After a month of hemming and hawing beyond the date they initially said they would launch their fatuous referendum, the Nattists have finally got round to it.
And we can see why there's been a delay - clearly, a lot of internal wailing and gnashing of teeth over yet another climbdown, which will be difficult to sell to the grassroots.
Because the referendum question on "independence" has been watered down AGAIN. We've gone from:
"negotiate a settlement so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
to:
"the Parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved."
Surely, not even the most delusional, swivel-eyed Nat could possibly argue that a positive vote on this question would constitute a mandate for independence. Voting for powers to be extended so that something could be achieved is NOT the same as voting for that something to actually happen.
So, they've retreated still further and abandoned "independence". Huzzah!
Or, could it be the case that this is another pathetic attempt at a rigged question, trying to disguise the irrevocable destruction of the United Kingdom as something bland and innocuous?
I wonder.
[PS, the referendum consultation paper nails the Nats' trousers firmly to the mast on a couple of issues which demonstrate the ludicrousness of the entire project. To wit:
"1.20. Within this relationship, a broad range of cultural, social and policy links would continue and it is likely that both an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK would seek to maintain and build on a series of cross-border partnerships and services. As members of the European Union, both Scotland and the rest of the UK would enjoy full access to the other's markets and there would be freedom to travel and work in either country.
1.21. Scotland would continue to operate within the Sterling system until any decision to join the Euro by the people of Scotland in a referendum."
I'll come back to this later.]
Anna's birthday Day 1 - Buying a guitar
1 day ago
52 comments:
I don't know what your vision of Scottish independence would be Smee. I am willing to bet that it is not the same as mine.
You seem to think it would be a rather dramatic process.
I'm not particularly bothered about lines being blurred. It may well be that there will be a further shift of powers to the Parly first before we gain independence. That wouldn't really bother me, we can only travel as fast as the voters want.
But what I think is a mistake on the unionist parties part is to attempt to stifle the route.
All parties agree that there should be further powers devolved. All opinion polls agree that is what the electorate want. It's hard to see how unionists can argue against putting the options to the electorate, especially as the Labour Govt have agreed two separate referendums on different matters as we speak.
I don't think applying special rules to Scotland will work.
Not in the long term.
"the Parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved."
You haven't really grasped the significance of that, have you?
Not "conning us again"
but...
...."trying to con us again"
A very weak post as usual Sm753, I sometimes wonder why you bother.
You haven't grasped the significance of the question which makes it all the more impressive.
You seem to be flailing around in your rather absolutist world not realising that the trajectory towards independence is quickening and unionism, certainly of the variety that you espouse, is getting weaker by the day.
All aboard the freedom bus!
"All aboard the freedom bus!"
I'll keep a seat for you Sm753.
"I don't know what your vision of Scottish independence would be Smee. I am willing to bet that it is not the same as mine."
Well it would seem to look like this, Observer:
- national income exactly the same as it is now, as we've been told over and over again by Swinney that the GERS numbers are correct;
- everything from EU budget contributions to BBC fees to the costs of the Civil Service substantially up, as we create endless layers of duplication and bureaucracy as we create new "independent" institutions;
- instead of using the hated Pound, run for the southeast of England, we are, er, still using the, er, Pound, although we now wouldn't have the seat on the MPC which we have now. Oh, possibly we could switch over the Euro, and have negligible influence over a currency run for Frankfurt.
- we are less safe, with Faslane shut, thousands of defence jobs gone and no meaningful defences of any sort.
- Incidentally, we would no longer be able to discriminate against non-Scottish Brits at our universities. So either UK citizens would be able to go to Scottish universities for free, or they'd be charging fees.
Sorry, I'm struggling to see any positives in this scenario at all.
What on earth are you going on about? There would be less beaurocracy not more. We would be cutting out the Westminster tier, bringing government closer to the people, and having an opportunity to reshape how government is delivered.
As far as issues of currency etc are concerned, that would be for the future to determine. It would be a fairly seamless divorce and one based on consensus - as the SNP policy papers have made perfectly clear. The migration to a new structure would happen over time.
But it would happen.
The opportunity to re-shape a country and learn from past mistakes is a very exciting one.
I can't see any negatives.
"What on earth are you going on about? There would be less beaurocracy not more. We would be cutting out the Westminster tier"
What are you on about?
There is no Westminster "tier" - some stuff is devolved, other stuff isn't.
Have you heard of "economies of scale"?
In all the non-devolved areas, we get the benefit of a UK-size machine while only having to pay for 8.5% of it.
Under "independence", we would be paying for our own "independent" Treasury, Foreign Office, MOD, DWP, etc.
And as demonstrated by previous posts, this would cost a lot more and end up delivering a lot less.
Smee do you have any idea how government works?
Take benefits for example. They are split, some being processed by the DWP and some being processed by Councils. It's a logistical nightmare, a paper trail from hell.
Having everything centred in Scotland would be far more efficient and we'd have an opportunity to streamline processes which are done now because that's the way they've always been done and for no other reason.
The UK govt is - whisper it - rather inefficient at doing lots of things. The chance to reshape a Scottish one could result in better services using fewer resources.
Silly sm753
This site and indeed unionism is like the 'prog rock' of music.
I was always a soul boy.
"The UK govt is - whisper it - rather inefficient at doing lots of things. The chance to reshape a Scottish one could result in better services using fewer resources."
In
your
dreams.
The day after "independence", the first thing the current middle-ranker heading up DWP Scotland - and his counterparts at HMRC and so on - would do would be drafting up a case why, since they were now cabinet-level departments reporting to ministers, they would need to be paid commensurately with their new responsibilites and their counterparts.
Then there's the cost of creating a new Treasury, FCO and MOD from scratch. (Of course, since the Nats don't intend a meaningful defence, the latter might be quite cheap. But then they'd have to admit they'd be axing tens of thousands of defence-related jobs. Oops.)
I've already pointed out (http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/09/nat-paper-on-foreign-affairs-weasel.html) that 8.5% of the current FCO/DFID is a lot less than the Irish or Danish pay for their "independent" foreign policy.
I've also pointed out that we would stand to lose £328m a year in our share of the current EU budget rebate - something I am still waiting to be refuted on.
For the bureaucrats, power=status=empire=budget. There is no evidence from other countries like Denmark and Ireland that there is some magic "small-country" recipe for more efficient government. Quite the reverse.
I wonder aloud how much potential revenue was lost by the Baltic States by the withdrawal of the Baltic fleet from Ventspils, Kalapedia, Tallin-Mugga etc. It is not as if they were/are flushed with cash.
Maybe they could have been pragmatic like the Ukrainians and leased out a port or two?
The Russian Baltic Fleet was never that large, and is now in such a decayed and decimated state that it doesn't fill the wharves at St Petersburg and Kaliningrad.
Different story in the Black Sea, Ivan is building a new base at Novorossisysk so it can move when the Sevastopol lease ends.
The lease is only $98m a year anyway - peanuts.
Bet the Russians are spitting on Khruschchev's grave over his "birthday present" of the Crimea to Ukraine - before that it was historically Russian.
Here's one for you Sm753, you might have seen it already.
Genuinely, thought you might like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4
If you look at where much of the Russian navy was built, you will observe that a few ships were constructed in the Ukraine before the break up of the USSR.
Surely the Ukraine is missing out on these defence contracts. Instead "Ivan" is buying ships second-hand off the French.
Yes, Nikolayev used to be one of the main Soviet shipyards.
I suspect it's the case, however, that both the Russian and Ukrainian military shipyards have lost so much expertise that they're simply not capable of building anything sophisticated (or at least doing it quickly - look at how long it takes them to build a sub these days.)
It's not 2nd-hand ships they're thinking of getting from the Surrender Monkeys - brand new Mistral-class LPHs.
No doubt the thinking is that having those around to look at will clue them in so they can build themselves later on.
This is boring.
Right, who's looking forward to the Sunday papers?
It's hard not to talk about the Leader Steven Purcell's shcok resignation.
Over the last 5 days, we've heard various reasons.
1. That he was stressed over the commonwealth games and Labour's SPT Expenses Scandal, cited by his PR Firm.
2. That he was 'chemically dependent' as reported by the BBC via leaks in the council, possibly even a smear campaign by labour rivals?
3. That he was distraught over the tragic death of a young labour activist outside the city halls on Monday as postulated by STV and Lorraine Davidson, one time McConnell's Labour Spinner, now just Labour Spinner for the Times.
4. The Sunday papers will reveal.
It's apparently put Labour group in the council into free fall with a series of actions already taking sides, some opposed to Purcell's Blairite reforms, others just looking for a free lunch and trip to Manchester.
Personally I find Ukrainian shipyards more interesting than the personal goings-on of a Weegie councillor, but YMMV.
Fair enough Sm753
But the bits of information seem to be all over the place with well known Labour supporting journalists postulating links between some very tragic events that certainly on the fac eof it, seem entirely unconnected.
1. Stress over SPT Labour Scandal / Commonwealth Games
2. 'Chemical Dependancy', a phrase apparently coined by the internal GCC PR team.
3. Tragic death of youn Council employee and Labour Activist in the recent Glasgow North East By Election.
4. Purcell fleeing a rehabilitation clinic, a search being called off and the man himself discharging himself
5. Purcell apparently fleeing the country for the 'southern hemisphere', probably Australia in the face of media speculation and what the Sunda papers are about to reveal.
6. Union Leader and internal Labour Party rivals giving short but seriously negiative quotes to the press.
7. Glasgow City Council being investigated over data protection breach
8. An attempt to close down the story going all the way back to the initial SPT Scandal.
A number of speculators are suggesting that the story that is about to erupt is not centred on Purcell solely but more on a wider cronyism or corruption prevalent in the West Coast..... this would seem to suggest property, financial or funding irregularities.
"Personally I find Ukrainian shipyards more interesting "
Did you mean to say that in public?
Smee are you absolutely sure that you are a Tory? I can't think of any other Tories who would find Ukranian shipyards more interesting than the immensely peculiar circumstances surrounding the strange resignation of Mr Purcell.
Most Tories I think would smell blood dripping from their traditional enemies, and be circling avidly.
Or is it perhaps unionism that binds you all together?
"Or is it perhaps unionism that binds you all together?"
By Jove, I think you've got it!
Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all want to improve the lot of the United Kingdom. We just differ on some of the means.
Nats want to destroy it.
I really am tremendously non-interested in what Purcell has or has not done or ingested.
Goodness me, are you quite sure about this? You really don't care about what Group Captain Tootsie has been up to as long as he serves the cause of unionism?
Well, well, well......
Well it's been a busy day reading about what your fellow unionist(s) have been up to in the Dear Green Place.
How are the boats in the Ukraine then?
Isn't it that time of year for you to visit the great imperial 'big smoke' for your new shoes?
No, since I now have the shoes (two pairs) and with a combination of wearing them alternate days and an occasional re-heel and re-sole, they'll last the best part of 10 years.
Plus I don't need to extend the lives of any airmiles until December.
Your points re DWP etc all make sense Smee if the purpose of independence is to create a kind of mini-UK north of the border complete with layer upon layer of complex and largely needless bureacracy which dis-incentivises work rather than the other way around.
But the point of independence is the opposite of that.
It is to get rid of the dead wood not preserve it.
"But the point of independence is the opposite of that.
It is to get rid of the dead wood not preserve it."
Really?
Are you quite, quite sure that the likes of Sturgeon would agree with that?
Are you quite sure that they wouldn't say that the "point" would be to use the "hidden oil billions" and "green energy revenues" (hollow laugh) to create a "left of centre social democratic" paradise in which loads of stuff is "free"?
It seems to me SM that you believe that the Scottish economy can only ever and ever exist on the public purse.
A lot of speculation about present levels of public spending etc make the bizarre assumption that the Scottish economy will be static.
There seems to be no hope from many in the pro-union side that the Scottish economy might a) see an increase in private sector activity which b) will produce more tax revenue and c) lower the amount of people dependent on the state either as public sector workers or on the dole/incapacity benefit (and could be working if there were opportunities for them).
You talk of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Those who believe that Scotland benefits from the union seem to have an attitude towards the Scottish economy that is not just defeatism but defeatist. And more shockingly that attitude comes from Tories as well as Labour with its client state etc.
Now you can get all Gerald Warneresque and claim the people are stupid and lazy (and he has) but if you economically depress an area suddenly then of course the economy will collapse.
The Kelvin MacKenzies of this world wonder why the economically depressed parts of the UK are not entreprenerial. Well because the skills in those parts become redundant and were not utilised for something else.
If the City of London disappeared tomorrow where would the wonderful private sector workers within it and the other sectors it supports in the South East economy do? Would they spring into action and found businesses or more likely end up on the dole long-term?
Seven Oaks might end up looking like a bad area of Motherwell.
Say what you like about Paddy, but they did not sit on their backsides wailing "we are doomed, we have generally always been poor and always will be".
Aberdonian
I see absolutely no sign whatsoever that the Nats are or would be a pro-entrepeneurial party.
They are self-declared "left of centre social democrats".
The Nat analysis always falls apart due to the "something" fallacy.
As in: "X is not acceptable.
We must do something.
Independence is something.
Therefore we must become independent!"
...whereas there is no consideration of how "independence" would actually help solve problem X.
On the economic front, let's consider that:
- the City of London would still be there, and all our major companies would list and HQ there;
- Glasgow + environs and Dundee would still be post-industrial problem areas, just like Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester etc
- "independent" Scottish government revenue would be more or less the same as now (as shown by SNP-approved GERS)
- "independent" Scottish government costs would be higher than now - no EU budget rebate and spending on "independent" vanities and fripperies like diplomats and an "SBC"
Yes, that would really help.
Not.
"the City of London would still be there, and all our major companies would list and HQ there"
Bit of an assumption. If there was fiscal advantage to be hqd in Scotland they would be in Scotland.
Despite the pull of the USA (eased by NAFTA), not all major Canadian companies mysteriously base themselves in NY.
Come to think of it, many major US corporations are not based in NY.
Defeatism and defeatist.
Now I do not believe that independence is either a panacea for the economic problems nor do I believe necessary that Scotland has to be independent to solve the problems. But unfortunately we do not have the economic levers at the moment to improve ourselves in the present situation.
Your ideas to improve the economy?
""the City of London would still be there, and all our major companies would list and HQ there"
Bit of an assumption. "
No, not assumption, it is a present fact.
One of the key differences between us now and the Irish in 1921 or the Norwegians in 1908 - globalisation has happened. There are no local stock exchanges any more. There are no (large) "Scottish" companies - they are all British.
So one of the supposed benefits of "independence" - control over / patronage of your "own" companies - is no longer possible.
"But unfortunately we do not have the economic levers at the moment to improve ourselves"
...and, again, how would "independence" change this?
Apparently we'd go "independent" but, initially, keep the £ - with less influence over it than now - and then join the € - with, again, less influence over it than we currently have over our currency and interest rates.
And on taxation, we've now had it confirmed via GERS that an "independent" Scottish administration would have basically the same amount of cash to spend as at present.
So any business friendly corp tax cuts would have to go with equivalent cuts in spending.
Think Sturgeon & co would go with such a Thatcher-Lafferite proposal?
No, thought not.
None of it adds up - you're always thrown back on the atavistic "but we're different from THEM" argument, which is repulsive.
You seem to make the assumption that if Scotland was to become independent that the SNP would be in power for perpetuity or even exist for perpetuity.
Looking at previous independence movements, the pro-independence movement in many cases dissolves into rival political parties. Ireland is a case in point.
Whisper it - an independent Scotland might even elect a conservative administration when the right is less tainted with Conservative and Unionist brand. Murdo Fraser as head of an independent Scottish administration?
Unless you are arguing that the Scots are too stupid, lazy, state-dependent yada yada (Warner, John Junor verbatum etc) to consider making that choice.
Do I think that Scottish companies in an independent Scotland would continue to be on the London Stock exchange. Yes. As is the American company Coca-Cola which still trades on Wall Street.
We do not even have regional stock exchanges in the UK anymore leading to the belief in City omnipotence.
"but we're different from THEM" argument, which is repulsive.
Ah Lady Gaga's policy towards the EC/EU summarised.
Concerning the currency, I am not totally sure if the Scottish economy rates that highly when the make decisions about Sterling anyway. We might have a higher priority than the non-UK parts of the Sterling zone. I doubt the BoE when setting interest rates cares much about the price of Paella rice on Gib or beans in St Helena.
Remember Eddie George's remarks about unemployment is a price worth paying.
(I remember my German Economics professor at the time saying such remarks would make George Salmond's best friend and similar remarks by a Bundesbank boss would likely have got that person fired - keep the Ostis happy.
If the BoE and central banking system was operated more on the old German lines of regional central banks - still used in the USA of course when advising the Fed maybe I would have more faith in the system.
Too right Smee the point of independence is to create a Scandinavian style social democracy - and have their levels of participation in the workforce.
Aberdonian
There is a member of the MPC with the specific job of feeding in information on economic conditions in Scotland - he was interviewed in the Hootsmon not long ago.
Indy
"the point of independence is to create a Scandinavian style social democracy - and have their levels of participation in the workforce."
Splendid.
This is, I believe, what is known as "wishful thinking".
Please explain how this is to be achieved by a putative "independent" state which would have
- no more government revenue than it has now
- higher costs right across government (and including things like EU budget contributions £300m higher than now), and
- a corporate sector which would be largely domiciled, listed and regulated outside the country.
Which member of the MPC?
I am aware that there is a Bank of England Agent for Scotland - as there are for the other parts of the UK.
(The one for the North West of England apparently operates out of Warrington these days - sadly they have abandoned the palatial scale model of the BoE building in Manchester's King Street in the heart of the city's "Half Square Mile".)
"a corporate sector which would be largely domiciled, listed and regulated outside the country."
Again an assumption. What if a Scottish stock exchange/finance system had more liberal regulatory regime than the City - within or outwith the UK?
Or is your default position that Scotland is "Belarus on the North Sea"?
"no more government revenue than it has now"
Again an assumption that the Scottish economy is terminal/static.
You may have a point about higher costs across government. Maybe you should investigate how much it costs the Isle of Man and Channel Islands to have a number of government departments that do not exist in devolved administrations such as "Customs and Immigration", "Communications - telephones, postal service etc" and "Energy - state provision of gas and electricity". Provision of their own coastguard service etc. Social Security. Island Passport offices. The Manx, Jersey and Guernsey governments having lodge equivalent funds every week with the BoE for the value of their local notes and coins to guarantee their value. Cannae be cheap.
I have always found it amusing that the Conservative and Unionist Party devo sceptics have never campaigned to have those island administrations shut down. Offshore accounts mebbe.
Of course one of the issues on the IoM at the moment is the UK government's revokation of giving Manx residents free medical treatment when in the UK. Now surely if they were (a devolved) part of the UK they would not be facing this problem----
"Which member of the MPC?
I am aware that there is a Bank of England Agent for Scotland"
OK, you may be right - the Agent may not actually be on the MPC itself.
"What if a Scottish stock exchange"
...there isn't one, if one was set up, why would any decent-sized firm want to list on a new, small, shallow, illiquid exchange?
"/finance system had more liberal regulatory regime than the City"
Ah, so you're backing Alex "even lighter touch regulation than Brown" Salmond!
That's a slightly curious and courageous position to take up right now, isn't it?
"no more government revenue than it has now"
Again an assumption that the Scottish economy is terminal/static."
No. Simply a recognition that any economic benefits arising from "independence" (which I see no evidence for) would take time to arrive, while the extra costs would kick in from day one.
How long are we supposed to bear the costs while waiting for the promised "benefits" to arrive?
Five years? A decade? Sixty or seventy years, like the Irish?
"You may have a point about higher costs across government. Maybe you should investigate"
I already did some investigating, at
http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/09/nat-paper-on-foreign-affairs-weasel.html
in which I point out that
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/09/08143726/9
quite hilariously proves the point that all the other "small independent" countries in Europe are paying a lot more for their foreign services, memberships of international organisations and so on than we are.
The same post also points out the absolute self-interest of the rest of the EU in choosing to treat an "independent" Scotland as a new entrant, which would mean our paying £328m more than at present.
That, alone, is about 6% of current total Scottish public spending.
Yikes.
It would take one whole lot of mysterious "independence"-driven extra economic growth to make up for that.
And here is me nearly swallowing that the Tories are the party or aspiration. If this blog is a slight reflection of it, then the Scottish Tories are as much dogged with the "Cannae" syndrome.
But then it is the party that was bankrolled by the smug, complacent, the Empire-will-never-end oligarch that oversaw the destruction of Scottish economy - usually by not investing in the good time - anyway - and legged it.
Why would companies not want to register on a Scottish exchange. If there were less regulation to entry.
And of course the Scottish exchange was a victim of the City. They bought it up and shut it down.
The Germans have a vibrant regional exchange system. Frankfurt is the Vatti, but does not mean that Hamburg etc kow-tows to it.
This is the cancer that runs through the UK. The idea that the south-east of England knows best. Too many people look to London like a Muslim looks to Mecca. Are the city limits of Westminster and the City some sort of secular Kabaah?
"If this blog is a slight reflection of it, then the Scottish Tories are as much dogged with the "Cannae" syndrome."
No, we're just realists. Do what you can succeed at; don't bother tilting at windmills you can never bring down.
"Why would companies not want to register on a Scottish exchange. If there were less regulation to entry."
Because said exchange would be small, shallow and illiquid. Meaning that a company's shares would trade at a discount to the level they would be at on a large, deep, liquid exchange. Like London.
"And of course the Scottish exchange was a victim of the City. They bought it up and shut it down."
Yes, the Edinburgh and Glasgow exchanges - along with the other tiddlers throughout the UK - were unable to compete with London. That process is called globalisation and it has continued. That is one of the major reasons why "independence" is not sensible for us, here and now, while it may well have been sensible for the Norwegians in 1908 or the Irish in 1921.
"The Germans have a vibrant regional exchange system. Frankfurt is the Vatti, but does not mean that Hamburg etc kow-tows to it."
Yes it does - the prices are set in Frankfurt.
"This is the cancer that runs through the UK. The idea that the south-east of England knows best."
No, it's just the fact that we have to recognise that London exists.
It is a world-scale and world-class global mega-city.
It is going to be a draw for talent, money, influence and power no matter what flimsy artificial boundaries we choose to put between us and it. (Ask the French.)
Scotland's economy is going to be dominated by London whatever happens. All "independence" would mean would be throwing away whatever influence we have over it.
The Aberdonian is right I am afraid Smee. You are so uniformly negative that you should have the Death March as your theme tune.
"Negative" is a term of abuse used by optimists to describe realists.
Your reply looks like a cheap emotional shot from someone with no rational argument.
Get real. Take a cab to reality city.
Explain how an "independent" Scotland which is still an EU member (and paying £300m a year more for the privilege), still using either the £ or €, and still hasn't discovered any magic "stolen oil billions" is going to be better off, while paying for all the extra costs of setting up a bunch of "independent" government institutions.
I think this is the third time of asking.
All you can offer is vague wishful thinking along the lines of "Ah, it would all be different".
Let's all join hands and sing "Kumbaya, my Lord..."
You have already been told the answer to that - look upwards.
We don't need to replicate the current structure of the UK.
Every assumption you make is negative.
Government - any government - is about priorities. The priorities would change.
Essentially Smee you believe that an independent Scotland would be just a mini UK only disadvantaged because we didn't have the UK's ''clout''.
That is negative thinking, it seems all you are capable of.
"Every assumption you make is negative. "
They are not "assumptions".
I have researched the data and done the math.
"Independent" Scotland = same revenue, higher costs, less influence, less safe.
Oh, and run by a nutty bunch of parochial, history-obsessed crypto-racists.
What's not to like?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100311-0008.htm
Devastating.
Go on sm75, it's worthy of a post.
"Oh, and run by a nutty bunch of parochial, history-obsessed crypto-racists."
Goodness me.
Have you been drinking sherry again?
"Oh, and run by a nutty bunch of parochial, history-obsessed crypto-racists."
Sounds like the UK 1979-1997.
Portillo (of all people) "Drake's Drum" speech?
Thatcher (according to Helmut Kohl) having a tantrum when Mitterand said he would support German reunification whilst she refused - apparently stamping her feet and saying "we beat them in two world wars etc"
Nicky Ridley comparing Kohl to Hitler (Thatcher in her memoirs said that Ridley "lost his job because of his honesty").
Thatcher hanging up portraits of Wellington and Nelson when Mitterand came to visit.
"Hang Nelson Mandela - he is a BLACK terrorist"
The general thoughts and deeds of Chairman Tebbit.
And these are the incidents I can remember from the top of my head.
To go back to the power of London, I acknowledge it is a world city. So.
Do the boys of Bay Street (Toronto financial district) say they cannot compete ever with Wall Street or Mercantile Exchange on the other side of the Lakes so there is no point.
"Oh, and run by a nutty bunch of parochial, history-obsessed crypto-racists."
Prompted by an ill-advised visit to the Hootsmon comment pages and, for some reason, a recollection of the current Nat policy on undergraduate fees - i.e. Scots and EU students pay nothing, but English, Welsh and Northern Irish have to pay fees.
If that isn't crypto-racism then I don't what is.
"Do the boys of Bay Street (Toronto financial district) say they cannot compete ever with Wall Street"
Of course they can "compete". There are always niches.
But that's a general point; the specific point is that very few (if any) companies with a New York listing have moved that listing to Toronto.
Just as there is little or no chance the likes of RBS, SSE, Stagecoach and so on would move listing from London to a hypothetical future tiddler of an exchange in Edinburgh.
Smee I seriously don't think that you should judge the argument for independence from the pages of the Hootsman. We all know that in amongst the occasional decent debates that get going there are looney tune crazies from both ''sides'' who sometimes appear to dominate.
We can't dot all the i's and cross all the t's in terms of how an independent Scotland will function. We can't colour in all the pictures. That's because we don't know how it would work in finite detail at this stage.
That would be decided by the voters who live here - that is the point.
I trust my fellow citizens. You, it seems, do not.
Dear oh Dear it appears in today's press that it is 'Scotland Ruling the Waves'......
This can't be good for the morale of the Unionists, something that Scotland is going to excel at and that will mean closer and closer direct european collaboration on an inter-connector, bypassing our friends in the south.
Very concerning.....
I am imagining your creased frown Sm753.
Yawn.
Already dealt with yonks ago at
http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/06/saudi-arabia-of-renewable-energy_10.html
I don't quite see how giving foreign-owned companies the opportunity to earn vast subsidies from US by generating relatively trivial amounts of power amounts to any sort of triumph for the Scottish nation.
More proof that if you take any sort of pig, dress it up in tartan and call it "Scottish", there are Nat mugs who'll cheer it and buy it.
And as for "interconnectors bypassing England", I don't think you've grasped the technical or economic reality, have you?
Post a Comment