FREEDOM!!!!

Just a minute ago I was typing something about a rude Englishman on the Elections thread. The more I think about it the more parallels there are between Scotland and the South. You might want to reconsider some of your stereotypes.....

Are you calling us Scots rude David?! F*!@" you!

This is from the Guardian:

'Speaking to business leaders in the capital, Edinburgh, the prime minister said the referendum did not have to be "the end of the road" for devolution. After that "I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further", he said. "And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved."
However, in a move that immediately provoked an angry reaction from Scotland's pro-independence first minister, Alex Salmond, Cameron repeatedly ruled out discussing what powers could be further devolved to Edinburgh before the vote.
"That must be a question for after the referendum, when Scotland has made its choice about the fundamental question of independence," Cameron said.
The surprise offer, described by one member of the audience as having an air of desperation, appeared to form part of a two-prong strategy.
The prime minister first outlined a series of veiled threats about the problems raised by Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, including the potential loss of a seat on the UN security council, UK armed forces, and the pound. He also added two new ones to those he had raised in a speech on Wednesday night: the loss of the UK security services and difficulty of combating terrorism alone.
After the speech, Salmond told BBC News: "If the prime minister has an offer to make to the people of Scotland then he should make it now. He should spell it out now so we can have a clear decision on the alternative futures for Scotland … [he] is on very, very shaky ground if he believes people in Scotland will be fooled again," the first minister added, in a reference to former Tory prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home's promises to offer Scots a better devolution bill if they voted no in the 1979 referendum.'

Not been able to find the full speech anywhere.
Just soundbite version like this;



and this interview

A suprise person has been tweeting about Independence- none other than Ruper Murdoch who posted-

"Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win."
His comment follows another message sent on Sunday which said: "Alex Salmond clearly most brilliant politician in UK.
"Gave Cameron back of his hand this week. Loved by Scots."

Now if I was being very cynical I would say this had more to do withthe launch this coming Sunday of the NotW replacement the Sun on Sunday. Still shows he must be reading the mood of Scotland as leaning more and more towards independence and for all his faults reading the mood is what has made his media empire what it is.

I'm hardly David Cameron's biggest fan but I'm not seeing any threats in those videos. I haven't read the whole speech but the snippets quoted in the Guardian don't sound terribly outrageous to me. He's right that there will be major consequences and changes if Scotland becomes independent; that's pretty much inevitable. The bit about the UN Security Council seat is what puzzled me the most though. Does the Guardian expect an independent and separate Scotland to be given a new permanent seat on the Security Council?

Tricky one the UN Security Council- the UK has a seat on the Council- not the UK and Scotland seperately- so if we split no one relly knows how it works- does the rest of the UK have to reapply as a new entity? Does Scotland? Same questions arise for the EEC. But until such time as it changes Scotland is a nuclear country- both power and weapons and thats the usual means of getting a seat.

The nuclear thing is a little complicated. There are only five 'official' nuclear states: the US, the UK, Russia, France, and China. These are the five permanent members of the security council and also the five countries legally allowed to have nuclear weapons under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Originally the US, UK, and USSR (all rights and obligations now handled by Russia) were the only signatories to the treaty who possessed nuclear weapons. When France and China eventually signed the treaty their nuclear rights were affirmed. However, India and Pakistan, which both have nukes, are not signatories to the treaty, and North Korea has withdrawn. Israel is also a non-signatory and is suspected of having nukes although that's unclear.

The five permanent members of the security council have been more or less unchanged since the 1940s. There are two exceptions. First, as with nukes Russia took over for the Soviet Union in 1992. Prior to that, however, the People's Republic of China took over from the Republic of China (Taiwan). However, in that case, the whole world pretty much decided to pretend that Taiwan wasn't an independent country, whereas before they'd been pretending the other way around. The difference with Scotland is that the UK will not (presumably) cease to exist either in fact or diplomatic fiction. That raises some interesting but potentially troublesome questions.

My best guess is that Scotland, if it becomes independent, will be treated as a new country and sign onto the major international treaties as such. If Scotland and the UK agree to leave nukes in Scotland, then there is a very good chance that Scotland will be able to sign the NPT as a nuclear weapons-having state like France and China did. On the other hand, it could just not sign the NPT and it probably wouldn't make a huge difference. I would be very surprised if Scotland does not gain a UN seat, but I don't think it's likely to gain a permanent seat on the security council. Unlike the NPT, the number of permanent seats have not expanded since the 1940s. Despite having nukes, neither India, Pakistan, nor North Korea have been given a permanent seat.

This is all my layman's opinion based on my recollections of various classes and news stories, so take it all with a big grain of salt.

I think much of it is unprecedented, closest I can think of is the countries hat appeared after the break up of the Soviet Union. But as far as I am aware none of them had their own nukes. And they do seem to make all the diference it seems.

You may recall I mentioned there was a row over whether the SDL (Scottish Defence League-hard right group affiliated with the even more nasty English Defence League and the British National Party) should be allowed to hold a rally in Glasgow. Today they got their rally.
And I am pleased to report only 30 people turned up for it and 100 odd turned up just to tell them to sod off.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You may recall I mentioned there was a row over whether the SDL (Scottish Defence League-hard right group affiliated with the even more nasty English Defence League and the British National Party) should be allowed to hold a rally in Glasgow. Today they got their rally.
And I am pleased to report only 30 people turned up for it and 100 odd turned up just to tell them to sod off.

Good good, all as it should be then

The BBC's updated report on the protest says;

'About 200 officers were called out to police a demonstration by the Scottish Defence League in Glasgow.
About 75 members of the SDL took part in the gathering in St Enoch Square.
However, they were met with opposition in the form of about 150 people protesting against their demonstration.'

Well Murdoch launched The Sun on Sunday today- its certaintly not NotW thats for sure- its way, way to dull a read for that. It seems to be aimed a lot more at female readers too. They even have Katie Price (aka Jordan) as a contributor (wonder who actually writes it!).
Their froint cover splash was about a celebrity whose heart stopped for several seconds during a difficult birth- yawn.
So what's this doing in the Freeedom thread? Well like the week day Sun there is a Scottish Sun on Sunday and it had a different front page exclusive claiming to know the date of the Independence Referendum- which (under the not at all melodramatic headline of 'Day of Destiny') it gives as Saturday the 18th of October 2014.
Not sure its journalism or an educated guess however. The SNP have long maintained it would be in the Autumn of 2014.
So the Sun on Sunday- bit of a damp squib.

Latest twist in the Scottish referendum is group forming to promote a devolution plus option-

MSPs from the three main opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament are backing a new campaign for increased Holyrood powers.
"Devo plus" would put Holyrood in full control of income tax, corporation tax and most welfare spending.
Unlike the "devo-max" alternative, it would leave pensions, VAT and national insurance in Westminster hands.
The option is being pushed by Edinburgh-based think tank Reform Scotland and former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purvis.
Under devo plus, Holyrood would gain new responsibility for welfare benefits except pensions, funding all its own spending through full control of income and corporation tax.
It would also receive a "geographical" share of oil revenues - tax receipts from oil and gas in Scottish territorial waters.
VAT and National Insurance would remain in Westminster hands, but Scotland would control its share of UK borrowing. - BBC


Personally I dont se the point in going for 90% independence- may as well go for the whole thing- it also seems to me it could be seen as being unfair on the rest of the UK- we get 90% of what we want but if it goes wrong the rest of the UK would still be libel to bail us out.

A bit like leaving home knowing Mummy (the Queen) will pay the food bill now and then if you haven't got money that week, having wasted it on buckie, perhaps, or overspent on some airy fairy social scheme.

Seems that way to me Orwell. In my view we either stand on or own two feet or we accept an equal union with England. Going for something thats neither one nor the other doesn't seem a useful option to me.

Well, I can see some reasons for talking about all options, especially if remaining in the UK is still on the table.

Alaska went through this process in the early 1980's. While I was working up there in 1980 they passed a referendum forming a committee to explore "alternatives to statehood". At the time Alaska's fishing rights were being used as bargaining chips with the USSR and Japan, and their mining and oil rights were going to large multi-national corporations with no interest in building any infrastructure value in Alaska while they were there, or even doing a particularly neat job. "Rape" was a word I heard a lot back then.

By 1984 ( I think) the committee decided to recommend retaining statehood, but by going through the process for several years they were able to reach some understandings with the Feds on the state of Alaska's rights to its own natural resources. (They've not been pillaged quite so badly since then. )

I confess to being a Globalist. If every Country is a State of the Union (so to speak, not the American Model with no Health Care system), then I can live with that. I can live with being "Australia" as a World Democratic Secular State. The States in Oz run themselves while leaving some things under the Commonwealth of Oz. As an example, somewhere in all this, the Comonwealth helps out where funds are short. For instance, Rural areas (theoretically) will be getting Broad Band soon - at prices the Urban dweller pays. Artificial equality, yep, but necessary in a Free State (Country), methinks. Urban money helping out Rural folk. The Rural folk pay their due in producing food to feed the Urban rats. I guess, the World is already moving this way. Thank Eru. Down with Religious Regimes Theological/Ideological.

This is really about England and their police force this post but I put it here 1-its another good reason to dissolve the Union and 2- the thread is called Freedom and this is one seems to have the potential for a serious impact on that if you live in England. (Particularly interested in your take on this Orwell as a cop and anyone it effects).

West Midlands and Surrey forces are talking to security firms about possibly transferring tasks to them.
The West Midlands and Surrey forces have invited bids for contracts from private firms, on behalf of all forces in England and Wales.
The companies could provide services such as supporting victims of crime, investigate some crimes, manage high-risk individuals and patrol neighbourhoods.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said that the only way to cope with the financial cuts was by "radical and fundamental change [which] will allow forces to cope with this and maintain protection of the public."
Chief Constable Peter Fahy, Acpo lead for workforce development, said: "Chief constables cannot ignore the financial crisis and the degree of change which is required.
Labour MP Keith Vaz, who is also the chairman of the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee, added his criticism, saying: "Plans to privatise its front line, particularly on the eve of the election of police and crime commissioners, is a cause for concern."
The Police Federation voiced a much stronger fear, with vice-chairman Simon Reed saying: "This is an extremely dangerous road to take."
He added: "The priority of private companies within policing will be profit and not people, and we must not forget, they are answerable to their shareholders and not to the public we serve."

Luckily policing is devoloved to Scotland and it doesn't effect us. But I'd be concerned if it did and I'm concerned on behalf of those in England with the way things are going in their NHS and now Policing regarding the involvment of business.

Call me a Socialist, but one force under full Public Scrutiny is a safer option. Who wants a heap of Separate Cowboy Organizations --- isn't it better to keep all your cowboys in one corral?

SNP conference today but havent been able to find Salmonds speech on youtube for posting yet, however I did stumble on this, one of the SNP's campaign ads from the last election (which they won with a landslide), and as I have been watching the Republican Race to the Lowest Point contest in the US of late I was slightly shocked to be reminded the SNP won on a positive, non hating, non attacking campaign (have Americans every thought of trying this?!)

You may recognise the joke!



And this is my all time favourite Salmond line- from an interview on Newsnight said to Jeremy Paxman-

"'well listen to the argument, then you can patronise it afterwards''

Mentioning Trainspotting on another thread got me thinking about it as a social commentary piece on Scotland. Its attitude, or those of its main characters is the attitude I grew up surrounded by and which I also embodied at one time.
It was, looking back on it now, a post-Thatcher attitude- what she did in undermining Scotland, not just fiscally but heart and soul I don't think has yet been fully realised. But it does explain how in the space of less than 20 years we went from this attitude to a SNP government on the cusp of possible independence.
The attitude of the time politically is well summoned up in this short scene.

The latest in the 'postive' case for the Union from the government benches!

'Tory peer Lord Fraser said, 'Scotland would be open to invasion without a defence deal with England', he warned, 'What alternative would England have but to bomb the hell out of Glasgow and Edinburgh airport in the event of an attack? I would not wish my beloved Scotland to be a war zone for those with evil intent on England."
He also called for oil rich parts of Scotland to be kept in the UK, with nuclear subs relocated to Scapa Flow and the Orkneys.'

Really you could't make this stuff up.

The Queen gave an adress today as part of the jubille malarky. These sort of address are rare from a monarch as normally, as head of state, she is not allowed a public view on affairs that could in any way be taken as political. The last time she gave one of these speeches was the last jubilee.
In the last speech, given in the late 70's Scotland was voting for devolution, it got a majority win but the Tory government had set a bar on it sayin git had to be over 75% of the population or it didn;t happen. Only 60 odd percent voted yes. However at the time of the Queens speech that vote was yet to happen and in her speexh she said she could not forget that she was "crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The message being quite clear.
Now she has another speech and this time Scotland has devolution and is readying to voe for independence. And this time out the only thing bearing on the matter was a line which included "continuity of our national story" in it. Not sure what that says, that she has changed her opinion, that the knowledge the SNP plan to keep her as Monarch has asuaged her worries, or that she has been advised not to get involved this time (although she has never struck me as the sort to put advice above doing saying she thinks is right in these speeches). But "continuity of our national story" is broad enough to cover a lot of outcomes.

Isn't Freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?