FREEDOM!!!!

Are you a Separatist, Petty?

I have mixed feelings on this Orwell- I am inclined to be yes. I have voted SNP at the last few elections- I think we need more political automony from England and the chance to cock things up for ourselves.
On the other hand being brought up as a good west of scotland proddy and rangers supporter I have an inbuilt bunch of crap that makes me want to stand at national anthems and salute the Queen.

As things stand- I am inclined to vote for independence- but I want to see the meat on the bones before I decide.

Was listening to the News Quiz on Radio 4 (I recommend it to anyone with iplayer access) and this little exchange about the Scottish Conservative leader at the Tory party conference came up-

Sandi Toskvig (host): I particularly enjoyed the Scottish Conservative Leader, Ruth Davidson, who exactly is she leading?
She said 9 out of 10* Scots are living off State Patronage. Which is nonsense. I spent the summer in Scotland and 9 out of 10 of them are living off buckie.

* if you're curious she arrives at this number by excluding anyone who gets a state benefit (so working tax credits for those in employment, child benefit, and she excludes anyone employed by the Government at any level- so binmen, street cleaners ect) and yes I dare say if you count almost all the population in that category it will be about 9 in 10!
Still plays well to the rich English at Tory Conference.

Well it happened! The Scottish and UK governments have signed off the deal to hold the referendum.

'The agreement, has paved the way for a vote in autumn 2014, with a single Yes/No question on Scotland leaving the UK.
It will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the ballot.
The SNP secured a mandate to hold the referendum after its landslide Scottish election win last year.
The UK government, which has responsibility over constitutional issues, will grant limited powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a legal referendum, under a mechanism called Section 30.
The deal will provide for:

• A statutory order to be legislated at Westminster, granting
  Holyrood powers to hold a single-question independence referendum by the
  end of 2014 and covering other issues like campaign broadcasts.
  

• A "memorandum of agreement" to be signed by political leaders
  confirming the details of the referendum will be settled at Holyrood.
  

• A significant role for the Electoral Commission watchdog in
  advising on the wording of the question, the running of the referendum
  and areas including campaign finance.
  

A possible second question on greater powers has been dropped, while the Scottish government looks to have secured its preferred date.'- BBC


So lets sum this up- the SNP's original starting position was- one question, to be decided in Scotland, the referendum to take place at a date set by the SNp and for 16/17 year olds to get the vote.


Camerons position was the powers for a referendum and the question should be decided by Westminister, only those who currently eligible (over 18) would get the vote and it had to be held much sooner.


Mmmm. Can you tell from this pic which of them thinks he has got what he wanted and which is realising they might just have made a deal to go down in history as the PM who presided over the break up of the UK?



Cameron appears so politically nieve he is trying to spin there only being one question as a Unionist triumph- depsite the fact one question plays completely into Salmonds hands and was his choice all along.
The polling in Scotland is clear- about a 1/3 want independence and 2/3 further financial powers, but within the UK, retaining the current the staus quo has negligable support- by removing that more powers option from the table Salmond is gambling he can convince enough of that 2/3 that Cameron is promising jam tomorrow (Camerons postion is that if Scots vote no then he will tell us what other powers might be on the table afterwards, but not before- which feels and looks like an attempt to bribe people to vote no and is unlikely to work. It also means if you vote no you dont actually no exactly what you are voting for).
Also by Salmond floating the possibility of a second question (not supported by the SNP but in the 'interests of fairness') he forced Cameron into this ludicrous position of you can have more powers but Im not telling you what. He has played Cameron like a fiddle and Cameron has fallen for it at every turn.
A devomax question would have split the vote- one question- Salmond actually has a chance of winning on.

I hated Braveheart. Including the scene you depict in that photo you posted, Petty; notwithstanding some of those bottoms were shapely. I'm talking about a principle here. That is, that historical dramas should be based on fact not fiction. (I'm a Purist, you see! )

(And just so we don't get into some ridiculous side-debate here, Petty - I said, "Nothwithstanding some of those bottoms were shapely." I'm saying the movie was UTTER SHIT, and not that 'shapely bottoms' are unhistorical - even in Scotland! )

I liked braveheart, until I found out Mel Gibson was a total dooshbag with strange strange views on the world. I don't care if he's a good actor, his persona has ruined everything.

Norc wrote:I liked braveheart, until I found out Mel Gibson was a total dooshbag with strange strange views on the world. I don't care if he's a good actor, his persona has ruined everything.

No, his views of the world are Catholic... Oh right... right you are, Norc!

I don't care what religion he has, he can be a bloody scientologist for the matter, I don't care, but he has said somethings and he stands for some thing I just can't do. I can't bare the person any more, and it is a shame, cus he is a descent actor.

Norc wrote:I don't care what religion he has,

So are you telling me the millions of Catholics around the world can ALL be wrong!

Norc wrote: he can be a bloody scientologist for the matter,

But do you really mean that, Norc?

Norc wrote:I don't care, but he has said somethings and he stands for some thing I just can't do.

How do you know - really know! - until you've tried them?

Norc wrote: I can't bare the person any more, and it is a shame,

In his younger days a lot of women thought him quite lovely bare when still a young man ... I don't know - the Deification of Youth and the Contempt of Decay... What is it with the young nowadays?

Norc wrote:cus he is a descent actor.

Do you mean that he is an actor whose fine acting skills are on the descent? Bit confused here, Norc....

Historically speaking Braveheart is a complete mess of a film. I hated it. So no arguments there Orwell.
And Gibson is an arse- youre' right there Norc. (and he cant do a Scottish accent- its terrible).

Frankly, while I've heard Mel had a shapely bottom back in those days, I looked away in my own silent protest. {{{Though part of me kind of aches to have just one wee peek some day... }}}

I think historical accuracy is the least of Braveheart's problems. I actually had moderate hopes for the film when I saw it, but ... yeeeeah.

Rob Roy with Liam Neelson is much better. (even if he was a Macgregor!)

Could have been worse, Petty - coulda been one of them there Campbells... canna ya imagine that, Laddie!

Sadly, while I'd surely like to stay here in Forumshire awhile more and bait you two further, Petty and Halfy, I have to go to work... ta-raa....

coulda been one of them there Campbells... canna ya imagine that, Laddie!- Orwell


Now that would be a film to see! (maybe skip over Glencoe mind...)

but I MUST go... NOW... bye

Some interesting snippits of info-

'90% of the UK's oil production comes from Scottish territorial waters.'

'The Royal United Services Institute estimated in October 2012 that an independent Scotland would need to spend £1.8 billion per annum to defend itself, whereas Scottish taxpayers contributed £3.3 billion to the UK defence budget in the 2010/11 fiscal year.'

'The SNP objects to having nuclear weapons on Scottish territory. British military leaders have claimed that there is no alternative site for the missiles.'

'British Prime Minister David Cameron suggested an independent Scotland would be "marginalised" at the UN and NATO.'

I was a bit suprised on tonights Newsnight the BBC repeated the notion Salmond had wanted two questions on the ballot paper- that was never the SNP position- it was floated by Salmond to stir up trouble for the no campaign in the following fashion-

Salmond also stated in the Scottish Parliament that if those parties who want Scotland to remain in the union would like to propose a second question about increasing the amount of powers in a devolved settlement, then he would allow it to appear on the ballot paper as well.


He did this for a variety of reasons-
firstly the no campaign is a coalition of Labour, Tory and lib-dems- the lib-dems support further devolved powers- the Tories dont and its anyones guess what Scottish labour stand for these days. Salmond was playing them off against each other.
Secondly it forced Cameron into promising more powers if there was a no vote- but as the Tory party as a whole is against further devolution (they were against any devolution it was Labour put that through when they were in power at Westminister) Cameron knows he cannot get more powers past his own party- particularly not the ones people want which is more fiscal control as this would put Scotland and England in direct competion with each other.
The result is Cameron is promising more powers he knows he cannot actually deliver which is why he wont say what those powers might be or when after the refernedum we might get them.

Again floating the second question has caused the no campaign all sorts of problems before the debate has even got underway- now Cameron will have to defend offering more powers without saying what or when.

A second question on devomax would also split the vote- Cameron should have supported it- but he couldnt because all the polling says its the most popular option so it would probably have won and then he would have to deliver when he knows his own party won't let him. (Cameron couldnt even get his own party to support reform of the House of Lords let alone giving Scotland devoloved finanacial powers).
In other words Salmonds boxed Cameron into a corner.
It will be interesting to see how camerons gets out of it (if he can now).

I still havent decided which way Ill vote yet, theres 2 years of detail to come before deciding that- but purely as an observer of politics Cameron seems to me to be completely out of his depth.

The No campaign launch their opening salvo- its pretty rubbish I have to say.
You can listen to it here- no idea if it plays outside the UK though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19959037

Intresting debate going on in Scotland over an aspect of our legal system- the requirment for corroboration. Its been a part of our legal system since the very beginings and is apprently unique to Scotland.
Basically its a rule that key pieces of eviudence must be backed up by at least two corroboration bits of evidence and was originally there to safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

In 2010 a Lord Carloway was asked to do a review of Scots law and he highlighted this bit of it as being 'based on medievil thinking' and it 'has no place in modern law'.
However the SNP have been running a consultation on the reports findings.
The police have now been consulted and they want to keep it, saying - "Corroboration provides safeguards on both sides of the criminal justice equation. It provides fundamental safeguards for the police officers that are involved in investigations and it provides safeguards for individuals who are accused of crimes. This is something our members feel very strongly about. We certainly don't believe that anything should be done that makes it easier to convict anyone of anything."
He added: "The requirement for corroboration where one piece of evidence supports another is a fundamental tenet of Scots law and one which provides safeguards for the public and for police officers."

Adding to the voice of the police the College of Justice said removing the need for corroboration, which is unique to Scotland's legal system, would lead to "decreasing confidence in the legal system" and to lower conviction rates generally.
They also argued that the Scottish courts had on many occasions "been grateful for the requirement of corroboration, which in our view provides a major safeguard against miscarriages of justice".

I have mixed views on this- whilst I think in general its a good tenant of our law it does make getting prosecutions in some crimes, particularly sex crimes, very difficult.

Alex Salmond interviewed at the SNP conference for the Daily Politics by fellow Scot Andrew Neil- sadly Mr Neil never seems to go for Westminister politicians quite the same way- dont know if its becuase he's a Scot and started out covering Scottish politics or not but innterviews between him and Salmond are always interesting. But Salmond demonstrates yet again why he has survived this long, the guy can tapdance faster then a millipede on a hot-plate-

Salmond gives the Leaders speech at the just finished SNP Party Conference.

To nuke or not to nuke thats the question.

The SNP say if they get a yes in the referendum Scotland will be a nuclear weapon free zone. At the moment its home to the UK nuclear fleet.
Defence Chiefs say if Scotland gets independence then effectively the UK will have to de-arm as the nukes cant go anywhere else (or to be more precise the English are happy for all the nuclear shit to be up here but not on their doorstep).

But in what seems a double blow of arrogance and stupidity, the UK defence Chief on a visit today to the nuclear bases said this;

'"The UK government is not planning around the possibility of a yes vote in the referendum. We are very confident that the Scottish people will recognise the value of remaining within the UK and choose to do so.
We are not making contingency planning for a yes vote in the referendum. That is why it is so irresponsible to play games with a strategic deterrent like the UK nuclear deterrent.
It is there to protect our nation, all the people of the UK, against any threat, whether it comes from another major power, or whether it comes from a rogue nuclear state, or whether it comes from a
terrorist group."

No contingency plans?- thats so confident of a no vote one might supsect they knew the result already!
And if its there to protect all the people of the UK how come only those of us in Scotland have to live next door to the bloody things? If Faslane or Coulport go boom I am well within its range, as too is Glasgow the most densely populated bit of the entire country- would they keep nukes this close to London? My arse they would. If they are there to protect all the UK let the rest of the UK have a shot of them then? Mmm they dont seem to keen on that position- so much so they are claiming if we wont have them the UK will be defenceless. Something very wiffy about all this.

edit add- Im still trying to work out what good nukes are supposed to do against a 'terrorist group'. Americas got hundreds of the nuclear buggers and they were f**k all use come 9/11 or after it (and thats America- the only country in the world who was evil and crazy enough to actually use them on civilian populations).