It will take two sides to scupper the union THE POLITICIAN-TURNED-PSYCHIC is a dangerous creature that should hasten a rush for the alarm bell. There's an Orwellian unease about a fearless political prediction that's usually based on an assumption of control of the present, and too often a gross rewrite of the past. Criticism of the prophet's accuracy is dismissed as a petty inconvenience for those holding unquestionable trust in their sage.
So, when the fog cleared from his crystal ball last week, Scotland's ductor primoris, Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, held nothing back when he revealed Scotland would be fully independent by 2017.
Yes, we have been here before. "Free in 93" was a decent SNP election campaign slogan that could, almost, be wheeled out once a decade. However, 2017 is a different kind of target.
With premier Salmond and the nationalists now running the Scottish Government this isn't just another Groundhog Day prediction of the end of the union. Salmond can't be dismissed as the Caledonian equivalent of Punxsutawney Phil, offering his instinct-driven prophesy and then disappearing underground while we wait to see if the forecast is correct.
Making 2017 happen requires pro-active nationalist politics and one that ditches the comfort zone for those still wanting to believe the SNP's prime objective is, first, a display of parliamentary competence in Holyrood with the longer-term objective of independence waiting off in the distance. Alexander the Sage's 2017 prophesy points to an independent Scotland being the over-riding objective at the centre of everything the SNP do. Independence within a decade says they have no-one in their waiting room.
Salmond doesn't usually do dates. He does, however, do time. He once told me 20 minutes was all it usually took him on a plane between Heathrow and Glasgow to convince a stranger of the merits of an independent Scotland. But that's too many air fares to constitute a viable political strategy for his 2017 target.
To scupper the union within a decade, two things must happen. The English must rapidly increase their resentment of the Scots and what Scots benefit from the post-devolution settlement; and the Scots have to increase resentment of the English and the way England is thought to hold back the oil-rich economic potential of an independent Scotland.
This recent questioning of the merits of the 300-year-old union was not begun by Salmond, or his party, or the small minority of Scots who support independence. Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government did that job pretty well. And what Thatcher started, Salmond thinks he can finish.
The England side of Salmond's to-do list is advancing nicely. The Daily Telegraph's reactionary nerve-ending, the columnist Simon Heffer, last week proclaimed "the Union, like the empire, is over". The "Scottish Raj" in Westminster was illegitimate; Britain was now a geographical rather than a political term, and England and Scotland can only now be happy if they are politically apart.
The applause from Carlisle to Land's End in the Telegraph's blogosphere was deafening: they reason the Scots in Heffer-Heffer-land are trousering cash taken from English taxpayers to pay for better healthcare, better schools, free university education. Yet, anything that might contradict such a view - NHS waiting lists in England and Wales will soon hit the 18-week maximum, a target likely to be missed by NHS Scotland, even by 2011 - is glossed over.
In Scotland the first budget of the SNP administration and the abandonment of manifesto commitments - on university funding, student debt, school class sizes, drug rehabilitation budgets, affordable housing, police numbers - should engender scepticism over SNP promises. But, if the 2017 date arrives as Salmond predicts, none of this can be allowed to get in the way. Broken promises are, therefore, not the Scottish Government's fault but Westminster's parsimony.
The key manifesto commitment, however, remains the promised referendum on independence. It is Salmond's timing on this that drives the advance towards 2017. He knows he cannot deliver a referendum inside this parliament, one he would lose anyway.
So, come the eve of the next Holyrood election campaign, Westminster, not the majority of MSPs in Edinburgh, will be serially portrayed as the institution denying the Scottish electorate their democratic right. The solution? Would not a strong, majority SNP government be able to deliver a referendum and put right all the Westminster-inspired failures of the past 11 years? Win in 2011, and Salmond's prophesy comes closer.
Salmond and Conservative leader David Cameron at the moment share a common cause. The long-held Tory commitment to limit the power of MPs from Scottish constituencies and create a parliament-within-a-parliament by introducing "English votes for English laws" would not just draw blood from Labour in England, it would utterly change the wider Scottish electorate's perception of the union.
Scottish MPs at Westminster would become ambition-limited second class members. Hold an independence referendum against this political backdrop and the current majority support for the union will shrivel - exactly what the oracle at 6 Charlotte Square might pray for, although private talks last week between leading English Conservatives and senior figures from the SNP suggest more than petitionary prayer is being discussed.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind's recent role in highlighting Tory plans to curb Scottish power at Westminster as a solution to the West Lothian Question, might not be all Salmond is hoping for. As a resident of Inveresk, Sir Malcolm's East Lothian solution contains its own inconsistencies.
If the Tories win the next election and control the UK parliament and hold a majority of English MPs, why would they waste parliamentary time with the aim of seizing control of something they already control?
So, how reliable is the 2017 prediction? That depends. There are fanatical millenarians who believe the millennium signals the end of the world. So why are we all still here. Didn't 2000 pass uneventfully? Not if you believe the calendar was fixed.
Iain Macwhirter is away
|
|
Posted by: I'm no really here on 11:18pm Sat 17 Nov 07
People are waking up to fact it not only takes two to tango, but also to separate.
Second last paragraph is also true. It Tories win an out-right majority with English votes, why should they get rid of the oil-rich Goose that lays the Golden Egg - especially if that Goose can't bite back. They would sit back and do nothing.
People are waking up to fact it not only takes two to tango, but also to separate.
Second last paragraph is also true. It Tories win an out-right majority with English votes, why should they get rid of the oil-rich Goose that lays the Golden Egg - especially if that Goose can't bite back. They would sit back and do nothing.
Posted by: Dougthedug on 11:21pm Sat 17 Nov 07
"Alexander the Sage's 2017 prophesy points to an independent Scotland being the over-riding objective at the centre of everything the SNP do."
Welcome to the waking world and the smell of coffee Mr. Cusick, if this is some form of personal revelation then your political awareness has been muted for several of the last decades.
Why the SNP needs to stir up resentment on both sides of the border is unclear as I'm not sure what part resentment plays in the politics of an independent Scotland. I get a whiff here of the old Labour catch-phrase, "Grudge politics". What Scotland needs is for Scots to assert their own identity and and believe in themselves, resentment has no part in that.
Whether the English resent this or not is unclear. The SNP doesn't have an, "English to-do list", the focus is on persuading Scots to look up, not down, and take responsibility for their own country and future. The referendum will be Scots deciding on their own future, not anyone else.
For the first time since the start of the Parliament, Scotland has a Government who are able to put in place policies for Scotland and make decisions for Scotland without the need to clear everything with Westminster to ensure it dovetails in nicely with the English policies of the ruling party in Westminster. There's a lot of English hoo-ha about some of the decisions that have been made in Scotland but it's all down to ignorance of the fact that the cost has to be funded out of a proportional block grant from Westminster.
This is not the first time I've seen a column about how Alex Salmond is making decisions in Scotland with the express purpose of stirring up the English. It's based on the very Anglo-centric viewpoint that England has to be a major factor in any decision making process in Scotland and on the Unionist theme that the whole purpose of the SNP is to stir up cross border antagonism.
It's also not the first time I've seen a column linking the SNP and the Tories with rumours of some secret meeting. If you haven't lifted both themes directly from the column that Labour supporter Jackie Ashley wrote in the Guardian on 14/11/07 perhaps you could post a comment on this thread with names, dates and location of the, "Secret Meeting". I asked Ms. Ashley the same question but she never replied.
http://commentisfree
.guardian.co.uk/jack
ie_ashley/2007/11/se
lf-belief_or_make-be
lieve.html
The Labour Government put the squeeze on Scotland for the temerity to vote Labour out and therefore it's the SNP's fault that Scotland has less pocket money to play with. Where have I heard that, "Broken Promises", catchphrase before? I'm certain it was from someone who has a tendency to lose their spokesmen in rather unfortunate circumstances.
And if we are independent by 2017 it will signal the end of your world. You'll have to carry a Scottish Passport.
"Alexander the Sage's 2017 prophesy points to an independent Scotland being the over-riding objective at the centre of everything the SNP do."
Welcome to the waking world and the smell of coffee Mr. Cusick, if this is some form of personal revelation then your political awareness has been muted for several of the last decades.
Why the SNP needs to stir up resentment on both sides of the border is unclear as I'm not sure what part resentment plays in the politics of an independent Scotland. I get a whiff here of the old Labour catch-phrase, "Grudge politics". What Scotland needs is for Scots to assert their own identity and and believe in themselves, resentment has no part in that.
Whether the English resent this or not is unclear. The SNP doesn't have an, "English to-do list", the focus is on persuading Scots to look up, not down, and take responsibility for their own country and future. The referendum will be Scots deciding on their own future, not anyone else.
For the first time since the start of the Parliament, Scotland has a Government who are able to put in place policies for Scotland and make decisions for Scotland without the need to clear everything with Westminster to ensure it dovetails in nicely with the English policies of the ruling party in Westminster. There's a lot of English hoo-ha about some of the decisions that have been made in Scotland but it's all down to ignorance of the fact that the cost has to be funded out of a proportional block grant from Westminster.
This is not the first time I've seen a column about how Alex Salmond is making decisions in Scotland with the express purpose of stirring up the English. It's based on the very Anglo-centric viewpoint that England has to be a major factor in any decision making process in Scotland and on the Unionist theme that the whole purpose of the SNP is to stir up cross border antagonism.
It's also not the first time I've seen a column linking the SNP and the Tories with rumours of some secret meeting. If you haven't lifted both themes directly from the column that Labour supporter Jackie Ashley wrote in the Guardian on 14/11/07 perhaps you could post a comment on this thread with names, dates and location of the, "Secret Meeting". I asked Ms. Ashley the same question but she never replied.
http://commentisfree
.guardian.co.uk/jack
ie_ashley/2007/11/se
lf-belief_or_make-be
lieve.html
The Labour Government put the squeeze on Scotland for the temerity to vote Labour out and therefore it's the SNP's fault that Scotland has less pocket money to play with. Where have I heard that, "Broken Promises", catchphrase before? I'm certain it was from someone who has a tendency to lose their spokesmen in rather unfortunate circumstances.
And if we are independent by 2017 it will signal the end of your world. You'll have to carry a Scottish Passport.
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 11:37pm Sat 17 Nov 07
Untrue,Unsubstantiat
ed and Unsurprising.
The Sunday Herald has shown itself unable to do better. I did buy the Sunday Herald for the last three weeks and obviously I wont be buying it again - at least until you employ a reporter in Westminster.
Untrue,Unsubstantiat
ed and Unsurprising.
The Sunday Herald has shown itself unable to do better. I did buy the Sunday Herald for the last three weeks and obviously I wont be buying it again - at least until you employ a reporter in Westminster.
Posted by: Martin, Edinburgh on 11:40pm Sat 17 Nov 07
I saw Malcolm Rifkend defending the Union last week and what a lot of knots he got himself in - If there is clearly a sign that the union is unravelling fast then this was it.
All the proponents of union claim the history or the fact that Scotland would be weker without England - Why don't we just merge with the USA then as don't we have so much history and shared future?
This is the point -we can still go forward and still have some common goals with England but being independent allows the people of the nation ( as much as they can in these days of multinationals) to decide their own future.
I saw Malcolm Rifkend defending the Union last week and what a lot of knots he got himself in - If there is clearly a sign that the union is unravelling fast then this was it.
All the proponents of union claim the history or the fact that Scotland would be weker without England - Why don't we just merge with the USA then as don't we have so much history and shared future?
This is the point -we can still go forward and still have some common goals with England but being independent allows the people of the nation ( as much as they can in these days of multinationals) to decide their own future.
Posted by: kevin o'leary, dublin ireland on 12:01am Sun 18 Nov 07
Here they go again more Unionist scaremongering.It is the most utter rubbish written.Why do they just not call themselves the Scottish Unionist Press.Independence will come in this Scottish Parliament or the next but it will come.
Here they go again more Unionist scaremongering.It is the most utter rubbish written.Why do they just not call themselves the Scottish Unionist Press.Independence will come in this Scottish Parliament or the next but it will come.
Posted by: Mac Coinnich, Perthshire on 12:16am Sun 18 Nov 07
Stick yer union up yer unionist arse Cusick and drop dead with the rest of your British State, you complicit bastards make me sick. I will not buy your westminster complicit rag again nor visit your website ya prize rat bag!
Stick yer union up yer unionist arse Cusick and drop dead with the rest of your British State, you complicit bastards make me sick. I will not buy your westminster complicit rag again nor visit your website ya prize rat bag!
Posted by: Kinghob, Lothian on 12:30am Sun 18 Nov 07
[quote]"To scupper the union within a decade, two things must happen. The English must rapidly increase their resentment of the Scots and what Scots benefit from the post-devolution settlement; and the Scots have to increase resentment of the English and the way England is thought to hold back the oil-rich economic potential of an independent Scotland".[/quote]
How about something more upbeat but allowing the same potential end?
Whyshouldn't England come to realise that a viable political party for England with the word 'England' in it could add a dimension to their politics that Scotland already has in the SNP Government?
Why on earth should it be 'resentment' or 'holding back' being used to describe the way we may live alongside each other in the future as neighbours and friends with autonomous governments?
I know it would cheese off the unionists but that makes it a good thing......
"To scupper the union within a decade, two things must happen. The English must rapidly increase their resentment of the Scots and what Scots benefit from the post-devolution settlement; and the Scots have to increase resentment of the English and the way England is thought to hold back the oil-rich economic potential of an independent Scotland".
How about something more upbeat but allowing the same potential end?
Whyshouldn't England come to realise that a viable political party for England with the word 'England' in it could add a dimension to their politics that Scotland already has in the SNP Government?
Why on earth should it be 'resentment' or 'holding back' being used to describe the way we may live alongside each other in the future as neighbours and friends with autonomous governments?
I know it would cheese off the unionists but that makes it a good thing......
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 12:32am Sun 18 Nov 07
Dougthedug :
Being resentful is such a negative attitude,an attitude based on dislike is one which we have become accustomed to by small minded bigots bereft of inspirational ideas and the means,intellectually or practically to put them into place to benefit us all. The employment of resent as with fear-mongering causes division and has no place of worth. it's a lack of respect for others,basically.For their views,hopes and aspirations.
negativity is for those who have run out of ideas and who have failed both themselves and their communities. To aspire is to be positive,therefore resentment is not a quality I would look for nor wish for in a nationalist mind set.it has no place there nor would it be welcome.
These are the weapons that unionists employ, rabble-rousers fearful of change, fearful of loss of power and of influence.Do nationalists of both sides of the Tweed wish to employ the negativeness of what they seek to disown on the path to fulfillment of their aspirations?
Such conflicts of interests based on resentment finds fertile soil to grow amongst the discontented.
...and those who advance resentment do themselves or their cause no favours.
.
Dougthedug :
Being resentful is such a negative attitude,an attitude based on dislike is one which we have become accustomed to by small minded bigots bereft of inspirational ideas and the means,intellectually or practically to put them into place to benefit us all. The employment of resent as with fear-mongering causes division and has no place of worth. it's a lack of respect for others,basically.For their views,hopes and aspirations.
negativity is for those who have run out of ideas and who have failed both themselves and their communities. To aspire is to be positive,therefore resentment is not a quality I would look for nor wish for in a nationalist mind set.it has no place there nor would it be welcome.
These are the weapons that unionists employ, rabble-rousers fearful of change, fearful of loss of power and of influence.Do nationalists of both sides of the Tweed wish to employ the negativeness of what they seek to disown on the path to fulfillment of their aspirations?
Such conflicts of interests based on resentment finds fertile soil to grow amongst the discontented.
...and those who advance resentment do themselves or their cause no favours.
.
Posted by: BigBadWolf on 12:36am Sun 18 Nov 07
THE POLITICIAN-TURNED-PS
YCHIC
Scotland's ductor primoris
premier Salmond
the Caledonian equivalent of Punxsutawney Phil
Alexander the Sage
the oracle at 6 Charlotte Square
Hmmm, a casual glance at this article leads me to conclude that you don't like Alex Salmond much Mr Cusick. In fact it reminds me of an interview I watched once. It may have been Newsnight. Somebody called Dork or was it Bork? Anyway they didn't care for him either.
THE POLITICIAN-TURNED-PS
YCHIC
Scotland's ductor primoris
premier Salmond
the Caledonian equivalent of Punxsutawney Phil
Alexander the Sage
the oracle at 6 Charlotte Square
Hmmm, a casual glance at this article leads me to conclude that you don't like Alex Salmond much Mr Cusick. In fact it reminds me of an interview I watched once. It may have been Newsnight. Somebody called Dork or was it Bork? Anyway they didn't care for him either.
Posted by: aberdeenshire loon, huntly on 12:37am Sun 18 Nov 07
This is trully dismal stuff - written by someone who must spend all his life closeted away with the undead of Westminster - Labour MPs from Scotland!
It is a total shambles of an article - innacurate and unoriginal . If it wasn't for the last sentence ie Iain Macwhirter is away then I would be joining the ranks of ex herald readers!
This is trully dismal stuff - written by someone who must spend all his life closeted away with the undead of Westminster - Labour MPs from Scotland!
It is a total shambles of an article - innacurate and unoriginal . If it wasn't for the last sentence ie Iain Macwhirter is away then I would be joining the ranks of ex herald readers!
Posted by: paul h, fife on 2:51am Sun 18 Nov 07
Dougthedug; well said fella.
I'm a bit worried about the amount of journos using the slogans of opposition parties as part of their report. Hmm, I reckon some of them are trying to stir up feelings not actually present in the general populace.
Dougthedug; well said fella.
I'm a bit worried about the amount of journos using the slogans of opposition parties as part of their report. Hmm, I reckon some of them are trying to stir up feelings not actually present in the general populace.
Posted by: exiled, asia on 4:18am Sun 18 Nov 07
The current administration is a minority administration - so how the author of this drivel can dismiss as 'broken promises' those manifesto committments that the SNP haven't implemented without reference to the fact they require support in Parliament from other parties is ludicrous. Not the first time this guy over-simplifies to make the SNP look bad. Time's up for your Union mate, try and embrace Scotland, you might find you like it!
Apologies for the long-windednes of that 1st sentence by the way...
The current administration is a minority administration - so how the author of this drivel can dismiss as 'broken promises' those manifesto committments that the SNP haven't implemented without reference to the fact they require support in Parliament from other parties is ludicrous. Not the first time this guy over-simplifies to make the SNP look bad. Time's up for your Union mate, try and embrace Scotland, you might find you like it!
Apologies for the long-windednes of that 1st sentence by the way...
Posted by: John F on 7:29am Sun 18 Nov 07
I would say that James Cusick is one worried writer.
It will take two sides to scupper the union - I thought a advisory referendum on the issue of independence would be required in Scotland to scupper the union or to elect 65 SNP MSP's ?
He knows he cannot deliver a referendum inside this parliament - just frame the question correctly and use the 40% rule and there will be independence.
To annoy Westminster could the Scottish Government hold an advisory plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty in Scotland ? All that Alex Salmond would need do is ask the Green and Conservative MSPs to support him and they must surely follow their public policy and help make it happen.
I would say that James Cusick is one worried writer.
It will take two sides to scupper the union - I thought a advisory referendum on the issue of independence would be required in Scotland to scupper the union or to elect 65 SNP MSP's ?
He knows he cannot deliver a referendum inside this parliament - just frame the question correctly and use the 40% rule and there will be independence.
To annoy Westminster could the Scottish Government hold an advisory plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty in Scotland ? All that Alex Salmond would need do is ask the Green and Conservative MSPs to support him and they must surely follow their public policy and help make it happen.
Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 7:49am Sun 18 Nov 07
Mr. Cusick's article is a fine example of the UNIONIST ALLIANCE'S aspiration.
Sow the seeds of division; imply that one group is getting something over on another.
Denegrate individuals and groups who choose to have a different viewpoint.
Imply that any vision other than the Union is fraught with danger.
Make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.
Create fear and distrust.
These are the tactics used by all previous Empires in attempts to preserve their status and power. However this Empire, like all others before it, will perish with the brighter aspirations of its people.
Mr. Cusick's article is a fine example of the UNIONIST ALLIANCE'S aspiration.
Sow the seeds of division; imply that one group is getting something over on another.
Denegrate individuals and groups who choose to have a different viewpoint.
Imply that any vision other than the Union is fraught with danger.
Make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.
Create fear and distrust.
These are the tactics used by all previous Empires in attempts to preserve their status and power. However this Empire, like all others before it, will perish with the brighter aspirations of its people.
Posted by: martin, dundee on 8:40am Sun 18 Nov 07
I wont be buying the Herald again.Not after this.The standard of reporting is truely pathetic.
The owners of the Herald beware.You are losing readership slowly but surely.
I wont be buying the Herald again.Not after this.The standard of reporting is truely pathetic.
The owners of the Herald beware.You are losing readership slowly but surely.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 9:25am Sun 18 Nov 07
I have been pointing out for some time the habit of the Unionist media to employ Scottish opposition party slogans in articles and broadcast items.
They know what they are doing as do the trolls that feed on the stuff.
We will never have balance within Scottish media whilst those who own/run it rely heavily on the current system for their privileges.
That is why I have proposed on these forums a boycott of all online newspapers on St Andrew's day. It would be good to see these articles bereft of comments.....just for a day of course.
I have been pointing out for some time the habit of the Unionist media to employ Scottish opposition party slogans in articles and broadcast items.
They know what they are doing as do the trolls that feed on the stuff.
We will never have balance within Scottish media whilst those who own/run it rely heavily on the current system for their privileges.
That is why I have proposed on these forums a boycott of all online newspapers on St Andrew's day. It would be good to see these articles bereft of comments.....just for a day of course.
Posted by: John J, Edinburgh on 9:37am Sun 18 Nov 07
A number of articles in English newspapers have taken up the theme that Council Tax in Scotland is being frozen using English taxpayers money.
If the level of anti Scottish propaganda continues to build up down south we will see more and more Scots taking the road to independence.
A number of articles in English newspapers have taken up the theme that Council Tax in Scotland is being frozen using English taxpayers money.
If the level of anti Scottish propaganda continues to build up down south we will see more and more Scots taking the road to independence.
Posted by: Roger on 9:43am Sun 18 Nov 07
Unlike the majority of the above, I think James Cusick is a fine journalist. He should take heart from the nationalist rantings and ignore them. Now, if I was Ian McWhirter, I would be really worried. The degree of adoration and support for his journalistic stance casts a rather large question mark over his objectivity. Don't you think?
Unlike the majority of the above, I think James Cusick is a fine journalist. He should take heart from the nationalist rantings and ignore them. Now, if I was Ian McWhirter, I would be really worried. The degree of adoration and support for his journalistic stance casts a rather large question mark over his objectivity. Don't you think?
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 9:52am Sun 18 Nov 07
Journalists like James Cusick are part of the problem not any solution.
For years journalists like Cusick have facilitated the political nonsense in the Scottish media that Scotland is 'too stupid, too wee and too poor' to stand up for itself, a nation dependent on English largesse. Scots were delibrately being lied to.
Then came devolution and English grievences about the West Lothian Question. That sense of English grievence was given a weapon by Scottish Unionists and Scottish journalists themselves, that carefully fostered image of Scots being subsidy junkies.
The BIG LIE became an even BIGGER LIE in the English media and now threatens the beloved Union.
Now we see Scottish Unionists and Unionist hacks in a bit of panic. People like James Cusick have attempted to wind back history and rewrite it in a way that disqualifies themselves from any blame.
James Cusick is the worst type of revisionist, "a big boy did it and ran away".
As I said James Cusick is part of the problem. We should discount his words on matters like this.
Journalists like James Cusick are part of the problem not any solution.
For years journalists like Cusick have facilitated the political nonsense in the Scottish media that Scotland is 'too stupid, too wee and too poor' to stand up for itself, a nation dependent on English largesse. Scots were delibrately being lied to.
Then came devolution and English grievences about the West Lothian Question. That sense of English grievence was given a weapon by Scottish Unionists and Scottish journalists themselves, that carefully fostered image of Scots being subsidy junkies.
The BIG LIE became an even BIGGER LIE in the English media and now threatens the beloved Union.
Now we see Scottish Unionists and Unionist hacks in a bit of panic. People like James Cusick have attempted to wind back history and rewrite it in a way that disqualifies themselves from any blame.
James Cusick is the worst type of revisionist, "a big boy did it and ran away".
As I said James Cusick is part of the problem. We should discount his words on matters like this.
Posted by: John Saultire, Scotland on 10:10am Sun 18 Nov 07
Cusick is [bold]too stupid,too wee, and too poor[/bold] to be a good journalist.
Cusick is
too stupid,too wee, and too poor to be a good journalist.
Posted by: John, Leicester on 10:22am Sun 18 Nov 07
If the English are wound up much tighter by the Torygraph and the Daily Hate there will be "racist" attacks down here against Scots and they will happen on a daily basis.
I get abuse four or five times a week now for being "a sponging Scotch w*nker". The reaction in the local pub when Glasgow was awarded the Commonwealth Games was (and I quote)"F*cks sakes more of our money paying for the Scotch".
These are not "extremist" views down here. They are commonplace and becoming more commonplace by the day. I would venture to suggest that it is close to being a majority view here.
Independence by 2017? Try 2012 for if the press continue the way they are going it will be extremely hard to be a Scot in England. Perversely he only thing which will stop this is if the Tories win an election outright - as a previous poster has already pointed out. If Labour win the next election then independence is (IMHO) a foregone conclusion.
If the English are wound up much tighter by the Torygraph and the Daily Hate there will be "racist" attacks down here against Scots and they will happen on a daily basis.
I get abuse four or five times a week now for being "a sponging Scotch w*nker". The reaction in the local pub when Glasgow was awarded the Commonwealth Games was (and I quote)"F*cks sakes more of our money paying for the Scotch".
These are not "extremist" views down here. They are commonplace and becoming more commonplace by the day. I would venture to suggest that it is close to being a majority view here.
Independence by 2017? Try 2012 for if the press continue the way they are going it will be extremely hard to be a Scot in England. Perversely he only thing which will stop this is if the Tories win an election outright - as a previous poster has already pointed out. If Labour win the next election then independence is (IMHO) a foregone conclusion.
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 10:29am Sun 18 Nov 07
This article is the depths the unionist argument has sunk to. Sticks and stones.
However, there were a great many people in Scotland who before May 3rd predicted an SNP win.
To-day there are a great many people saying it [the SNP Government] has been a revelation, and they will vote SNP next time. Further, many people who never bothered with politics before, together with members or former members of the unionist parties, are joining the SNP in droves.
All the unionist parties are now jumping on the bandwaggon of more powers for the people of Scotland, who could have predicted that Mr Cusick.
The days of Scotland accepting second rate, spoild hand me downs are over and the unionists know it. That is why they are backing a loser and can say nothing positive about their position as your "article" so ablely demonstrates. All they can do is attack with name calling and playground insults.
When was the last time Mr Cusick that anyone heard a unionist talk positively of promoting Scotland with their "vision of the future"
This article is the depths the unionist argument has sunk to. Sticks and stones.
However, there were a great many people in Scotland who before May 3rd predicted an SNP win.
To-day there are a great many people saying it has been a revelation, and they will vote SNP next time. Further, many people who never bothered with politics before, together with members or former members of the unionist parties, are joining the SNP in droves.
All the unionist parties are now jumping on the bandwaggon of more powers for the people of Scotland, who could have predicted that Mr Cusick.
The days of Scotland accepting second rate, spoild hand me downs are over and the unionists know it. That is why they are backing a loser and can say nothing positive about their position as your "article" so ablely demonstrates. All they can do is attack with name calling and playground insults.
When was the last time Mr Cusick that anyone heard a unionist talk positively of promoting Scotland with their "vision of the future"
Posted by: ptw, at the kitchen table... on 10:32am Sun 18 Nov 07
John, Leicester; my brother is a policeman in Canterbury and he informs me of much the same as you do. These views are not extremeist, but the view of a growing majority. Troubled times ahead...
John, Leicester; my brother is a policeman in Canterbury and he informs me of much the same as you do. These views are not extremeist, but the view of a growing majority. Troubled times ahead...
Posted by: Braveheart, Scotland the Brave on 11:07am Sun 18 Nov 07
James Cusick speaks only the obvious truth. The Tories want to stoke up English nationalism at the moment and it suits them to string the SNP along.
The SNP is happy to see discontent in other parts of the UK, as it suits their agenda.
So they have a commonality of tactics ... at the moment.. Not surprising - they are both right-wing parties, as all nationalists tend to be in the final analysis.
As for 2017. I don't think it achievable even if all goes great for the SNP government. They cannt win a referendum this parliament, they need to ge elected again, they then need to win a referendum and they then need to negotiate with the UK on who gats what and how the liabilities are split. 2025 is the absolute nearest it could be. And ther's many a slip.....
Salmond may have chosen the date as not-too-far away to keep his followers motivation up, but far enough away not to have to think about yet.
James Cusick speaks only the obvious truth. The Tories want to stoke up English nationalism at the moment and it suits them to string the SNP along.
The SNP is happy to see discontent in other parts of the UK, as it suits their agenda.
So they have a commonality of tactics ... at the moment.. Not surprising - they are both right-wing parties, as all nationalists tend to be in the final analysis.
As for 2017. I don't think it achievable even if all goes great for the SNP government. They cannt win a referendum this parliament, they need to ge elected again, they then need to win a referendum and they then need to negotiate with the UK on who gats what and how the liabilities are split. 2025 is the absolute nearest it could be. And ther's many a slip.....
Salmond may have chosen the date as not-too-far away to keep his followers motivation up, but far enough away not to have to think about yet.
Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 11:16am Sun 18 Nov 07
# Braveheart.
Oh my! But aren't you the cynic?
# Braveheart.
Oh my! But aren't you the cynic?
Posted by: bairn, falkirk on 11:36am Sun 18 Nov 07
now who is the psychic cusick more facts and less fantasy or you will end up on the children column
now who is the psychic cusick more facts and less fantasy or you will end up on the children column
Posted by: George Saints, ENGLAND on 11:37am Sun 18 Nov 07
Fortunately the English are beginning to wake up we have begun a Campaign for an English Parliament aimed at removing ourselves from the petty inferiority complexed Scots. Enough is enough the west lothian question has never been answered we have an unelected Scottish prime minister unfortunately if the Tories do get in and i suspect they will, socialism (for what it was worth after 10 years of Blairs lies) will be dead. The so called labour party has moved so far to the right that even thatcher herself dared not go that far. In a world of global capitalism and global communities, it is interesting that Britain is engaging in petty parochialism.
Fortunately the English are beginning to wake up we have begun a Campaign for an English Parliament aimed at removing ourselves from the petty inferiority complexed Scots. Enough is enough the west lothian question has never been answered we have an unelected Scottish prime minister unfortunately if the Tories do get in and i suspect they will, socialism (for what it was worth after 10 years of Blairs lies) will be dead. The so called labour party has moved so far to the right that even thatcher herself dared not go that far. In a world of global capitalism and global communities, it is interesting that Britain is engaging in petty parochialism.
Posted by: Curley Bill, the southwest on 11:39am Sun 18 Nov 07
The best line in the article was the last:
[quote]Iain Macwhirter is away[/quote]
It means he'll be comin' back - f*ckin' huzzah!
The best line in the article was the last:
Iain Macwhirter is away
It means he'll be comin' back - f*ckin' huzzah!
Posted by: Martin, Edinburgh on 11:53am Sun 18 Nov 07
All those enjoying their sunday breakfast should remember that The (Sunday)Herald was coming out with anti-SNP articles in the 2 to 3 months run up to the May elections when it was clear that there had been a sea change in voters opinions of Labour and the Lib Dems. The paper kept its head in the sand hoping it would all be a bad dream and only (if I recollect correctly) on the final Sunday before polling day did it come out with any balance in its reporting.
The big problem is that there is no real national paper that is not unionist deep down in Scotland ( The Scotsman being the most ill titled paper in history) - the irony is that some of the national titles down south have more objective reporting.
All those enjoying their sunday breakfast should remember that The (Sunday)Herald was coming out with anti-SNP articles in the 2 to 3 months run up to the May elections when it was clear that there had been a sea change in voters opinions of Labour and the Lib Dems. The paper kept its head in the sand hoping it would all be a bad dream and only (if I recollect correctly) on the final Sunday before polling day did it come out with any balance in its reporting.
The big problem is that there is no real national paper that is not unionist deep down in Scotland ( The Scotsman being the most ill titled paper in history) - the irony is that some of the national titles down south have more objective reporting.
Posted by: David on 11:53am Sun 18 Nov 07
I don't know why the SNP supporters are getting worked up about this article.
A policy of causing resentment to the Union on both sides of the border is the only way that the Union can be broken up. So long as people are happy with the status quo, there is little incentive for it to be altered. Therefore, the obvious policy for any government seeking 'independence' and a resultant end to the Union is to foster discontent with the status quo.
This is clearly the policy that the SNP has chosen to espouse. Whilst they are undoubtedly trying to foster confidence in Scotland (quite successfully, I must add, they are intelligent enough to know that the necessary corollary of that confidence is to undermine confidence of the Union.
So why then are the SNP supporters on this page so eager to dismiss this as a 'scare story' and criticise the quality of journalism? Everyone knows that the SNP support independence, so it is hardly a 'scare story' to suggest that they are utilising their time in government to that end.
And as I pointed out earlier, there's no point in boycotting the print version if you contine to read the online one. Advertising revenues.
I don't know why the SNP supporters are getting worked up about this article.
A policy of causing resentment to the Union on both sides of the border is the only way that the Union can be broken up. So long as people are happy with the status quo, there is little incentive for it to be altered. Therefore, the obvious policy for any government seeking 'independence' and a resultant end to the Union is to foster discontent with the status quo.
This is clearly the policy that the SNP has chosen to espouse. Whilst they are undoubtedly trying to foster confidence in Scotland (quite successfully, I must add, they are intelligent enough to know that the necessary corollary of that confidence is to undermine confidence of the Union.
So why then are the SNP supporters on this page so eager to dismiss this as a 'scare story' and criticise the quality of journalism? Everyone knows that the SNP support independence, so it is hardly a 'scare story' to suggest that they are utilising their time in government to that end.
And as I pointed out earlier, there's no point in boycotting the print version if you contine to read the online one. Advertising revenues.
Posted by: nouveauxscum on 12:03pm Sun 18 Nov 07
On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual "stronger together" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn't appear but I was impressed by my mates' positive outlook for Scotland.
Trust me, if those two have 'turned' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it's finished.
Heartening days.
On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual "stronger together" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn't appear but I was impressed by my mates' positive outlook for Scotland.
Trust me, if those two have 'turned' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it's finished.
Heartening days.
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 12:07pm Sun 18 Nov 07
"This recent questioning of the merits of the 300-year-old union was not begun by Salmond, or his party, or the small minority of Scots who support independence. Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government did that job pretty well."
Not only do we have this negative, Labour Party inspired twist on the present political situation within Scotland, but we have a complete re-write of the past. The above extract is an unrecognisable fabrication to anyone who was politically active during the seventies before anyone but angry schoolteachers had ever heard of Thatcher. By the mid seventies the unionist Goliath had been taken on by the activists of of a swiftly growing SNP - most of them using their own money on the campaign trail since the party was the people, and they had no trade union support or big business to back them financially. By 1976 the SNP were well ahead of all other parties in the opinion polls, and even Jim Sillar's Scottish Labour Party was ahead of the Imperial British Labour Party! Unionist panic was well rehearsed at that point, along with the suppression of the McCrone Report which highlighted what a wealthy country an independent Scotland would be. Then came the virtual collapse of the Labour Government at Westminster, and it looked to those of us champing at the bit that an election was inevitable - an election which would have set Scotland on the road to rejoining the world as a member of the community of nations.
So what happened? The Liberals happened. Or to be more exact, David Steel and the Lib-Lab Pact happened. The unionists were able to weather the storm for another three years, the collapse of the U.K. economy was allowed to continue unabated, and Scotland will forever be the loser, sold out for a ministerial car for a party who will do anything to get into the same room as "power"........."It'
ll be O.K. I'll just sit at the back and not say anything. ... Please!!"
That was the reality, and this "reporter" is either too ignorant to know what really happened in the past, or he is trying to put the knowlege into the same drawer as the McCrone report was hidden in for thirty years. Either way, this negative unionist propaganda should be binned along with the girning Labour whines which inspired it.
If he can't be accurate about the past, how can he be taken seriously about the present?
"This recent questioning of the merits of the 300-year-old union was not begun by Salmond, or his party, or the small minority of Scots who support independence. Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government did that job pretty well."
Not only do we have this negative, Labour Party inspired twist on the present political situation within Scotland, but we have a complete re-write of the past. The above extract is an unrecognisable fabrication to anyone who was politically active during the seventies before anyone but angry schoolteachers had ever heard of Thatcher. By the mid seventies the unionist Goliath had been taken on by the activists of of a swiftly growing SNP - most of them using their own money on the campaign trail since the party was the people, and they had no trade union support or big business to back them financially. By 1976 the SNP were well ahead of all other parties in the opinion polls, and even Jim Sillar's Scottish Labour Party was ahead of the Imperial British Labour Party! Unionist panic was well rehearsed at that point, along with the suppression of the McCrone Report which highlighted what a wealthy country an independent Scotland would be. Then came the virtual collapse of the Labour Government at Westminster, and it looked to those of us champing at the bit that an election was inevitable - an election which would have set Scotland on the road to rejoining the world as a member of the community of nations.
So what happened? The Liberals happened. Or to be more exact, David Steel and the Lib-Lab Pact happened. The unionists were able to weather the storm for another three years, the collapse of the U.K. economy was allowed to continue unabated, and Scotland will forever be the loser, sold out for a ministerial car for a party who will do anything to get into the same room as "power"........."It'
ll be O.K. I'll just sit at the back and not say anything. ... Please!!"
That was the reality, and this "reporter" is either too ignorant to know what really happened in the past, or he is trying to put the knowlege into the same drawer as the McCrone report was hidden in for thirty years. Either way, this negative unionist propaganda should be binned along with the girning Labour whines which inspired it.
If he can't be accurate about the past, how can he be taken seriously about the present?
Posted by: art1000, Dunfermline on 12:13pm Sun 18 Nov 07
I was out for rolls and 'nearly' bought the Sunday Herald but this article I read online earlier put me off. There was a nice story on the front of the SoS about the London Labour media troll resigning for foul mouth behaviour at the awards ceremony. However I kept my pledge of never buying the Scotsman again for its anti-scottish stance.
So that's it then. No Sunday Paper. The English Sundays are carrying a lot of tempting 'Broon is crap' stories but buying them would be unpatriotic. Pity - I used to like a Sunday paper.
I was out for rolls and 'nearly' bought the Sunday Herald but this article I read online earlier put me off. There was a nice story on the front of the SoS about the London Labour media troll resigning for foul mouth behaviour at the awards ceremony. However I kept my pledge of never buying the Scotsman again for its anti-scottish stance.
So that's it then. No Sunday Paper. The English Sundays are carrying a lot of tempting 'Broon is crap' stories but buying them would be unpatriotic. Pity - I used to like a Sunday paper.
Posted by: jim mitchell, Sauchie, Clack's on 12:32pm Sun 18 Nov 07
There are so many errors in this piece it would be difficult to know where to begin so I will content myself with just asking why doesn't Mr Cusick just say I am a unionist and I hate the SNP, especially Alex Salmond.
There are so many errors in this piece it would be difficult to know where to begin so I will content myself with just asking why doesn't Mr Cusick just say I am a unionist and I hate the SNP, especially Alex Salmond.
Posted by: paul stewart, Glasgow on 1:34pm Sun 18 Nov 07
[quote][bold]nouveauxscum[/bold] wrote:
On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual "stronger together" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn't appear but I was impressed by my mates' positive outlook for Scotland. Trust me, if those two have 'turned' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it's finished. Heartening days. [/quote] Interesting you say this. One of my mates who is actually a Labour Party member recently told me he reckoned that Independence could be a good idea.
He was a bit drunk at the time mind you. Whether that means he meant it of not im not sure.
I do think more people are questioning the union and the current settlement.
Isnt that what always gets discussed on here mind?
nouveauxscum wrote:
On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual "stronger together" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn't appear but I was impressed by my mates' positive outlook for Scotland. Trust me, if those two have 'turned' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it's finished. Heartening days.
Interesting you say this. One of my mates who is actually a Labour Party member recently told me he reckoned that Independence could be a good idea.
He was a bit drunk at the time mind you. Whether that means he meant it of not im not sure.
I do think more people are questioning the union and the current settlement.
Isnt that what always gets discussed on here mind?
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 1:51pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Herr Cusick is a Neu Leiber hack.
On the subject of how to respond however, we have to be canny. What is this article? A pretty accurate representation of unionist fantasy and propaganda. It spells out their desperation and impotence. Every month they cobble together a political position only to see it crumble and they start all over again. I see that these attempts are being made by fewer and fewer observers and those who do indulge are more fanatical and 'on-message'.
Fellow nationalists, if the enemy is laying itself bare then we must show some gratitude. We have seen all areas of Scottish life politically migrating towards the independence cause. The last bastion of unionism is the press. Unionists have very few tools of manipulation left and so depend more now than ever on utilising propagandists.
This has been evident since the election and even before when Das Herald Sturmer gave up any real attempt at neutrality. Panic is now at fever pitch and everything must be thrown at the nats and at any cost.
So, let's accept this gift and use it to our advantage.
How do we know Cusick is a Neu Leiber propagandist? For a start take this cracker: "This recent questioning of the merits of the 300-year-old union was not begun by Salmond, or his party, or the small minority of Scots who support independence. Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government did that job pretty well. And what Thatcher started, Salmond thinks he can finish." Leave aside the fact that a majority of Scottish MPs voted to end the Union shortly after it started and that through the centuries writers and others from Burns to the 1820 martyrs to Keir Hardy all questioned the Union. But what about Blair's war? Was that not a turning point against London government? Some might say moreso than Thatcher; we can't blame Neu Leiber though can we Herr Cusick?
Another wee leap of the imagination is this belter: "The England side of Salmond's to-do list is advancing nicely. The Daily Telegraph's reactionary nerve-ending, the columnist Simon Heffer, last week proclaimed "the Union, like the empire, is over". The "Scottish Raj" in Westminster was illegitimate; Britain was now a geographical rather than a political term, and England and Scotland can only now be happy if they are politically apart." While Salmond was talking Scotland up, Neu Leiber was bent on portraying Scotland as a basket-case and would receive a 5K tax-bomb to overcome the subsisides that England lovingly provides. Can you remember the father of the nation saying that an indpendent Scotland would have an economy like Balgladesh's? This is the root cause of current English resentment. However Herr Cusick neglects to mention this or maybe he just instinctively filters out painful truths?
That's just a start. This article could and should be broken down and considered as evidence that Unionism is receiving its last-rights but is in denial. Death is often undignified. Let's use articles like these to put the terminally ill down humanely.
Herr Cusick is a Neu Leiber hack.
On the subject of how to respond however, we have to be canny. What is this article? A pretty accurate representation of unionist fantasy and propaganda. It spells out their desperation and impotence. Every month they cobble together a political position only to see it crumble and they start all over again. I see that these attempts are being made by fewer and fewer observers and those who do indulge are more fanatical and 'on-message'.
Fellow nationalists, if the enemy is laying itself bare then we must show some gratitude. We have seen all areas of Scottish life politically migrating towards the independence cause. The last bastion of unionism is the press. Unionists have very few tools of manipulation left and so depend more now than ever on utilising propagandists.
This has been evident since the election and even before when Das Herald Sturmer gave up any real attempt at neutrality. Panic is now at fever pitch and everything must be thrown at the nats and at any cost.
So, let's accept this gift and use it to our advantage.
How do we know Cusick is a Neu Leiber propagandist? For a start take this cracker: "This recent questioning of the merits of the 300-year-old union was not begun by Salmond, or his party, or the small minority of Scots who support independence. Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Tory government did that job pretty well. And what Thatcher started, Salmond thinks he can finish." Leave aside the fact that a majority of Scottish MPs voted to end the Union shortly after it started and that through the centuries writers and others from Burns to the 1820 martyrs to Keir Hardy all questioned the Union. But what about Blair's war? Was that not a turning point against London government? Some might say moreso than Thatcher; we can't blame Neu Leiber though can we Herr Cusick?
Another wee leap of the imagination is this belter: "The England side of Salmond's to-do list is advancing nicely. The Daily Telegraph's reactionary nerve-ending, the columnist Simon Heffer, last week proclaimed "the Union, like the empire, is over". The "Scottish Raj" in Westminster was illegitimate; Britain was now a geographical rather than a political term, and England and Scotland can only now be happy if they are politically apart." While Salmond was talking Scotland up, Neu Leiber was bent on portraying Scotland as a basket-case and would receive a 5K tax-bomb to overcome the subsisides that England lovingly provides. Can you remember the father of the nation saying that an indpendent Scotland would have an economy like Balgladesh's? This is the root cause of current English resentment. However Herr Cusick neglects to mention this or maybe he just instinctively filters out painful truths?
That's just a start. This article could and should be broken down and considered as evidence that Unionism is receiving its last-rights but is in denial. Death is often undignified. Let's use articles like these to put the terminally ill down humanely.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 2:34pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Cusick's Cuss[quote]THE POLITICIAN-TURNED-PS
YCHIC is a dangerous creature that should hasten a rush for the alarm bell. There's an Orwellian unease about a fearless political prediction that's usually based on an assumption of control of the present, and too often a gross rewrite of the past. Criticism of the prophet's accuracy is dismissed as a petty inconvenience for those holding unquestionable trust in their sage.[/quote]This has to be one of the most clunky, incomprehensible opening paragraph to a newspaper article - ever!
Can't agree with the authors claim of "ditched" policy promises. [italic]None[/italic] have been abandoned, but a minority government going cap in hand to another, one not in the least inclined to help, and opposition threatening to veto anything that looks like progess, some things are bound to be delayed.
Governing is easy. Finding enough money to fix problems and install policies is the difficult part.
Cusick's Cuss
THE POLITICIAN-TURNED-PS
YCHIC is a dangerous creature that should hasten a rush for the alarm bell. There's an Orwellian unease about a fearless political prediction that's usually based on an assumption of control of the present, and too often a gross rewrite of the past. Criticism of the prophet's accuracy is dismissed as a petty inconvenience for those holding unquestionable trust in their sage.
This has to be one of the most clunky, incomprehensible opening paragraph to a newspaper article - ever!
Can't agree with the authors claim of "ditched" policy promises.
None have been abandoned, but a minority government going cap in hand to another, one not in the least inclined to help, and opposition threatening to veto anything that looks like progess, some things are bound to be delayed.
Governing is easy. Finding enough money to fix problems and install policies is the difficult part.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 2:41pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Breakfart Drolls On[quote]James Cusick speaks only the obvious truth.[/quote]"Only the obvious truth" - as opposed to lots of truth that isn't obvious? Interesting.
Breakfart Drolls On
James Cusick speaks only the obvious truth.
"Only the obvious truth" - as opposed to lots of truth that isn't obvious? Interesting.
Posted by: Wake up Scotland on 3:52pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Lets all walk into Independance with our eyes wide shut. Just look at the corrupt european officials at the football yesterday and reflect that into mainland euro politics. Do you honestly think we will have any control or any voice as a single nation? Mainland europe is full of self-interest and they forget who actually gave them their freedom over 50 years ago. United we stand, divided we fall.
Lets all walk into Independance with our eyes wide shut. Just look at the corrupt european officials at the football yesterday and reflect that into mainland euro politics. Do you honestly think we will have any control or any voice as a single nation? Mainland europe is full of self-interest and they forget who actually gave them their freedom over 50 years ago. United we stand, divided we fall.
Posted by: kyle, glasgow on 4:00pm Sun 18 Nov 07
this is a really bad piece of writing. thats all i have to say.
this is a really bad piece of writing. thats all i have to say.
Posted by: Joe on 4:03pm Sun 18 Nov 07
[quote][bold]frank mcbride[/bold] wrote:
Mr. Cusick's article is a fine example of the UNIONIST ALLIANCE'S aspiration. Sow the seeds of division; imply that one group is getting something over on another. Denegrate individuals and groups who choose to have a different viewpoint. Imply that any vision other than the Union is fraught with danger. Make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy. Create fear and distrust. These are the tactics used by all previous Empires in attempts to preserve their status and power. However this Empire, like all others before it, will perish with the brighter aspirations of its people.[/quote] Sounds more like the behaviour of the usual nationalist trolls to me.
They proclaim to be of the centre-left and behave like the far right. With minions like that, Salmond's pseudo-empire isn't built to last.
frank mcbride wrote:
Mr. Cusick's article is a fine example of the UNIONIST ALLIANCE'S aspiration. Sow the seeds of division; imply that one group is getting something over on another. Denegrate individuals and groups who choose to have a different viewpoint. Imply that any vision other than the Union is fraught with danger. Make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy. Create fear and distrust. These are the tactics used by all previous Empires in attempts to preserve their status and power. However this Empire, like all others before it, will perish with the brighter aspirations of its people.
Sounds more like the behaviour of the usual nationalist trolls to me.
They proclaim to be of the centre-left and behave like the far right. With minions like that, Salmond's pseudo-empire isn't built to last.
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 4:16pm Sun 18 Nov 07
[quote][bold]paul stewart[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]nouveauxscum[/bold] wrote: On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual \"stronger together\" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn\'t appear but I was impressed by my mates\' positive outlook for Scotland. Trust me, if those two have \'turned\' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it\'s finished. Heartening days. [/quote] Interesting you say this. One of my mates who is actually a Labour Party member recently told me he reckoned that Independence could be a good idea. He was a bit drunk at the time mind you. Whether that means he meant it of not im not sure. I do think more people are questioning the union and the current settlement. Isnt that what always gets discussed on here mind?[/quote] Labour election strategist Gerry Hassan in today's [italic]Sunday Times[/italic] writes that he is converted to independence.
Wendy Alexander's spin wean sacked for calling Alex Salmond a c---.
Mr Cusick writes badly with racist ****-stirring overtones.
Gazza Broon and his sycophants in free-fall.
The Union is dead, let's arrange a decent funeral.
paul stewart wrote:
nouveauxscum wrote: On my way to the pub yesterday I was contemplating some burlesque banter (on my part)on the state of the Union. Two of my mates are, well, they could be described as archetypal Unionists I suppose; and, having not seen them for a while I was curious as to how their defence of the Union would now be played.Expecting the usual \"stronger together\" twaddle I was caught slighty off guard when it was they who began a discussion of the merits of an independant Scotland.I was actually quite dumbfounded and for the most part sat listening incredulously waiting for Jeremy Beadle.I went home dissapointed for Beadle didn\'t appear but I was impressed by my mates\' positive outlook for Scotland. Trust me, if those two have \'turned\' then the writing is writ large on the wall for the Union - it\'s finished. Heartening days.
Interesting you say this. One of my mates who is actually a Labour Party member recently told me he reckoned that Independence could be a good idea. He was a bit drunk at the time mind you. Whether that means he meant it of not im not sure. I do think more people are questioning the union and the current settlement. Isnt that what always gets discussed on here mind?
Labour election strategist Gerry Hassan in today's
Sunday Times writes that he is converted to independence.
Wendy Alexander's spin wean sacked for calling Alex Salmond a c---.
Mr Cusick writes badly with racist ****-stirring overtones.
Gazza Broon and his sycophants in free-fall.
The Union is dead, let's arrange a decent funeral.
Posted by: David Alexander on 6:10pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Albert
Do you have a link to the Gerry Hassan article?
Albert
Do you have a link to the Gerry Hassan article?
Posted by: Jim, Irvine on 6:25pm Sun 18 Nov 07
I am rather worried that Independence will come
before the following NU Labour Mafia Criminals
can slip over the Border . Will Extradition Treatys with England be in force so that we will not have to pay a ransome For their Trial?
Pa Broon , Rocky Darling ,Dog Alexander;
2Jobs Browne and Scots NU Labor comrades.
I am rather worried that Independence will come
before the following NU Labour Mafia Criminals
can slip over the Border . Will Extradition Treatys with England be in force so that we will not have to pay a ransome For their Trial?
Pa Broon , Rocky Darling ,Dog Alexander;
2Jobs Browne and Scots NU Labor comrades.
Posted by: you on 6:26pm Sun 18 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Mac Coinnich[/bold] wrote:
Stick yer union up yer unionist arse Cusick and drop dead with the rest of your British State, you complicit bastards make me sick. I will not buy your westminster complicit rag again nor visit your website ya prize rat bag![/quote] Sad & Angry
Mac Coinnich wrote:
Stick yer union up yer unionist arse Cusick and drop dead with the rest of your British State, you complicit bastards make me sick. I will not buy your westminster complicit rag again nor visit your website ya prize rat bag!
Sad & Angry
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 7:12pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Yeh, I can't find the Gerry Hassan article either?
Yeh, I can't find the Gerry Hassan article either?
Posted by: David Alexander, Best seat in the hoose, replete with Chardonnay (glass of) on 7:24pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Alex et al
Here is a link I found to a Gerry Hassan article, just prior to the Scottish elections.
It makes for an interesting read.
http://www.compasson
line.org.uk/article.
asp?n=579
Alex et al
Here is a link I found to a Gerry Hassan article, just prior to the Scottish elections.
It makes for an interesting read.
http://www.compasson
line.org.uk/article.
asp?n=579
Posted by: Fed up with their lies, Fed up with their wars on 10:03pm Sun 18 Nov 07
I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don't know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we're only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland.
Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.
I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don't know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we're only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland.
Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 10:37pm Sun 18 Nov 07
Thanks for that David but what about the Sunday Times article?
Thanks for that David but what about the Sunday Times article?
Posted by: Joe on 2:43am Mon 19 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Fed up with their lies[/bold] wrote:
I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don't know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we're only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland. Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.[/quote] What garbage. If you've read these comment pages for any length of time you'll know that the hatred and the venom more often than not comes from Scottish nationalists.
As it happens I don't support nationalism in any form but your remarks are so ridiculously one-sided that you've blinded yourself to the bigotry and the mud-slinging of the more narrow minded Scottish nationalists found on these boards.
Fed up with their lies wrote:
I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don't know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we're only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland. Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.
What garbage. If you've read these comment pages for any length of time you'll know that the hatred and the venom more often than not comes from Scottish nationalists.
As it happens I don't support nationalism in any form but your remarks are so ridiculously one-sided that you've blinded yourself to the bigotry and the mud-slinging of the more narrow minded Scottish nationalists found on these boards.
Posted by: David Alexander on 7:04am Mon 19 Nov 07
Joe
Your reasoned comments have made me see the light.
Wanting to stand on your own two feet and pay for your way in the world is so very, very wrong.
Joe
Your reasoned comments have made me see the light.
Wanting to stand on your own two feet and pay for your way in the world is so very, very wrong.
Posted by: David on 5:45pm Mon 19 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Joe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Fed up with their lies[/bold] wrote: I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don\'t know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we\'re only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland. Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.[/quote] What garbage. If you\'ve read these comment pages for any length of time you\'ll know that the hatred and the venom more often than not comes from Scottish nationalists. As it happens I don\'t support nationalism in any form but your remarks are so ridiculously one-sided that you\'ve blinded yourself to the bigotry and the mud-slinging of the more narrow minded Scottish nationalists found on these boards. [/quote] I agree. If there is any evidence of bigotry and hatred in the comments above, then the majority of it would seem to come from the 'Scottish nationalist' as opposed to the 'British nationalist' side.
Joe's comment also fallaciously attempts to make BNP British nationalism synonymous with UK nationalism. The only thing that differentiates nationalism in the UK sense and nationalism in the Scottish sense is the geographical area to which they lay claim.
"Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world."
I fail to see how the UK does not satisfy these demands. Not only do you have the right to elect 'unfettered and responsible' representatives at Westminster, but you can also elect slightly more restricted representatives at Strasbourg/Brussels, Holyrood and your local council.
"British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology"
Obviously you're trying to imply BNP here, but to take the complaint against UK nationalism (an ideology of which I am not an adherent); All nationalism is by definition divisive as it attempts to compartmentalise people based either on geographical or ethnic lines. BNP nationalism is more divisive than Scottish or UK nationalism as it is based on ethnicity, and is hence less inclusive. As a geographical nationalism, UK nationalism is by definition less divisive than Scottish nationalsim, due to the geographical area involved.
Joe wrote:
Fed up with their lies wrote: I had long supposed the Labour / Unionist contingent to be full of extremists but from such British Nationlist comments as above I know there is certainly an extreme and prejudiced element among their support. I don\'t know how much influence such bigotry and hatred of the Scottish nation has among their party but I suspect we\'re only beginning to see their prejudice in public. The Marr - abuse story reveals to me that their petty parochialism and British Nationalist values are becoming more pronounced as thir failures are unveiled. British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology and it disappoints me that a British Nationalist party like Labour were the biggest party for so long until the SNP won. Thankfully it seems they are imploding as each ideologue abuses whoever they can for their own safety. I just hope the British Nationalist bigotry will not hold the Scottish people back for much longer and we no longer have to tolerate their extreme and sickening prejudice against an independent Scotland. Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world.
What garbage. If you\'ve read these comment pages for any length of time you\'ll know that the hatred and the venom more often than not comes from Scottish nationalists. As it happens I don\'t support nationalism in any form but your remarks are so ridiculously one-sided that you\'ve blinded yourself to the bigotry and the mud-slinging of the more narrow minded Scottish nationalists found on these boards.
I agree. If there is any evidence of bigotry and hatred in the comments above, then the majority of it would seem to come from the 'Scottish nationalist' as opposed to the 'British nationalist' side.
Joe's comment also fallaciously attempts to make BNP British nationalism synonymous with UK nationalism. The only thing that differentiates nationalism in the UK sense and nationalism in the Scottish sense is the geographical area to which they lay claim.
"Independece surely for our democratic right to elect unfettered and responsible representatives. Independence for peace and for full interaction with the world."
I fail to see how the UK does not satisfy these demands. Not only do you have the right to elect 'unfettered and responsible' representatives at Westminster, but you can also elect slightly more restricted representatives at Strasbourg/Brussels, Holyrood and your local council.
"British Nationalism is an evil and divisive ideology"
Obviously you're trying to imply BNP here, but to take the complaint against UK nationalism (an ideology of which I am not an adherent); All nationalism is by definition divisive as it attempts to compartmentalise people based either on geographical or ethnic lines. BNP nationalism is more divisive than Scottish or UK nationalism as it is based on ethnicity, and is hence less inclusive. As a geographical nationalism, UK nationalism is by definition less divisive than Scottish nationalsim, due to the geographical area involved.
Posted by: Joe Middleton, Edinburgh on 8:38pm Mon 19 Nov 07
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No.
British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet.
Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy?
Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'.
I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC.
If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them.
Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal!
Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy.
We need this and the unionists know it.
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No.
British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet.
Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy?
Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'.
I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC.
If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them.
Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal!
Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy.
We need this and the unionists know it.
Posted by: alec, Dundee on 9:23pm Mon 19 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Joe Middleton[/bold] wrote:
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No. British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet. Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy? Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'. I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC. If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them. Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal! Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy. We need this and the unionists know it. [/quote] Aye Right, Independant in Europe, your having a laugh.
Joe Middleton wrote:
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No. British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet. Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy? Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'. I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC. If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them. Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal! Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy. We need this and the unionists know it.
Aye Right, Independant in Europe, your having a laugh.
Posted by: David on 3:28am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Joe Middleton[/bold] wrote:
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No. British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet. Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy? Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'. I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC. If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them. Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal! Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy. We need this and the unionists know it. [/quote] But you're not 'ruled by another country'. You vote in UK parliamentary elections, and therefore have the same say in the running of the country as everyone else over the age of 18, regardless of whether you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish. There is no 'ruling' over anyone else involved.
The colonies, who had no vote in the British parliament, but were subject to its laws were unjustly ruled over. An incorporated part of the UK with full participation in the UK parliament cannot, by definition, be said to be ruled over.
If you choose to associate yourself with some form of 'national identity', then if that identity is Scottish, it might be seen that England dominates the union, but this is entirely down to population. If you choose to view yourself as British, then this is not an issue.
On the otherhand, you could say that England is the 'ruled' party at the moment, since the UK government has been disproportionately dominated by Scottish ministers for the past 10 years.
A more accurate viewpoint might be that government policies reflect the interests of the South East over and above the rest of the UK; to the detriment not only of Scotland, but of Northern & Western England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Indeed, with the Scottish Parliament's powers to direct distribution of funds, it might now be said that both London and Edinburgh are disproportionately favoured in terms of resources compared with the rest of the UK and the rest of Scotland. But then this wouldn't fit in with your ideas of nationalism.
Joe Middleton wrote:
Independence is normality. Most countries are independent and none would prefer to be ruled by another again who have acheived their independence. Would the US? Would Australia? Would India? No. British imperialist nationalism was historically racist and the world view which is retained by the British press remains rather xenophobic. This is reflected in the attitudes of the British cabinet. Why else would our little pumped up Brownite foreign secretary be waffling on about 'hard power' (military force, which he won't be involved in) and 'soft power' ie democracy? Of course he's not the first to come up with this garbage it was Tony Blair who first claimed that Britain needs 'hard power'. I'm sorry but what Scotland really needs is to join the UN and OPEC. If England REALLY wants to posture on the world stage and sook up to the US then let them pay for the nukes themselves. We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford to waste our money on them. Britain could never use them anyway without US approval so effectively Britain is paying for the privilege of being a base of operations for the US. A great deal! Scotland requires the normal powers of every other country on the planet. as long as we are part of the British union we will not have the power to decide our own destiny or to decide our own foreign policy. We need this and the unionists know it.
But you're not 'ruled by another country'. You vote in UK parliamentary elections, and therefore have the same say in the running of the country as everyone else over the age of 18, regardless of whether you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish. There is no 'ruling' over anyone else involved.
The colonies, who had no vote in the British parliament, but were subject to its laws were unjustly ruled over. An incorporated part of the UK with full participation in the UK parliament cannot, by definition, be said to be ruled over.
If you choose to associate yourself with some form of 'national identity', then if that identity is Scottish, it might be seen that England dominates the union, but this is entirely down to population. If you choose to view yourself as British, then this is not an issue.
On the otherhand, you could say that England is the 'ruled' party at the moment, since the UK government has been disproportionately dominated by Scottish ministers for the past 10 years.
A more accurate viewpoint might be that government policies reflect the interests of the South East over and above the rest of the UK; to the detriment not only of Scotland, but of Northern & Western England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Indeed, with the Scottish Parliament's powers to direct distribution of funds, it might now be said that both London and Edinburgh are disproportionately favoured in terms of resources compared with the rest of the UK and the rest of Scotland. But then this wouldn't fit in with your ideas of nationalism.
Posted by: A poet, And don't I just know it. on 6:10pm Thu 22 Nov 07
[quote]If you choose to view yourself as British, then this is not an issue.[/quote]
"You WILL choose to view yourself as British ... as distant
Comment | Read Comments (57)
