FREEDOM!!!!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Oddly Westminister have also decided to go ahead with a parallel but completely seperate consultation- the point of which is hard to see.

Trying to make themselves feel or seem important?

Salmond's plan seems reasonable enough to me. Who needs to formally approve it before the referendum is sent to the voters?

The Electoral Commision will have to approve the election, and ensure it is conducted fairly and legally. Its a Westminister body and Salmond didn't originally want it but Salmond is canny and I suspect he always knew it would be run by the Commission and the proposal to set up a new body was only mooted so he could negotiate with it later and be seen to be conceding something and look concillatory.
Theres a live annpuncemnt form the snp on right now on BBC webpage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16724777

A rather handy and fairly concise history of the Union from the BBC.

1) 1603

The modern history of Scotland's relationship with England began with a takeover.
Elizabeth I, England's virgin queen, died childless.
In the lottery of an inherited throne, her heir was James VI of Scotland.
The ruler of Scotland had become the ruler of its traditional rival.
He moved his court to London and cemented his power over the southern kingdom.

2) 1605

The most serious challenge to James in the early years of his rule from London was an attempted sectarian murder.
The king surrounded himself with Scottish friends, who enriched themselves under his patronage.
One group in particular felt this favouritism was at their expense.
Some leading Catholics, concerned about the threat to their religion posed by the new regime, plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
James and the leading protestant nobles were to be inside as the gunpowder ignited.
In slightly murky circumstances, the conspiracy was uncovered and its leading players - including the mercenary Guy Fawkes - were executed.
The new king was safe.

3) 1650

The limits to Scotland's freedom, and its ability to lord it over its southern neighbour, were radically re-defined during the period of religious ferment thrown up by the English Civil War.
This struggle between Charles I and parliament produced a determined character who was prepared to take whatever measure necessary to impose his will: Oliver Cromwell.
After the execution of Charles in 1649, many Scots rallied in support of his son Charles II. It was a costly mistake.
At the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, they were soundly beaten by Cromwell's forces and many of them were killed.
The age of the Stuart kings was dead and buried. The puritan Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland had arrived.

4) 1707

Scotland's century of semi-detachment, sharing a monarch but clinging on to its own parliament, came to an end in a period of economic stagnation.
A series of poor harvests and a failed attempt to establish a Scottish colony at Darien in Panama left Scotland with an empty treasury.
Many leading figures in the parliament saw their country's future in hitching a ride on England's economic success.
Some are believed to have received direct personal inducements to reach this view.
The union of the parliaments was achieved and the political engine-room of the state was moved, unambiguously, to Westminster.

5) 1745

Many Scots remained unconvinced of the benefits of union, and those with any grievance against the new political settlement rallied around attempts to restore the Stuart monarchy.
The Jacobites, as they were called, gave it their best shot when Charles Edward Stuart landed in Scotland to reclaim the British throne.
A minority of Scots supported his cause in 1745. Another minority were opposed to overthrowing the Hanoverian monarchy. Others, perhaps the majority, chose not to support either side.
The Crown forces were ill-prepared and, after the Battle of Prestonpans, Charles had effective control of Scotland.
His attempt to extend this victory to England ground to a halt at Derby. The initial retreat from England by the Jacobite forces was an orderly affair but when they were confronted by the British army at Culloden the following year their defeat was decisive and bloody.
Those who had supported Charles, especially the Highland clans, were ruthlessly suppressed.
Charles himself declined into alcoholism before his death in Italy 22 years later.
British rule in Scotland was not seriously challenged by force again.

6) 1797

The defeat of the Jacobites led to a period in which Scotland became a centre for challenging, and sometimes dangerous, ideas.
The Scottish enlightenment saw the rise to prominence of intellectuals such as Adam Smith, David Hume and James Hutton.
Smith transformed our understanding of trade, laying the foundations for the study of economics.
Hume, one of the outstanding philosophers writing in the English language, was a rationalist who argued the importance of proof over simple belief.
Hutton was a geologist who, by the time he died in 1797, had changed forever the approach to deep time and shattered traditional beliefs about the age of the Earth.
Between them, these thinkers gave Scotland a view of its own importance which transcended its subordinate position within the United Kingdom.

7) 1820

Military rebellion was over, but social struggle was not.
Andrew Hardie and John Baird led action in protest against economic hardship when they marched with a militia on Carron Ironworks in Falkirk. They were halted by the army.
The following day Andrew Wilson led another group of radicals from the small town of Strathaven, near Glasgow. They, too, were halted by forces loyal to the government.
In the aftermath of this challenge to the established order, Hardie, Baird and Wilson were executed.
The 1820 rising was over.

1885

Following the failed Jacobite rising of 1745, the post of Scottish Secretary in the British government had been abolished.
Such a formal recognition of Scotland's identity was seen to be an encouragement to those who would threaten the state.
The danger of rebellion was no longer a concern by 1885, when the Secretary of Scotland Act created a formal basis for the post to be re-established. It also led to the creation of the Scottish Office to administer central government functions in Scotland.
Scotland had its own identity, recognised by the state, but firmly part of the United Kingdom.

9) 1922

Following WWI, a small group on the fringes of Scottish society became convinced that Scotland needed to re-discover itself.
Most influential was a journalist and poet who had been born Christopher Murray Grieve. As Hugh MacDiarmid, he argued that only a cultural revival could create conditions for the establishment of Scotland as a political entity.
In 1922, he set up a literary magazine, Scottish Chapbook. Its motto was "Not traditions - precedents!"
It was credited with helping to nurture a fresh interest in Scottish literature.
Hugh MacDiarmid became, in 1928, a founding member of the National Party of Scotland, the forerunner of the present Scottish National Party.

10) 1979

MacDiarmid and his friends may have brought about the re-birth of Scottish nationalism as an idea but for another generation it was not a political force.
That began to change in 1967, when Winnie Ewing won a by-election in Hamilton for the SNP. Britain's mainstream political parties discovered a new interest in the idea of devolving powers to Scotland.
In the 1970s, the Labour government prepared to give voters in Scotland a referendum on devolution.
When it was held in 1979, a narrow majority of those voting supported change.
But the legislation had required that at least 40% of the entire electorate turn out to vote Yes.
Within months, Margaret Thatcher was in power at Westminster. Devolving power to Scotland was not on her agenda.

11) 1997

When Labour returned to power under Tony Blair it had a new plan for a Scottish parliament and a new referendum.
In a two-question vote, the Scottish electorate gave a clear answer. There would be a Scottish parliament and it would have tax-raising powers.
Two years later, the parliament was a reality. Scotland had its own distinctive voice within the United Kingdom.

12) 2011

For the first two terms of the Scottish parliament, Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed the administration as a coalition.
Power shifted to the SNP in 2007 and the nationalists formed a minority government.
Although the SNP's policy was to give Scottish voters a referendum on independence, it lacked the majority in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the plan was approved.
That changed in the Scottish elections of 2011. Under the proportional system used to elect members of the Scottish Parliament, the SNP won an overall majority.
There would be a referendum.

It's all the buckie, isn't it Petty?

Good one, Centurion!

Is he a centurian cos he wears a skirt and sandals in winter?

I never made the connection, Mrs Figg, but I think you've hit the nail on the head.

A kilt is not a skirt!! And I never wear sandals- no good in a peat bog.

Oh I dont know, I bet its strangely satisfying and squelchy twixt toes.

We have strict rules about that sort of thing Mrs Figg- peat and bog wrestling is a female participant sport only. And a very popular male spectator sport.

I'd pay to see that.

The Archet Bugle wrote:I'd pay to see that.

Is that you, Lesbo?

I guess they have Internet wherever she went on the run to.

Good point.

Four of Scotland's highest profile politicians have urged councillors to block moves by the far-right Scottish Defence League to march in Glasgow.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, and Scots Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem leaders, Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie are backing the move.
In an open letter, they say such a march would bring "vile, toxic hate".
The Scottish Defence League (SDL) has applied to the council to hold a march on 25 February.
The SDL is an offshoot of the English Defence League (EDL).
The letter states: "We the undersigned express our extreme concern at our streets being used for the peddling of hatred. We wish to send out a loud and clear message that racism is not welcome in our city. We vigorously oppose giving the Scottish Defence League, or any of their offshoots, permission to hold a public procession through Glasgow."
The letter urges Glasgow City Council to reject any application for the SDL to march "on the grounds of public safety and moral decency".- BBC

Now I have no time for these narrow minded bigots but if thy go through the proper channels I don't think it is wise to block their right to protest. That only makes any perceived grudges they already have worse and it violates a basic tenant of the right to be heard.
If it turns to violence the law has all it requires on its side to deal with it.

On the point of this groups right to a voice the signataries say "While we passionately defend freedom of speech - regardless of how unpleasant it may be - we do not believe vile, toxic hate should be given free rein in our streets."
Which seems like a contradictory statement to me.

I say let them protest, let them march- they have next to no support in Scotland and will be heckled, jeered and lampooned if they are lucky- so let them march.

I agree - and then hope extremists with differing views don't stir up a riot. No doubt if they do, and the police try to curb it with a counter force, the police can be accused of causing the riot in the first place. It's a vicious circle, what, with police usually the last link in the chain acting as ultimate scapegoat. For all that I still agree with you whole heartedly, Petty.

Ah but the police only tend to get blamed when the protestors are otensibly opposing things that are bad- like poverty and wars- believe me if the police decided to crack a few Defence League heads almost no one is going to complain.
Scotland has both a proud and a bloody awful history when it comes to racism- awful in that many Scots were at the forefront of the slave trade for years and proud that the very first time a case was heard in the High Court they immediately said it was unlawful and put a stop to it long before England came to the same conclusion- turned out in Scotland it was never legal just that no black person had ever been able to to get their case heard- soon as that happened Scots law was quite clear- one person cannot be the property of another.
And since then Scotland has always welcomed immigrants- (not there isn't still racism but its not on a scale with closer neighbouring countries-besides it hard to hate people for just being black when you have the English right next door who are histroically white and much worse!!)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ah but the police only tend to get blamed when the protestors are otensibly opposing things that are bad- like poverty and wars- believe me if the police decided to crack a few Defence League heads almost no one is going to complain.

Generally, police don't start riots during genuinely peaceful demonstrations - not here anyway. I prefer not fighting someone, especially if they espouse views I agree with. It's usually extremist minorities hidden cravenly amid genuine protesters who stir things up. Not always, but mostly, in my experience. When police move on anyone, everyone else, assuming the worse, believe it's the "police again" starting the violence. Violence esculates. There is not much value in police firing things up as we never come out smelling of roses irrespective of whether we were correct, made errors of judgment, or (maybe just to please you Petty ) started acting violently and outside the Law.

I was watching sky news during the London G8 riots and they went to a live report from a reporter on the ground- behind the reporter was the police lines and the protesters beyond, a police van pulled up, the backdoor opened and out leapt 3 persons dressed like so called 'anarchsts' who then nipped off, presumably to join the portesters- now maybe they weren't being put in to stir up trouble, maybe it was just surveillance- but that sort of things doesn't do much for building a sense of trust between ptrotestors and police.
I think the police have an impossible task in these siuations- people have a right to protest, but people also have a right to run their business and go about their business and its the duty of the police to see to that too. An impossible task? Probably.

This is a bit of tangent - a lot of one actually. Years and years ago I was tasked to escort a small group of African protesters. I can't remember what particular country now. Anyway, there were about three boys in blue and about twenty to thirty protesters. And don't ask me what they were protesting; I can't remember that either. Anyway, we walked to Treasury Place in Melboune, where the Victorian Premier's Office was. As we walked I was chatting to one of the men, and he expressed bemusement that police were required as it was a genuine peaceful demonstration. I told him, as it was the Premier's Office they were going to that police had to be present 'just in case.' Anyhow, they were all really lovely people, every man and woman of them. We got to Treasury Place and the protesters sang one of their tribal songs as part of the protest (I assume), which I, of course, could not trandslate, as my talent is in translating Fjordianlandian as you know and not any African languages. All I can say is, the song and singing made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up; it was beautiful and soooo moving. At that time, if one of them had said, "Actually, we're going off now to Treasury Place and violently castrate the Premier," I would have said, "Oh she'll be apples, go ahead, I'll bring my truncheon to passify him first, but only on the condition, you sing me another song afterward."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I was watching sky news during the London G8 riots and they went to a live report from a reporter on the ground- behind the reporter was the police lines and the protesters beyond, a police van pulled up, the backdoor opened and out leapt 3 persons dressed like so called 'anarchsts' who then nipped off, presumably to join the portesters- now maybe they weren't being put in to stir up trouble, maybe it was just surveillance- but that sort of things doesn't do much for building a sense of trust between ptrotestors and police.
I think the police have an impossible task in these siuations- people have a right to protest, but people also have a right to run their business and go about their business and its the duty of the police to see to that too. An impossible task? Probably.

I would have liked the cameras to follow those Anarchist police and film what they were actually up to. Sounds very interesting! Did they only show what they showed because what they were up to wasn't very newsworthy. Oh gosh! Did they just think they had enough to make the police look sinister - as you say, possible stirrer-uperers - and rush back to their newsroom?

It was completely accidental- the reporter was in the foreground and oblivous to the police van and its suspicous occupants getting out and they seemed oblivous to the camera being there.

"All I can say is, the song and singing made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up; it was beautiful and soooo moving. At that time, if one of them had said, "Actually, we're going off now to Treasury Place and violently castrate the Premier," I would have said, "Oh she'll be apples, go ahead, I'll bring my truncheon to passify him first, but only on the condition, you sing me another song afterward."- Orwell

So the moral here is if you want to committ acts of violence on a protest have a good singing voice?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So the moral here is if you want to committ acts of violence on a protest have a good singing voice?

No, you silly silly person, what you need do is captivate me with the spirit of your song - and, yes, that means having a personal 'voice', but not a voice as in, "Ooh I'm Celine Dion, I'm technically gifted but my soul is of durable plastic." Only then, Petty, am I willing to assist you - or anyone else - in any act of excessive violence against a public figure. The less you move me, the less violence I am prepared to provide in your assistance. Isn't it all so very obvious? Haven't you ever heard of the "Orwellian Movement/Violence Ratio Personal Voice Stereophonic Gadget?" (You call yourself a Who fan? ) I always carry it - internally - but I won't say where. {{{what a very silly Scotshobbit}}}