I at last have the badge of honour of being called an "idiot" by Euan McColm, although I was a tad disappointed to fall short of "f***ing idiot". It was because I took issue with this tweet -
"those who were angry about "intrusion" after the bin lorry crash might now understand why so many questions were being asked."
First of all, the antics of Sky News and others on the day of the tragedy had nothing to do with searching for the facts - they were about emotional intrusion into the trauma of passers-by. If the suggestion is that journalists should have been permitted to intrude into the life of the driver in the days and weeks after the crash, that is entirely wrong as well - it could not possibly have assisted the official investigation, which to the evident astonishment of Mr McColm appears to have arrived at the facts without any journalistic assistance. There was no excuse whatever for the media doing anything other than giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who had just been at the centre of an unimaginable horror, and allowing him the space and privacy necessary to begin to come to terms with his role in what had happened.
* * *
From the BBC -
"Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said Ms Sturgeon had promised less than a year ago that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime event.
He said: "People will rightly be concerned that the first minister appears ready to break that promise.""
For my money, people will be rather more concerned that Murray is lying through his teeth about a "promise" that he knows perfectly well was never made. Sturgeon did use the phrase "once in a lifetime opportunity" to build excitement about a Yes vote - that is not even close to a promise that the SNP would never propose another referendum, let alone a promise that they would actively thwart the Scottish people if it became clear they want another referendum.
Ian Murray is a shameless liar, he said he voted against the Welfare Bill when all he did was abstain, which is clearly not the same thing at all. Salmond also said the referendum was a once in a lifetime opportunity, which is really just rhetoric, although perhaps more than a trifle overblown, but rhetoric all the same. Of course it did not mean that Salmond and Sturgeon meant there could only be a referendum on independence once in their lifetimes. However, this is just the type of stunt you would associate with the remnants of SLAB. Clearly Murray and co are incapable of learning that the electorate in Scotland are completely fed up with SLAB's modus operandi.
ReplyDeleteIan Murray typifies the unthinking petty resentment and hatred SLAB have for the SNP. I wish he and others in Scottish Labour would grow up. He has clearly got anger management problems at being retained as an MP by the votes of Morningside Tories.
Murray,announcing that the Labour big beasts have left the Scottish jungle,leaving behind,well what big beasts leave behind them.
DeleteSounds like a George W moment.
Lots of big beasts empty their bowels before exiting the area sounds apt for SLab.
DeleteAnyone can say anything then say that is not what was meant and I am sorry for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteHowever let us have another referendum with terms written on stone. No more referendums for 25 yrs at least. If it is another NO which it will then the Nat sis can go to sleep and business and banks can make long term plans.
Sorry, GWC, but no referendum can abolish the democratic process, or suspend it for 25 years. The very idea is obscene.
DeleteIt is anti-democratic in the extreme, but then this is the same character/troll who constantly compares the SNP to the Nazis, and possibly ISIS as well!...
DeleteA lot of unemployed unionist politicians around at present and probably much more to come.
DeleteThey can spend the next 25 years trying to work out where they went wrong.
Hardly obscene James just practical. Do we have referendums at the whim of losers who just want to waste public money to satisfy their Nat si whims.
DeleteYour big mistake was not allowing RuK to have a vote. Let us face it sensible humans can only listen to hard done to moaners for so long. And going by some of your faithful who comment on here I think Nat sis is still appropriate.
@GWC
DeleteLets's do away with democracy and let us be ruled by the established order of bankers eh!
No, GWC, we have referendums at the "whim" of the electorate.
DeleteBetter than Nat si wankers at least you get a bit of interest from bankers on occasion.
DeleteEndless referendums then James. We are in we are out we are in we are out. I thought you were reasonably sensible James.
DeleteMaybe just one more referendum then Working Class'?
DeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteGlasgow Water Closet - just flush him.
Indeed Francis or shall I be Frank you pro
ReplyDeleteIndeed Francis or should I be Frank and say you probably crawled out of the wrong end of a municipal drain like a good little,
Nat si.
Are you Spanish?
DeleteHow about using your real name, Water Closet?
DeleteOr are you just a coward - as well as being an idiot?
C'mon pet............grow a pair and Troll as who you actually are.
If you lack a spine, I can let you have one of the Tory spares - completely unused!
What are you afraid of?
James on a lighter and friendly note I do like the menu choices on the Robot. Reminds me of the food my ma served us in our tenement.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly say I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Is anyone else having this problem?
DeleteOk James cut the menu nonsense and move forward.
DeleteAre you asking me to delete your comment about the menu nonsense?
DeleteJames, have you ever read through the list of worldwide plebiscites on secession / independence? Not many have gone more than once. Quebec is the famous one, of course - 15 year gap. There were two countries that held reruns in a shorter time than that - Djibouti (9 years then 10 years - they had 3 referendums) and Palau (1 year).
ReplyDeletePalau is an island archipelago in the Pacific Ocean, population approx 20,000. It is a protectorate of the United States. Djibouti is a tiny, ex colony of France.
So for Scotland to hold a rerun vote earlier than 15 years after the first would set something of a precedent - unless you include Scotland in the same league as African colonies and Pacific islands.
Do you actually think it will happen, in your heart of hearts?
I agree there may well be a second referendum. But it wont be anytime soon.
One thing you appear not to have learned about me, Aldo, is that when I say something, I generally mean it. But I didn't say an early referendum "will" happen - that's simply your latest straw man.
DeleteThere seems to be a whiff of sneering in your comments about Africa and the Pacific, which you might want to reflect upon. In many cases, the reason why there hasn't been repeat independence referendums is of course that there was a Yes vote and the country became independent.
I'm not sneering at Africans or anybody else. I just think that comparatively populous, industrialised Scotland can't really be lumped in with tiny, poor nations. I should also have included "Puerto Rico", which I only noticed at second glance (1993 and 1998 - five years). But I think the point still stands. Puerto Rico can't realistically be compared to Scotland (nothing against Puerto Ricans, btw).
ReplyDeleteI think our nearest and closest comparator simply has to be Quebec. Now, Quebec voted no in 1980 but handed the Party of Quebec a huge victory in the devolved assembly a year later. It was 1995, however, before the Party of Quebec felt able to pursue the matter again.
I can see the situation in Scotland going similarly over the next few years. Sturgeon daren't rule out a 2nd referendum - but she daren't hold one either.
And I know you haven't said an early referendum "will" happen - but that seems to be the position of a lot of your fellow travellers. They, quite literally, can't wait. But they will simply have to - for about 15 years or more.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that, Aldo? I certainly don't.
DeleteThe other point you're overlooking, of course, is that not only do you have to exclude countries that voted Yes to independence, you also have to exclude countries that voted No by such an overwhelming margin that a repeat referendum was rendered pointless. That, ironically, includes Puerto Rico, which as you've just noted did have a second quick referendum all the same!
By the way, what possible excuse have you got for saying that Puerto Rico can't be compared to Scotland? Both countries have roughly the same population size.
DeletePuerto Rico is poorer.
DeleteMy point is that wealthy, advanced countries tend not to revisit these issues quickly after a decision has been made. I would argue the reasons for that are avoiding economic instability and lack of motivating factors for separation such as war, poverty and persecution - as well as fear of a second defeat costing hard won political capital and credibility.
Do I believe in my heart of hearts that this will drag on indefinitely? Yes, I do. You can already see the way it's shaping up. The SNP has a majority in the Scottish parliament and 56 / 59 Westminster MPs. They could push for a rerun right now. But they wont. They wont even confirm if they'll hold a second one if they win Holyrood next year. But the rhetoric goes on and on endlessly - as it must, to keep the issue alive. But push them on the details and they clam up - accusing you of obsessing over referendums.
Meanwhile, the polls remain fixed at about 48-44-8 in favour of NO.
The failure of the SNP to hold another referendum in the next parliament will be an ongoing issue and a clear divide will begin to open up between leadership and membership. Throw Corbyn into the mix and it'll be quite a stormy time for the SNP!
"My point is that wealthy, advanced countries tend not to revisit these issues quickly after a decision has been made."
DeleteHow many wealthy, advanced countries have even held a referendum on independence in the last fifty years? I'm struggling to think of any in western Europe (unless you count the controversial Catalan vote last year).
Your last post doesn't really help your argument James. Such referendums are rare in first world nations (can we still say that?), second referendums even rarer. I would say that's because people are happy. They have no real need for separation - simply an abstract notion about an ancient set of cultural identifiers and beliefs that don't really apply in the modern world anymore - if they ever did. Ideas of Scottish 'culture' in particular are fairly silly. Most of our supposed 'culture' was only ever relevant in the Highlands - one area of the country.
DeleteSigh. The point being that you can't cling to precedents for a situation that doesn't have much of a precedent. The fact that Scotland had a referendum on independence, and 45% voted Yes, marks the country out as radically different from most sub-state entities in western Europe.
DeleteAnd, by the way, I'm not sure that denying Scotland has a culture is helping your argument. You sound like Rod Liddle - "Scotland is NOT a nation! On the east coast they speak Northumbrian!"
DeleteIt doesn't have much of a precedent, for a reason, presumably.
DeletePrecisely - most other other sub-state entities in western Europe are very different from Scotland.
DeleteI don't think we do have a culture. Can you define Scottish culture? More importantly, can you define the ways in which it is separate from English / rUK 'culture'?
DeleteIf I were to fly to Southampton or Cardiff, I would not notice a particularly different set of beliefs or way of living life.
If I flew to Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, I'd probably need to be constantly mindful of the vastly different beliefs and customs to avoid my head getting lopped off.
Now THAT is what you call a cultural difference!
"Can you define Scottish culture? More importantly, can you define the ways in which it is separate from English / rUK 'culture'?"
DeleteI've never been particularly interested in defining culture. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure I could come up with a pithy summary of what makes English culture different from French culture, but it self-evidently is.
When I was 19, I went to the south of England for the first time in a decade, and I was really struck by how different it felt from home - much more so than I expected. The one part of England that does feel similar to Scotland is the north-east.
I know what you mean. But Glasgow and Edinburgh 'feel' different. I suppose the Western Isles must feel different to Dundee or Aberdeen. And it seems that Southern Scotland may as well be England. Tory voting, rural, anti independence (heavily so), anglified. If Alex Massie and Frankie Boyle are both Scottish, then there can be no such thing as a homogeneous, Scottish culture common to all.
DeleteNow you're getting desperate. Francois Hollande is very different from Gerard Depardieu, and Normandy is very different from the Riviera. That does not mean that French culture does not exist.
DeleteSouthern Scotland is actually not particularly Anglified, compared to some of the border areas of Wales.
Have to say James that some of the aforementioned comments are proof that some Scots actually think people are different. This Kult Yur thing kind of baffles me. People do have different language and accents but still have to pay the rent and bills. My old sister and ber husband moved south for him to play fitbae. When they came back up the road their children had strange English accents but in a short time they were speaking with the traditional Glesga East End accent. People are the same petty nationalism is a curse on humanity. George Galloway actually presented the best case against nationalism during the debate. Even the Scot Nats wearing their Palestinian T Shirts that attended his Glasgow debate were silenced when Gorgeous presented his economic views and how nationalism and national competition would reduce wages.
DeletePlease apologise for calling the Yur a cult. Totally bloody outrageous.
DeleteIt is not for anyone other than the people of Scotland to decide on the next referendum.
ReplyDeleteJames is correct. If the SNP have it in their manifesto. No voters need not vote SNP. That's democracy.
You go for independence when the time feels right, not on a fixed timetable. Did waiting 15 years win it for Queues. No!
So your argument holds no water Aldo .
The 'people of Scotland' don't get together every Monday night in a townhall and reveal their list of demands for that week. Their will can only ever be exercised, inefficiently, through our non proportional parliamentary system.
DeleteThe SNP is a separatist party. But they can't tell us if they will hold an independence referendum if elected with a majority. That's a bit like labour refusing to confirm whether or not they will privatise the NHS.
The SNP, put simply, are scared of their own policy.
It certainly does not seem that it is the SNP who are "scared" at the moment.
DeleteThough, I think that epithet could, rightly,be attached to a few others in Scotland.
Quebec ..
ReplyDeletehttp://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/ruth-davidson-credibility-lies-in.html
ReplyDelete