voters, I'd say. What Salmond has done is actually pretty milk toast. The reason it is blowing up in the media and people keep defecting to this new party is mainly disgruntlement with a very entitled SNP leadership and just how bad the situation has gotten with the SNP leadership doubling down on its appalling handling of the Salmond investigation. And isn't it nice to have inderef#2 for once on the top of the agenda going into the elections?

The behaviour line on Salmond is not that accurate either, I'd say. It should be very clear that there was one historic incident that was dealt with at the time (that was inappropriate, but not seriously so). And that is all there is to the behaviour line. Every other accusation was found not guilty, contradicted by independent third party evidence (the attempted rape of a person not present at the time and place it was meant to have happened) or completely ridiculous. Taking it any further is giving credence to some of the ridiculous accusations (waking someone up in a car with several people present, thinking about pulling a lock of someones hear (as another women in the office attested to this was something everyone did and completely normal, and Salmond did not do it), bumping into someone on the stairs etc.)

I have had my say on my belief that the majority of the Scottish parliament should go further than UK law allows if the UK government continues to withhold consent, as is completely legal under international law. It's there if you are interested, for brevity I won't repeat it.

{{ I'd agree the investigation was badly handled, terribly infact, though perhaps not unexpectedly so given the process was pretty much created on the go for this case in the wake of the MeToo movement.
There have only been 2 defections from the SNP to Salmonds Alba party so far, one has been a thorn in his own parties side for years, and the other opposes the equality masures for transwomen the SNP propose, so no loss there in my view.

As to his inappropriate behavour, he did admit to one occasion of acting inappropriately, which is the one he confessed to Sturgeon that convinced her she had to go ahead with the investigation in the first place, however the bulk of how the government acted regards the case was entirely dependent upon the legal advice and interpretation of the law. And the issue for Salmond is he has shown no public acceptance for that occasion of inappropriate behaviour, or even addressed it, let alone shown any signs he even accepts it was inappropriate.

However one aspect that did come out of the investigation into what went wrong is the clear need for a greater seperation between government and legal. For me thats the only really substantive thing it turned up, and the one thing no one seems to be talking about.

What also did not stand up to scrutiny was Salmonds mad conspiracy theories that there was a plan to get him at all costs headed by Sturgeon herself- just pure nonsense.
Dont underestimate Salmnds ego, or his hubris. He will bring down the independence movement rather than let Sturgeon succeed where he failed.
Make no mistake right now he is doing far more damage to the cause than he is helping it. The Tories must think hes a xmas gift- he's succeding where they have repeatedly failed.}}

http://filmg.co.uk/en/films/1911/

Lot's of annoying jumps in volume there.

If you lose a language you lose the stories and jokes told in that language.

How is gaelic related to Scottish?

How is gaelic related to Scottish?- Halfy

{{ Its not. Scots is essentially a form of English that incorporates a variety of dialect differences with a bunch of unique words of its own. Scotlands National Poet Rabbie Burns wrote in scots for example not Gaelic.

opening of Tam O Shanter (1790 CE)- Scots

When chapmen billies leave the street,
And drouthy neibors, neibors meet,
As market days are wearing late,
An' folk begin to tak the gate;
While we sit bousing at the nappy,
And getting fou and unco happy,
We think na on the lang Scots miles,
The mosses, waters, slaps, and styles,
That lie between us and our hame,
Where sits our sulky sullen dame.
Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm.

Opening of Tam O Shanter in english-

When the peddler people leave the streets,
And thirsty neighbours, neighbours meet;
As market days are wearing late,
And folk begin to take the road home,
While we sit boozing strong ale,
And getting drunk and very happy,
We don’t think of the long Scots miles,
The marshes, waters, steps and stiles,
That lie between us and our home,
Where sits our sulky, sullen dame (wife),
Gathering her brows like a gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath, to keep it warm.

Gaelic is in fact the old language of Ireland. When Irish tribes settled the west coast of Scotland and formed the kingdom of Dal Raita (5th Century CE) they brought Gaelic with them. As that kingdom grew in power and influence so the langage spread with it and became more distinct from its Irish roots.  The Dal Raitans became known as Gaels, and they in some fashion (history is murky here) either conquered or joined with the remainder of Scotland which was under Pictish control, under the first King of Scotland (Alba) Kenneth Mcalpine (843 CE). From which point Gaelic was the dominant language of Scotland.
Succesive wars and fights with England over Scotlands independence eventually led to the events involving the English King Edward I, 1272 CE, also known as Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots (there are parts of Scotland where people still spit in disgust if they hear his name mentioned). He committed too many atrocities to name here and afterwards Gaelic was banned as was tartan. And there was a delibrate and concerted effort to replace Gaelic with English. His attempts however had the opposite effect in the end, instead of quelling Scotland it led to the rise of Robert the Bruce to the throne of Scotland, the man who was actually given the epitaph Braveheart (not William Wallace)-

'the king (Robert the Bruce) told Sir James his plans to help him escape the dreadful wrath of God over his mortal sins.
“Douglas, help me.” he whispered, “When I die you must cut my heart from my body and take it on a crusade.”
With a final croak the king passed into eternity and the loyal knight plunged his dagger into the king’s chest, sawed open the rib cage and removed the still heart. This he placed into a hurriedly prepared lead casket which he then hung on a chain around his neck. Marching from the room, he then formed a volunteer Scottish army and set off on the crusade.
Douglas probably wasn’t too keen on undertaking this crusade, but he had promised his king and that was enough.
Off they went but, when they arrived in Spain, Douglas discovered that it was crawling with Saracens and Moors. They weren’t Christian, so they were fair game to be murdered during his crusade. Not only that, but by having his Crusade in Spain he could be back in time for Christmas.
He ordered the Scots to charge … without checking how many Saracens they were facing. They were vastly outnumbered, perhaps even by as many as five to one!
The battle was going badly. The Saracens had fought off the initial charge and began a counter charge.
Fighting a retreating action in medieval warfare is never a good idea and the Scots were dying like flies.
Sir James and some fellow knights found themselves isolated from the main force. They were about to be surrounded and he knew that they would soon be dragged from their mounts and killed. As the army’s leaders, their death would be likely to be long and horrible.
With no real alternative apparently open to him and with the king’s heart still around his neck, Sir James decided that a dramatic gesture was all that was left to him.
He took the heart, held it by the chain, swung it around his head like a hammer at the Olympic Games and hurled it into the affray, charging in after it and screaming at the top of his voice, “Lead on Braveheart, as thou dost!”
As the heart fell to the ground Douglas leapt on top of it, protecting his king to the last.
What greater love can a man have for his king? And that is where the name “Braveheart” originated.


The result in the end was that the southern half of Scotland now all speak English or varieties of Scots (and thats where the bulk of the population lives) but in the northern Highlands and the isles it survived and is still the dominant language in those parts to this day.
The English attempts to suffocate Gaelic however are not confined to history, when I was at school, prior to a Scottish government exisiting, gaelic was not even available as a language to learn at school. You could learn latin but you couldnt learn the language of your own country (and it wasnt all that was kept from us, I did history as far as Higher (A grade equivilent in England and studied the Roman invasion -which barely touched Scotland, the Norman invasion of 1066, again about England, and WW2 which largely focused on D-Day, Churchill and the Battle of Britain, despite the shipyards of the Clyde and all the bombings there we never covered that we did the London blitz- I live in the former kingdom of Dal Riata, the modern border of the consituency I live in, Argyll and Bute are roughly the same as the original kingdom, yet I had never heard the name let alone knew the history till many years after I left school and studied Scottish history off my own back, in fact all the Scottish history I now know I learned after I left education- these days it forms a core part of the history curriculum here).
And since then Gaelic is also taught in primary schools and pupils have the option of continuing it in later education. Both my nieces speak Gaelic, as does their mother who choose to study it to better help her children learn (their mother is English incidentally).

The only Gaelic I know are largely swear words and curses  I learned at my Grandfathers knee who was raised a Gaelic speaker and spent most of his early working life prior to marriage as a shepherd on the isles.
As a child I was even discouraged, and often got into trouble from my father for even using Scots let alone Gaelic on the, at the time very true observation, that speaking Scots would hamper my job prospects as its was at that time encouaged to think of it as uncouth and coarse compared to 'proper English'. Fortunetly like the stiffling of Gaelic that attitude has also all but died off. }}

{{ The Tories seem to have turned the tap on in abhorrant Tory behaviour, as its flowing freely right now.

A few weeks ago the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed a bill (that means even the Scottish Tories voted for it) which enshrined in Scottish Law the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Bill was then passed and was signed off by the Presiding Officer (whose passing it through the Chamber indicates it meets all the legal requirments to be law, such as that it is a devolved area and within the competency of the Parliament).

So what has Boris and co done? They've referred it to the Supreme Court.
Why?
In their words their worried-

'whether parts are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.'

and that,

'it would place legal obligations on UK Ministers in reserved areas.'

Or in normal speak we plan on doing stuff with UK level powers that doesnt meet the standard for protecting children and we plan to do it in Scotland too, and we dont want to come a croper of this law stopping us!

Theres so many issues here- it seems an attempt to undermine legislation passed legally and with full consent of the entire Parliament, so undermines the basic principles of devolution.
And morally is obvioulsy disgusting to try to exempt themselves from a law designed to protect the rights of children.

How on earth the Tories think this will help them in the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections, or grow support for the Union is beyond me. Its Thatcher the milk snatcher times a thousand. }}

Reminds me of that reptile Tory MP Chope and upskirting. By all accounts he 'objected'.

{{ Sturgeons response-}}

“Jaw-dropping. The UK Tory government is going to Court to challenge a law passed by the Scottish Parliament unanimously.
And for what? To protect their ability to legislate/act in ways that breach children’s rights in Scotland.
Politically catastrophic, but also morally repugnant.”

{{ Scottish Tories failing to answer basic quetions on the referendum in channel 4 news. }}

{{ Heres my predictions for the result of the Scottish electionson the 6th of next month.

SNP will win but will fall short by a few seats of gaining an overall majority.
Tories will hold their numbers or possibly gain a few.
Greens will will lose a seat.
Labour will pick up a seat or two but still fall well short.
Salmonds Alba party might at best pick up a single seat, but I reckon they wont get any.

So SNP- win around 60-62 seats
Tories in 2nd with 30-32 seats
Labour 3rd but well behind the Tories on 22-25 seats.
Greens in a distant 4th with 4-6 seats.
Lib-dems alongside them with 5-7 seats.
Alba last with 1 or 0 seats.

If that holds out there will still be, just, a majority independnce parliament with SNP and Green seats combined. But I get the feeling its going to be close, and closer than has thus far been predicted.}}

Its odd thinking there are any Tories in Scotland. Cant imagine who would want to after they screwed over fishermen, although a lot of the fishermen did vote for brexit. That's almost as mad as expats in Spain voting for brexit, but a lot of them did. Makes you wonder about the English education system really, decades of Tories fiddling with the syllabus, I mean, do kids get taught anything about the EU or basic politics at all. I remember having lessons in politics  and the teacher, a Mr Swaine, said that once we got to middle age we would ALL vote like our parents. I remember distinctly telling him there was no way in the Hot Place I would vote Tory, he just laughed, but he was wrong, I would rather stab myself in the back bottom with a red hot poker. He was ok though, he took us on a school trip to the HoC's and let us sit on the balcony and walk on the terrace overlooking the Thames.

{{ The thing is Figg Unionists dont have a lot of good choices here- effectiverly its Scottish Labour or Scottish Tories. And many unionists who are nevertheless normally Labour voters dont trust Labour not to do a deal with the SNP allowing a 2nd referendum. So for the hardline no at all costs unionists, even if they otherwise despise the Tories, the Tories are still the strongest Union party to vote for. And they know it- the entire Tory campaign has been centered on only a vote for the Tories can stop a referendum, only a vote for the Tories can save the Union. They are bankingon increasing numbers by syphoning off unionists from the other parties, Labour and lib Dem who dont trust their preferred party to not do a deal with the SNP.
And in the squeeze between the referendum SNP position, and the no referendum Tory position Labour are lost somehwere in the middle without a real voice or anything notable to say about the largest political question in the country.}}

Cant imagine Unionists in Scotland either, apart from those who work at Balmoral.

Not that I know anything about Scotland, but unless things are unendurable there's always folks who feel more comfortable keeping things they way they are.

Not that I know anything about Scotland- Halfy

{{ How after all these years can you not know anything about Scotland!!! }}

Speaking from a statistical basis, the standard deviation of a sample containing a single data point is infinite.  Yes, I'm treating you as a standard deviation.  Interpret that as you will.