Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Ringdrotten]

Usually no names are released until there's strong evidence on the table, but it happens every now and then. There aren't that many of us Norwegians, however, so there aren't that many rape cases either! (though, I guess there are loads of cases that remain unknown to the public)

[Wisey Banks]

Men are always in the wrong,
Just ask Germaine
and Bishop Spong,
Just like Gays are always right,
Least sometimes Right -
but Left's still alright!

Men are Naughty, it's implied,
From the Day that Adam lied,
Fancy saying God's a Guy,
When He's our Goddess in the Sky.

He's a beautiful Woman,
Our Masculine babe,
With His hair so blond,
And His beard so Grey.

Oh how we worship Him,
That Glorious Girl-of-Girls,
His lovely breasts,
His pubic twirls.

Yes, blame Adam,
That stupid dolt,
The stupid b#@*#^d,
It was all his fault.

Eve actually said,
"Get your hand off it,
That serpent of yours,
Is sure to spit,
Your adder'll get
us in Trouble,
I don't want to go
burst your bubble,
Didn't the Spirit say:
'No slap and tickle?'
Though, I'll exchange Favours
for a nickel."
And now you don't love me,
Anymore,
How dare you call me
A filthy whore!!!'

I hope this ditty
helps you undersand,
The Feminine Truth
behind each Man."

Rasputin (albeit, on the sauce).

Wise Odo

[Pettytyrant101]

Watched an excellent documentary from the BBC. Bibles buried Secrets. Didn't tell me much I didn;t know (but this sort of history interests me) but it did put all the evidence together very well.
It was basically showing that the the Israelites, Islam and Christianity are based on a false premise- a monotheistic God. That God was part of a pantheon originally and had a consort/wife Asharar.

The pantheon bit there is lots of evidence for. From the Bible itself there are references in psalms and in Genesis amongst others to a Council of Gods and the use of plurals to donate the Council. Asharar was top female Goddess of the day at the time the Old Testament is set. She was depicted in a particular style, with a particular hairstyle, enlarged breasts and pelvic area, a fertility goddess in essence. She also had, just above her pubic triangle, there is usually carved a tree. This is the original Tree of Life. Later the Tree itself came to represent her as well. The tree appears on objects from Israelite domestic homes of the period of the OT. Asharar was the wife of El, the God who later came to be know as Yahweh. In the burning bush bit of the bible God tells Moses he was known to Abraham as "El of the Wilderness".
The archaeological evidence is solid too, every domestic Israelite home of the period that has been excavated has revealed at least one statue of a female figure who fits the Asharar description. And in the Temple of Jerusalem even had women weaving for Asharar, so she was high up the social acceptance chain (and apparently needed a lot of blankets made).
The conclusion was that originally the Israelites were little different from all their neighbours in who they believe and started as a subsect of the main Canaanite religion. The Bible is a fictitious account of the Jewish religion.
Asharar got purged, other Gods became angels where they couldn't be got rid of entirely and the Tree of Life evolved in the menorah of Jewish religion.

[odo banks]

Late to the party, Mr Tyrant?

Of course the Israelites worshipped all sorts of Gods... I think that Priestly Writer chap did most of the killing off until they were left with just One God. Now Illuvatar (Eru) is the only true God. Islam and Christianity are just re-fashioners.

Btw Illuvatar has angelic followers too, an angel to suit all tastes and purposes. We can do without Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They're all old wine in new bladders!

Eru Bless Everyone!

[Pettytyrant101]

"They're all old wine in new bladders!"- Odo

Indeed but it is only now that sufficient academic research and archaeological evidence is emerging to show this to be the case.

Odd really, the Jews make up a God out of some old ones and cobble it all together then create a big lie about how this 1 God has been about for ages, rather than they just made him up last week, and then the Muslims come along and take up the same God but decide you have to worship him different, and then the Christians come along and not only believe the 1 god rot the Jews started but go further and start believing this fictitious character had a son and start worshipping him too!
And now they all hate each other over whose version of this made up God is 'true' and actually kill one another over it!
You couldn't make it up- no hold on you could and they did.

[Kafria]

Had a conversation today with another member of staff that set me thinking. At lunch my teaching assistant was leaving and asked some kids to move from an out of bounds area. They immediately argued with her and it took mine and another member of staffs intervention to get then to do as asked. This is not unusual and really pees me off. The kids should have the smae respect for any adult on the staff and I routinely back up non teaching staff around school to emphasise this (another thing that gets my goat is the staff who walk by another member of staff who is having this issue!)

So as we were walking away talking about this my fellow teacher rasied the question ' is what we are seeing in school simply a symptom of a breakdown in basic manners and 'good behaviour' in society as a whole?'

Personally I feel there is a shift in some parts of society away from good manners, but would argue that is simply a minority still ( although a larger minority than in the past). What is happening at the moment is the majority are not standing up for what they believe is right. On a number of estates in this country there seems to be a youth culture intimidating others and backed by parents who back their kids or join in with the same poor attitude. Success in resotring some of these areas has usually been dependant on the majority of residents themselves decideing enough is enough and working together to solve the problem, accounabiblity as part of a community!

So anyone care to share what they think?

[Pettytyrant101]

I think you have a point about parents actively encouraging the bad behaviour in some (limited) cases. There are some housing estates in Glasgow which have been at war with one another for generations, gang fights basically. A BBC Scotland documentary which secretly filmed one of these gang brawls was most shocking, not for the kids battering hell out of each other-though that was bad enough, but for the kids parents on the balconies of the tower blocks shouting encouragement and geeing their kids on to leather the hell out of each other.

[Kafria]

Yes, on occasion we have tried to sort out conflict between students by getting all the parents sat down together to lay down the law to the kids, great most of the time, but turns out to be counter productive when we have to stop meetings as the parents are threatening to beat the hell out of each other

[odo banks]

My view is some kids cause trouble, most don't, and we pander to the vast minority who cause problems. Suspend, suspend, suspend - then expel!!! I hate minorities wagging the dog (and I mean the anti-social-non-toilet-trained minority, not ethnic or religious minorities!) Mind, some teachers (and some police ) sometimes need thicker skins. Teenagers test boundaries. It's an age old verity - so I'm not talking about an occasional bit of cheek, I'm talking about definite anti-social-non-toilet-trained behavior here. To that I say, Zero Tolerance. Suspend, suspend, suspend - expel. Here to help!

[Pettytyrant101]

The fall out and naval gazing from the anti-cuts demonstrations in London rumbles on. The newspapers seem hell bent and trying to portray the whole thing as the action of some mindless hooligans, neatly avoiding the thousands and thousands who protested in complete peacefulness. I think for a government thats a dangerous game, just lumping everyone together like that and using it as an excuse to dismiss the protesters.
As to those who did use violence there was an interesting editorial in the New Statesman on that;

'"There are an awful lot of unheard voices in this country. What differentiates the rioters in Picadilly and Oxford Circus from the rally attendees in Hyde Park is not the fact that the latter are 'real' protestors and the former merely 'anarchists' (still an unthinking synonym for 'hooligans' in the language of the press). The difference is that many unions and affiliated citizens still hold out hope that if they behave civilly, this government will do likewise.

"The younger generation in particular, who reached puberty just in time to see a huge, peaceful march in 2003 change absolutely nothing, can't be expected to have any such confidence."

A good point? I'm too old and cynical already- I'd be perfectly happy to line the entire government up and have at them with a sledgehammer! But it is an interesting question if your government says you have a right to protest and have your voice heard, and huge numbers turn up to do so, and then the government just carries on regardless anyway, whats the point in peaceful protest? A dangerous road to go down I feel. And yet on the other hand a government cannot be held hostage to every interest group that makes a protest. So how do you decide which is a protest that should affect government thinking and which is not? When a thousand march? Ten thousand? When buildings are ablaze? When parliament is marched upon?
Lots of questions few answers! Any takers?

[Pettytyrant101]

My its been quiet on here? Everyone get bored of politics? (I do miss GB especially at these times, protesters, capitalists- he'd be having a field day!).

On this evenings news seems they have found minuscule particles of radiation in Glasgow which they say is from the Japan nuclear disaster, personally I've always suspected Glaswegians were a bit radioactive!

[Kafria]

Oh the press in this country!!

Buried in the side bar of the BBC news article is this

Richard Warry BBC News

The level of radioactive iodine-131 found in air samples in Oxfordshire poses no risk to human health.

The measured level - 300 micro-becquerels per cubic metre - is much less than the natural background radiation dose to which a person in the UK is likely to be exposed in normal circumstances.

At that level, a child's exposure in one day would be less than one 10,000th of what they would receive from naturally-occurring background radiation in a day.

So why lead with the 'japan radiation found in UK' tag!! - to get a reaction I suppose!

[Ringdrotten]

I guess I could mention that a leading politician in the racist and homophobic right wing party Fremskrittspartiet recently got busted for filming men while they were showering (in his own house - God knows why he had naked men showering in his own house). To top it off, he also got busted for making an under-age boy perform oral sex on him on a summer camp for said party's youth party (Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom). The fun part is that this guy suggested last year that persons guilty of sexual-related crimes should be castrated, using his own word. Perhaps not the usual subject for a discussion about politics, but the irony of it makes me

[Pettytyrant101]

What a strange thing life is! If that was a plot of a book it would be dismissed as ridiculous! Out of curiousty did he get his plan for castration into law?


Tonight in Scotland was the First of the Scottish party leaders tv debates in the run up to the Scottish parliamentary (devolved that is) election.
I watched it with two of my friends. One like me votes SNP (the current minority ruling party) and believes in independence the other is a floating voter with conservative leanings (openly admitting conservatism of any kind in Scotland is tantamount to declaring your insane- except oddly enough if you are Annabelle Goldie the Scottish conservatives leader who is well liked and respected by all and recognised as an excellent politician, just her party never gets any votes. Scots are like that, we'll respect you if you do it honestly and with heart and passion even if we dont like what you stand for, sorry I digress, damn buckie). Thing is all of us agreed Alex Salmond, SNP leader was a clear winner. The Labour leader we decided had been botoxed as his face didnt move and he developed a twitch in his right eye- but most incredibly when asked why he voted against a SNP policy which saw 25,000 new apprenticeships created, with actual jobs at the end of them, he said it was because he wanted it to be more. What? I want it to be more so you aren't getting any! It seemed to those of us in the room a suicidal answer, he used it again several times as Labour in Scotland has been voting down SNP policy wherever possible (its a minority govt so they need the support of other parties), especially if it was a manifesto promise, and then waiting a bit and turning round and accusing them of failing to deliver, even though the only reason it wasn't delivered was they voted against it. I just didn't expect him to come out actually admit that in the debate.
But, and here I finally get to my point, there are no SNP supporting press. I had a look online for news reports on it and the only one I could find was in the Daily Express, the English edition! Strangely it focuses on a brief debate at the start about the expense scandal- in which the crowd jeered every single one of them- and it failed to mention anything else except to provide as a footnote a list of the topics covered. But more astonishing was this;

'The debate came as the latest opinion polls indicated that Labour hold a clear lead in Scotland, whilst the SNP has slumped to a 23% share of the vote in the Westminister election.'

The amount of untruths and sleight of hand in this one sentence, in a national English newspaper is scandalous. Firstly the latest polls have the two parties neck and neck, some polls have Labour 1 or 2 points ahead, some the SNP- how on earth can that be reported as a clear lead? More worryingly the figure they give for the SNP was at the last Westminister election which saw in David Cameron and co. Almost no one in Scotland votes SNP for a Westminister election, what would be the point in voting them into power in Scotland then sending our MP's to England? And why has this paper felt the need to so disguise the facts and mix the results of a frankly wrong opinion poll and a result from a different election?

I don't normally look at English papers. Is this common? Whats going on? Scotlands damn close to voting in a majority SNP administration. One of the first things they will do with a majority is push through an independence referendum. That will have massive repercussions for England if we take back our oil and start charging for our hydro electric and water, and rebuild Hadrians Wall and install a credit card operated electric meter so they can have power down south.
But why is this not being reported in England?

Oh one other thing, there was an actual real poll released tonight asking which of the party leaders do you think would make the best First Minister, the result was;

7% of those questioned thought Labour leader Iain Gray would make the best first minister. The TNS-BMRB survey placed SNP leader Alex Salmond in front with 30% and Tory Annabel Goldie second with 9%. Liberal Democrat Tavish Scott polled 2% while 16% supported none of the four and 37% did not know.

Now theres a lot of floating voters or dont cares in there but even so there is also a clear winner. Wonder why they didn't report that poll but choose to contrive something which seems to indicate the opposite? What is going on?

[Pettytyrant101]

To add to above hears how The Daily Record, one of Scotlands major tabloids only surpassed by the Scottish Sun in sales, reported the debate, its worth noting the Record is owned by the same people who own the English Daily Mirror. (The DP and NOtP I don;t include as noone can touch them for sales obviously!)

'First Minister Alex Salmond under fire on release of Lockerbie bomber Megrahi

SCOTS Labour leader Iain Gray won loud applause during last night's live TV election debate when he tore into the SNP goverment's fateful decision to free the Lockerbie bomber......

Salmond claimed some victims' relatives supported the decision. He added: "Kenny MacAskill did it because he believed it to be right, not for oil or trade or politics."

But Gray instantly hit back - winning the biggest round of applause of the night. He said: "I just think he got the decision wrong and I've made that clear."

Gray - who put in a calm and confident performance - used the questions to attack rising youth unemployment and growing child poverty during Salmond's watch.

The night produced no nightmare gaffes or even a clear winner.
"Alex Salmond and Annabel Goldie spent the evening cuddling up to each other. It showed how close their parties have become.

"The SNP's broken promises also faced severe scrutiny."


Now here is what a poll of opinion conducted by the tv station, STV, among the studio audience immediately following the debate said.

"This was a good night for Annabel Goldie and Alex Salmond.

Iain Gray performed poorly with Tavish Scott somewhat anonymous. But this was a particularly poor night for Mr Gray who repeatedly appeared to evade questions"

And this is from the Daily Express which is a genuine Scottish paper not run from England,

'POLL REVEALS NATS HAVE WIPED OUT LABOUR LEAD
LABOUR’S Holyrood election ­campaign suffered a blow last night ­after a new poll revealed that the ­party’s lead over the SNP has been wiped out.
Iain Gray’s party has seen a 15-point lead over the Nationalists “evaporate” in the space of just a month, putting the parties neck-and-neck just weeks before the May 5 poll.'

England has always claimed they bankroll Scotland, and that without England's support Scotland could not survive on its own. So if thats the case, why in a recession would the English seem so determined to misrepresent the facts and keep funding us, when under the SNP we could go our own way and not be a burden? Or could it be that Scottish resources are in fact bankrolling England, and always have done and England knows it would not be Scotland who would suffer if we were an independent country? I'm completely shocked by how whats going on here is being reported and how biased it is in favour of retaining the Union. Who's behind this?


Don't know if its available outside the UK but heres the debate, judge for yourself who won;








This gets murkier and murkier.

"A quarter of a million or 5% of Scots would have been denied the chance to watch Scotland's party leaders debate the future direction of Scotland this evening had ITV not been shamed into a U turn into broadcasting the programme.

Newsnet Scotland has procured a copy of the response from ITV bosses. It said: "Thank you for your email regarding Scotland Debates. The programme which is being broadcast by STV on the 29th March is not being shown by ITV – sorry to disappoint ... Julia, ITV Viewer Services"

They eventually agreed to show it at 11.45pm. And what was so important that ITV couldn't show the election debate to viewers in the south of Scotland? Englands friendly with Ghana in the football (really, that's not a joke).

[Kafria]

Hmm... a few things to say.

First of all I have to say I hadn't really noticed that the scots election was near I've certainly seen nothing on the news to remind me of it. Unfortunately I think the honest truth for most of England is that people don't really think about what is happening north (or west in Wales) of the border and for most folk the devolution/independance question is one they don't really consider. ( I think from a 'well it'll make no difference to us' attitude).

Equally any political stories at the mo are only about Libya and the 'no fly zone' (when, and should, the no fly zone become supporting the rebels is another debate) and fall out for Hague and Fox. Alternatively it is about the political reform referendum (my polling card for this arrived today). So I think it is just being ignored by the English media to a large extent (not that politicing for the AV vote has been noticable!).

(A missed point in the hammering the lib dems are getting at the mo is this was the big issue for them, this is what the Tories promised they would do if they agreed to a coallition. I know a number of things from the Lib Dem manifesto went, but that was part of the coallition agreement and in the main it was done for the Alternative Vote cause and Labour couldn't get a coallition as this is what they refused to sign up to!)

England has always claimed they bankroll Scotland, and that without England's support Scotland could not survive on its own. So if thats the case, why in a recession would the English seem so determined to misrepresent the facts and keep funding us, when under the SNP we could go our own way and not be a burden? Or could it be that Scottish resources are in fact bankrolling England, and always have done and England knows it would not be Scotland who would suffer if we were an independent country?

I remember this throwing around of who is finacially dependant on who from the devolution debates, but have never looked into it or seen any decent figures and I think for the apathetic english it is an important one, I can see independance (I assume that is meant to include a withdrawral from Westminster) happening and then us wingeing English moaning about the effects afterwards.

Independance does rasie questions about how you untangle the links between countries that have been under one rule for centuries, as I understand it this is likely to be easier for Scotland where a number of key systems are still independant anyway as opposed to Wales. And how far do you take this separation - passport control on the roads north? or do the SNP intend for some over-reaching links to remain?

Interesting to me is the change in the way Alex Salmon has been represented in the media over the years and it may have an impact in the coverage he is getting now. He was always represented as this leader of the noisy minority, not necessarily representing the views of the masses and unlikely to gain any real power. Since the gains and devolution he has obviously had to be taken more seriously, but there is a feeling that he is an upstart who has got more power than he should have in the eyes of some in the media. Maybe this influences the way they interpret his political performance

Final point is that I don't think this kind of biased reporting is confined to just this issue, it is an increasingly common problem in both print and on screen for the angleto be all important at the expense of the old ' both sides getting fair comment' idea!

[Pettytyrant101]

I think England ignore what is going on here at their peril. In the recent budget Osbourne used an increase in tax on Scottish oil to bankroll his policies, what would England have done in this recession without that option?

The AV is another suspicious thing. Two General Elections back in Scotland they held it on the same day as elections for Westminister MP's- the result was a fiasco of spoiled ballot papers as people got confused over what was what. A committee was set up to look into it and no surprise they announced it would be a good idea not to have two separate elections on the same day on the same polling card.
Then AV comes along and when do they schedule the vote for it, and divert all the English UK political news onto it? You've guessed it, the same day as the Scottish Elections. They could have picked any day in the month, but no, suspiciously they put it on the same day against all the recommendations of the committee.
So instead of Scotland concentrating on its own elections we are also getting all the election campaigning for AV as well.

[Pettytyrant101]

Salmond interview with Paxman. It touches on the economic arguments among other things Kafria.



edit- I should perhaps mention by profession Salmond is an economist- oh and this was a while back when Salmond was trying to get a referendum on independence through- he didn't succeed- the other parties voted against it we so never got a say, and then Labour turned round and accused him of breaking a manifesto pledge for not having it!

[Kafria]

Okay...

1 trillion in national borrowing is terrifying to me!
I know some economists try and say this is alright, but I can't see how!

Did raise a question though and I am only asking, not trying to be provoking....... If north sea oil is our only asset how is it scotlands asset? I thought only a small portion of sea 'belonged' to each country as territorial waters and the rest was international? who do the oil companies and gas companies pay now and how does that work? do other countries have rigs in the north sea?

I also have to ask Petty where do you stand on independance? Apart from not wanting to be dictated to from westminster why is it so important to be independant?

[Pettytyrant101]

As I understand it they look at how the international law as applied everywhere else would apply if Scotland were an independent country. In which case approx 80% of the oil fields fall directly within Scottish coastal water under normal international law. The oil brought up is also refined in places like Aberdeen along the east coast, so all the facilities are here and rigs themselves are still produced on the Clyde. The companies of course are international, and that would not change under independence, there is no plan to nationalize, all it would mean is that the tax revenue would go to the Scottish government with a pop of 5 million to take care of rather than to the UK govt with 10 times that amount of people. So basically Scotland would have more money per person from it than it gets at the moment.

I am, if it isn't already clear, pro independence. English people often see independence as being something against them, and in a way it is, our culture is different and it often does not get reflected politically at Westminster. Take the last General Election as an example, Scotland as a country voted for Labour by a massive majority, but England didn't so we got a conservative government we rejected ruling us. It was the same for the entire reign of Margaret Thatcher, Scotland voted Labour, England voted conservative we got conservative.
What Thatcher showed was that a UK party can become the party in power solely with English votes, so Thatcher hit Scotland hard, she raided the oil to fund reform in England, she destroyed Scottish manufacturing and used the money to replace it with a London based services industry and she gave us the hated poll tax a full year before England, a year in which Scots protested and marched and she told us lump it, when introduced in England they did the same and she got rid of it. We don't matter to a UK government, its how England votes that decides who we get in as our government, our voice is not heard. Parties don;t need us to win so they don;t bother trying.
The other problem is more cultural. England is still driven by a class system that is completely opposed to Scottish ideals, even our first Kings were elected by their peers, the job wasn't from birth it was who seemed best for the job, and they served fixed terms. Right now Scotland, a liberal left wing socialist country is being ruled by multi millionaire right wing Tories with titles. It doesn't sit well with us.
But I don't want independence because I hate the English, I don't, never have. I want independence because I think it will improve the lives of the people who live in my country and more fairly represent their views, and from that express the views of Scotland to the world.

[Kafria]

Okay, I get that.

This topic has caught my interest as I've never thought about it alot before, although I have always though independance was a reasonable thing if thats what people wanted.

It's also interesting from the point of view that I didn't realise how much of my opinions about national identities are in effect 'recieved wisdom' influenced heavily by being english. Take the Scotish election and the BBC our national broadcaster, nothing on the front page, nothing on the main part of the politics page (a line on nominations closing) and even on the Scotland homepage there was only one article that related to the election and that a one line headline. The Alex Salmon interview also illustrated my point about how the English media seem to view him too with Paxman being his usual dismissive self. This is the vacumn of true national stories that i am surrounded by everyday. (strangely enough I know a lot about Welsh education as policy there is reported promenantly on the education pages).

It is also noticeable that Scotland had one regions page whereas there are five to choose from for my Yorkshire and Humber area alone - although my most local one only has a new story ever three or four days or so!

The political question did set me thinking though and to be clear I grew up in true blue North Yorkshire (Nigel Lawson then Will Hague as local MPs) and at 18 was heavily influenced by this in my limited political thinking. I have inherited from this an antipathy for Labour that I have never been able to shake (reinforced by being ubable to listen to Blair for more than 30 seconds without having to switch off, something about his delivery and speech patterns/ overemoting face just triggers my irritation cells!). Since Uni I have increasingly felt that Liberal views are closer to my own (Uni set ranged from paid up, canvasing members of the tories to Staunch lab and Lib supporters), while feeling unsure about their abiltiy to actually run the country (see can't get away fro that tory area influence in my early years). Following what you said about Scots votes not counting in the outcome, for a large part of the north of england that would also hold true. On balance I would suspect that the north east and yorkshire probably (don't know for sure) majority voted labour (I am still living in true blue country, although not Hagues constituency anymore). If the Scots and Welsh westminster votes go then it is likely the pattern of not being listened too will become a common occurence for the north of england. Another reason for those of us just south of the border to pay attention to independance talk.

Side bar - Scots assembly is it AV/ PR and fixed term as is being suggested for Westminster and if so what do you think? I for one was quite pleased with the ideals being espoused (even if it ends up only being lip service) as the coalition began, more people feelings being represented, compromise and working together instead of patomime politics and at the mo think AV may be a workable alternative system. (although it is going to give more influence to some of those groups we wish didn't exist and people are just going to have to accept this!)

[Pettytyrant101]

The Scottish Parliament is elected by PR which is why it is very difficult for a single party to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament and why the SNP is in a minority government. In theory this means that there is better representation, and there is, and that in order to get law passed a consensus must be reached to achieve the votes necessary. Unfortunately Scottish Labour has been playing nothing but party politics and voting against SNP policy just because its SNP, and this is I suspect why they have lost a 15point lead, we Scots like a good consensus everyone can fight about afterwards when it goes wrong. The Lib Dems and the Conservatives to their credit have supported policy they thought was good. The 25,000 new apprenticeships got through with Conservative backing, as did the budget. The Lib Dems supported the Council Tax freeze and free prescriptions and lots more. Its just Labour who haven't been playing the game.

"reinforced by being ubable to listen to Blair for more than 30 seconds without having to switch off"- Blair


Most Scots view Blair as a traitor to the cause, he's second only to Maggie as a hate figure of politics. Scotland for the decades of Tory rule preceding Blair voted every time for a socialist Labour party, and when England finally decided to vote Labour it was for Blair who had moved so far to the right that what we got was not the party we had been voting for all those years.
Scotland voted overwhelming Labour at the general election, but from those I've spoken to and my own voting at it, I would say it was not a vote for Brown, it was a vote to keep the Tories out. The thinking was basically if we all vote Labour and just enough English stick with them we can keep the Tories out and prevent a repeat of the Thatcher years, the Tories have 1 MP in Scotland, they have no reason to be nice to us they have nothing to gain. So anything to keep them out really. Unfortunately Middle England lost its nerve and went back to the Tories and the Liberals conned a sizeable vote out of the students. And once again a Scottish vote for Labour returned us a Conservative government.
A Tory London government only makes independence seem all the more appealing to most Scots and goes some way to explain the surge in popularity of the Nats.

"It is also noticeable that Scotland had one regions page whereas there are five to choose from for my Yorkshire and Humber area alone - although my most local one only has a new story ever three or four days or so"- Kafria

Westminister even blocked Scotland from having its own news program. We get Scottish news after the main BBC or ITV national news, we aren't allowed to make our own world news program, only a regional one. The government were afraid it would be used as a political tool to fuel nationalism. Even the weather forecast, next time you watch note how little time is given to the regions of Scotland, we are treated like one big region despite the fact, because of our geography and the Gulf Stream you get different weather here every twenty miles.

Most galling of in recent insults is the renewables fund Scotland has. One of the first things the SNP did when it came into power was to create a scheme whereby the energy companies put a small percent into a pot which could only be used for the development of new sustainable energy. Salmond wants to use it now as its quite sizeable, he wants to invest in more renewbale development and create jobs manufacturing the materials. But he cant because Westminister says if we take the money out, money raised and saved in Scotland, they will take the same amount off the money Scotland is given by Westminister.
You begin to see perhaps why having looked at all the arguments I came round to being in favour of nationalism (I was staunch Labour in my youth).

"how the English media seem to view him too with Paxman being his usual dismissive self."- Kafria

An interview illustrating that point very well, from the Daily Politics at the time of the referendum bill again, the ignorance, attitude and the fact she can barely take the whole thing seriously speaks volumes.

[Kafria]

Scotland for the decades of Tory rule preceding Blair voted every time for a socialist Labour party, and when England finally decided to vote Labour it was for Blair who had moved so far to the right that what we got was not the party we had been voting for all those years.

I think this may be one of the reasons I began to have Liberal leanings, although some of the social policies that Labour introduced where good in the early days the number of things that they introduced that they had spent years condeming the tories for was incredible. Here the Lib dems seemed the only possible alternative although with first past the post they are never going to get very far. I think the lack of thinking on a country scale or thought about the scots and welsh independance ideas is most clearly demonstrated by the lack of an identifiable english party, although I am sure you will say this is because the three main parties are english parites as we are who they aim their policies at!

On to the video - 'what the ****?' Did she even want to be there? And to emphasise that he is a minority government, when it is actually PR and not FPTP which in westminster elections would have a minority (for the last 20-30 years I believe) is very disingenuous. Critising the form of referendum when that is the way these issues are handled and then reducing the whole thing to the SNP and scotland simply being a thorn in Camerons side if he gets in (I assume from the language this is pre election) is extremly poor reporting, but if I am honest probabaly fairly representative of the media handling of a lot of Scots parliment and Welsh assembly news, as if it is toy politics. This attitude needs to shift as it is clearly not representative of the feeling of both countries - clearly demonstrated by the Yes vote in Wales for extending the powers of the assembly, something that was widely predicted to be a No vote!
(you have to laugh at the Tory claim to be the party that most believes in the UK as if this is the same as wanting whats best for the scots people!)

Not allowing scotland their own international news show seems increadibly silly, creating friction and making it more likely people will fight against westminster control as with the renewable energy fund (although the government is always doing this - in the last few years schools that do not use their whole budget in one year get a lower budget the next year - meaning those that planned ahead and saved for big projects can't do that anymore!)

Thanks for taking the time to share ideas and knowledge with me, I think I have a lot of thinking to do on where I stand in this country!

[Pettytyrant101]

"the three main parties are english parites as we are who they aim their policies at!"- Kafria

I think the problem is if England has say Westminister as its government, Scotland and Wales and NI have devolved powers- where is the UK government? May as well just make all the countries independant if thats the case- and thats precisecly what the Uninist parties seem set against- so they have painted themselves into a corner on the issue.
I rather suspect that you are right when you say the North of England might find itself ignored if Scotland went its own way.It is almost as traditionally leftwing as Scotland is and Blair showed all you need to win is Middle England and London- get those two blocks and the election is yours. So if I lived in the North of England I would be asking do they need my vote? And if not how then will that change how they treat us?

An independent Scotland does throw up some interesting questions for England though. What happens to the Monarchy for example? Its Scottish, claiming its right via King James the VI of Scotland (who became King James I of England) and the entire ancient right to Kingship is based solely upon the Stone of Destiny upon which all UK monarchs are crowned- if we take it back too, an its ours as well, then whoever follows Elizabeth onto the throne would not be a 'legitimate' monarch without being crowned upon it. So no King William and Queen Kate, unless the Scottish people decide to retain a monarchy and they move back to Edinburgh and take up the traditional seat at Holyrood Palace.

edit- just noticed this in todays Scottish Sun, if you want to know who won a tv debate, ask the bookies!

'Odds of Nats Win Slashed
The SNP odds of winning the Holyrood election have been slashed by bookies following the first live TV debate. Nats chief Alex Salmond impressed viewers in Tuesday night's battle on the box with his rival leaders. Ladbrokes said, "The momentum now appears to be with the SNP...should trade continue like this we expect Salmond's party to assume favouritism shortly"
Labour have slid in the odds after party leader Ian Gray failed to shine in the telly debate. Conservatives and Lib Dems both remain rank outsiders with odds of 100/1'

That last bit of 100/1 for the lib dems is shocking when you consider before the SNP administration they were in coalition government with Labour in Scotland and were comfortably the third largest party- thats what getting in bed with Tories does for you in Scotland!

[Pettytyrant101]

Today a cross-party Committee on Arms Exports looking at why the UK seems to have sold arms to all the countries currently involved in killing their own citizens, despite there being rules in place saying you cannot sell to countries who may use the weapons against civilians, has found the current government and the previous one 'misjudged'.
MP Sir John Stanley, conservative, who headed the committee said ,""The mistake that was made was to sell particular categories of weapons that could be used for internal repression... even though the policy of this and previous governments was not to sell them when there was a risk of internal repression. But we fully recognise that a large sector of the arms export industry is perfectly legitimate."
The Committee 'urged the government to set out how it can reconcile the potential conflict of interest between promoting arms exports while upholding human rights.'

Now this all seems quite obvious to me, you can't reconcile selling things to kill people with human rights.
A former DForeign Office MInister invovled with the contracts has put it most honestly when he said; 'You either sign the exports or destroy the industry.'

So the real question under all this is does the UK want to be selling arms at all and can we make up for the lost revenue if we did stop. The whole idea of trying to find a 'safe' way to sell arms in which innocent people, or our own troops, don't get killed by them is ludicrous. Its a crazy proposition to start with, impossible it seems to me to fulfil.

In another day of incredible things being said, Tory Climate Change Minister seems to have let things slip in a speech in the US when he said of the cuts; "making cuts that Margaret Thatcher could only have dreamt of".


Now correct me if I am wrong but something you can only 'dream of' is usually an aspirational statement. So much for the Tory claim these cuts are necessary but not idealogical.