FREEDOM!!!!

I aint worried about the world ending- exept maybe for me!- but this 13 cylcle malarky is supposed to rather distrupting in a earhquaky, tsunami, hurriciany sort of way- all things I could do without.

Another pic from the caravan park- and yes that stuff that looks like matchwood is another caravan the upside down one landed one- miracle noone was killed outright really.



Cargo containers at Greenock docks (across the Clyde from me) which were apparently tossed about like toys.



And my personnal favourite- this house featured on the TV program Grand Designs (the sort of show designed to make you feel jealous at what others have and to drive home just how poor you are in comparison to the people with their Grand Design). Shame they designed for the south of France somewhere! This is why Scottish buildings tend to be very solid brick! (as the still intact houses either side are. Should have read Three Little Pigs before doing their Grand Design!!)

I've always enjoyed watching Grand Designs, especially when I was younger, I once had ambitions to become an engineer until I realized I was naff at Science and Maths!

Nothing too extreme here in Wales. Just a bit windy, I'm glad to report.

Well it looks like today will mark the unleashing of the Tory plans to defend the Union!

'The cabinet is set to discuss proposals later to give the Scottish government the legal power to hold a binding referendum on independence.
It is understood Downing Street may lay down a time limit specifying when the vote should take place, possibly within the next 18 months.
Any vote would be between leaving or staying in the UK and there would be no option for greater devolved powers. '

This is an attempt to push at the SNP without mandate. The SNP have already stated when they will hold the referendum- at the end of the current palriament. Cameron is trying to force it through earlier by doing this and by setting the question and limiting the options on questions he is trying to control the agenda- I doubt it will go down well.

'The Scottish National Party has pledged a referendum in the latter half of its term, with 2014 thought to be the preferred date.
But Downing Street is expected to confirm that without the backing of Westminster, any result would only formally have advisory status.'

So if we hold the referendum when our elected government chooses- as they laid out in their manifesto before they got voted in on a landslide- the UK govt wont recognise the result- they will only recognise the result of the vote they write the questions for and set the date for.

This is an interesting little comparison. The same news story, from the same publication- The Sun. The difference? The first is the Scottish Sun, the second the English Sun.


Scottish Headline- PM demands indy poll by summer 2013

English Headline- PM forces poll on breakaway Scots -Gamble on independence vote to beat Scottish National Party

Scottish- "DAVID Cameron yesterday stepped up his battle to stop the SNP splitting up Britain — as he threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond."

English- "DAVID Cameron began a Battle for Britain last night to stop Scottish nationalists splitting up the UK. "

Scottish- "The PM demanded the First Minister hold a referendum on independence "sooner rather than later".
But defiant Mr Salmond blasted the Tory leader's "sabre-rattling" as he insisted he would NOT be rushed."

English- "The PM threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond by declaring a poll on the question must be held "sooner rather than later".

Scottish -"But the SNP chief is aiming for a referendum in 2014 at the earliest. He hopes it will give him time to persuade more Scots to back his independence blueprint.
Mr Cameron said: "I strongly support the United Kingdom. I think it's one of the most successful partnerships in the history of the world."

English- "Mr Cameron wants a legally-binding vote by the summer of 2013. But Scottish National Party leader Mr Salmond is aiming for a referendum in 2014 at the earliest. He hopes it will give him time to persuade more Scots to back his independence blueprint.
And 2014 is the 700th anniversary of the Scots' victory over an English army at the Battle of Bannockburn.
Mr Cameron said: "I strongly support the United Kingdom. I think it's one of the most successful partnerships in the history of the world."

Scottish - "But Mr Salmond hit out at the "sabre-rattling on the referendum". A spokesman for the First Minister said: "The position is very clear — the Scottish Government achieved an overwhelming mandate from the people of Scotland to hold the referendum in the second half of this parliamentary term and that is exactly what we will do.
"As the Prime Minister has said and reiterated on the BBC, the referendum is indeed a matter for the Scottish people to decide."

English- "But Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond condemned the PM's "sabre-rattling" and insisted he will not be rushed. His spokesman said: "The Scottish Government achieved an overwhelming mandate to hold the referendum in the second half of this parliamentary term — and that is exactly what we will do."



The same person (GRAEME WILSON Deputy Political Editor) wrote both versions, but for two different audiences.

The UK government set out its stall for the referendum today.

"The Scottish Secretary has said it would be unconstitutional for a vote on Scottish independence to be held without the UK government's authority.
Michael Moore said the government would devolve the power to hold a poll to the Scottish Parliament only if the process was "legal, fair and decisive"

Thats a potential moine field as Salmond will know too well- Who judges what is 'fair?' Does that effect the question or questions on the options? Decisive? Does that mean imposing a minimum victory as they did the last time this happened in the 1970's when they insited more than 70% (higher than any voter turnout) had to vote yes for it to count?

And they also say they will not allow the SNP plan to allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote in the referendum either.

Good interview on the subject. Highlights a lot of the wooly thinking coming from Westminister.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16484162

My favourite bit is when he says the rail company put up objections and the interviewer points out they didnt and the repsonse?- 'I thought they did and so did other people and thats what counts!!!'- you couldn't make it up.

I keep wondering if Westminster's hang-up over this comes down to oil, pride, or something else.

Its oil Eldo- always oil. Westminister has gone to war for oil- they ain't going to let us take ours without a fight of some sort I can assure you of that.

Although at some point they are going to have to admit to the English that England is dependant on Scottish oil and energy, rather than that England subsides Scotland which is what theyve been telling them for 50 years now. (We in Scotland know this is true because the government here got all the figures years ago, eventually, and it came out Thatcher in particular had lied extensively about the oil revenue to keep Scotland from wanting independence- but this doesn't seem to ever have registered down south where they still believe they subsidise us). They are in for a bit of shock I supsect when the truth comes out down there and it becomes clear independant Scotland would be better off and England worse off.

Well looks like Camerons attempts to take control and save the Union are going well!

'In the 24 hours after David Cameron announced his plans to take control of the referendum, the SNP recruited one new member every nine minutes.
Last night's Commons announcement is probably going to melt the phones in Nats HQ.' - todays Sun.

Nice to see this coming back to bite Cameron. I'm not involved in the independence debate or anything but he's come across as quite arrogant and presumptuous in the news stories I've read.

It came up in Prime Ministers Questions today- there are many odd things going on however- or at least political double standards. The Scottish Secretary (whose a lib-dem minister in the coalition govt with the Tories) is putting out the govt line that there should only be one question on the paper- yes or no. However the scottish lib-dems are the people who proposed the second question, nicknamed devo-max, which he is saying can't be on it. Bit of a mess really.

I wonder if the Lib Dem voters will punish the party for allying with the Tories. I recall a lot of controversy right after the election over the coalition plan. I can't see that the Lib Dem ministers have any choice but to publicly agree with the Tories on matters such as this, but I don't see that helping their chances in the next election. Particularly in Scotland.

Well this is the result of the last Scottish Election (Scottish Parliament MSP's)


Scottish General Election results (Westminister MP's)


As you can see Scots vote quite differently in General and national elections. The main aim in a General Election is keeping the Tories out. As the SNP obviously dont put up candidates in England there is little point voting for them at Westminister.
In the Scottish elections (which came after the general) Scots true feelings towards Labour was expressed. Less than a decade ago Labour were the party in Scotland by a long way and seemed unassailable.
The libdems were punished for goinginto coalition with the Tories and are now as scarce as them-as it currently stands there is only 1 Tory MP in all of Scotland and only 11 lib dems (once the second largest party in Scotland behind Labour).

Don't know if you saw this, Petty, but the BBC conducted a very informal poll of people in London about Scottish independence. People voted by putting colored balls into boxes to give a visual approximation of which side was ahead, and it ended with the pro-independence box slightly ahead. Some of the choice comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16529516

They should be independent so we don't have to pay for their national health service.

They should be independent so they can see how lonely it is to be on your own.

We English should get a vote too because independence would affect us as well.

It should be up to the Scottish people.

Where's the box for rebuilding Hadrian's Wall?

Thought you might get a kick out of this. The reasoning of the people who thought that the English should be able to vote on the question was ... interesting.

"They should be independent so we don't have to pay for their national health service."

That isn't as mad a comment as might first seem but it is ignorant- in Scotland prescriptions are free, health care for the elderly and travel is free. Our health service retained a lot ofthe stuff the Tories got rid of- the English have since got the idea if we have these things and they don't they must be paying for it. But it sdoesn't work like that. Westminister awards Scotland x amount of money. How we spend it and prioritise it is our business. We choose to keep these things along with free education.

The idea England should get a vote has been surfacing a lot of late form south of the border- fortunetly there is international law covering this and they can't vote to make us stay against the will of the Scottish people. It would a very dangerous thing to try to do as well.

Could have done without the twee accrodian music in the background- says a lot in itself about the view the English tend to have of Scotland.

The matter was voted on in the Scottish Parliament today.

'The Scottish Parliament has backed calls for the terms of the forthcoming independence referendum to be decided by Holyrood.
MSPs voted for the SNP's position as they debated the issue for the first time since Alex Salmond announced autumn 2014 as his preferred poll date.
In what was a symbolic vote, MSPs backed an amended Labour motion, stating that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament to make the arrangements for the referendum, by 67 votes to 56.'-BBC

Not sure where Labour really stand, seems to be a difference between UK and Scottish Labour here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16516672

Another example of the difference in how things are reported north and south of the border. The Sun again.

Scottish Sun



English Sun



Questions like that are the main reason the English are under the delusion they subsidse us.

And this passage is mysteriously absent from the English version;

But Mr Salmond insisted he is unwilling to budge over the 2014 date — and claimed Westminster had no right to dictate to the Scottish Parliament. He announced plans to publish his consultation on the referendum in the last week of January — and follow it up with a vote in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Salmond added he wants a straight, 'Yes or No' question — but would not rule out another on increased financial powers.
The First Minister said: "I don't think it's right and proper before people have had a consultation on the referendum question or questions for the UK government to start ruling that out.
"Why should we be excluding what is a legitimate point of view across Scotland?"

But strangely the English version does have this supposed quote from Salmond;

'Mr Salmond said the PM should "butt out" of Scottish affairs.'

The money issue does come up again and again. There is this idea that scotland is so small and so large that england must be subsidising it. It is a view that predates the changes in NHS and education fees. Now I have no clue how the money works out. Petty I believe you have said that the figures have been made avaliable. I am curious what that shows, I have a feeling you said that actually england may find itself worse off.

What is beginning to intrigue me more and more, as this debate seems to being taken more and more seriously (surely if the government felt that there was no way that Scots would vote for independance they wouldn't have launched this current 'pre emptive strike') is how will this acutally work.

Followed the link to the finances and currency questions and it set me thinking, how do you separate the two ecomonies? There are sooo many interlinks, do we have to assess the assests of the UK as a whole and then workout a fair divorce settlement? What about immigration and security services? what about armed forces? I know many of these have their separate Scottish conuterparts, but how interlinked are they and how are they goin to be unravelled? (and who gets the Queen or is she to remain the Queen of Scotland and the UK. Do both countires have to contribute to the families upkeep?)

Technically the Monarchy is ours. The current Queen claims her right through James the 1st of England, who before he became James the 1st was James the 6th of Scotland- its our royal line you nicked along with our Stone of Destiny required to make a monarch!

There are two things which in Scotland have always been seen as the give aways that we were being lied to about how much we contributed.

Firstly apart form the SNP no other party has ever wanted to split the union. If Scotland was just a drain on England decade after decade we would have been cut loose at the last referedum on the matter in the 1970's.

Secondly Scotland gets more money per head of population than England does. Which seems unfair and would not be tolerated unless we contribute more. More even than the bit extra we get makes up for.

I shall dig around for the figures Kafria- want to make sure I get legitamte sources- a lot of spin one way or the other out there.

Technically the Monarchy is ours. The current Queen claims her right through James the 1st of England, who before he became James the 1st was James the 6th of Scotland- its our royal line you nicked along with our Stone of Destiny required to make a monarch!

Yeah! aware of that, but what I am saying is as a family they hold both thrones, don't they just keep them? Head of both states (particularly as they hold power only in terms of being able to send a bill back thorugh parliment once?)

Salmond has said he is in favour of keeping the Queen as Head of State- much like she is in other former colony countries like Australia.

Hmm.... who gets the commonwealth?

The Queen gets to keep it.

Guess that fair!

Kafria wrote:

Technically the Monarchy is ours. The current Queen claims her right through James the 1st of England, who before he became James the 1st was James the 6th of Scotland- its our royal line you nicked along with our Stone of Destiny required to make a monarch!

Yeah! aware of that, but what I am saying is as a family they hold both thrones, don't they just keep them? Head of both states (particularly as they hold power only in terms of being able to send a bill back thorugh parliment once?)

If the Act of Union 1707 was repealed then I think the Queen would, barring any other legislation, remain the monarch of both countries. England and Scotland were in personal union for a full century prior to the Act of Union (under James VI/I and his successors). In this day and age personal union doesn't mean much -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the like are all in personal union with the UK since Elizabeth II is the Queen of all of them, but she holds each monarchy separately and those countries function independently just like any other -- but it does give continuity. I imagine such a solution could work for an independent Scotland.