sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul

Wings Over Scotland


Unionist Libel Of The Day

Posted on January 04, 2013 by

There’s an absolutely despicable article on Labour Uncut today that we’re reluctant to link to. There’s a Google Cache version here, and in case it dies we’ve reprinted the whole thing below (sue us, Labour Uncut) so you don’t need to give the site traffic.

For the most part it’s a tedious rehash of the tired old “votes for 80 million expat and diaspora Scots” routine, but it’s enlivened with some ugly, base abuse of the First Minister, or “the fat, failed economist from Hollyrood” [sic] as author and Labour member Ian Stewart refers to him. The worst part, though, comes just before the end.

“At a time when the French voters of London have their own seat in the National Assembly, when serious moves are being made to press for a similar accommodation in the Irish Republic, not to mention Sinn Feinn’s mooting of some kind of a say for the wider diaspora, what do we get? Oh yes, the chance to maybe need a passport to visit granny.

Perhaps Mr Salmond made his attitude clear to these millions when he organised the great “Homecoming 2009” a while back – when it was clear to all that if your accent was in English rather than American, you had best not bother.”

This, we feel wholly confident in asserting, is a defamatory and libellous statement. The notion that Alex Salmond ever suggested, let alone made it “clear to all”, that English people weren’t welcome at Homecoming 2009 is one utterly unsupported in fact, and a normally-respectable site like Labour Uncut should be ashamed to have printed an open and direct accusation that the First Minister is a racist.

The battle over independence will get ugly in the next 18 months. We hope the Yes side doesn’t descend to the depths of Mr Stewart, and that the aggressive provocation of the Unionists doesn’t lead to the spilling of blood in Scotland as it continues to do in Northern Ireland. If it does, forgiveness will be a long time coming.

————————————————————————————–

Alex Salmond wants to disenfranchise millions of Britons. Don’t let him.

by Ian Stewart

Forgive me, this is all going to get a bit Simon Heffer, but in a good way, I promise.

Sometimes it seems that the political class is intent upon the out-and-out destruction of Great Britain. Witness the lack of support for our national broadcaster, even before the Saville scandal, and its supreme lack of care at the ruthless gutting of the welfare state, let alone the NHS sell off. If you value your eardrums, never get me started on education either…

Yes, the political class – a thing that back in the fifties and sixties most of us would have thought near to death – has, by the grace of Margaret and Tony, been placed firmly back in control. I suppose that we should all be glad that we have no need to worry our little heads about the issues of the day, despite that pesky universal suffrage thingy. Let us all sit back and let assorted witless media-types, lawyers, bankers, tame academics, the odd ex-oil company exec and career politicians lull us all to sleep.

Large sections of this privileged, educated elite show supreme indifference as to the fate of the United Kingdom, whether they wield power in London or Edinburgh.

Despite leading the Conservative and Unionist party, and despite presenting themselves as inheritors of Macmillans’ one nation mantle to get elected, Cameron, Osborne, Gove et al have no love for the union. Why should they, when Scotland rejects modern Toryism by such a large degree? Yet a common cynical cause has been made with the fat, failed economist in Hollyrood. An outside observer might possibly see that however unlikely it may have seemed given the SNPs anti-Tory stance at previous elections, for nationalists, they main enemy has been Labour all along.

It goes like this – Labour lost the Scottish parliament because we deserved to. For far too long we practiced the kind of machine politics that belong to Tammany Hall rather than a modern state. Hopefully we are learning the lessons and reconnecting. However the result of the stitch-ups, the graft and the internal censorship has been plain to see.

So Alex Salmond, never one to exhibit an ounce of shame, was given an open goal. Never mind that his policies on the economy were in tatters by 2009, never mind the backing of religious reactionaries, or his blatant courting of dear Rupert, he beat us fair and square.

Yet the referendum in 2014 will disenfranchise millions on these islands, and is definitely not what the British electorate voted for in 2010. Let us ignore the guff about “team GB” that the no campaign will predictably harp on about. Just look at the electoral roll in almost any part of the UK. From the Kinnocks in South Wales, to the Macmillans, Robertsons and Mcleods in the former fishing ports and shipyards of the east coast, the Scottish diaspora are legion.

And what about Corby, the former steel town so full of us that it is known as “little Scotland”?

At a time when the French voters of London have their own seat in the National Assembly, when serious moves are being made to press for a similar accommodation in the Irish Republic, not to mention Sinn Feinn’s mooting of some kind of a say for the wider diaspora, what do we get? Oh yes, the chance to maybe need a passport to visit granny. Perhaps Mr Salmond made his attitude clear to these millions when he organised the great “Homecoming 2009” a while back – when it was clear to all that if your accent was in English rather than American, you had best not bother.

The Scots have played a huge role in the history of these islands, for good or ill (General Haig, Mick McGahey or Keir Hardie, take your pick).  I am sure that in one way or another that role will be continued, yet it would be a crying shame if a small band of men in the pockets of rich absentees could once again sell Scotland short.

Ian Stewart is a Labour party member and blogs at http://clemthegem.wordpress.com/

Tags: , , ,

Be Sociable, Share!

67 to “Unionist Libel Of The Day”

  1. Peter Mirtitsch says:

    You want a say in how Scotland is run, the put your money where your mouth is, and COME AND LIVE HERE!!! I have to say that any other sorts of idea are audacious. You are basically saying that anyone should have a say about how a society of which they are not part?

    Regardless as to how the French run things, why SHOULD anyone have a say for an area in which they are not even resident, let alone registered to vote? How is that any kind of democracy?
    Who exactly will be disenfrachised? As far as I can see, there would be nobody who was not already eligible to vote in any other elections.

    As far as all of the comments regarding racism and anti Englishness goes, Mr Salmond has always purported to welcome incomers who wish to add to and contribute to our society. It would be a weird turnaround to now claim that we no longer want them when we do so obviously need them…

      

  2. Macart says:

    Yes it is safe to say that Ian Stewart is a Labour party member and from his use of language and ad hominem attack style, I’d say from the Lamont school of prose.

      

  3. Gavin Williamson says:

    Actually its music to my ears, if they had anything else don’t you think they would use it? Endless rehashing of already well rebuffed nonsense. 

      

  4. Seasick Dave says:

    Mr Stewart, if you are reading this, you definitely haven’t persuaded me to vote No.

    Hopefully, your nasty invective will have persuaded a few undecided voters to vote Yes.

     

      

  5. Hetty says:

    I would have thought that it would be in Labour’s interests to support whatever the people of Scotland decide what’s best for them. After all, will they not want a part in any future political process in Scotland?
    Some on the right, and I have spoken to one such person, actually believe that the value of  their (overpriced) property will be vastly reduced should there be a ‘Yes’ vote.  
    This apparently as a result of people leaving us in droves. I’d have thought it would be the opposite. Lots of work to do to inform the less well informed. 
    Hopefully folk will debate intelligently and without any more scare mongering, it’s a waste of resources and time.
     

      

  6. Willie Zwigerland says:

    I thought SNP missed an opportunity at the Corby by-election, probably the Eng;ish constituency where they would be most likely to keep their deposit.

      

  7. Juteman says:

    I read that earlier Stu, and was surprised that i wasn’t surprised.
    When will folk wake up and realise ‘Labour’ is only a word containing a sequence of 6 letters?

      

  8. Pa Broon says:

    I read this earlier. I admit though, I interpreted the headline for it as actually being; “We at labour uncut/Ian Stewart deeply wish Alex Salmond to disenfranchise millions of britons because we’ve got nothing, (o we made this up.)

    They can’t help themselves, ‘… the fat failed economist…’ Its just peurile. They may-as-well have post fixed the heading with ‘… and he smells of wee!’

      

  9. Helen Yates says:

    Something I have noticed a lot lately is every time you read anything from a labour supporter and I mean Lamonts labour, The articles are poorly written and are obviously from people with little knowledge or intelligence.Agree totally with Macart, Actually they come across as vile and dumb

      

  10. Seasick Dave says:

    Willie

    If Scotland becomes Independent, what would you miss most about us?

    Also, what would be the best thing about it? 

      

  11. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    cynicalHighlander: Edited in, cheers.

      

  12. muttley79 says:

    Unfortunately this piece by Mr Stewart is exactly the sort of thing Lamont and co come out with.  She has basically said that Salmond is anti-English, fat and a liar.  This has obviously given the signal, intentional or otherwise, for these kind of ugly smearing tactics to increase.  Lamont has already got the diehard element of unionist Scottish Labour into full attack mode and dragged them into the gutter.  Unfortunately, for the people of Scotland, Lamont and her cohorts do not appear to have the intelligence, or self-awareness, to realise the forces they are unleasing.  This story in the Herald makes that clear.  Union flag protesters ready to target Sturgeon 

    I think they should seriously begin to think about where they are leading the nation to, and into.  Lamont and the senior Labour people in Scotland obviously cannot bear to accept that their hegemony is over.  However, they have a basic responsibility in terms of public order, and they are ignoring it with their poison and unconcealed hatred.  Other, more dangerous elements will be delighted at the rhetoric coming from sections within Scottish Labour.  It really, really saddens me to have to say this, but this reminds me of the situation that Neil Lennon found himself in.  Lennon was made into a hate figure, and the exact same thing is happening to Salmond.      

      

  13. Macart says:

    @Helen

    Well Helen just like Seasick Dave, I’ve had a chance to have a really good think about Mr Stewart’s wee ditty and I’ve come to the same conclusion…………… he hasn’t convinced me to vote no. :)

      

  14. Craig Evans says:

    Excellent sleuthing: Is Mr Stewart for real? This sort of bile leaves the accusations about cybernats compleat lay in the shade.

    I’m looking forward to readying the comments on his blog as they come flooding in.

    have a productive weekend, but play nice: we would’ve want to be accused of being abusive. 

      

  15. muttley79 says:

    Meant to add that link about Sturgeon does not work.  Also, I cannot believe that Scottish Labour, and the wider No campaign, thinks that these kind of articles are going to convince undecided voters about voting No.  They are virtually dripping with venom and ethnic British Nationalism.  Of course no sign either of the positive case for the union.  :D

      

  16. Yesitis says:

    @Muttley
    Spot on. It might be wise to keep an eye out on the Union flag protesters targeting Nicola Sturgeon situation. So wrong in so many ways. Labour in Scotland are simply a disgrace.

      

  17. Brian Ritchie says:

    The third comment on his blog (Brian Ritchie) is mine –  I don’t often comment on rubbish like this but I was bloody incensed!

      

  18. muttley79 says:

    @Yesitis

    An element of Scottish Labour are clearly into British Nationalism in a very big way (perhaps to such an extent surprising to even some of us on this board).  Unfortunately they also appear unable to come to terms with their own position and failings.  These things combined have produced a very ugly force in Scottish politics.  Moderates and good people, such as Malcolm Chisholm, have been sidelinded, while people with a hatred of the SNP are being promoted, as Lamont’s promotion to leader of Labour at Holyrood shows.  Another element are campaigning for independence and are showing a lot of courage.   

      

  19. Luigi says:

    How disgusting, how rude. I think it is already clear that we have won the argument, folks. We just have to win the referendum. Thankfully, increasing numbers of frustrated unionists are helping us.

      

  20. cath says:

    Not only for the good of Scotland and everyone living here, but also for the good of Labour and other unionist parties themselves generally, they really need to cut off the deadwood who can do nothing but abuse Salmond, the SNP and indy supporters.

    They belong to some other time, a decade or more ago, when perhaps constant anti-SNP abuse did put people off voting for them. Right now, the SNP are the democractically elected government of Scotland, and Salmond is our first minister, who appears to be doing a pretty good job. People like Stewart, Smart and others simply come across as vile, nasty people with nothing to offer but abuse, hatred and barely vieled threats. And they appear to be – or are, in fact - speaking for the Labour party and the no campaign.

    It’s time Labour accepted the reality and moved on if they want to have any kind of relevance in Scotland. Because right now, all they’re doing is making the scales fall from lmany people’s eyes with regard to just how utterly useless, anti-democratic, anti-Scottish, purile and thick they really are.

    If there are decent people left within Labour at all, they need to start getting rid of these kind of dinosaurs, looking at what is actually best for Scotland right now, in the context of where we are and reality, and putting forward some vision. I really hope Labour for independence, or Henry McLeish or someone can shake them up. Because this kind of thing would be unworthy of a thug on a football site, far less someone who presumes to speak for people or a party.

          

      

  21. Vronsky says:

     
    As I’ve said before, Labour know that they cannot win a debate but reckon, probably  correctly, that they can win a propaganda war.  They will have the resources of the British State entirely at their disposal, far exceeding anything the Yes lobby could muster.  They have every MSM rag and the state broadcaster in their pocket.
     
    I know I’m repeating myself, but it doesn’t matter that what they say is untrue: it soon becomes established as ‘truth’.  They use labelling (© Joseph Goebbels, 1933) with great success.  You’d be hard-pressed now to find anyone outside of SNP membership who can mention Alex Salmond without including at least one qualifier from the list  ‘smug’, ‘fat’, ‘jowly’ etc..  Hoping that Unionist lies and abuse will turn more people to a ‘yes’ vote than a ‘no’ is whistling in the dark:  too many don’t know that the lies are lies and have also been conditioned to see the abuse as fair comment, since it’s everywhere and consistent.
     
    We need to have the same reach as the lies because without that we’re hopelessly outgunned.  It’s not enough to get a ‘Yes’ – it needs to be emphatic in order to provide a strong basis for the ensuing negotiations, to make sure that such negotiations actually take place and to dissuade Westminster from manufacturing social disorder, a favourite colonial ploy.  What the Yes campaign needs is a TV station and a national newspaper, or some very ingenious substitutes.

      

  22. sneddon says:

    It appears labour (UK) are waking up to the irrelevence that they are in rUK as they are in Scotland therefore toys…pram…thrown.

      

  23. cath says:

    The sad thing about all this is that, actually, we DO need to have a good debate about independence, more powers, what kind of Scotland we want and how best to deliver it. We need parties on all sides – both pro-indy and pro-union – to be joininig in that debate in a sensible, mature fashion, and for people to be able to take a well informed decision that is hopedully as close to a settled wlil as possible,

    It’s Labour primarily who have prevented that so far, simply because the Tories would never be expected to deliver it and the Libs don’t have the numbers to do so. Labour could have, and should have provided a different – but positive – vision for Scotland, and a positive debate, Sadly that Labour is long gone and we’re left with this shower. 

      

  24. MajorBloodnok says:

    Interesting that he missed out Milliband from that list of Tories wishing to inherit Macmillan’s one nation mantle… 

      

  25. cath says:

    “What the Yes campaign needs is a TV station and a national newspaper, or some very ingenious substitutes.”

    I was thinking that myself just before Xmas. It wouldn’t even need to be a pro-Yes or pro-SNP paper, just one that isn’t biased and is positive about Scotland. That’s what we really lack, and something there would probably be a real appetite for right now. The MSM have gone into “print at least one negative story about Scotland” and one “SNP accused” story every day and the No campaign will walk it mode. And they’re possibly right. People will just end up so demoralised, depressed and feeling so crap about Scotland they won’t have the confidence to vote Yes – that appears to be the idea.

    But at the same time, sales are plummeting  of both the Scotsman and Herald. A new Scottish paper – positive, upbeat, focussing on culture and new voices as well as just news – could well be something we need anyway, referendum aside. If it could provide genuine debate rather than just propaganda on the other side, that would be even better, imo.

    Any plans for WoS or Newsnet to branch out into print?  

      

  26. muttley79 says:

    @Vronsky

    There can be little doubt that the Labour leadership have decided to run a campaign in Scotland that will be unpredecented in its nastiness and bitterness.  However, it will become more and more obvious to a growing number of Scottish voters that they have nothing to offer, certainly in terms of a vision of Scotland’s future.  They will put off the undecided with their hatred and bullying.  Unfortunately, with their increasingly sustained personal attacks on the SNP leadership, they are encouraging, inciting thugs and other elements.  The sooner the Scottish Labour leadership understands their responsibilities towards their opponents, and the nation in general, the better.  Sadly I don’t think we should hold our breath. 

      

  27. Turnip_Ghost says:

    Before anyone writes any article with abuse they should always ask themselves “how would I react if what I’m writing was said about my party leader”

    and let’s face it. Imagine the reaction if it were about Lamonte.  

      

  28. dadsarmy says:

    the fat, failed economist from Hollyrood”

    Hmm, considering that many of us are a little overweight, especially after the festive season now, this is hardly likley to endear the author to people of either side, or none, including the SLab Leader.

    As for the rest, if the NO campaign* wants to concentrate its efforts on the non-resident Scots, whether in England, France or the rest of the World, then so be it.

    * Taking note of previous threads, I’m not going to call it the B… T… campaign any more, as it is indeed advancing their propoganda line. No, it’s the “NO campaign”, pure and simple. Well, I don’t know about the “pure” bit …

    (Edit: T_G – beat me to it!)

      

  29. Liz says:

    Vronsky is absolutely correct. We are up against the British State and Lamont’s Labour are happy to do the dirty work. We cannot assume that people will see through the lies.

      

  30. orpheuslyre says:

    Apart from everything else, the constant attack on Mr Salmond’s body-weight is not very pleasant.

    I also think it is not really effective as political rhetoric, whether it comes from partisan journalists in the mainstream media, from silly bloggers, or from other politicians who ought to know better.

    A virtue is a mean between two excesses. A vice is one of these excesses. Mr Salmond’s implied immorality, his implied vice, is that of gluttony and/or greed. By extension, it may be hinted that he cannot control his temperament or urges, which, following the same ‘logic’, tend towards extremes; and that therefore his political tendencies are also towards extremes. All this is intended in the use of fat as a term of abuse.

    The further implication is that a fat person can be shamed, indeed ought to be shamed by abuse into moderation and, thereby, relative slimness. There is something essentially repellent about such ad hominem moralising, which is why I’m not sure that it is effective political rhetoric and that it usually reflects poorly upon the person making the comment and thereby does not serve their interest. Obviously it may be in their interest to poison the well of discourse but even so, I think that this does not do that in this kind of instance.

      

  31. dadsarmy says:

    I had a comment moderated in the Herald, not removed. Well, I can’t see any difference, but if I put in a paragraph they removed, so much the better – what’s left would be “I wish I had said that”.

    I try to be non-abusive and reasonable in all my postings in the Herald (and even the Scotsman), but it isn’t easy and and I’m not perfect (no honestly I’m not!). So if the moderators remove any part they don’t like, good for them as it probably wasn’t worth saying anyway.

      

  32. scottish_skier says:

    and is definitely not what the British electorate voted for in 2010.

    I find this a little confusing. If you know even the very basics of UK politics, then you know a vote for the Tories in a UK general election is a vote for Scottish independence. I mean it’s hardly a secret they struggle to get one MP up here and Scotland nearly left last time they were in power. If they’d got a majority in 2010, there’d be no havering at all about 2014. 

    I’m sure I was not alone in thinking ‘Oh, If Dave takes the helm the SNP are going to do very well next year’ and ‘Oh shit, SNP could get a majority’ when Nick joined Dave in the Rose Garden. I mean jeez, it was bloody obvious; SNP were on up to 40% for Holyrood in 2009; just needed some libs to jump ship and they’d be laughing. Of course, that’s exactly what happened.

    So, every person that voted for the Tories voted for Scottish independence, or at least  that would be a very likely consequence. So, Britain did ask for this in a fairly big way; they elected the English National Party to Westminster. If people did not know that this would be the consequence of voting Tory, then clearly they know so little of Scotland/don’t give a crap whether it leaves and we’d be better off just voting in our own government.

       

      

  33. dadsarmy says:

    Perhaps the non-resident voting thing could be tackled another way. So for a Scot living in, let’s say, West Midlands, we could say:

    “Imagine an independent Scotland that decides to close all schools and hospitals, ban the use of the motor car and any form of motorised transport, rip up roads and make them muddy tracks, reinstate tolls on transport, and make any sort of commerce illegal, we in Scotland are kind of affected by this.

    You on the other hand in West Midlands will be able to do the school run on your way to the doctors before goint to work and planning your summer holidays. If you come back to Scotland to visit your granny, buy a horse! That’s if we haven’t decided to euthanise everyone above the age of 60 or starve or freeze them out of existence …”

    Mmm, possibly a bit drastic all the same, though it could be argued that staying in the UK would achieve much of that.

      

  34. Juteman says:

    @Orpheulslyre.

    “Mr Salmond’s implied immorality”
     
     Eh?

      

  35. scottish_skier says:

    New Labour disenfranchised 15% of the electorate in one fell swoop, taking UKGE turnouts from ~77% down to ~62% following Tony’s landmark jump to the right wing in 1997.

    I’d say they win the prize for disenfranchisement. 15% of the electorate just giving up in despair is really quite something. The UK can pride itself on having one of the lowest voter turnouts in the western world now.

    Ed could well beat Tony though with his One Nation Tory revival; maybe take things down below 50% turnout? Now it’s just really a choice based on how good they look in photos anyway. ‘You can have any colour you like as long as it’s blue’.

      

  36. pro-loco says:

    As an antidote to these comments have a look at these http://agonist.org/scotland-renewable-energy-best-response-to-climate-change/?

      

  37. Juteman says:

    @pro-loco
    Sorry mate, but you can’t simply say that Scotland produces its energy via hydro and wind! Saying it, doesn’t make it true!
    Shut down the nucleur and fossil power stations and i might believe you.

      

  38. Sunshine on Crieff says:

    An absolutely disgraceful posting that, in conjunction with today’s news about the unionist bigots planning to target Nicola Sturgeon, brings the contribution from those opposed to independence to a disgusting new low.

    I am a Scot, living in Scotland, but I am also part English and, having spent the first 30 years of my life south of the border, I speak with a (northern) English accent.

    Regarding this sentence – “Perhaps Mr Salmond made his attitude clear to these millions when he organised the great “Homecoming 2009” a while back – when it was clear to all that if your accent was in English rather than American, you had best not bother.” – I want to make it absolutely clear that Mr Salmond in no way comes across as anti-English. I would go so far as to describe him as an Anglophile, such has been the generous and even affectionate way he has described the English people in the past.

    Although I am a proud Scot, I am always sensitive to any expressions of Anglophobia (or of any kind of racism/ethnic-hatred); I do not want Scotland to be associated with bile of this sort in any way. I can honestly say that nothing Salmond, the SNP or the wider Yes campaign say or do makes me think that they are anti-English. Scottish self-determination is presented as something for all Scots – that is, those people for whom Scotland is their home – regardless of other identities they may possess.

    The only time Englishness is even raised in this debate is when the No side want to use it to divide people. “Your family and friends in England will be foreigners”, “you’ll need a passport to visit them”, oh, and that old favourite of mine, which tends to come from Labour unionists “what the hell has it got to do with you anyway, you’re English?”.

    The only saving grace from a Labour-in-Scotland perspective, is this Ian Stewart clown is resident in Camberwell, by his own admission has spent the last 16 years “messing around with very silly leftist grouplets”, and seems to have had little exposure to the issues surrounding the quest for Scottish nationhood. As he claims to be a “keen supporter of the Welfare State” he obviously has no idea of what Lamont’s Labour are about. 

    What I want to know, though, is where are the voices of decency in the Labour Party and the No campaign? Where are the moderates who, while they may want to see Scotland remain in the UK, disapprove of slurs, downright lies, and even links to violent groups?

    Bitter Together, indeed!

     

      

  39. pro-loco says:

    @ juteman

     It was the difference in tone – especially in regard to ‘can do’ in the article I linked to – that impressed me. The ambition to achieve something in renewables has impressed someone outside of the UK press bubble.

      

  40. Juteman says:

    I love ambition pro-loco.
     It has been battered out of us for centuries.

      

  41. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    I wouldn’t get excited about some moron spouting vile abuse. It’s another sign of their desperation. If you know you can’t win the argument, pick a fight.

    Characters like Stewart want a gutter scrap. We have to rise above it all. Stay positive and focused and don’t slip into any ridiculous language such as possible violence etc.      

      

  42. Ghengis says:

    @ Juteman
    ” you can’t simply say that Scotland produces its energy via hydro and wind! Saying it, doesn’t make it true”
    That is not what the ‘article’ says. It says: “Scotland produces its renewable energy via hydro and wind”

      

  43. Juteman says:

    @Ghengis.
     You can produce (pick an amount) 85.04564% of your energy via hydro and wind. So what?

      

  44. Ghengis says:

    Pro-Loco’s link does not contain the whole text of the praise heaped on our first minster, but this does: http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/responses-climate-awards.html
    Regards Juteman’s last comment you said: ‘so what’ what? <scratches head>
    I’ll guess .. If we produce 100% of our demand for electricity in Scotland by renewables energy then we can export the rest and collect much needed revenues for the improvement of Scotland. Not too far into the future renewables will be cheaper than the ollder methods which will be shut down whereupon we will need to continue to produce more renewable energy in order to export and fund good stuff in Scotland. Not forgetting job creation in a sustainable industry ……

      

  45. muttley79 says:

    @Sunshine on Crieff

    I agree with you about Salmond.  They are just making up stuff about him now.  I must say though, there is a significant section of Scottish people who believe that the SNP are anti-English.  I have heard this from a relative of mine, and other family members.  They think that because you support the SNP and/or independence you are automatically against the English people.  They hate people criticizing rule from London as well.  I honestly can’t see the logic in it at all, but they genuienly believe it.  I do not know how they would explain the invovlement of English people in the SNP though.       

      

  46. cynicalHighlander says:

    @ muttley79
     
    I must really hate myself because I was born in England with siblings still living there just shows the vacuousness of the no campaign.

      

  47. JLT says:

    An unbelieveable rant, and wrong on, oh so, many fronts!!!

    This is a Labour man who STILL cannot see why Labour lost the Scottish Elections twice over. This is a seriously bitter rant against a Government that was genuinely elected with a huge majority of votes from all over Scotland – and he hates it with an absolute passion. This is the ‘flower’ of what a die-hard Unionist really looks like.

    And his line about France, the National Assembly, and how that nation is a beacon of light is absolute nonsense – let’s burst that bubble right away. France is heading for a serious cultural clash at some point in the future. I believe that 24% of France is now made up of immigrants, and that quite a few of them don’t believe in ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ (Booing of the La Marseillaise in Paris when the French team play). France is anything, but unified. 
    And what of the recent reports about London - in the last few weeks, it was announced that more than 50% of London is now made up of Non-Brits. With UKIP on the rise, this is a party that opposes multiculturialism. This means that if they get into power (coaltion with the Tories looking likely(!!)), then there will clashes on the English Political Landscape about who, and what should be British. 

    And if I had to take a guess at Sinn Fein’s motives (if this is true!!), then it is to have the 100 million Irish / Irish descendents, and have them put pressure on Britain to surrender the province back to Ireland. If the halfwit, Ian Stewart, can’t see this, then he really is an idiot, and is blinded by his own rage. He demands this ‘National Assembly’ for all Scots worldwide, in a mission to stop Scotland leaving the Union, yet he doesn’t realise that by giving the same thing to the Irish, that the UK will lose Northern Ireland to the Republic. He can’t have it both ways!!! He saves one part of the Kingdom using this scheme, but loses another part of the Kingdom by the same mechanism.
    My guess is that even if the Scots descendants in the US, Canada, Australia and NZ were given the vote, the chances are, they would probably vote ‘YES’ …and why, because of ‘sheer spite’ …spite of what happened to them, and their kindred in the past (the clearances, the famines, the 1970′s, 80′s and 90′s under Thatcherism) - forced to leave Scotland due to having to find a better life, as the Union took everything away from them while they lived here.

    Ian Stewart, seriously ….hasn’t got a clue !!

      

  48. JLT says:

    I’m going to rant here, so I’ll apologise now. 

    To be honest, I am sick to the back teeth of this ‘media element’ and the Unionist leaders with their bare faced lying and scare stories.
     
    I’m telling you, I can’t wait for the ‘live’ debate between Salmond and the Unionists on the eve of the Referendum. I hope Salmond annhilates them on ‘live’ TV, and that he wins the argument.
    Seriously …If I was the Scottish Government, then I would have things put in place just a few days before the debate. I would have the Law Lords warn all the speakers that when they speak to the nation, if it is found out afterwards, that they openly lied to the nation, then they will be facing a seriously long jail sentence, be kicked out of politics for good, and also be sued for everything by the state. This is Scotland’s soul we are fighting for here – not some trivial matter. To lie to the nation is an act of treason, therefore it should be treated with absolute utter seriousness.
    Lying will NOT be tolerated in any form.
    I would make them all swear not only on the bible, but that they sign documents to promise that they only speak the truth …and I would have this done ‘live’ right before the debate began.

    I would honestly do this. It would put the frighteners on them all …even the media. I would dare whoever stood across from Salmond (whether it is Lamont, Rennie, Davidson, Darling or even Cameron), to tell an open lie.
    Knowing that it would be the end of them, I bet that they would clam up, or struggle to get one of their ‘lies’ across. I think we need something like this so that the people DO get the truth. It means we would find out exactly who is lying to the nation!!

      

  49. squidge142 says:

    I would like to know what Mr Stewart was doing at Homecoming 2009 when I ( an english woman) was part of a group of reenacters portraying the Scottish Wars of Independence at various different events all over Scotland along with members of our group who are South African, German, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, And on and on and on it goes.  The implication that the referendum is somehow anti english is stupid and ignorant and people like this man should get out from behind their bloody keyboard and talk to real people.

      

  50. DJ says:

    JLT – They’ve been strangers to truth for years. We can’t win in the courts, because by the time it’s proven – we’ve lost the referendum.

    Reasoned arguement is the only possibility.  

      

  51. MJB says:

    Have just noticed another entry on his blog from 26/11/12 regarding to fire fighters jobs being cut by 4000 across the UK,i thought this was a bit suspect and went to the Scottish FBU site and all i seen was the agreement to have a single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service,no mention of firefighters job cuts.  This guy might be worth following more often,he`s an open goal.

      

  52. JLT says:

    DJ

    But that’s the point. It doesn’t matter if Scotland was independent or not at that stage, the Law would still apply. So even, if say one of the speakers was found to have lied two years after the event – jail them, kick them out of politics and sue them.
    The threat that the law would still catch up with them, regardless of how long after the event, must surely make them think twice when opening their mouths.
    As I said, this isn’t a trivial matter. This is deadly serious. This is bigger than a General Election, and so to lie …well, in my eyes….it is treason, as that person has lied against their nation, and their kindred.

      

  53. Grahamski says:

    “We hope the Yes side doesn’t descend to the depths of Mr Stewart, and that the aggressive provocation of the Unionists doesn’t lead to the spilling of blood in Scotland as it continues to do in Northern Ireland.”

    Hilarious. 

      

  54. Adrian B says:

    ‘The battle over independence will get ugly in the next 18 months. We hope the Yes side doesn’t descend to the depths of Mr Stewart, and that the aggressive provocation of the Unionists doesn’t lead to the spilling of blood in Scotland as it continues to do in Northern Ireland. If it does, forgiveness will be a long time coming.’

    The link from the word ugly is a serious one following this news and should not at all be viewed as “Hilarious”

    http://wingsland.podgamer.com/civic-nationalism-vs-british-nationalism/ 

      

  55. Willie Zwigerland says:

    Seasick Dave, 
    If Scotland becomes independent what will I miss? To be honest I can’t think of any dramatic impacts for me personally, it won’t stop me visiting friends and family. I guess it will put pay to any chance of the A1 being Edinburgh and Newcastle being upgraded! And I’ll be sad if there’s any impact to the Scotland based people at the company I work for. 
    As for the best things, no more mention of the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian Question.  And hopefully the naked rambler will get deported!

      

  56. Juteman says:

    @Willie
    I think you’ll find it will be more likely that the A1 will be upgraded after independence.

      

  57. AndrewFraeGovan says:

    @Willie Zwigerland
    I’d say the chances of Edinburgh and Newcastle being upgraded would be much greater under independence.

      

  58. douglas clark says:

    Grahamski,
     
    What, exactly, is hilarious about that? Are you assuming that your enemies enemy is your friend or summat?

      

  59. AndrewFraeGovan says:

    Meaning of course the A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle. Would be much better use of Scottish resources than building the M25!

      

  60. Grahamski says:

    What is hilarious is that in the same sentence Mr Campbell suggests that the YESnp campaign is above scaremongering whilst scaremongering himself.

    Cybernats just don’t do irony, do they? 

      

  61. douglas clark says:

    Grahamski,
     
    OK, I’ll bite. What scaremongering do you think the SNP has promulgated?
     

      

  62. Willie Zwigerland says:

    AndrewFraeGovan – perhaps Edinburgh to Berwick maybe but I doubt it. I see no reason why infrastructure spending in Scotland upon independence won’t continue to be central belt biased whether power is in London or Edinburgh. Same reason why infrastructure spending in the NorthEast of England is focussed on the Tyneside to Teesside corridor 

      

  63. cath says:

    Salmond was talking very recently about increasing trade with the north of England, and Socttish independence potentially being very good for re-invigorating the North of England as well as Scotland. I suspect this is true. There’s huge benefit to the Scottish government in using our resources to upgrade links from the central belt to England, and also to upgrade links to the Highlands, islands and potentially – looking much longer term - also to invest large amounts in a northern trade corridor, especially if the arctic is melting and creating new routes there. It’s far more likley to happen with an independent Scotland, keen to create more investment, than it is to happen from London, which doesn’t give a stuff about Scotland or the north, preferring to pile all investment into the South and London.

      

  64. Holebender says:

    I have some simple questions for those who advocate allowing the diaspora to vote in the referendum.
     
    . How would you organise it, logistically?
    . Who would be eligible to vote and who would be excluded? What are the criteria for eligibility?
    . Would anyone currently eligible to vote in the referendum be excluded? Why, or why not?

      

  65. Willie Zwigerland says:

    Holebender, it’s not going to happen, but I don’t see why this couldn’t have been organised if the political will had existed. (After all the SNP are prepared to change the current electoral rules to allow 16 year Scots to vote)
    - Plenty of time until the referendum, just need to make an amended version of the electoral roll
    -Allow anyone with a UK passport born in Scotland to request to be added to the roll for the council area in which they were born. (Similar to the way new residents are added).
    -No current Scottish residents on the electoral roll would be excluded as part of this.
    Other than the extra cost that this would incur and concerns around the exclusion of those without a UK passport I can’t see anything fundamentally wrong with this suggestion, it’s essentially similar to how the French and Americans ex-pats are allowed to vote. 
     

      

  66. Peter Mirtitsch says:

    To all of you who protest about the poor expats not being able to vote, why should the vote not be restricted to those who actually LIVE, WORK and CONTRIBUTE to our society? If you care enough about Scotland, then why not register to vote here, after fulfilling the necessary requirements? If you want to make your life abroad, fair enough, but don’t try and dictate how we run ours.
     

      



Leave a Reply




↑ Top