Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Apr 18, 2026 10:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
bloodnock wrote:
gusmac wrote:
bloodnock wrote:
The next time Dodd Osborne wants to throw away £10 billion pound (some of which is my money) in a futile attempt to Plug the giant hole in the crumbling Eurozone Dyke...could he please seek my permission first. #-o


Didn't you vote for these idiots?


No..I'm not responsible for Dodd Osborne...I focus all my electoral attention on those lovely people that constitute the Scottish Parliament.

Osborne is a product of your beloved union.
To an independent Scotland, he'd be the upper class chancellor of a foreign country, blowing somebody else's tax money.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
Quote:
Osborne is a product of your beloved union.
To an independent Scotland, he'd be the upper class chancellor of a foreign country, blowing somebody else's tax money.


You just don't get it....Whether its a Union, or an Independent Scotland or a confederation of crofters consortiums.....Your still going to get more bad and self serving politicians than decent ones...

Your Idol, Eck and his henchmen are 10 times keener on EU integration and preservation than Dodd Osbornes Tories are..its Laughable that you knock the Tories whilst your Squad of euro loving numpties would have us deeper in Eurosh*te than a Crofter in a Pig Sty..

We'd go from a somewhat reluctant EU nett contributor within the UK to a poor European basket case going begging bowl in hand to see what we can mooch from our larger richer EU neighbours.

Worse still the EU might not want another small country who is in danger of making further financial demands on its limited funds, More than likely Countries such as Spain who have their own issues with internal Independent wannabee regions wanting independence would block our EU membership anyway.

Now...Eck has to realise that there's one hell of a difference between Nationally Independent and being Nationally Isolated, and its the latter which is the more likely to occur.

Have you seen any Confirmation from Europe that they actually will welcome Scotland with open arms into their EU open arms? No, because its never been mentioned.

It's about time your Master of Eckstremism comes clean on whats really going to happen if god forbid you get your way on an Independent Scotland, At present he Just spouts any old guff without any real substance behind it...lets hear some genuine facts and not his normal Shortbread Nationalistic spiel..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
bloodnock wrote:
Quote:
Osborne is a product of your beloved union.
To an independent Scotland, he'd be the upper class chancellor of a foreign country, blowing somebody else's tax money.


You just don't get it....Whether its a Union, or an Independent Scotland or a confederation of crofters consortiums.....Your still going to get more bad and self serving politicians than decent ones...

Your Idol, Eck and his henchmen are 10 times keener on EU integration and preservation than Dodd Osbornes Tories are..its Laughable that you knock the Tories whilst your Squad of euro loving numpties would have us deeper in Eurosh*te than a Crofter in a Pig Sty..

We'd go from a somewhat reluctant EU nett contributor within the UK to a poor European basket case going begging bowl in hand to see what we can mooch from our larger richer EU neighbours.

Worse still the EU might not want another small country who is in danger of making further financial demands on its limited funds, More than likely Countries such as Spain who have their own issues with internal Independent wannabee regions wanting independence would block our EU membership anyway.

Now...Eck has to realise that there's one hell of a difference between Nationally Independent and being Nationally Isolated, and its the latter which is the more likely to occur.

Have you seen any Confirmation from Europe that they actually will welcome Scotland with open arms into their EU open arms? No, because its never been mentioned.

It's about time your Master of Eckstremism comes clean on whats really going to happen if god forbid you get your way on an Independent Scotland, At present he Just spouts any old guff without any real substance behind it...lets hear some genuine facts and not his normal Shortbread Nationalistic spiel..

Nice speech Tory.

Utterly devoid of any facts, other than your distaste for Scotland and all things Scottish.
Usual puir wee Scottie canna manage on their ain guff. Nobody is buying it anymore.
Your kind have been selling this country short for far too long.
Scotsman my erse, yer a disgrace.

What makes your bad self serving wastemonster politicians any better than their EU or Scottish counterparts?
At least we can vote out our Scottish ones.

Not that I actually give a flying f*ck about the EU, but have you heard anything from them to say that Scotland or THE FORMER UK wouldn't be allowed to CONTINUE as members of the EU?
Constitutionally, both would be in the same boat.
Far from being a drain on their resources, the EU would see us as net contributor, just as the UK exchequer has for many years - even though the reverse has been implied by successive UK regimes.

But, if the EU say no, then so much the better.
We don't need them, any more than we need your wastemonster Tories or their Liebour lackeys.
We are more than big enough to go it alone. With or without your kind.

Begging bowl? Wasn't that what the union used when they went to the IMF in 1976? Just after they buried the Mccrone report and just before they used Scotland's oil wealth to bale out the UK economy and fund Thatcherism?

As for coming clean, we've waited 300 years for the union to do that.
Maybe they will come clean on their "jam tomorrow" pledges.
Or maybe they will just cut our Barnett pocket money, secure in the knowledge that there are still enough suckers left north of the border.
I'll no hold ma breath..........

It's you who doesn't get it.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
gusmac wrote:
As for coming clean, we've waited 300 years for the union to do that.


I wouldnt say that tbh......it was Scots that wanted the union of the crowns, your Queen Mary wrote on numerous occasions to Elizabeth 1st requesting she acknowledge her right to succession, indeed her son James did the same, and when James became the King of England he subsequently filled the court with Scots.

You mention oil, as most scots nats do......but the facts appear to be whilst shale oil was sourced in Scotland during the mid 1800's, North Sea oil wasnt seriously sourced until the 1960's......by this time Scotland had been in the union for 250 years.

If Scotland has been subsidising the UK since the discovery of the oil....which is 50 years....presumably the rest of the UK subsidised Scotland for the previous 250 years?

As for the culture of Scotland, well, the Scots themselves seem to have killed off the Gaels. Even Robert the Bruce was descended from Anglo Normans, as were many other famous 'scots' family's (including my own 'Douglas's).


CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
captain cab wrote:
gusmac wrote:
As for coming clean, we've waited 300 years for the union to do that.


I wouldnt say that tbh......it was Scots that wanted the union of the crowns, your Queen Mary wrote on numerous occasions to Elizabeth 1st requesting she acknowledge her right to succession, indeed her son James did the same, and when James became the King of England he subsequently filled the court with Scots.


Irrelevant.
The union of crowns was a separate union, as you well know. 104 years before the UK existed.

Quote:
If Scotland has been subsidising the UK since the discovery of the oil....which is 50 years....presumably the rest of the UK subsidised Scotland for the previous 250 years?


Presumption indeed. Until the 50's, the UK was subsidised by the Empire.
That's the guys who are better at cricket than the English, if you have forgotten :lol:

Quote:
As for the culture of Scotland, well, the Scots themselves seem to have killed off the Gaels. Even Robert the Bruce was descended from Anglo Normans, as were many other famous 'scots' family's (including my own 'Douglas's).

And?
There is more to Scottish culture than the Gaels.
This land has been settled by many over the centuries, some more peacefully than others.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57306
Location: 1066 Country
One thing that Salmon has been very successful at is uniting Scots against Scots.

He must be a proud man. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
gusmac wrote:
captain cab wrote:
gusmac wrote:
As for coming clean, we've waited 300 years for the union to do that.


I wouldnt say that tbh......it was Scots that wanted the union of the crowns, your Queen Mary wrote on numerous occasions to Elizabeth 1st requesting she acknowledge her right to succession, indeed her son James did the same, and when James became the King of England he subsequently filled the court with Scots.


Irrelevant.
The union of crowns was a separate union, as you well know. 104 years before the UK existed.

Quote:
If Scotland has been subsidising the UK since the discovery of the oil....which is 50 years....presumably the rest of the UK subsidised Scotland for the previous 250 years?


Presumption indeed. Until the 50's, the UK was subsidised by the Empire.
That's the guys who are better at cricket than the English, if you have forgotten :lol:

Quote:
As for the culture of Scotland, well, the Scots themselves seem to have killed off the Gaels. Even Robert the Bruce was descended from Anglo Normans, as were many other famous 'scots' family's (including my own 'Douglas's).

And?
There is more to Scottish culture than the Gaels.
This land has been settled by many over the centuries, some more peacefully than others.


It was the union of the crowns that started the rot, sadly a Scottish idea.....between that and good old religious bigotry.

As for the gaels, they were as Scottish as the anglo normans, the true scots were probably the picts.

If we follow this all back....I suppose Norway will lay claim for Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
captain cab wrote:

It was the union of the crowns that started the rot, sadly a Scottish idea.....between that and good old religious bigotry
Done without the permission of the Scots - or the English for that matter.

What do you suppose Edward 1 & 11 were trying to do 400 years earlier?
Mary Stuart and her son were hardly the first to dream of wearing both crowns, so I'd say your rot was much older than that.
As for religious bigotry, wasn't it Westminster who used exactly that to hand the throne to it's present encombants, ahead of 50 odd Catholics with a better claim? :wink:

Quote:
As for the gaels, they were as Scottish as the anglo normans, the true scots were probably the picts.

If we follow this all back....I suppose Norway will lay claim for Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man.

By that logic the Italians, Germans, French, Danes etc can all lay claim to the rest of the UK.
After all, who are the true English? :lol:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Sussex wrote:
One thing that Salmon has been very successful at is uniting Scots against


Our southern neighbours have always been good at that :lol:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
gusmac wrote:
captain cab wrote:

It was the union of the crowns that started the rot, sadly a Scottish idea.....between that and good old religious bigotry
Done without the permission of the Scots - or the English for that matter.

What do you suppose Edward 1 & 11 were trying to do 400 years earlier?
Mary Stuart and her son were hardly the first to dream of wearing both crowns, so I'd say your rot was much older than that.
As for religious bigotry, wasn't it Westminster who used exactly that to hand the throne to it's present encombants, ahead of 50 odd Catholics with a better claim? :wink:

Quote:
As for the gaels, they were as Scottish as the anglo normans, the true scots were probably the picts.

If we follow this all back....I suppose Norway will lay claim for Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man.

By that logic the Italians, Germans, French, Danes etc can all lay claim to the rest of the UK.
After all, who are the true English? :lol:


The Germans, Danes and the Greek are already on the throne :lol:

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
gusmac wrote:
captain cab wrote:

It was the union of the crowns that started the rot, sadly a Scottish idea.....between that and good old religious bigotry
Done without the permission of the Scots - or the English for that matter.

What do you suppose Edward 1 & 11 were trying to do 400 years earlier?
Mary Stuart and her son were hardly the first to dream of wearing both crowns, so I'd say your rot was much older than that.
As for religious bigotry, wasn't it Westminster who used exactly that to hand the throne to it's present encombants, ahead of 50 odd Catholics with a better claim? :wink:

Quote:
As for the gaels, they were as Scottish as the anglo normans, the true scots were probably the picts.

If we follow this all back....I suppose Norway will lay claim for Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man.

By that logic the Italians, Germans, French, Danes etc can all lay claim to the rest of the UK.
After all, who are the true English? :lol:



I suppose Edward 1st is a different argument in its own right, invited by the Scots to choose in a squabble who should rule Scotland?

Prior to that the Scottish king malcolm signed the Abernethy Submission?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57306
Location: 1066 Country
gusmac wrote:
Sussex wrote:
One thing that Salmon has been very successful at is uniting Scots against

Our southern neighbours have always been good at that :lol:

Don't blame us for your infighting. We are just watching with interest.

As I have said before, you lot do what you want, and I wish you well either way.

But if gaining independence means you split your country, then that's a tad sad IMO.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Sussex wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Sussex wrote:
One thing that Salmon has been very successful at is uniting Scots against

Our southern neighbours have always been good at that :lol:

Don't blame us for your infighting. We are just watching with interest.

As I have said before, you lot do what you want, and I wish you well either way.

But if gaining independence means you split your country, then that's a tad sad IMO.


The British built and maintained an empire using divide and conquer tactics.
Not much surprise they.ve used the same tactics here.
As if butter wouldn't melt....

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
Gusmac wrote:
The British built and maintained an empire using divide and conquer tactics.
Not much surprise they.ve used the same tactics here.
As if butter wouldn't melt....


I don't know a leader that didn't use this tactic other than those that use sheer fear

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Independence Marmalade - An explanation for my friend in Fleet Street!
Monday, 16 April 2012 21:21


By Andrew Graeme

I was talking to an old friend who works for the Pearson Group, the company that is part owner of The Economist and he asked me how their latest cover went down, North of the Border. I told him that it did not help the Unionist cause in the slightest.

“It just appears to be anti-Scottish and extremely arrogant!” I told him. “Most of us in the independence movement think that it could only help us!”

He found this very hard to believe. He genuinely thought that calling Scotland ‘Skintland’ would persuade us to stick with the Union. It was then, that I realised that the Westminster Village and Fleet Street have lost touch with what is going on in Scotland. They are frankly baffled that we want to be independent and do not understand why. So, to explain Scottish politics, I told him about Independence Marmalade.

In the little Highland market town of Dingwall, once a month, we have a stall selling Independence Marmalade and books and, well, just about anything we can scrounge that might raise money for the SNP. This has been a feature of Dingwall High Street for over twenty years.

I also told him how, back in the 90s when I was running a news agency, I was commissioned to write an article for a German magazine on the rising fortunes of a movement that was hardly known outside Scotland, called the Scottish National Party. I telephoned their office in Edinburgh and spoke to their PR man, someone named Mike Russell. He sent me a copy of their monthly news letter and gave me the name of a Scottish journalist working in Vienna, called Angus Robertson, who fielded questions for the German press (in those very rare occasions when such things happened!)

Angus and I chatted on the phone a few times and I learnt that, like me, he had a German mother and was a fluent German speaker. I never gave it much thought after that and assumed until just a few days ago, that this chap working for ORF, the Austrian national broadcaster, would still be there and was probably leading a quiet life in one of the prettiest cities in Europe.

Then a few days ago, I looked up another Angus Robertson - namely Angus Robertson MP and realised that it was the same bloke. And this version of Angus Robertson told the House of Commons that there are more giant pandas in Scotland than Conservative MPs.

Small World, as they say.

Any good joke must contain a biting truth and a political joke even more so. As jokes go, it was not what you would call a thigh-slapper, but it made a point and it is a point that the Conservative party would do well to remember - as you head North, the Conservative mandate to govern diminishes and in Scotland, it vanishes almost completely. A party that polls just one vote in ten has little right to tell anybody anything. After the War, Scotland may have still voted Conservative, but then, some time in the 60s, it voted Labour and continued to vote Labour until the end of the millennium.

Now Scotland votes for independence.

Let’s be clear about this - the desire to be independent runs through a Scot like the word Brighton does through one of those revolting sticks of pink sugar. Every child learns that losing the Battle of Culloden was A Bad Thing and the Battle of Bannockburn was A Good Thing. There are statues all over Scotland of people who fought the southern invaders. The songs are about fighting the invading English armies and every castle, every valley, every loch and mountain has similar stories attached.

What my Fleet Street friend failed to understand, was that most Scots are not debating whether we want independence (we take that as a given!) but whether it is economically viable.

Without two World Wars, Scotland would never have wedded itself so closely to England. Faced with a foe so loathsome, so hideous and so grotesquely ambitious as fascism, Scotland followed the advice of Hilaire Belloc - “Always keep firm hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse!”

When oil was discovered in Scottish waters, the Scottish National Party launched the campaign ‘It’s Scotland’s Oil!’ and for the first time, independence became a real issue. But independence for Scotland was regarded by Westminster as being an idea close to treason and already in the 50s, MI5 had been watching the SNP. Now telephones were bugged, politicians tailed and agents briefed to infiltrate the party.

This may seem strange to us now, but back then, Britain had fought a war as one nation just twenty short years earlier. To go against unity was tantamount to treason, as you were seeking to undermine the very fabric of the nation. The establishment at every level, from teacher to policeman, from journalist to politician, regarded Scottish independence as an idea that sat somewhere between laughable and criminal. MI5 may have been looking at the SNP and listening to their telephone calls ‘just in case,’ but beyond that, they were not taken seriously.

The Act of Union all those years ago did not see a merging of legal systems, so Scottish affairs were dealt with by the Scottish Office and overseen by the Commons Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee. As long as Scottish law was kept largely in-line with English law, this did not matter much and minor differences in property, probate and parental consent to marriage were regarded as ‘quaint.’ Then in 1973, local government in Britain was reorganised and greater powers were given to councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

On November 14th, 1977, Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for West Lothian, asked one of the most famous questions in the long history of Westminster Parliament - “For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable Members tolerate at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive effect on English politics, while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?”

He told the House that he could vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire, but not Blackburn, West Lothian. The debate was joined by Enoch Powell, who by then had banished himself to the lunatic wastes of Northern Irish politics with his career-ending ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. "We have finally grasped what the Honourable Member for West Lothian is getting at. Let us call it the West Lothian question.”

Ever since then, every single government has launched an initiative, committee or investigation into The West Lothian Question - and failed to find an answer. The core problem is, there can only be one of two answers - greater separation, or greater integration. And none of the big three parties in Westminster want either!

Then in 1997 Labour gained a massive victory at the general election with 43% of the vote and 63% of the seats and Labour’s best Scottish brains headed for London, never to return. But hidden in all the furore of Labour’s victory was a big increase in the vote for the SNP, who managed to get six MPs into parliament, including one Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, who had already been MP for Banff since 1987.

The Labour government decided to lance the Lothian boil once and for all with the introduction of regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales. The voting systems were carefully constructed so that no one party could hope for an absolute majority and start creating real differences to Westminster. The idea was, if you give them a talking shop and little more, all this babble about independence will just go away. And as the powers for these assemblies are ‘devolved’ from Westminster, we can always take them away again, if they misbehave!

The big mistake was that all the best brains in the Scottish Labour Party were in Westminster, so setting up and running this new body fell to the second division, who, predictably, made as big a mess of things as they possibly could. Scandal after scandal rocked a collection of the ineffectual and effete known locally as the Scottish Mafia.

Support for the SNP grew steadily as all sorts of Labour ministers found themselves needing to spend more time with their families and the costs for the parliament building did not just overrun, but seem to have been taken from some wildly improbable Monty Python sketch as they went from £60m to ten times that figure!

The Conservative Party was already losing popularity in Scotland when Margaret Thatcher came to power. By the time she had finished her work with the poll tax, the mines and the shipyards, she had effectively destroyed her own party in Scotland almost completely.

Against this backdrop of disaster for the two main parties - and now for the Lib Dems by association - the SNP has been quietly plodding forward. Back in the 60s, it was home-made jams, books, cakes and knitwear sold at market stalls that paid for a very modest PR effort. Today, major industrialists are donating to the cause. The campaign fund for independence has millions and probably many millions more are to follow.

The minority SNP administration of 2007 showed the electorate that they contrasted sharply with their Labour predecessors and were very much up to the job of running the country. This was rewarded with a landslide victory in the election of 2011 and a 45% share of the vote, giving them an absolute majority, the one thing the creators of the parliament has sought to avoid at all costs.

Whereas most parties in government lose some of their support when they are in power, support for the SNP continues to rise. All the leaders of the other three main parties in Scotland resigned, to be replaced by people nobody had heard of. It is as if the script had been written by the SNP.

Cameron and Milliband followed this script by calling for a date for the referendum. Salmond shot their fox by announcing it as the Autumn of 2014 - just after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the golf Ryder Cup and the 700 year anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, when Robert the Bruce confirmed Scotland as an independent nation.

Not only does the SNP have a healthy campaign fund, but it also has a unified structure and campaign leadership under Angus Robertson. The campaign for independence has a budget, a structure, local organisers are already in place and boots on the ground are being briefed on campaign tactics.

So far, the unionist campaign is, as the old joke goes, conspicuous by its absence. They will need foot soldiers taken from the existing political parties - and that is exactly what they do not have in any numbers. We have had statements by politicians in London, condemning independence and by doing so, managing to sound anti-Scottish. The media, once so biased as to be embarrassingly laughable, is now beginning to put both sides of the argument. This is in no small part because of the latest poll results and the disastrously falling readership figures for print.

Those stalwarts of the Labour Party, The Herald and The Daily Record are now no longer as hostile to independence as they once were. The Scotsman continues the brave fight for the unionist cause and readership has fallen to an unbelievably low 35,000. The joke goes that their new printing press will be a Hewlett Packard Ink Jet.

In the past, those calling for independence were disregarded as lunatics and fools. Now they are called customers.

The three leaders in Westminster, all from extremely privileged public school backgrounds, seem to be all there is at the moment as effective mouthpieces for the Union. But the way they appear on television, the very sounds they make and the words they speak seem carefully crafted to rub every Scotsman up the wrong way. Every time they speak on the subject, they manage to sound anti-Scottish. And there are another one thousand days for these three to continue to suffer from their own special brand of Foot-in-Mouth disease.

Remember that there are three parties involved in the Unionist cause. North of the border, any one of the three could break ranks and change sides. There are real mutterings of discontent and a desire for independence within the ranks of some Labour voters, as they listen to Snooty, Spiffy and Toffee telling them what to do. The Lib-Dems in Scotland are beginning to be seen as turn-coat-Tories and many are calling for a change of heart on independence and with it, a new roll and possible support for the ailing fortunes of their party. Tories are already in two minds about Scottish independence, as they believe it could get rid of a big lump of Labour MPs.

A really bad result at the coming council elections could see the first breaking of ranks within the Liberal Party.

If a year is a long time in politics, then two-and-a-half years is an eternity! The SNP has always played a very long game and are good at just plodding forward. Decades of selling ‘Independence Marmalade’ and going door-to-door in all weathers, pushing leaflets through letterboxes and button-holing people on the High Street is what the footsoldiers do best.

If the SNP succeeds in gaining independence on the back of a referendum in 2014, it will be as a result of many decades of preparation and centuries of history. If it does not, greater autonomy for Scotland is almost guaranteed and that will inevitably lead to a greater distance between England and Scotland and that will lead to independence in the long run.

And if, in ages to come, a future outside power annexes an independent Scotland, we can start all over again, selling Independence Marmalade on Dingwall High Street.


Andrew Graeme is an economist and businessman and convenor of the Dingwall branch of the SNP.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.ph ... eet-street

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 623 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group