Salmond Well Take A Minority Executive (from The Herald Election Site)

Alex Salmond announced last night that the SNP was now working on preparations to go it alone at Holyrood as a minority administration, with limited support from the Greens.

He emerged from coalition talks with the two Green MSPs, Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie, full of praise for the constructive way the meeting had gone.

Negotiations will resume today but any deal is likely to fall short of a full coalition with the Greens, who prefer a looser form of support known as "confidence and supply".

This "loose" co-operation means voting in favour of SNP ministers and their budget in exchange for policy input, but without accepting ministerial positions.

But Mr Salmond said there would be no coalition talks with the LibDems while they insisted on the precondition that the SNP drops its aspirations for a referendum on independence.

"Forming a minority government is now our working assumption, although our offer to the Liberal Democrats of negotiations without preconditions remains open," said Mr Salmond.

"I am very disappointed at not getting into talks with the Liberal Democrats, but they may feel - and it is perfectly honourable and understandable - that a period in opposition may be their preference."

A deal with the Greens still leaves Mr Salmond 16 votes short of a majority, but if Tories and LibDems abstain he would not need that majority to become First Minister.

Mr Salmond said of the prospect of ruling without a majority in the parliament: "Being in a minority presents its own challenges. We would not get everything our own way and would need to look at what we can and cannot get done."

He said of the challenge ahead: "It means we will need to show great clarity of purpose. It will also greatly enhance interest in the parliament, with every vote crucial, and will keep the government on its toes.

"It will present challenges but it could be done with goodwill, good all-round government and a government that showed itself to be nimble of brain and light of foot, and not prepared to be knocked off course in the event of the odd setback."

He added: "All this is new to Scotland but not elsewhere in Europe. Denmark, for example, has never had a majority government since the Second World War and yet every government has lasted a full term."

Asked about instability or the prospect that opponents at Holyrood could engineer the collapse of a minority government, forcing fresh elections, he said: "I think that is hugely unlikely. I think the job of parliamentarians is to get on with carrying out the wishes of the electorate."

Deputy LibDem leader Tavish Scott said his party's position was clear and "does exactly what it says on the tin".

He denied that going to the back benches would dilute their influence, adding: "Are we going to be the hand-maidens to independence? No. Minority government might be very exciting. To say any of us will be more neutered is not the case."

He also insisted Sir Menzies Campbell had put no pressure on them not to deal with the SNP. "There has been no heavy-handed pressure whatsoever."

The two Green MSPs and the party's other co-convener, former MSP Shiona Baird, began talks with civil servants at St Andrew's House in Edinburgh yesterday morning, before being joined by former SNP leader John Swinney, who has been handed a key negotiating role by his party.

They were then joined by deputy SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon before Alex Salmond joined the talks at 2pm. These were scheduled to run until 4pm, but it was closer to 4.30pm before all six emerged.

Afterwards Robin Harper said they had discussed "issues both of common ground and of difference with the SNP," adding: "There is a duty on all parties to seek to secure a stable and progressive government for Scotland.

"Our top policy priority is to deliver the necessary action on climate change and transport. More discussion is required on these issues before any agreement can be reached and we are looking forward to engaging in those constructively."

Mr Salmond said they might have to differ with the Greens on some individual transport projects, such as a Forth crossing. "Reflecting on areas of difference like that we can see areas where confidence and supply might be more appropriate than coalition," he said.

Congraulations to the SNP for doing the right thing by the voters.

The challenge, like everything else facing Scotland, is onerous but not impossible, and is more than likely to result in an election earlier rather than later, but we look to the battle ahead with zest.

Policies will need to be moulded for as much concenus as politically acceptable. In any event, we will get mature government, at long last.

SCOTLAND FIRST, SECOND, AND ALWAYS.

As Salmond will not get a referendum on independence anyway, I really dont see why he has put this in the way of a coalition deal. As the Labour party found out in Wales, Its not just a case of puting forward sensible policies and hoping that they will be supported, it actually means spending half of your time wheeling and dealing to get a majority for your policies in parliament. It also makes it difficult to balance the books. Guess we had better wish him the best of luck - he'll need it.

As Salmond will not get a referendum on independence anyway, I really dont see why he has put this in the way of a coalition deal.

The arithmetic was never in its favour. Only a massive majority could secure it; so, by the same token why were other parties afraid of it?

The Lib-Dems have lost a great chance to share in government. It will rebound on them. Or at least it should if there is any justice. I suspect the jostling for a replacement Lib-Dem leader in Scotland and UK national has already begun. McConnell is yesterday's man soon as Brown is in Downing Street.

Only Salmond benefits; he can show statesmanship absent for so long.

Excellent Alex, you make Scotland proud.

Can your first act as FM be to order an independent judicial inquiry into the ballot debacle? This has been a travesty and our country's institutions must be held accountable.

This debacle was organised by the Minister of State for Scotland against professional advice. It is shameful that our press has not been hounding Douglas Alexander to explain his election decisions. He should resign immediately.

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

I agree LA - the LibDems have missed a golden opportunity. I can just about understand their reticence about the referendum. But it now looks like they have missed the chance to be within the Exec and have some influence over the fine details of the legislative program.

In opposition to an SNP minority govt, they will only be able to react to the SNP/Green agenda, tack some amendments on etc. They will have to back the SNP 90%+ of the time, with no influence from within. The Greens will probably get more input on the technicalities etc of legislation than the Libs will.

I wonder how united they are really are about a spell in opposition. Is this just brinksmanship, or are the activists and SpAds behind it?

I've read many LibDem supporters express dismay about their party's stand on a coalition government. The LibDem vote is melting because of it. All those years talking about believing in democracy and consensual government and to deprive Scotland of that for petty party gain is unsupportable.

If they do not support an independent judicial inquiry into the baloot debacle they will be marginalised for a generation at least.

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: Excellent Alex, you make Scotland proud. Can your first act as FM be to order an independent judicial inquiry into the ballot debacle? This has been a travesty and our country's institutions must be held accountable. This debacle was organised by the Minister of State for Scotland against professional advice. It is shameful that our press has not been hounding Douglas Alexander to explain his election decisions. He should resign immediately. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/[/quote] Alex Salmond said on Friday that he would order such an enquiry. I hope his second act will be to purge all remaining vestiges of Labour corruption and nepotistic nest feathering from local government and quangos where odious, mediocre little men like Bill Butler and Tom McCabe have had their noses in the trough for far too long!

Alex Porter wrote:
Excellent Alex, you make Scotland proud. Can your first act as FM be to order an independent judicial inquiry into the ballot debacle? This has been a travesty and our country's institutions must be held accountable. This debacle was organised by the Minister of State for Scotland against professional advice. It is shameful that our press has not been hounding Douglas Alexander to explain his election decisions. He should resign immediately. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Alex Salmond said on Friday that he would order such an enquiry.

I hope his second act will be to purge all remaining vestiges of Labour corruption and nepotistic nest feathering from local government and quangos where odious, mediocre little men like Bill Butler and Tom McCabe have had their noses in the trough for far too long!

This is very confusing. The Lib Dems won't even sit at the table?

"We won't be the handmaidens to independence" from Tavish Scott is pretty shrill, and along with the lack of any congratulatory phone call from Jack McConnell, sees these guys trying to treat the SNP like some kind of illegitemate extremist organisation.

It's bizarre behaviour - I wonder what Nicol, Jack and their superiors hope to achieve by behaving like this? Do you thik they actually *want* to alienate voters.

BTW does anyone know what has happened to Douglas Alexander? Has he bolted to South America?

Brian,
I think the Scottish LibDems are in a nightmare. They are being told what to do by Ming down South, they are operating against democracy (supposed to be their brand identity), they'll know now that their voters are extremely angry with them and they are getting associated with a Gordon Brown stitch-up. On top of that they are not going to be part of a government that will deliver a lot of change to the electorate. I wonder if they will vote against the abolition of student fees (sold out again..). Time for a rethink shortly eh?

Iain - no, no not at all! I am just having a few days rest and recuperation after all the excitement of last week. Plus if I see another postal vote ballot I'll scream! Purely in an academic capacity, of course.

The weather here is lovely, and you cynical folk back home shouldn't read anything into the fact I have picked the remotest human inhabitation in the world as my holidays destination! And anyone angry at the well-run election I was responsible for, should remember the next mail boat isn't till September!

Love

Doogie

Another act I would like to see from our incoming FM is a public enquiry into the obscene quantities of money that have been p**sed up a wall by Scottish Enterprise and various Local Enterprise Trusts while producing no real economic growth whatsoever. Perhaps a vast downsizing of the organisation would be in order as well and I will be writing to my MSP to that end.

While not being a great fan of the LibDems, I can understand that they might be reluctant for another coalition, their union jack underpants aside. Being in coalition with Ye Olde Labour Party didn't do them much good at the polls. The challenge here is for Alex to trim the SNP programme in such a way that the whole parliament will support issues, and for the opposition parties to work constructively for the good of Scotland. Not holding my breath on the last one though

So we are going in out numbered eh? History has shown we usually prevail in such circumstances.

nouveauxminority wrote:
So we are going in out numbered eh? History has shown we usually prevail in such circumstances.

Yeah and according to opinion polls at least 56% of English voters sympathise with us so we may not be as outnumbered as we think.

I agree LA - the LibDems have missed a golden opportunity.
Good to make your acquaintance, Brian.

It chills the blood to see so many craven politicians ignore their voters in order to thwart Scottish democracy.

Nemo me impune lacessit - "no one provokes me with impunity" - the motto of the Kings of Scotland.

And even more damaging to our clingy-fingered unionist Scots Iain, in that same poll 68% of English people wanted home rule for their own country too.

Eh, McConnell hasn't resigned as FM and Salmond will need a majority in the parliament to accept him. How do we know that the Libs will vote for Salmond? What deal has Ming and Gordy stitched up?

The Libs could redeem themselves with a coalition with the SNP. This "handmaiden" nonsense is pathetic Tavish. A referendum is not on independence, it is on all the constitutional options whch all the parties believe in. The vast majority of the people want it and you are denying them their democratic right. You are alienating your own voters who hold democratic values dearly. Use your brains.

[quote][bold]Big D[/bold] wrote: This is very confusing. The Lib Dems won't even sit at the table? "We won't be the handmaidens to independence" from Tavish Scott is pretty shrill, and along with the lack of any congratulatory phone call from Jack McConnell, sees these guys trying to treat the SNP like some kind of illegitemate extremist organisation. It's bizarre behaviour - I wonder what Nicol, Jack and their superiors hope to achieve by behaving like this? Do you thik they actually *want* to alienate voters.[/quote] They're probably stalling until they know the outcome of the talks between Gazza Brown and Ming Campbell. Then once they've been told which way to jump by their London masters they'll all be able to relax and maybe let us Scots know what kind of government we can expect. From now on they should just be referred to as the Liberals and the tag Democrat dropped altogether. 80+ % of the Sots polled want a referendum. Nicol Stephen democratically says no. He has the choice right now where he can put his party firmly back on the political map in Scotland or he can force the SNP into a minority government and get his just desserts at the next election, which might not be too far off if minority government fails due to Labour/Liberal conspiring.

Big D wrote:
This is very confusing. The Lib Dems won't even sit at the table? "We won't be the handmaidens to independence" from Tavish Scott is pretty shrill, and along with the lack of any congratulatory phone call from Jack McConnell, sees these guys trying to treat the SNP like some kind of illegitemate extremist organisation. It's bizarre behaviour - I wonder what Nicol, Jack and their superiors hope to achieve by behaving like this? Do you thik they actually *want* to alienate voters.

They're probably stalling until they know the outcome of the talks between Gazza Brown and Ming Campbell. Then once they've been told which way to jump by their London masters they'll all be able to relax and maybe let us Scots know what kind of government we can expect. From now on they should just be referred to as the Liberals and the tag Democrat dropped altogether.

80+ % of the Sots polled want a referendum. Nicol Stephen democratically says no. He has the choice right now where he can put his party firmly back on the political map in Scotland or he can force the SNP into a minority government and get his just desserts at the next election, which might not be too far off if minority government fails due to Labour/Liberal conspiring.

Yeah and according to opinion polls at least 56% of English voters sympathise with us so we may not be as outnumbered as we think.

You make a wonderful point. The English antipathy to the return of sovereignty for Scotland is rapidly gaining sympathy.

I welcome the generous new relationship with our English friends.

We had better not tell them the tartan they wear is actually Burberry.

It will do fine, aye, just fine.

Another request from FM Salmond:
Can we have more statistics on the Scottish economy Alex.

Any more requests?

Any more requests?

Cheaper whisky?

Oh, and the honorary title of OMC - "Official Motherwell Cleaner" bestowed upon Union Jack McConnell for services rendered to Westminster, but none to his home town.

Alex Porter wrote:
Another request from FM Salmond: Can we have more statistics on the Scottish economy Alex. Any more requests?

Perhaps, upon becoming FM he should get his Finance Minister to publish a balance sheet of the Scottish Executives' finances and subsequently a detailed annual (or 6 monthly) expenditure report as done by listed Plcs.

That will enable us to see exactly how money has been spent and measure the improvements they make. Might cause some red faces on the Labour benches too :)

Any more requests?

Recognition of the Pigs for New Towns lobby.

So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an [bold]bold[/bold] Overall[bold]bold[/bold] majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).

So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence.

Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on.

No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election.

And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an Overall majority of 1.

Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).

these tossers that refuse to help govern oor wee country cos sumbudy stole their baw,should be shot roona backa the wash hoose.they should be banned fae ever staunin fura seat again,cos they're 5th colonists the an manky seditionists,a feel better noo efter slingin pelters at the slippery shower,here endeth the lesson,it's swally time!!!!!!

Mark McGlynn wrote:
So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an Overall majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).

An unusual gift is this - arguing with yourself in the same post?

Remarkable LOL.

Wait until the dust settles Mark.

We will see.

Just ask the question.....that's not too much to ask is it?

Ps.
The 'Braveheart wannabees' jibe is as cheap and tired as it is untrue.
The desire to see your country determine it's own ways of working and it's interaction with the rest of the world whilst standing on it's own two feet without recourse to permissions from a larger neighbour has little or nothing to do with an entertaining but historically flawed Hollywood film.

I have never heard such utter nonsense as all this conspiracy theory stuff on a deal being down by the lib dems and labour at Westminster. The position is entirely clear - lib dems rule out deal with failed labour party. Then lib dems rule out deal with SNP as they are not prepared to give way on the issue of independence referendum. Both parties made that clear throughout so why all the surprise and mock shock? It seems the Lib Dems have been quite honourable in all of this and stuck to their guns. So have the SNP. They can now run a minority government which I think has the chance to be quite stable as long as the SNP play a constructive role and demonstrate to other parties that they really do want to make the parliament work.

I've never seen Braveheart, is it any good?

Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on.

As soon as you hear anyone say it is a matter of principle that their mind is closed you should run for cover.

Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees

And what are we to tell the Robin Hood wannabees? Must we disillusion them that nowadays it is against the law to rob the rich, no matter how venal they may be, and give to the poor, a crime punishable with a term in jail? Leave them to idolise their romantic heroes of yesteryear.

Here's what the parties need to drop to all agree, surely?

1. Greens: end to faith schools, road pricing.
2. Nats: referendum before 2011, motorway schemes.
3. Libdems: PFI and water privatisation.

There's loads of other stuff the three agree on. Shame on the Libdems for not even discussing it, apparently.

I'm glad that there has been some positive steps forward with the Greens and the SNP, im still suprised that the Lib Dems dont want involved in the democratic process! The SNP have only pointed out the failure of the Scottish Office and the previous Scottish Executive to run an efficient election, they didn't do too well did they Mark? And the Lib Dems obviously dont know what the word Democratic means I'll help them with that one, the literal dictionary definition: - [bold]Democracy[/bold] (literally [bold]"rule by the people",[/bold] from the Greek demos, "people", and krateo, "rule"[1]) is a form of government. The rest of Scotland will remain positive and forward-looking and leave the narrow-minded little unionists( I was gonna type Socialist there...... tut tut silly me!) to argue amongst themselves. So it will be interesting to see how long Jack Mc Connell lasts or Nicol Stephen I'm sure they have already been marked for termination!

I'm glad that there has been some positive steps forward with the Greens and the SNP, im still suprised that the Lib Dems dont want involved in the democratic process!

The SNP have only pointed out the failure of the Scottish Office and the previous Scottish Executive to run an efficient election, they didn't do too well did they Mark? And the Lib Dems obviously dont know what the word Democratic means I'll help them with that one, the literal dictionary definition: -
Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people", and krateo, "rule") is a form of government.

The rest of Scotland will remain positive and forward-looking and leave the narrow-minded little unionists( I was gonna type Socialist there...... tut tut silly me!) to argue amongst themselves.

So it will be interesting to see how long Jack Mc Connell lasts or Nicol Stephen I'm sure they have already been marked for termination!

Donald Dewar led 56 MSPs. HE had to compromise to form a government

Jack McConnell led 50 MSPs. HE had to compromise to form a government

And now?

Alex Salmond leads 47 MSPs. How DARE anyone suggest he has to compromise to form a government. The people have spoken. Nearly a third of them want the SNP to run things. The rest had better fall into line pdq.

This is democracy in Scotland, 2007

gon yersel' alex, almost!

Sue, how will Salmond get enough votes to become FM? Did you know that McConnell hasn't resigned? Many of their own Lib voters are angry with them about this. They talked about consensual government and now they are preventing because of a referendum that the people want and is their liberal DEMOCRATIC right. It is shameful Sue.

[bold][quote]I've never seen [italic]Braveheart,[/italic] is it any good?[/quote] For most of its length it is excellent.[/bold] It is a pity the Westminster controlled financial policies of Scotland allowed our Irish cousins to steal the multi-million dollar American production from under our nose and shoot it in Ireland with inducements of tax benefits, and members of the Irish army as extras. In addition, those "magestic mountains" behind Wallace looked suspiciously like tame Galway hills to me. I only mention it as an "American" production because one year before [italic]Braveheart[/italic] took the world's box office by storm one of London's most distinguished film producers was heard to say, "Who the hell wants to see a Scottish historical epic?" [bold]And on such casual utterances are entire reputations destroyed.[/bold]

I've never seen Braveheart, is it any good?
For most of its length it is excellent.

It is a pity the Westminster controlled financial policies of Scotland allowed our Irish cousins to steal the multi-million dollar American production from under our nose and shoot it in Ireland with inducements of tax benefits, and members of the Irish army as extras. In addition, those "magestic mountains" behind Wallace looked suspiciously like tame Galway hills to me.

I only mention it as an "American" production because one year before Braveheart took the world's box office by storm one of London's most distinguished film producers was heard to say, "Who the hell wants to see a Scottish historical epic?"

And on such casual utterances are entire reputations destroyed.

Russell Ramsay wrote:
gon yersel' alex, almost!

Compromise is not a one-way street Jock. Also, why are you the only person on this board that cannot be quoted?

The Nats are going to have a difficult time with all the bile and venom directed towards them from the Scottish Labour party and Broon. However, I think they are doing the right thing in forming a minority government and I wouldn't have voted for Alex Salmond if I didn't think he was intelligent enough to deal with the pygmies in the Scottish parliament. He is the most intelligent politician of his generation and is a very adept strategist. There is much support for him as First Minister because, party politics aside, his abilities are recognised by the public.He is also witty, charming, honest and articulate. Compare with the stuttering, witless inanities of many MSP's.

we're off to govern, with the greens, with the greens!

How sad that the Lib-Dems are so opposed to allowing a referendum where the wishes of the Scottish people on the subject of independence would finally be revealed. What exactly is it they are afraid of? To allow us to express a view is hardly treason for goodness sake. I do not believe they have not been given instructions from London and I think it is disgraceful that people like Ming Campbell and Gordon Brown are doing their best to wreck this parliament in order to deny Alex Salmond his rightful place. They have shown that when it comes down to it democracy matters not a jot.

Eat yer Greens Alex. SNP and greens - meat and 2 veg.

Shocking, time for bed.

Is Nicol Stephen really so politically obtuse (and career-suicidal)? Many of his voters presumably were antipathetic to the Labour Executive and it's apologist position for the blunders of Blair, it's failure to deliver LibDem objectives, and actually [italic]expect[/italic] a coalition with the SNP. Does he not realise that his failure to contribute to a stable Scottish Parliament shows that he places his political party before the Scottish Electorate? He might last this Parliament, but his slavish allegiance to Westminster will ensure he will fail at the next. The first rule of politics is compromise - or are the lofty aims of the Scottish LibDems above this? Probably it what most of us suspect - Ming pulls the strings, and his are pulled by the expediencies of Westminster. Nicol, take a wee bit of advice: Do the deal, or be forever consigned to ignominy in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

Is Nicol Stephen really so politically obtuse (and career-suicidal)? Many of his voters presumably were antipathetic to the Labour Executive and it's apologist position for the blunders of Blair, it's failure to deliver LibDem objectives, and actually expect a coalition with the SNP. Does he not realise that his failure to contribute to a stable Scottish Parliament shows that he places his political party before the Scottish Electorate? He might last this Parliament, but his slavish allegiance to Westminster will ensure he will fail at the next.
The first rule of politics is compromise - or are the lofty aims of the Scottish LibDems above this? Probably it what most of us suspect - Ming pulls the strings, and his are pulled by the expediencies of Westminster.
Nicol, take a wee bit of advice: Do the deal, or be forever consigned to ignominy in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

an entertaining but historically flawed Hollywood film.

I think you will find almost every historical drama "flawed" because drama, by its very nature, is not factual documentary.

It is hightened reality.

Art is not about representation but about interpretation.

Deatr Mr. Picasso

I have just seen your Cubist exhibition at the Royal Academy and I have to say how laughable are all those works with both eyes on one side of their face, and mouths hanging at neck level. Are you mad?

Take it from me you are quite incapable of painting portraits!

Yours
Major Gilbert Switherington-Smythe (Retired)

Remember folks we live in a constitutional monarchy....Democracy is merely a gift to the people from the Queen!!!!
The Aristocracy hold the real power and we know how they view Scotland...a nice diversion where they can hunt and fish with complete disregard .

[quote][bold]Mark McGlynn[/bold] wrote: So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an [bold]bold[/bold] Overall[bold]bold[/bold] majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).[/quote] It was a key policy and principle of the liberals that they would only go into coalition with Labour on the condition that student fees had to/must be abolished. It was a platform they were elected on. Were they abolished or merely deferred? They sold out the students for a sniff at power. What price their principles then?

Mark McGlynn wrote:
So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an Overall majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).

It was a key policy and principle of the liberals that they would only go into coalition with Labour on the condition that student fees had to/must be abolished. It was a platform they were elected on. Were they abolished or merely deferred? They sold out the students for a sniff at power. What price their principles then?

"We won't be the handmaidens to independence" says Tavish Scott. They won't be the handmaidens to anything if it comes from the SNP is what they really mean. The referendum questions were left very near a blank for them and they still wont play. Hmmmm.... I smell sh**e. The sleekit pair of Ming & Broon have issued their orders to wee Nicol (they've side-lined wee Jake cause he's for the high jump). Their gameplan is all about safeguarding the Scottish votes for Westminster. They have their wee muppets on a string. They want the SNP to get a really hard time at Holyrood -total failure is what they want - so that Scotland will, they believe, realise their flirtation with voting Nationalist was ill-conceived nonsense and they will all 'come home' . Dream on. The Genie's oot the bottle. The SNP is hear to stay . They should govern as a minority. The SNP shouldn't waste their time with the Lib Dems, a bunch of chancers and not to be trusted. And as for Broon, he's a worried man and dangerous to boot. By the way, I see Tony Blair today sent a message of congratulations to Nicholas Sarkozy on winning the election in France. I'll bet he never sent one to Alex Salmond:)

"We won't be the handmaidens to independence" says Tavish Scott. They won't be the handmaidens to anything if it comes from the SNP is what they really mean. The referendum questions were left very near a blank for them and they still wont play. Hmmmm.... I smell sh**e. The sleekit pair of Ming & Broon have issued their orders to wee Nicol (they've side-lined wee Jake cause he's for the high jump). Their gameplan is all about safeguarding the Scottish votes for Westminster. They have their wee muppets on a string. They want the SNP to get a really hard time at Holyrood -total failure is what they want - so that Scotland will, they believe, realise their flirtation with voting Nationalist was ill-conceived nonsense and they will all 'come home' . Dream on. The Genie's oot the bottle. The SNP is hear to stay . They should govern as a minority.
The SNP shouldn't waste their time with the Lib Dems, a bunch of chancers and not to be trusted. And as for Broon, he's a worried man and dangerous to boot.

By the way, I see Tony Blair today sent a message of congratulations to Nicholas Sarkozy on winning the election in France. I'll bet he never sent one to Alex Salmond:)

Can anyone tell me wat they are going to be doing about the bin collections.I am 89 you know and the liberals have always been the same ever since I was a small girl,hand wringers and appeasers thats what they are,wanted to let that German fellow Herr Hitler do as he pleased you know,but my Ralph and is Cameronian chums soon put a stop to all that,wish my Ralph were here,he would sort out the bins.

If they're so confident of their Unionist position, why are they so afraid of a referendum?

If you set up a petition demanding one, it will get a lot of support from the English, as well as the Scottish and Welsh.

After all, Alex beat Labour fair against all the odds. They threw everything they had at the SNP and it didn't stop the voters. I don't like to kick a man when he's down, but in Gordon Brown's case, we should all make an exception.

Get an online petiton going. Word it democratically, expressing a desire for the SNP to be allowed to do what they were elected to do and it will get masses of support.

I wonder if the royal family (not the scousers) will still have their summer holibags at Balmoral after independence?

I don't see any problem with a minority SNP administration. In fact, I think it will be very healthy and democratic for Scottish governance to become a bit more European, a little less Anglo-Saxon. Alex Salmond is clearly educated enough to know that there are other models than Westminster for his government: he cites Denmark, several others have mentioned New Zealand. Already this shows more imagination than London-obsessed Labour ever managed over 50 years of controlling Scotland. I'm pleased the SNP are talking to the Greens too. My goodness, Scottish politicians behaving reasonably and acting like grown ups! Politics is suddenly so much more interesting in this country.

Well technically Nouveauxscum Balmoral is owned by Queen Liz herself and not by the people, it was bought by Queen Victoria. We could always charge them an entrance fee to come to Scotland, But even if the Scots were independent the queen is still technically our head of state unless the people decide otherwise.

"If you set up a petition demanding one, it will get a lot of support from the English, as well as the Scottish and Welsh."

Carol

That is exactly what they are terrified of.

I think we'll simply have to re-name the "we won't be handmaidens" princesses as the Party Formerly Known as the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Any more requests?

A lot more freedom of information please. Let us know what's been going on at our expense past and present.

Let's hope not noveauxscum, although maybe we could charge them.
One very good reason for Independence is that we could eventually rid ourselves of those German freeloaders, who are on the throne under false pretences anyway.

Lets see 50 MSP's back a referendum and 79 don't, but clearly 'the people' (or in this case deluded nats) voted for a referendum.

This is getting rather sad. I know a failure to fully connect with reality has always been a sympton of nationalism but watching adults acting like children because nobody wants to play on their team is really rather pathetic.

Gon yersel' alex, almost!

Aye, as Union Jack McConnell may well have said;

"The people have spoken - the bastards!"

www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

You should check out this link the original McCrone Report from the 70's and how Westminister really view the Scots......its direct from the Scottish Office....makes very interesting reading!

I guarantee that you will all be livid!

Robbie wrote:
Well technically Nouveauxscum Balmoral is owned by Queen Liz herself and not by the people, it was bought by Queen Victoria. We could always charge them an entrance fee to come to Scotland, But even if the Scots were independent the queen is still technically our head of state unless the people decide otherwise.

I know they own it (family) Robbie - just speculating on whether or not they would want to spend summer there. I'd be delighted if they did.

How you thinking of taking up hunting Nouveauxscum?

Mark McGlynn wrote:
Lets see 50 MSP's back a referendum and 79 don't, but clearly 'the people' (or in this case deluded nats) voted for a referendum. This is getting rather sad. I know a failure to fully connect with reality has always been a sympton of nationalism but watching adults acting like children because nobody wants to play on their team is really rather pathetic.

I don't actually recall being asked anything about any referendum on my voting papers. Does anyone else?

I was never asked about a referendum!

And after the next election, whenever that may be, we might have to refer to Nicol Stephen as the man formerly known as the MSP for Aberdeen South if he doesn't show some leadership. Get a backbone, Stephen! His majority was cut from about 8,000 to 2,500 with the SNP doubling its vote and leaping from 4th to 2nd place. It shows that the good people of Aberdeenshire lend their support thoughtfully, and don't gift it for life.

Here's me thinking that these elections were for a divolved Scottish Parliament!

Robbie wrote:
How you thinking of taking up hunting Nouveauxscum?

Nah Robbie, they're a great tourist attraction mate.

Ah well might as well get something positive out of those German Toffs...lol

Is Nicol Stephen really so politically obtuse (and career-suicidal)? Many of his voters presumably were antipathetic to the Labour Executive and it's apologist position for the blunders of Blair, it's failure to deliver LibDem objectives, and actually expect a coalition with the SNP. Does he not realise that his failure to contribute to a stable Scottish Parliament shows that he places his political party before the Scottish Electorate? He might last this Parliament, but his slavish allegiance to Westminster will ensure he will fail at the next.
The first rule of politics is compromise - or are the lofty aims of the Scottish LibDems above this? Probably it what most of us suspect - Ming pulls the strings, and his are pulled by the expediencies of Westminster.
Nicol, take a wee bit of advice: Do the deal, or be forever consigned to ignominy in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

Robbie wrote:
www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

You should check out this link the original McCrone Report from the 70's and how Westminister really view the Scots......its direct from the Scottish Office....makes very interesting reading!

I guarantee that you will all be livid!

Ye Gods! I just read the interesting bits of that report..! Livid doesn't even begin to cover it!!!

Mick my friend Spread the word!

I must hand it to the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.The rest are just subsidy junkies,who love their English handouts,got news for the subsidy junkies,when my country gets its own goverment you will be cut adrift anyway.Good riddance say I and a large majority of English voters.

Nicol, take a wee bit of advice: Do the deal, or be forever consigned to ignominy in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

I sentence him to "perpetual ignominy"- no wait.... That's an impossible sentence. There is no verb in it.

Mick,
You should check out the conclusion on pages 16-18!

So should you English Bob!
www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

You may want to retract your previous comment check out the link above.

English Bob wrote:
I must hand it to the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.The rest are just subsidy junkies,who love their English handouts,got news for the subsidy junkies,when my country gets its own goverment you will be cut adrift anyway.Good riddance say I and a large majority of English voters.

This possibility seems to have slipped them by in their brain-washed state Bob. Hello North Lanarkshire and Glasgow - maybe our English friends don't want you?

LA, the verb in the sentence is sentence, but I guess You knew that. Nice pun. Do you want to respond to English Bob. Do you think he is looking for a fight?

Leowoman surely he's not that stupid?
You should check out this link
www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

Well he has just come on this site and started spouting that old subsidy junky chestnut, so I reckon that he is looking for trouble but I have decided to rise above it.

English Bob wrote:
I must hand it to the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.The rest are just subsidy junkies,who love their English handouts,got news for the subsidy junkies,when my country gets its own goverment you will be cut adrift anyway.Good riddance say I and a large majority of English voters.

We must never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.
So go for it Alex.

Jan what a great line!!!

Please stop shouting!

Congrats to John Higgins bringing the world snooker title back to Scotland.

Minnie temper,temper!!!

Why should the Greens have more than minimal input when they only have minimal numbers.
A major outcome of the election, which has not been noticed, apparently, is that the Green Party was resoundingly rejected by the voters of Scotland.
They lost 5 of their 7 seats and lost 50,000 votes, down from 132,000 in 2003 to 82,000 now.
Why on earth should these people be allowed to dictate about much-needed roads, and to impose yet more "green" taxes on the people who have rejected them?

worked in fairfields man and boy,had to move here after the clyde got the s hit end of the stick,unfortunately english bob is stating what most english people that i know are thinking.was reported here last week that every resident of scotland is subsidised to the tune of �2000 per year multiplied by 5 million is a lot of dosh.figures supplied by our scottish chancelors office.

.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is Eck still entitled to visit the big house down in London?

Gan yerself, Eck .Awae doon an pay a visit. Awa beard the greedy one in his den. Jings, yon wull rub salt in the wound. Can we see yon on the films?
.

Well done, Alex.; the arrogance of McConnel and his ilk and the patheticness of the Lib Dems is going to come back and haunt them eventually.
Just a morally and intellectually bankrupt bunch.

The idea that the Queen would not be welcome in Scotland after independence fails to recognise that she will continue to be head of State after independence. I see no problem with that at all.

I'm sure she will continue to spend her summer holidays at Balmoral. The Royal Family are part of the fabric of the Northeast where they have always been popular. Indeed it is perhaps no coincidence that this area is where the SNP has its power base.

I'm sure Alex Salmond and the Queen will get on very well. Their shared interest in horseracing will I'm sure be an excellent ice-breaker as well as their fondness for the people of Aberdeenshire.

The State opening of the parliament in the summer will shed light on how the Queen regards an SNP administration in Edinburgh.

English Bob-a-Job said: The rest are just subsidy junkies

The best mind-altering drug is truth.

Curiously, it's the one hard drug folk like you say "no" to immediately.

Might I remind our conspiring Unionist friends that the last time two elections were held in Scotland the SNP doubled its representation.

So let us bring it on and watch the people really turn out to crush this shower of unambitious mediocre unionists go Alex.

Oh and lastly you can bet on Nichol losing his seat the worm that he is.

We, around glasgow, loon, are more republican. Can't see the point of Independence without cutting symbiotic ties to royalty.
Just read the MCCrone report, 1975.Suggest English Bob does the same. Shows quite clearly how Scotland would have a surplus by now, and compares with Norway favourably, if had become Independent in the late seventies. Also points out that SNP figures at that time greatly underestimated North sea oil revenue. Robbie is right everyone should read it and weep.

[quote][bold]leowoman[/bold] wrote: We, around glasgow, loon, are more republican. Can't see the point of Independence without cutting symbiotic ties to royalty. Just read the MCCrone report, 1975.Suggest English Bob does the same. Shows quite clearly how Scotland would have a surplus by now, and compares with Norway favourably, if had become Independent in the late seventies. Also points out that SNP figures at that time greatly underestimated North sea oil revenue. Robbie is right everyone should read it and weep.[/quote] How handy,figures that cant be authenticated a bit like the dome and the olympics.As I recall Willie Ross was in office about then,I suggest you dig further,you will find the report was binned along with the figures,sort of once upon a time...................PS Its Shetland oil.

leowoman wrote:
We, around glasgow, loon, are more republican. Can't see the point of Independence without cutting symbiotic ties to royalty. Just read the MCCrone report, 1975.Suggest English Bob does the same. Shows quite clearly how Scotland would have a surplus by now, and compares with Norway favourably, if had become Independent in the late seventies. Also points out that SNP figures at that time greatly underestimated North sea oil revenue. Robbie is right everyone should read it and weep.

How handy,figures that cant be authenticated a bit like the dome and the olympics.As I recall Willie Ross was in office about then,I suggest you dig further,you will find the report was binned along with the figures,sort of once upon a time...................PS Its Shetland oil.

yes robbie, everyone should read the McCrone report. not enough hankies to go around. the scottish public should be made more aware of this.

I think the Liberal 'Democrats' are complete numpty's for refusing to consider seriously a coalition with SNP. There is nothing democratic about their stance on Independence - just a shower of hypocrits.

Well done Alex! We can but try to prove them all wrong! As for Nicol - well I have been out today and he is becoming a laughing stock, also angering thier own supporters are the Lib Dems! Maybe not the ones in the South who have fears of Tories but the ones in the North! are hoping mad!
Charlie will not be happy if he gets the backlash In his constituency! Are we about to see the Lib Dems implode!

read the MCCrone report, 1975. Shows quite clearly how Scotland would have a surplus by now, and compares with Norway favourably, if had become Independent in the late seventies.

Yes, but that was in the days when England was the "subsidy junkie."

Today, England has a surplus for buying luxuries, such as the Millennium Dome, Trident, missiles, war in Iraq, the Olympics in London. It would be pointless squandering a windfall on welfare, health, schools, or improving our infrastructure. Wouldn't it?

Thanks for the ScottishOffice link guys!!

Well, the last paragraph of McCrone report warns the government of the day that if these things were not done, LA, then Scotland would be more likely to become independent. A fine irony there, then. You are right in your spelling of junkie, don't know what I was thinking earlier.

The Liberal Democrats slept with Labour for 8 years abd got nothing of any substance in return!
Annabel Goldie was wrong to call them the prostitutes of the political game in Scotland!
A prostitute always makes sure she gets paid! I suppose that makes the Lib Dems look really cheap! The born again Virgins of Holyrood - just say No No No!

The thing that infuriates me is that the Lid-Dems dont need to support independence, just a referendum on the subject.(and a multi-option one at that). Once the referendum is set, they can campaign for the union all they want, but to deny people that choice is thoroughly un-democratic.

It really feels like a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' situation as the SNP and Lib-Dems seem so close on a number of policies. They also cannot possiby expect the SNP to drop their flagship policy...besides unless I'm very much mistaken they didnt win nearly enough votes to be making these kind of calls in the first place!

night owl,
its not shetlands oil, while a great deal of oil lies around shetland, the majority so far discovered is off the east coast as far south as edinburgh, dundee and newcastle as well as possible developments in the atlantic off the western isles. and anyway whether you like it or not, shetland is'nt, has'nt and never will be a sovereign state.
so stop your silliness and grow up

Hello Insomiac Woman

I presume your powers only manifest themselves at night.

Scotland has an openness about its affairs, quite the opposite of English reserve, a reason we have been so terribly niave about the relationship. Indeed, the real reason Scotland entered into marriage with England was England told us it was pregnant.

And we believed it.

It was a "huv tae" case, LA. - I mean shotgun wedding of course. Its true that we have not been privy to much that has affected Scotland, but there has been an indefinable smell emanating from Westminster for some time. While the furtive behaviour of the labour party gives off suspicious fumes.
I've spotted the deliberate mistake, it's naive. High melatonin levels at night good for third eye.

Almost all the English friends I have, close and mere acquaintance, understand what it is that the people in Scotland want returned, and they do not see the acquisition of genuine respect and dignity as a threat, or a slight. Nor do they view independence as heresy. In other words, they are generous, well-adjusted human beings.

Those who condemn us deny the one absolute: you cannot kill hope.

I don't understand their fury; if they destest us so much why fight tooth and claw to keep us near? Could it be a certain insecurity? If only they realised how much better a neighbour we will be when we own our house and garden ... just like them. And we can paint and decorate it to our taste ... just like them.

Slainte!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/

Please sign this e-petition on the Scottish Vote Scandal , and help network it to others. Coalition talks are important,. but the right to vote fundamental

I am not a Lib Dem supporter but am saddened by the sheer bile from SNP supporters being showered on them. That said, I happen to believe that the Lib Dems' duty is to form a co-alition either with the SNP or Labour - if only for he sake of stable government. I recognise, however, that all parties will inevitably consider the impact of their actions now on their future electoral prospects. Such considerations may be at the forefront of Lib Dem thinking. But all the vituperative SNP supporters show their complete lack of objectivity by appearing, as so often, to think that in this as in so many other matters Mr Salmond and the SNP are morally superior. Of course they are not. If Mr Salmond were truly interested in making best use of devolved powers over the next four years - as opposed to appearing to be the brave winner fighting against a hostile majority - he would by now realise that he has no chance of delivering his comitment to a referendum either as a minority administration or in coalition with the Lib Dems. That he looks likely to prefer no surrender on the referendum is, characteristically, regared by SNP enthusiasts as yet another example of his principled approach to politics whereas it is of course nothing of the kind. Mr Salmond judges, probably rightly, that a surrender on the referendum would adversely impact on his future electoral prospects. The SNP like the other parties is perfectly entitled to entertain such considerations but please, as the difficulties of a defiant SNP minority administration unfold, we should recognise that the SNP could have had a co-alition if it had not put the stable governance of Scotland over its partisan interest.

[quote][bold]Tolerance[/bold] wrote: I am not a Lib Dem supporter but am saddened by the sheer bile from SNP supporters being showered on them. That said, I happen to believe that the Lib Dems' duty is to form a co-alition either with the SNP or Labour - if only for he sake of stable government. I recognise, however, that all parties will inevitably consider the impact of their actions now on their future electoral prospects. Such considerations may be at the forefront of Lib Dem thinking. But all the vituperative SNP supporters show their complete lack of objectivity by appearing, as so often, to think that in this as in so many other matters Mr Salmond and the SNP are morally superior. Of course they are not. If Mr Salmond were truly interested in making best use of devolved powers over the next four years - as opposed to appearing to be the brave winner fighting against a hostile majority - he would by now realise that he has no chance of delivering his comitment to a referendum either as a minority administration or in coalition with the Lib Dems. That he looks likely to prefer no surrender on the referendum is, characteristically, regared by SNP enthusiasts as yet another example of his principled approach to politics whereas it is of course nothing of the kind. Mr Salmond judges, probably rightly, that a surrender on the referendum would adversely impact on his future electoral prospects. The SNP like the other parties is perfectly entitled to entertain such considerations but please, as the difficulties of a defiant SNP minority administration unfold, we should recognise that the SNP could have had a co-alition if it had not put the stable governance of Scotland over its partisan interest.[/quote] Of course, in he last sentence I meant partisan interest over stable governance! Too early and not had my tablets yet!

Tolerance wrote:
I am not a Lib Dem supporter but am saddened by the sheer bile from SNP supporters being showered on them. That said, I happen to believe that the Lib Dems' duty is to form a co-alition either with the SNP or Labour - if only for he sake of stable government. I recognise, however, that all parties will inevitably consider the impact of their actions now on their future electoral prospects. Such considerations may be at the forefront of Lib Dem thinking. But all the vituperative SNP supporters show their complete lack of objectivity by appearing, as so often, to think that in this as in so many other matters Mr Salmond and the SNP are morally superior. Of course they are not. If Mr Salmond were truly interested in making best use of devolved powers over the next four years - as opposed to appearing to be the brave winner fighting against a hostile majority - he would by now realise that he has no chance of delivering his comitment to a referendum either as a minority administration or in coalition with the Lib Dems. That he looks likely to prefer no surrender on the referendum is, characteristically, regared by SNP enthusiasts as yet another example of his principled approach to politics whereas it is of course nothing of the kind. Mr Salmond judges, probably rightly, that a surrender on the referendum would adversely impact on his future electoral prospects. The SNP like the other parties is perfectly entitled to entertain such considerations but please, as the difficulties of a defiant SNP minority administration unfold, we should recognise that the SNP could have had a co-alition if it had not put the stable governance of Scotland over its partisan interest.

Of course, in he last sentence I meant partisan interest over stable governance! Too early and not had my tablets yet!

Whilst it is interesting to note all the remarks about the Lib Dems etc, let us all move the issue forward and ask some searching questions of the scarlet pimpernel, known as the Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, who was the architect of the debacle in spoiled votes. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen .....so the saying goes. THE QUESTIONS ALEXANDER MUST ANSWER TODAY in Westminster. 1. Is it true, as the Electoral Commission states on its website, that the "mock votes" report was carried out "at the request of the Scotland Office"? 2. The Electoral Commission says a copy of the report was passed to your office. Is that true? 3. Did you or anyone in your office read the complete report before November 2006? 4. Given its own role in making the decision to adopt a combined ballot paper, how can the Electoral Commission be expected to carry out a full and impartial inquiry into the spoiled papers fiasco? Gordon Brown must dispense with him as a minister or be tarnished by Douglas Alexander. As with Harold McMillan in the sixties I sense another "Night of the Long Knives" coming. Alexander's position is untenable and he should go at the same time as John Reid. It will be interesting to see him ( Alexander ) talk his way out of this situation. Watch him squirm and blame everyone else bar himself. Again another politician punching above their weight. !

Whilst it is interesting to note all the remarks about the Lib Dems etc, let us all move the issue forward and ask some searching questions of the scarlet pimpernel, known as the Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, who was the architect of the debacle in spoiled votes.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen .....so the saying goes.

THE QUESTIONS ALEXANDER MUST ANSWER TODAY in Westminster.

1. Is it true, as the Electoral Commission states on its website, that the "mock votes" report was carried out "at the request of the Scotland Office"?

2. The Electoral Commission says a copy of the report was passed to your office. Is that true?

3. Did you or anyone in your office read the complete report before November 2006?

4. Given its own role in making the decision to adopt a combined ballot paper, how can the Electoral Commission be expected to carry out a full and impartial inquiry into the spoiled papers fiasco?

Gordon Brown must dispense with him as a minister or be tarnished by Douglas Alexander. As with Harold McMillan in the sixties I sense another "Night of the Long Knives" coming. Alexander's position is untenable and he should go at the same time as John Reid.

It will be interesting to see him ( Alexander ) talk his way out of this situation. Watch him squirm and blame everyone else bar himself.

Again another politician punching above their weight. !

As an ex Labour supporter I am ashamed of the petty stance adopted by MacConnell and his colleagues and it confirms my decision to vote SNP as 40 yrs of Labour.allegiance.The Lib-Dems are pathetic -shocking with Labour for the past shambolic years and immature in their present stance

I believe that the rules should be changed and that minority parties should not have the choice to manipulate the government.

It is perfectly reasonable to have the Lib dems taking part even though they do not agree with having a referendum.

Change the rules.

"Afterwards Robin Harper said they had discussed "issues both of common ground and of difference with the SNP," adding: "There is a duty on all parties to seek to secure a stable and progressive government for Scotland."

[quote]we should recognise that the SNP could have had a co-alition if it had not put the stable governance of Scotland over its partisan interest.[/quote] You are incorrect in your estimation of SNP resolve. They [italic][bold]did[/bold][/italic] offer to modify the way the referendum will be presented, possibly involving multiple questions, and the timing of it. That is to say, they offered the Lib-Dems the opportunity to help shape and compose its substance, but they still declined. Far from digging in their heels refusing to surrender the SNP welcomed participation. Personally, I feel Lib-Dems inexperienced; they did not represent their voters, they did not takea share in power. However, as can be read in the article at the top of this forum, Alex Salmond feels their position, "honourable and understandable." But then, I am not charged with diplomacy, he is. The Lib-Dems may yet come to the table having concluded that to run shy of direct involvement with voters is more damaging than to seek consensus from the opposition. For that to happen, they need a more courageous, enlightened leader than Nichol Stephen.

we should recognise that the SNP could have had a co-alition if it had not put the stable governance of Scotland over its partisan interest.

You are incorrect in your estimation of SNP resolve. They did offer to modify the way the referendum will be presented, possibly involving multiple questions, and the timing of it. That is to say, they offered the Lib-Dems the opportunity to help shape and compose its substance, but they still declined. Far from digging in their heels refusing to surrender the SNP welcomed participation.

Personally, I feel Lib-Dems inexperienced; they did not represent their voters, they did not takea share in power. However, as can be read in the article at the top of this forum, Alex Salmond feels their position, "honourable and understandable." But then, I am not charged with diplomacy, he is.

The Lib-Dems may yet come to the table having concluded that to run shy of direct involvement with voters is more damaging than to seek consensus from the opposition. For that to happen, they need a more courageous, enlightened leader than Nichol Stephen.

Its about time this parliament learned how to work with a minority executive. My fear is that politicians on all sides will be stuck in a Westminster first-past-the-post mindset and will end up disrupting the legislative programme with point-scoring and yah-boo politics. None of them have a right to do that. We have elected them in those numbers and proportions, and they should get on with the job of governing and representing our views.

what pathetic creatures Bliar & Mc donoll, Blair congratulates the new French president but not Alec on his victory.
Mcdonoll---this was the man who stuffed Scotland and is now so huffed he lacks the breeding to do the decent thing

Freedom is not going to be handed to us. Not when they can continue to steal our oil as long as we wait. Freedom needs to be taken from the oppressor.

The Libbies spent the last thirty days lisping and mincing about, coyly offering themselves as a darling influence in Scottish government. Never at any time did they ask the electorate to consign their pretty little bottoms to the back benches. They asked to be in Government. And having been offered the opportunity they now girlishly sulk, refusing to contemplate allowing the people of Scotland to even express an opinion on their country's own future.

A minority SNP government will be destined to fail early. That may be no bad thing. The Scots might well think about the wisdom of wasting votes on the flighty Libbies again. As the other parties will no doubt remind them.

Mark McGlynn wrote:
Lets see 50 MSP's back a referendum and 79 don't, but clearly 'the people' (or in this case deluded nats) voted for a referendum.

This is getting rather sad. I know a failure to fully connect with reality has always been a sympton of nationalism but watching adults acting like children because nobody wants to play on their team is really rather pathetic.

You are just becoming childish and silly now.

Grow up.

It is the first time I have read the mccrone report and I have to say it is pretty depressing, I have lived through those times, to see how we have been manipulated. It suggests that (in 1974) urgent support is needed in West central Scotland for example but in 2002 the Labour party admitted to have run a 30 year policy to run down Glasgow and it's surroundings, so instead of building it up the chose to keep it down instead, and I thought New Labour was a recent phenomenon.

Disgraceful.

As for West Central Scotland being Republican, only half of it is and yet there is support from all sides, to say otherwise is to disenfranchise those who are not.

Iain wrote:

nouveauxminority wrote: So we are going in out numbered eh? History has shown we usually prevail in such circumstances.
Yeah and according to opinion polls at least 56% of English voters sympathise with us so we may not be as outnumbered as we think.

Maybe at the General Election the SNP should change it's name to the Scottish & English National Party (SENP) and place a candidate in every constituency in the UK. Give the English people a chance to vote for the dissolution of the Union as well.

Hector wrote:

Maybe at the General Election the SNP should change it's name to the Scottish & English National Party (SENP) and place a candidate in every constituency in the UK. Give the English people a chance to vote for the dissolution of the Union as well.

Nice idea. It means another party with its genesis in Scotland governing England once more, and they do not like it up them, Mr. Mannering.

One of the existing English parties will incorporate home rule in its manifesto soon enough. As things stand, I will not be surprised to learn Cameron and Salmond open discussions to that end ....

Let's see now:

English Bob wrote:
I must hand it to the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.The rest are just subsidy junkies,who love their English handouts,got news for the subsidy junkies,when my country gets its own goverment you will be cut adrift anyway.Good riddance say I and a large majority of English voters.

Thats a jolly good call Bob and also,as people who work in the financial sector know,an undeniable fact.

I think it is fair to say that the Lib Dems or "junior labour" rose with New Labour and have now fallen with them. This is perfectly logical and is how it will be seen by the electorate. The Lib Dem supporters on here are sadly in denial and are clinging to the idea that their party has acted out of principle. That the very idea raises hollow laughter from the rest of us is of no concern to them. What many people don't seem to realise is that the referendum question MUST NEVER BE ASKED. It is quite simple. Once it has been asked it can't be put back in the box , it's out there...the seed of an idea planted in peoples minds, an idea which may take root. People like Iain MacWhirter, Alf Young etc recite their mantra that there is no appetite for independence and hope people will believe it. It is their comfort blanket. A big fleecy Union Flag that keeps them warm at night. Personally I don't recall ever being asked if I would like an independent Scotland. Where do they get their statistics from when they make these claims? Who asked the people of Scotland the question, when did they ask it and how was it phrased? I'd be interested to find out. If there genuinely is no desire for independence in Scotland , as the Unionists never tire of telling us ...prove it by giving us a democratic referendum. A falure to do so will be seen for what it is, a justified fear of not getting the right answer.

I think it is fair to say that the Lib Dems or "junior labour" rose with New Labour and have now fallen with them. This is perfectly logical and is how it will be seen by the electorate.
The Lib Dem supporters on here are sadly in denial and are clinging to the idea that their party has acted out of principle.
That the very idea raises hollow laughter from the rest of us is of no concern to them.
What many people don't seem to realise is that the referendum question MUST NEVER BE ASKED.
It is quite simple. Once it has been asked it can't be put back in the box , it's out there...the seed of an idea planted in peoples minds, an idea which may take root.
People like Iain MacWhirter, Alf Young etc recite their mantra that there is no appetite for independence and hope people will believe it. It is their comfort blanket. A big fleecy Union Flag that keeps them warm at night.
Personally I don't recall ever being asked if I would like an independent Scotland.
Where do they get their statistics from when they make these claims? Who asked the people of Scotland the question, when did they ask it and how was it phrased? I'd be interested to find out.
If there genuinely is no desire for independence in Scotland , as the Unionists never tire of telling us ...prove it by giving us a democratic referendum.
A falure to do so will be seen for what it is, a justified fear of not getting the right answer.

Jules Fitzwilliam wrote:

English Bob wrote: I must hand it to the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.The rest are just subsidy junkies,who love their English handouts,got news for the subsidy junkies,when my country gets its own goverment you will be cut adrift anyway.Good riddance say I and a large majority of English voters.
Thats a jolly good call Bob and also,as people who work in the financial sector know,an undeniable fact.

Why is it a good call ?

Wee Dougie Alexander will be answering questions this afternoon. This should be good! 'Resign' anybody?
BBC Radio Scotland
14:30 Scottish Questions
We're live at Westminster where MPs have their monthly opportunity to question the Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, and his ministerial team.

Let's just see if the Scottish unionist parties really are more committed to the union than they are to democracy. I don't for a second think that all the msps in all of the unionist parties have unionism as their prime directive.

It's time.

What I can't understand about the Liberal Democrats is why they oppose a referendum. Why not give the people the choice? And isn't that a particularly illiberal and undemocratic position to take? Especially one that denies them a role in government. Ah well, more lunacy in Scottish politics - nothing new there.

Clinton, they can't risk a referendum as they fear that a majority of Scots would say yes. If you think about it , there can be no other reason.

I love it - I just love it!

The SNP-ers, having spent the last 8 years attacking the LibDems for having dared to flout democracy by going into coalition with Labour so they could get their hands on the 'ministerial mondeos' (one of Alex's favourite wee alliterative soundbites!), are now beside themselves with fury that the same LibDems are flouting democracy by NOT agreeing to coalition with the SNP.

What a bunch of raving HYPOCRITES!

LA, Alex Porter frae Madrid (or whatever you call yourself today) and the rest of you need to stand back and look at yourselves!

You really couldn't make this up!

From today's Irish Times:-
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are attending ceremonies in Belfast today to formally appoint the Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness first minister and deputy first minister.

If Ian Paisley & Martin McGuinness can work together, are we saying that the Lib-Dems & SNP are even further apart than the politics of these men?

10:14 Hi Iain , did that namecheck at 9:36 hit a nerve?

FOR ALL THOSE WITH HIGH HOPES FOR CHANGE UNDER THE SNP MIN SCOTLAND SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING SNP lawyer MSP Kenny MacAskill attitude to victims of Scottish law goes something like this. Quote "Whatever a few malcontents may say, lawyers need not hang their heads in shame but can hold them high" The rest can be read at http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001242.aspx We are SOME of the tmany housands of "MALCONTENTS" who will NOT STOP until the mobsters destroying lives daily in Scottish courts are EXPOSED and punished for the serious crimes they are committing. We state to MacAskill that HE WILL NOT repeat WILL NOT get away with brushing aside with frivilous comments the damage done by his buddies at Drumsheugh gardens that have been getting away with murder destroying peoples lives on a grand scale and thieving Scotlands wealth using criminal collusion and fraud. Anyone can read the enormous amount of evidence sent to the Scottish parliament by those "MALCONTENTS" who are as determined as the gangsters who have stolen our livelyhoods and who WONT get away with the enormous abuses of Scottish citizens that have been going on for way to long. We inform MacAskill we are organised despite the physical and psychological damage done while caught up in a vortex of corruption that he as an MSP has failed time and again to do anything about including the other SNP lawyer MSP's like Nicola Sturgeon who also has turned a blind eye to the enormity of the lives destroyed by her gangster friends controlling Scotlands courts. The internet has EXPOSED and has been over many years the crimes committed against us and only now the media have finally opened up to the reality that the lid cannot be kept on this tyranny any longer. Let MacAskill and his mob be assured that the despicable way he views the victims of Scottish courts will ensure that the SNP will not get away with turning a blind eye to the despots any longer and that we will ensure THEY WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to recompense us for the massive amount of assets we have lost. LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS http://www.ljpr.cjb.net EVIDENCE HERE http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice1/inquiries-02/just1-lps-index.htm http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/inquiries/lpla/j2-lpla-evid.htm http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/reports-06/j2r06-11-Vol01-00.htm http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/reports-06/j2r06-11-Vol02-00.htm http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/or-06/j206-1502.htm#Col2430

FOR ALL THOSE WITH HIGH HOPES FOR CHANGE UNDER THE SNP MIN SCOTLAND SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING

SNP lawyer MSP Kenny MacAskill attitude to victims of Scottish law goes something like this.
Quote
"Whatever a few malcontents may say, lawyers need not hang their heads in shame but can hold them high"
The rest can be read at
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001242.aspx

We are SOME of the tmany housands of "MALCONTENTS" who will NOT STOP until the mobsters destroying lives daily in Scottish courts are EXPOSED and punished for the serious crimes they are committing.

We state to MacAskill that HE WILL NOT repeat WILL NOT get away with brushing aside with frivilous comments the damage done by his buddies at Drumsheugh gardens that have been getting away with murder destroying peoples lives on a grand scale and thieving Scotlands wealth using criminal collusion and fraud.

Anyone can read the enormous amount of evidence sent to the Scottish parliament by those "MALCONTENTS" who are as determined as the gangsters who have stolen our livelyhoods and who WONT get away with the enormous abuses of Scottish citizens that have been going on for way to long.

We inform MacAskill we are organised despite the physical and psychological damage done while caught up in a vortex of corruption
that he as an MSP has failed time and again to do anything about including the other SNP lawyer MSP's like Nicola Sturgeon who also has turned a blind eye to the enormity of the lives destroyed by her gangster friends controlling Scotlands courts.

The internet has EXPOSED and has been over many years the crimes committed against us and only now the media have finally opened up to the reality that the lid cannot be kept on this tyranny any longer.

Let MacAskill and his mob be assured that the despicable way he views the victims of Scottish courts will ensure that the SNP will not get away with turning a blind eye to the despots any longer and that we will ensure THEY WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to recompense us for the massive amount of assets we have lost.

LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
http://www.ljpr.cjb.net

EVIDENCE HERE

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice1/inquiries-02/just1-lps-index.htm
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/inquiries/lpla/j2-lpla-evid.htm
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/reports-06/j2r06-11-Vol01-00.htm
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/reports-06/j2r06-11-Vol02-00.htm
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/or-06/j206-1502.htm#Col2430

I dont see why Labour and the LibDems see a referendum as a stumbling block. The SNP are getting a chance to show what they can do as a ruling party, if they mess it up then a referendum would be dead in the water anyway. Unles of course Labour and LibDems are so full of numpties they know fine well SNP would make a better job then they did.
Incidently, what do the voters of this country have to do to get rid of the incompetent Ross Finnie, he sold the Scottish fishing industry down the river, get voted out and yet continues to walk back into parliament on a list ticket

As the article says for Salmond to get this lot voted in will require that the LudDims & Tories abstain. While the LDs have accepted his "moral right" to govern the fact that Alex won't even talk to the Tories gives them absolutely no reason to abstain. He is going to have to come off his high horse & talk to them.

As 'perception' is more important to the individual than 'reality' itself, the Lib Dems could find themselves in big trouble at the next election if the electorate 'perceive' that the LDs have put party before country, no matter how 'honourable' the LDs perceive their position to be. Their major stumbling block is the referendum because no matter how you cut it they are effectively denying the people of Scotland the right to choose which form of government they wish to live under. Denying people any of their basic rights is a very dangerous game to play. The LDs will see, long before the next election, that their popularity has taken a major knock with this decision not to support the SNP in government. A 'confidence and supply' support is the least they can expect to get away with anything else will punish them severely in Scotland.

As 'perception' is more important to the individual than 'reality' itself, the Lib Dems could find themselves in big trouble at the next election if the electorate 'perceive' that the LDs have put party before country, no matter how 'honourable' the LDs perceive their position to be.

Their major stumbling block is the referendum because no matter how you cut it they are effectively denying the people of Scotland the right to choose which form of government they wish to live under.

Denying people any of their basic rights is a very dangerous game to play. The LDs will see, long before the next election, that their popularity has taken a major knock with this decision not to support the SNP in government.

A 'confidence and supply' support is the least they can expect to get away with anything else will punish them severely in Scotland.

When will some of the more dense Scots begin to realise that the majority of English don't give a cuss for Scotland and couldn't care less whether or not it's in the union? In fact, by hiding behind England's skirts the Scots are not wanted in the union by a majority of the English, who simply don't rate windbags who moan & whinge but never act!

Please start shouting again. It makes it easier to sieve through the arguments

go get im Alex, if lib-dems wont do what they were voted into do, then
HELL MEND THEM, principles my foot they along with labour, got a gubbing, took there baw, will go into oblivion, and sulk, making waves in order in our democratic right to govern, and lose any credibillity they ever had, SERVES THEM RIGHT, BEST OF LUCK ALEX YOU CAN DO THIS.

Though Tavish Scott has hotly denied it everyone knows that his strings are being pulled by Ming in London. The order is no coalition talks with Salmond (ever). No coalition talks with Labour ( for now). Await further instructions.

Today at Stormony, Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley begin power sharing. If these bitter rivals can put aside their dogma for a brighter political future, surely it is arrogant in the extreme for the LibDems to be neither Liberal or Democratic and refuse to accept the SNP proposal of a constitutional convention.

A RULING coalition��must continue to agree on policies or else risk a collapse of government that requires a new election.

A WORKING coalition may form simply to pass a particular bill and then disappear.

What is the problem with a working coalition?

Interesting point Craig.
I remember the last Labour party conference in Oban when Tony Blair swept into the conference hall fresh from "prodiuctive" talks in N Ireland with people who had fought an armed campaign against British rule . He was on a roll having just left Belfast that morning.
He saw no contradiction in launching a scathing attack on the peaceful and democratic aims of the Scottish National Party.
Funny that.

Actually, Alex and co will probably be relieved that the referendum is vanishing over the horizon. It would only ever have been rejected anyway, and that would mean the SNP had no reason to exist, let alone a right to governm, seeing as their central policy had been rejected. As for the Lid Dems - what's everyone's problem? Thay said throughout the election they wouldn't work with the SNP until the referendum was droped, and they're sticking to it. Also, they've realsied that support for Labour has become an albatross around their necks, and have decided to get themselves sorted out from the back benches. Seems they're taking an honourable stance. OK so that means minority government. So instead of one party dictating the direction, they're all going to have to get round the table and start talking. Nothing will get done without a deal, and that's good for democracy. But at least the SNP will be able to work on their other policies. Forget what they were. Something about Trident, illegal wars, reforming Scottish regiments no-one wanted to join and scrapping council tax. Oh wait, those are all Westminster matters........ But you guys must have voted for something? Something that can actually happen?

Actually, Alex and co will probably be relieved that the referendum is vanishing over the horizon. It would only ever have been rejected anyway, and that would mean the SNP had no reason to exist, let alone a right to governm, seeing as their central policy had been rejected.

As for the Lid Dems - what's everyone's problem? Thay said throughout the election they wouldn't work with the SNP until the referendum was droped, and they're sticking to it. Also, they've realsied that support for Labour has become an albatross around their necks, and have decided to get themselves sorted out from the back benches. Seems they're taking an honourable stance.

OK so that means minority government. So instead of one party dictating the direction, they're all going to have to get round the table and start talking. Nothing will get done without a deal, and that's good for democracy.

But at least the SNP will be able to work on their other policies. Forget what they were. Something about Trident, illegal wars, reforming Scottish regiments no-one wanted to join and scrapping council tax.

Oh wait, those are all Westminster matters........

But you guys must have voted for something? Something that can actually happen?

What are the Lib Dems up to? The LibDems started by pushing New Labour to arms length suggesting that they were about to enter negotiations with the SNP, and wanted to keep NL out of the way while they played their brinkmanship games, although if this is what they're doing I think they're going about it the wrong way from the PR and other point of view. But the LDs refusal to even negotiate suggests to me that they don't know what to do, and they're simply playing for time. Negotiating skills apart, consider the scenario where they are serious, and really won't work with the SNP, and have publically snubbed NL. It's been suggested here that they might be taking their instructions from the leadership in Westminster. Why would Westminster leadership want to intervene, but prevent a NL coalition? Could it be that they're considering the possibility of a hung parliament in Westminster? Could it be they're looking towards a coalition there? But they've just wounded NL in Holyrood, and the prospect of them propping up an NL executive in Westminster when it's on its way down would be interesting - could it be that they're anticipating an LD-Con hookup? But they've said they're against Scottish independance, and I can't think of a better way of bringing it about. I don't know what the LibDems motivation for their policy is, and I'm not entirely sure that they do either - a sudden attack of adhesion to principles really doesn't hold water, especially as they're likely to suffer for it at the ballot box.

What are the Lib Dems up to?

The LibDems started by pushing New Labour to arms length suggesting that they were about to enter negotiations with the SNP, and wanted to keep NL out of the way while they played their brinkmanship games, although if this is what they're doing I think they're going about it the wrong way from the PR and other point of view. But the LDs refusal to even negotiate suggests to me that they don't know what to do, and they're simply playing for time.

Negotiating skills apart, consider the scenario where they are serious, and really won't work with the SNP, and have publically snubbed NL. It's been suggested here that they might be taking their instructions from the leadership in Westminster. Why would Westminster leadership want to intervene, but prevent a NL coalition? Could it be that they're considering the possibility of a hung parliament in Westminster? Could it be they're looking towards a coalition there? But they've just wounded NL in Holyrood, and the prospect of them propping up an NL executive in Westminster when it's on its way down would be interesting - could it be that they're anticipating an LD-Con hookup? But they've said they're against Scottish independance, and I can't think of a better way of bringing it about.

I don't know what the LibDems motivation for their policy is, and I'm not entirely sure that they do either - a sudden attack of adhesion to principles really doesn't hold water, especially as they're likely to suffer for it at the ballot box.

Maybe I am missing something....what with being stuck in the middle of a desert..!! I haven't seen any mention of the SNP seeking to invite the Conservatives to join them in forming a Government. After all, weren't the SNP called the Tartan Tories ??

John - Do you think the Conservtives, arch-unionists that they are, would ever go into coalition with a party that has independence as it's core policy?

Is the sun getting to you out there?

I confidently say that we as a country are on the verge of something very great indeed, but, If Labour attack this with sleekit undermining there will be an after effect that will last for generations. They risk publicly branding themselves as nothing more than the bidding doers of Westminster in the minds of many Scots for a long time to come, and subsequently driving people towards a choice that they are not fully settled on yet. In some ways psychologically we are the country of the 'give the underdog a chance' and to kick the underdog when he is just getting to his feet is a very risky tactic. A tactic that could drastically backfire on both Labour and the Lib Dems. Jacks mentality is shackled to corporate Britain. A corporate model that even the English are fed up with. People want a sense of who they are as 'a people' in this frantically changing world. The 300-year-old Union model cannot provide this and is well past its sell by date. A new model for a fully functioning British island is needed. The separation papers are long overdue and all parties are getting sick of the sight of each other the longer it drags on. Jack and company are spitting against the wind and even their political ego's cannot possibly be thinking that somehow they will be able to force the marriage to work when there is no appetite for it. People want separation first to see how it feels. Whether it leads to full blown divorce will only be found out in time. Mark my words if they show themselves to be nothing more than spoilers they will rue that course of action.

The Lib Dems are doing what they said they would do. Rule out a coalition in which a referendum on independence is on the cards. The fact that people cant accept it is ridiculous. The point was made clear during the campaign - and the nats got all hot and bothered about it at the time, what are they mumping about now for? Is it a surprise? There is also a daft idea that Lib Dems are being undemocratic in some way. The Lib Dems put forward their program stating clearly that if you wanted independence vote for an independence party, if you dont, then vote LD. It is surely undemocratic to do that and then do a u-turn to get into power (or as the nats kept on saying 'for a ministerial mondeo' - funny does that now mean that the LDs have put their principles before the mondeo? bet we wont squeeze that out of any nats). I think the nats should do what they did last week and go fight labour - the only thing they seem to interested in doing.

The Lib Dems are doing what they said they would do. Rule out a coalition in which a referendum on independence is on the cards. The fact that people cant accept it is ridiculous.

The point was made clear during the campaign - and the nats got all hot and bothered about it at the time, what are they mumping about now for? Is it a surprise?

There is also a daft idea that Lib Dems are being undemocratic in some way. The Lib Dems put forward their program stating clearly that if you wanted independence vote for an independence party, if you dont, then vote LD. It is surely undemocratic to do that and then do a u-turn to get into power (or as the nats kept on saying 'for a ministerial mondeo' - funny does that now mean that the LDs have put their principles before the mondeo? bet we wont squeeze that out of any nats). I think the nats should do what they did last week and go fight labour - the only thing they seem to interested in doing.

"The Liberal Democrats describe their ideology as giving 'power to the people'. They state they are against the undemocratic concentration of power in unaccountable bodies. They propose decentralisation of power out of Westminster". (LIB-DEM QUOTE)

Well then...how are they going to achieve that? With a coalition with Labour? No. Labour think the Scottish parliament has enough powers. How about the Tories? Same thing. Now then....who does that leave? Duh. A child could understand this.

Only if they were asked.

The SNP are treating the Tories as if they were the anti-Christ. Since, if they are serious about their promises to achieve growth through lower business taxes, they would make a good fit (unlike the anti-growth Greens). If so they are making their task far more difficult.

In any case if the SNP are now going for minority government they are de facto accepting that there is no majority for a separatist referendum.

[quote][bold]john[/bold] wrote: Whilst it is interesting to note all the remarks about the Lib Dems etc, let us all move the issue forward and ask some searching questions of the scarlet pimpernel, known as the Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, who was the architect of the debacle in spoiled votes. If you can\'t stand the heat get out of the kitchen .....so the saying goes. THE QUESTIONS ALEXANDER MUST ANSWER TODAY in Westminster. 1. Is it true, as the Electoral Commission states on its website, that the \"mock votes\" report was carried out \"at the request of the Scotland Office\"? 2. The Electoral Commission says a copy of the report was passed to your office. Is that true? 3. Did you or anyone in your office read the complete report before November 2006? 4. Given its own role in making the decision to adopt a combined ballot paper, how can the Electoral Commission be expected to carry out a full and impartial inquiry into the spoiled papers fiasco? Gordon Brown must dispense with him as a minister or be tarnished by Douglas Alexander. As with Harold McMillan in the sixties I sense another \"Night of the Long Knives\" coming. Alexander\'s position is untenable and he should go at the same time as John Reid. It will be interesting to see him ( Alexander ) talk his way out of this situation. Watch him squirm and blame everyone else bar himself. Again another politician punching above their weight. ! [/quote] It appears Douglas Alexander [italic]has[/italic] got out fo the kitchen. Heaven knows where to though!

john wrote:
Whilst it is interesting to note all the remarks about the Lib Dems etc, let us all move the issue forward and ask some searching questions of the scarlet pimpernel, known as the Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, who was the architect of the debacle in spoiled votes. If you can\'t stand the heat get out of the kitchen .....so the saying goes. THE QUESTIONS ALEXANDER MUST ANSWER TODAY in Westminster. 1. Is it true, as the Electoral Commission states on its website, that the \"mock votes\" report was carried out \"at the request of the Scotland Office\"? 2. The Electoral Commission says a copy of the report was passed to your office. Is that true? 3. Did you or anyone in your office read the complete report before November 2006? 4. Given its own role in making the decision to adopt a combined ballot paper, how can the Electoral Commission be expected to carry out a full and impartial inquiry into the spoiled papers fiasco? Gordon Brown must dispense with him as a minister or be tarnished by Douglas Alexander. As with Harold McMillan in the sixties I sense another \"Night of the Long Knives\" coming. Alexander\'s position is untenable and he should go at the same time as John Reid. It will be interesting to see him ( Alexander ) talk his way out of this situation. Watch him squirm and blame everyone else bar himself. Again another politician punching above their weight. !

It appears Douglas Alexander has got out fo the kitchen.

Heaven knows where to though!

"THE QUESTIONS ALEXANDER MUST ANSWER TODAY in Westminster.

1. Is it true, as the Electoral Commission states on its website, that the "mock votes" report was carried out "at the request of the Scotland Office"? "

The word is mockery and it was conducted on Thurday 3rd May 2007

Morning chaps and Chapesses,

It appears that those links above to the McCrone report no longer exist....daaadaaadummdaaaa.

My tuppence. The Scottish Labour Party, The Scottish Conservsatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats should join in coalition and call themselves THE STATE. No need to worry about pesky elections.

Sign up today for the ONE PARTY STATE you know it makes sense.

[quote]The Lib Dems are doing what they said they would do.[/quote] This in itself would be a new policy. The fact that they have given away their core policies for the sake of government in the past suggests that there is another reasoning going on. Many people believed that the LDs fomed this policy knowing that it is of course the SNPs main issue, and so could achieve more from negotiations. If the SNP drop this requirement, then the LDs have little negotiating power left, as the party pledges (council tax etc.) have much in common. Following this reasoning that the LDs are now going to adhere to their pledges, then why give them cabinet posts when they're going to vote with you on most things anyway? And on things that they disagree - having them out of government, leaves the SNP free to negotiate with other parties for support on these. The basis of minority government. From the outside, the LDs lose a heck of a lot of influence. The main point, however, is that they are refusing to even sit at the table, which is not good PR, and might even result in a mutually acceptable compromise. They are in effect grandstanding, and appearing unreasonable in the process. They could walk into negotiations and then walk out again after hours of work, blaming the SNP for being totally inflexible! It appears that for the moment, at least, they simply dont want to talk. [quote]The fact that people cant accept it is ridiculous.[/quote] Because I think it's totally out of character for the LDs based on their track record in negotiating power in Holyrood and in local govermnet across the UK, where their willingness to compromise to gain power and influence is apparent.

The Lib Dems are doing what they said they would do.

This in itself would be a new policy. The fact that they have given away their core policies for the sake of government in the past suggests that there is another reasoning going on. Many people believed that the LDs fomed this policy knowing that it is of course the SNPs main issue, and so could achieve more from negotiations. If the SNP drop this requirement, then the LDs have little negotiating power left, as the party pledges (council tax etc.) have much in common. Following this reasoning that the LDs are now going to adhere to their pledges, then why give them cabinet posts when they're going to vote with you on most things anyway? And on things that they disagree - having them out of government, leaves the SNP free to negotiate with other parties for support on these. The basis of minority government. From the outside, the LDs lose a heck of a lot of influence.

The main point, however, is that they are refusing to even sit at the table, which is not good PR, and might even result in a mutually acceptable compromise. They are in effect grandstanding, and appearing unreasonable in the process. They could walk into negotiations and then walk out again after hours of work, blaming the SNP for being totally inflexible! It appears that for the moment, at least, they simply dont want to talk.

The fact that people cant accept it is ridiculous.

Because I think it's totally out of character for the LDs based on their track record in negotiating power in Holyrood and in local govermnet across the UK, where their willingness to compromise to gain power and influence is apparent.

Wee Doogie must be forced to resign. Will anyone challenge him at PMQT this afternoon?

Gus @ http://1820.org.uk

The Lib Dems and SNP agree in a lot of areas so I can't see why they can't move forward and at least obtain more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The parliament now has a majority of members from parties supporting additional powers. Since the parliament does not have a majority supporting independence, a referendum bill will never get passed. I don't know how the SNP will proceed with it as they will be 15 votes short of getting it through( including help from the Greens and Margo MacDonald). If the SNP show good government then they can certainly build on the support they received on the 3rd of May next time around. My concern is that it won't be the SNP causing constitutional problems, but the Labour Party. They'll be out to ensure at every step of the way that the SNP government fails. With the make up of the parliament, I don't think we'll be voting on our constitutional future in 2010. What a democracy! More should have voted SNP.

The Lib Dems and SNP agree in a lot of areas so I can't see why they can't move forward and at least obtain more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The parliament now has a majority of members from parties supporting additional powers.

Since the parliament does not have a majority supporting independence, a referendum bill will never get passed. I don't know how the SNP will proceed with it as they will be 15 votes short of getting it through( including help from the Greens and Margo MacDonald). If the SNP show good government then they can certainly build on the support they received on the 3rd of May next time around.

My concern is that it won't be the SNP causing constitutional problems, but the Labour Party. They'll be out to ensure at every step of the way that the SNP government fails.

With the make up of the parliament, I don't think we'll be voting on our constitutional future in 2010. What a democracy! More should have voted SNP.

The SNP won a plurality of votes and seats in the election, not a majority. There is 79-50 majority against a referendum in the new Parliament. That said, it is a significant minority in favour and there should be some debate between parties on how to take the constitutional issues forward. As to the LibDems, several contributors have rightly said that they made it clear that they would not support a referendum, even a multi-option one. You can criticise their policy position but you can't say they were not absolutely straight with the voters.

Oscar wrote:
Morning chaps and Chapesses,

It appears that those links above to the McCrone report no longer exist....daaadaaadummdaaaa.

My tuppence. The Scottish Labour Party, The Scottish Conservsatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats should join in coalition and call themselves THE STATE. No need to worry about pesky elections.

Sign up today for the ONE PARTY STATE you know it makes sense.

go here:-

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/

and navigate to 2006/feb bottom link is the McCrone report.

[quote][bold]Paul[/bold] wrote: The SNP won a plurality of votes and seats in the election, not a majority. There is 79-50 majority against a referendum in the new Parliament. That said, it is a significant minority in favour and there should be some debate between parties on how to take the constitutional issues forward. As to the LibDems, several contributors have rightly said that they made it clear that they would not support a referendum, even a multi-option one. You can criticise their policy position but you can\'t say they were not absolutely straight with the voters. [/quote] no there is not a 79-50 majority aghainst a referendum, that is an over simplification of the result. This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.

Paul wrote:
The SNP won a plurality of votes and seats in the election, not a majority. There is 79-50 majority against a referendum in the new Parliament. That said, it is a significant minority in favour and there should be some debate between parties on how to take the constitutional issues forward. As to the LibDems, several contributors have rightly said that they made it clear that they would not support a referendum, even a multi-option one. You can criticise their policy position but you can\'t say they were not absolutely straight with the voters.

no there is not a 79-50 majority aghainst a referendum, that is an over simplification of the result. This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.

Iaing wrote:

This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.

I agree. This election was clearly decided on protest votes and people fed-up with eight years of Labour. The SNP's share of the vote was artificially swelled by this factor, and their small majority is in no way an endorsement by the Scottish people in favour of their main policy of independence.

If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand.

So well said, iang.

Speak very quietly but a natural ally of the SNP on Constitutional reform are the Conservatives. Not yet for full independance,but for much more National Autonomy which would stop Scottish Labour MPs voting on English issues. This is becomming a scandal in England and won't go away-hence the majority English support for Scottish Independance

Floating voter @ 10.23

"If Ian Paisley & Martin McGuinness can work together, are we saying that the Lib-Dems & SNP are even further apart than the politics of these men?"

I'd reckon it means that Ian Paisley is capable of greater flexibility than Alex Salmond.

[quote]As to the LibDems, several contributors have rightly said that they made it clear that they would not support a referendum, even a multi-option one. You can criticise their policy position but you can't say they were not absolutely straight with the voters.[/quote] I think the LibDems are more sophisticated than that. I am questioning the motivations behind their negotiating position. The system in Holyrood is designed for coalition government, and therefore compromise (from both/all sides). To refuse to sit down and talk does not seem to me to be a constructive approach! I am asking why they are taking this approach. Even if they won't budge either, the SNP are to some extent able to use this position against the LDs by portraying them as the ones refusing to negotiate/form a coalition, especially, as I have said in a post above, in the light of the LDs past aptitude for compromise. If this is meant to be a way of appearing tough and principled, then forgive me for being surprised, based on their past history, and I think they could win the PR war (a big part of politics), by appearing to talk, rather than intransigence (debating being the whole point of politics). Bottom line - if they sat down together - my opinion is that they will be able to find common ground, if they want to. Do they want to? I would have thought so - so back to my original question; what are the LibDems doing? I don't believe they are bad at negotiating, so there is more to it than their superficial position.

As to the LibDems, several contributors have rightly said that they made it clear that they would not support a referendum, even a multi-option one. You can criticise their policy position but you can't say they were not absolutely straight with the voters.

I think the LibDems are more sophisticated than that. I am questioning the motivations behind their negotiating position. The system in Holyrood is designed for coalition government, and therefore compromise (from both/all sides). To refuse to sit down and talk does not seem to me to be a constructive approach! I am asking why they are taking this approach. Even if they won't budge either, the SNP are to some extent able to use this position against the LDs by portraying them as the ones refusing to negotiate/form a coalition, especially, as I have said in a post above, in the light of the LDs past aptitude for compromise. If this is meant to be a way of appearing tough and principled, then forgive me for being surprised, based on their past history, and I think they could win the PR war (a big part of politics), by appearing to talk, rather than intransigence (debating being the whole point of politics).

Bottom line - if they sat down together - my opinion is that they will be able to find common ground, if they want to. Do they want to? I would have thought so - so back to my original question; what are the LibDems doing? I don't believe they are bad at negotiating, so there is more to it than their superficial position.

Scotleag - Have you even read the article above? Salmond says he wants to enter negotiations with the Libs with no preconditions. Is that not flexibility?

The intransigence is not coming from the SNP. It is coming from Ming the Merciless, bartering the governance of Scotland with Broon in order to get a sniff of PR for Westminster (which will never happen). If the LibDems want to do that, let them. They are the ones losing the chance to lead the push for progressive politics in Scotland

All the hot air and nonsense being posted here,does not change the fact that,as one of my fellow countrymen put it,you scots are SUBSIDY JUNKIES. You appear not to be able to nor want to exist,without being able to hold onto our English coat tails.What a despicable attitude for any people to cling to,you are indeed a subject people.

I used to support Lib Dems, but voted SNP for the first time this election. There is nothing DEMOCRATIC about refusing the people of Scotland a referendum on independence. They don't even have to support independence, but they've lost their own principles in this recent campaign. Whatever happened to "trusting the people..."? If this is the only thing preventing a coalition with SNP - which would help their other good policies be put in place, they really are shooting themselves in the foot! On the other hand, no coalition could be a good thing, meaning more MSPs can make their own mind up on issues instead of being told from above.

Before any bravehearts decide to take the bait with Lord Boswell above.....dont bother its probably a labour MSP hoping to create a "see what nationalists are like" story.

LIbdems- we will never forget your betrayal of your principles and of Scotland. Cant wait to see you disappear at next election. SNP minority govt then. Ps, link to Mccrone report, try opening it ..it wont now! Pps. When are we going to see publicised full local authority election results in the press??

[quote][bold]Harris Peterson[/bold] wrote: Iaing wrote: [quote]This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.[/quote] I agree. This election was clearly decided on protest votes and people fed-up with eight years of Labour. The SNP's share of the vote was artificially swelled by this factor, and their small majority is in no way an endorsement by the Scottish people in favour of their main policy of independence. If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand. So well said, iang. [/quote] If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.

Harris Peterson wrote:
Iaing wrote:
This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.
I agree. This election was clearly decided on protest votes and people fed-up with eight years of Labour. The SNP's share of the vote was artificially swelled by this factor, and their small majority is in no way an endorsement by the Scottish people in favour of their main policy of independence. If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand. So well said, iang.

If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot
1. As we are folks?
2. More powers?
3. Full Indepndence?

Tick a box.
70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.

Hahahahaha no amount of mouthwash could disguise that pong Lord Haw Haw.

Don't you just love our english cousins who come on here denigrating us Scots; 'subsidy junkies', 'england would be better off without the moaning Scots' et al? Well hell, who is living in dreamland now? I wish to cause no real offence, but G*I*R*F*U*Y! We Scots must rid ourselves of the nation that likes to think we're just northern britain; Independence must come - and preferably sooner rather than later.

Rupert Boswell wrote:
All the hot air and nonsense being posted here,does not change the fact that,as one of my fellow countrymen put it,you scots are SUBSIDY JUNKIES. You appear not to be able to nor want to exist,without being able to hold onto our English coat tails.What a despicable attitude for any people to cling to,you are indeed a subject people.

If you read RB's post Bob McKay,it is clearly not pointing to the snp,but the unionist factions,who obviously dont want to beleive that the English despise them,English people that is,who are calling to have an "English Parliament"

[quote]If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.[/quote] That's a very good point. But you have to realise that referedums are expensive businesses, which also take away from the real work of government. Imagine it - if a ref was on the cards for 2010, it would dominate the agenda. It would be the elephant in the room behind every other piece of parliamentary business. And seeing as it's the SNP's reson d'etre, do you think they could ignore talking about it for that amount of time. Personally, I don't think they could. So there's no point having a referendum that's going to fail. It's a waste of time and money. And I don't think the SNP would launch a ref unless it was for full independence. They've staked their whole approach to policy on that one chestnut, and I don't think they're going to water it down now.

If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot
1. As we are folks?
2. More powers?
3. Full Indepndence?

Tick a box.
70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.

That's a very good point. But you have to realise that referedums are expensive businesses, which also take away from the real work of government. Imagine it - if a ref was on the cards for 2010, it would dominate the agenda. It would be the elephant in the room behind every other piece of parliamentary business.

And seeing as it's the SNP's reson d'etre, do you think they could ignore talking about it for that amount of time. Personally, I don't think they could.

So there's no point having a referendum that's going to fail. It's a waste of time and money.

And I don't think the SNP would launch a ref unless it was for full independence. They've staked their whole approach to policy on that one chestnut, and I don't think they're going to water it down now.

I'm sorry. It's all my fault. I should have won then we wouldn't have been in this mess. What now? GTC registration lapsed. Thinks............maybe a pact with the Tories...after all....they're unionists and our policies aren't THAT far apart. Most posters here seem to agree that this was an election about "Not breaking up the UK), so there we are then. We'll have coalition with the Tories. $hit...we're still short of a majority. Maybe for the next Scottish election we should form an alliance in advance...we could call ourselves the Unionist Party...brilliant! Wait again though, the Tories are really the Conservative & Unionist party so that won't work. What could we call our alliance? I know...it's coming to me...
NU-LAB-CON....BRILLIANT.

[quote][bold]Harris Peterson[/bold] wrote: [quote]If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.[/quote] That's a very good point. But you have to realise that referedums are expensive businesses, which also take away from the real work of government. Imagine it - if a ref was on the cards for 2010, it would dominate the agenda. It would be the elephant in the room behind every other piece of parliamentary business. And seeing as it's the SNP's reson d'etre, do you think they could ignore talking about it for that amount of time. Personally, I don't think they could. So there's no point having a referendum that's going to fail. It's a waste of time and money. And I don't think the SNP would launch a ref unless it was for full independence. They've staked their whole approach to policy on that one chestnut, and I don't think they're going to water it down now. [/quote] OK. If it's a compromise, run the Parliament for 3 years (if it lasts that long). Year 4 should be spent addressing the ballot paper problem (status quo, more powers, independence)and then have the vote in 2011, just before the next Scottish election. If the voters vote for more powers in great numbers, it would be pointless for the SNP to say, "Vote SNP for an independent scotland" in their manifesto. How about the other parties? The Lib-dems will have got their wish. Labour & the Tories would have to move forward. If the voters said, "Status Quo" (not the group), then the people have spoken. Lib-dems & SNP would look ridiculous issuing a manifesto shortly after "the people have spoken" to push for more powers or independence. In other words, what's the friggin? problem?

Harris Peterson wrote:

If this is the case (I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don't want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn't produce this. I don't see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.
That's a very good point. But you have to realise that referedums are expensive businesses, which also take away from the real work of government. Imagine it - if a ref was on the cards for 2010, it would dominate the agenda. It would be the elephant in the room behind every other piece of parliamentary business. And seeing as it's the SNP's reson d'etre, do you think they could ignore talking about it for that amount of time. Personally, I don't think they could. So there's no point having a referendum that's going to fail. It's a waste of time and money. And I don't think the SNP would launch a ref unless it was for full independence. They've staked their whole approach to policy on that one chestnut, and I don't think they're going to water it down now.

OK. If it's a compromise, run the Parliament for 3 years (if it lasts that long). Year 4 should be spent addressing the ballot paper problem (status quo, more powers, independence)and then have the vote in 2011, just before the next Scottish election. If the voters vote for more powers in great numbers, it would be pointless for the SNP to say, "Vote SNP for an independent scotland" in their manifesto. How about the other parties? The Lib-dems will have got their wish. Labour & the Tories would have to move forward. If the voters said, "Status Quo" (not the group), then the people have spoken. Lib-dems & SNP would look ridiculous issuing a manifesto shortly after "the people have spoken" to push for more powers or independence. In other words, what's the friggin? problem?

Harris Peterson 1228 wrote:
"If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I'd say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand."

Hmmm , you may indeed be right about that but just in case you're wrong let's ask the people of Scotland in a democratic referendum as advocated by the SNP.

With your confidence in outright rejection what have you possibly got to fear? Just ask us the question .

What a bunch of whining losers!!!!!!!

[quote][bold]Mark McGlynn[/bold] wrote: So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an [bold]bold[/bold] Overall[bold]bold[/bold] majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).[/quote] Schizoid or not? Yes Mark Labour won 37 constituancy seats, 16 more than the SNP who had 15,853 more votes for the 21 they won? Of course the situation was reversed, except for numbers of votes, on the regional list. All very confusing isn't it, this post code voting lottery. Could make you think cynically that the confusion was an integral part of the design by its perpretators in order to fog democracy in favour of the incumbents political process. Only this time the swing was so massive to a fourth,(deemed fringe) party that the constituancy anchorage didn't quite do its job. You can get all the facts from: www.electionresources.org Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies?

Mark McGlynn wrote:
So the Lib Dems run a campaign where they state that they will not support or take part in a coalition that wants a referendum on independence. Then after the election they actually do the unthinkable and stick to the platform they were elected on. No wonder all the Nats are gettiing so shrill. They have deluded themselves into thinking they could win a referendum although they seem to have finally realised that they can't win a popular majority in an election. And before we start getting the 'Labour never needed more than 50% to govern' argument. labour took 37 of the 73 constituencies an Overall majority of 1. Perhaps all the Braveheart wannabees are starting to wake up to the fact that this election has not been the big breakthrough they were hoping for and in true paranoid fashion have started blaming 'London' for their own failure to convince the electorate (again).

Schizoid or not? Yes Mark Labour won 37 constituancy seats, 16 more than the SNP who had 15,853 more votes for the 21 they won?

Of course the situation was reversed, except for numbers of votes, on the regional list. All very confusing isn't it, this post code voting lottery.

Could make you think cynically that the confusion was an integral part of the design by its perpretators in order to fog democracy in favour of the incumbents political process.

Only this time the swing was so massive to a fourth,(deemed fringe) party that the constituancy anchorage didn't quite do its job.

You can get all the facts from:
www.electionresources.org

Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies?

"Lets stop this fuedin' and a fussin'!" "I love you Paw" "I love you Cletus!"

Prior to the election I seem to remember that a number of LibDem and Labour MSPs saying they were in fact pro independence. So why don't they now have the courage of their convictions and switch to the SNP?

I note that the subsidy junkies are still trying justify the meaning of life.

You can get all the facts from:
www.electionresources.org

Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies?

Checked this out, and was surprised, nay, stunned to see the following fact:

SNP list vote: 633,401 Seats: 26 Vote per cent: 31

Labour list vote: 595,415 Seats: 8 Vote per cent 29.2

Can anyone explain to me how the SNP got so many seats in the list? I though this was supposed to be proportional representation...

Maybe all those Gnats bleating on about democracy and conspiracies should have a long think about what really happened here.

AT LAST! For the last week I've been trying to post but keying in the code was a problem. It says on the screen (just under location) I had to key in what I saw, so I keyed in e.g.123-123. No matter how many times I tried, I still couldn't get access, but it has now been explained to me. My question is this:

How do you fill in the ballot paers?

Is it really a terrible thing if the SNP form a minority Government? I think a strong democracy has conflict at the heart of its success. The SNP have, over the years, become more central in there appearance and approach to the Scottish public. However at their core they remain at the left of the spectrum. Labour certainly are the centre right, complacent and corrupt, some of their actions and inactions could be classed as criminal in terms of responsibility of power. This contrast hopefully could lead to voting on policies and legislation on the merits of each bill, which, thanks to the libdems, has been sincerely lacking. The SNP and the latter do agree on a great deal and the referendum need not to be an issue in this brave new Scotland. What is an issue is the split inside the SNP. The pragmatists believe in the more progressive 'catalonia' stance, where independence could come but later on and it not being the priority for Scotland. The other Nationists have a desire for independence now! This seems to be based more on a romantic notion of Scotland and its history, rather than the facts or even a realistic interpretation of the political climate. Alex Salmond balances this divide like a true politician, but for how long? The referendum in my opinion is a bit of political plate spinning to keep the differing factions satisfied. The larger issue which could make the whole debate irrelivant is the conservatives winning the next general election and "cutting Scotland loose" as it serves them not. Whatever happens Scotland must improve the opportunities and infrastructure it provides for its people. We deserve better! We deserve a chance!

Hughie, well done.

They got the design wrong on that one didn't they.

Swinging great lead in the constituancy ride out the regional?

So how can there be different totals regional/constituancy?

Listen, you guys. Stop knocking Alex Salmond, he's likely to be the next First Minister of your Scottish Parish council. To knock him at a time of National insecurity with Al Quaida massing outside Carlisle, you should really be supporting him more, yeah?

See yous Nats, yer a bunch o fuds. Wee Hughie frae Greenock's got it right all you ever dae is moan like ****. A want to keep part of her majestys government I love ma qween and cuntry. I served in malaysia for kunts like yous. Vote BNP and Labour!

[quote][bold]Hughie Greenock[/bold] wrote: [quote]You can get all the facts from: www.electionresources.org Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies? [/quote] Checked this out, and was surprised, nay, stunned to see the following fact: SNP list vote: [bold]633,401[/bold] Seats: [bold]26[/bold] Vote per cent: 31 Labour list vote: [bold]595,415[/bold] Seats: [bold]8[/bold] Vote per cent 29.2 Can anyone explain to me how the SNP got so many seats in the list? I though this was supposed to be [bold]proportional[/bold] representation... Maybe all those Gnats bleating on about democracy and conspiracies should have a long think about what really happened here.[/quote] Hughie, the list vote is not a separate item from the constituency vote. It is meant to balance the inequalities created by the FPTP voting system in the constituencies. That's why they are sometimes called "top-up" lists. In the Glasgow area, the SNP got most of the list seats because Labour got most of the constituencies. Look at the NE region and you'll see the situation reversed. It is indeed proportional. Compare with the Wesminster breakdown of Scottish MPs, which is grotesquely imbalanced towards Labour.

Hughie Greenock wrote:

You can get all the facts from: www.electionresources.org Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies?
Checked this out, and was surprised, nay, stunned to see the following fact: SNP list vote: 633,401 Seats: 26 Vote per cent: 31 Labour list vote: 595,415 Seats: 8 Vote per cent 29.2 Can anyone explain to me how the SNP got so many seats in the list? I though this was supposed to be proportional representation... Maybe all those Gnats bleating on about democracy and conspiracies should have a long think about what really happened here.

Hughie, the list vote is not a separate item from the constituency vote. It is meant to balance the inequalities created by the FPTP voting system in the constituencies. That's why they are sometimes called "top-up" lists.
In the Glasgow area, the SNP got most of the list seats because Labour got most of the constituencies. Look at the NE region and you'll see the situation reversed. It is indeed proportional. Compare with the Wesminster breakdown of Scottish MPs, which is grotesquely imbalanced towards Labour.

Oh Hughie pay attention. The proportional representation system takes both constituency and region votes into account so that over the whole fine land the total % votes for each part roughly match the % of seats in parliament. Thus, SNP got a bit more votes than Labour so got one seat more than them. It is a fair system in that sense. The old system (as at Westminster) is ridiculously unfair. We have the LibDems to thank for securing this set up for scotland, it's just a pity they can't handle the results thoughtfully and are away in a huffette.

[quote][bold]Curious bystander[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Harris Peterson[/bold] wrote: Iaing wrote: [quote]This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.[/quote] I agree. This election was clearly decided on protest votes and people fed-up with eight years of Labour. The SNP\'s share of the vote was artificially swelled by this factor, and their small majority is in no way an endorsement by the Scottish people in favour of their main policy of independence. If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I\'d say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand. So well said, iang. [/quote] If this is the case (I\'d say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don\'t want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn\'t produce this. I don\'t see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.[/quote] Labour's vote was artificially swelled too and has been for over a decade by Daily Record and Sun readers who believe any scaremongering claptrap they read and would follow the party over a cliff. There are also the people who have no understanding of politics, society or economics and simply vote Labour because its a family tradition to do so or the shop steward at their work told them to. The biggest danger is that with "Blairism" on the way out and Cameron's Tories preparing for government, the old socialists will regain control of the Scottish Labour party. If they muscle back into power they will create far more public sector bloating and bureaucracy which in a market driven capitalist world will destroy the Scottish economy and make us even more subsidised than they allege we are already. Of course they will blame the Westminster Tories for this, creating another generation of Scots with a chip on their shoulder about Westminster, the Tories, the English, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Of course their loyal supporters will revere them as Scotland's true political champion merely because of the bile and venom they will direct at the Tory government. Labour thrives on Scotland's negative self image. Its Time to starve the party out of existence!

Curious bystander wrote:

Harris Peterson wrote: Iaing wrote:
This was NOT a referendum it was an election for Holyrood and therefore you cannot judge the result as support for a single policy.
I agree. This election was clearly decided on protest votes and people fed-up with eight years of Labour. The SNP\'s share of the vote was artificially swelled by this factor, and their small majority is in no way an endorsement by the Scottish people in favour of their main policy of independence. If anything, it proves that the vast majority of people - I\'d say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand. So well said, iang.
If this is the case (I\'d say a ballpark figure of 70 per cent - would reject any indepenence referendum out of hand), why not have a referendum and get this over with? If all the parties are sure that the Scots don\'t want full independence, wherein lies the problem? The Lib-dems want more powers for the Scottish Parliament & the SNP want full Independence. The Lib-dems will never be in a position to deliver more powers, so this really is their best shot. Their pact with labour didn\'t produce this. I don\'t see the problem. 3 questions on the ballot 1. As we are folks? 2. More powers? 3. Full Indepndence? Tick a box. 70% might reject independence, but 70% might want more powers.

Labour's vote was artificially swelled too and has been for over a decade by Daily Record and Sun readers who believe any scaremongering claptrap they read and would follow the party over a cliff. There are also the people who have no understanding of politics, society or economics and simply vote Labour because its a family tradition to do so or the shop steward at their work told them to.

The biggest danger is that with "Blairism" on the way out and Cameron's Tories preparing for government, the old socialists will regain control of the Scottish Labour party. If they muscle back into power they will create far more public sector bloating and bureaucracy which in a market driven capitalist world will destroy the Scottish economy and make us even more subsidised than they allege we are already. Of course they will blame the Westminster Tories for this, creating another generation of Scots with a chip on their shoulder about Westminster, the Tories, the English, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Of course their loyal supporters will revere them as Scotland's true political champion merely because of the bile and venom they will direct at the Tory government.

Labour thrives on Scotland's negative self image. Its Time to starve the party out of existence!

[quote][bold]Dick[/bold] wrote: Prior to the election I seem to remember that a number of LibDem and Labour MSPs saying they were in fact pro independence. So why don\'t they now have the courage of their convictions and switch to the SNP? [/quote] The way things are do you really think the Labour and Lib Dem whips can keep their MSPs in line? Labour will soon be blaming each other for losing power and Lib Dem MSPs will have heard the displeasure of their supporters in recent days. Once the referendum bill comes to be put through parliament I would consider it likely the Lib Dem and Labour MSPs who are pro-independence will find the courage of their convictions not to toe the party line. I'm sure the SNP strategists will have considered that angle which is why there is no way they will shelve their referendum policy. That said, never mind the independence bill. The parliament will be voting for a First Minister tomorrow. I wonder if these Labour and Lib Dem MSPs will toe the line in that. I'm certain there will be those in the Labour group, and not necessarily the pro-indepence ones, who want rid of McConnell as well. It will be interesting to see what level of confidence the Labour MSPs have in the bumbling, Blairite sycophant they call their leader.

Dick wrote:
Prior to the election I seem to remember that a number of LibDem and Labour MSPs saying they were in fact pro independence. So why don\'t they now have the courage of their convictions and switch to the SNP?

The way things are do you really think the Labour and Lib Dem whips can keep their MSPs in line? Labour will soon be blaming each other for losing power and Lib Dem MSPs will have heard the displeasure of their supporters in recent days.

Once the referendum bill comes to be put through parliament I would consider it likely the Lib Dem and Labour MSPs who are pro-independence will find the courage of their convictions not to toe the party line.

I'm sure the SNP strategists will have considered that angle which is why there is no way they will shelve their referendum policy.

That said, never mind the independence bill. The parliament will be voting for a First Minister tomorrow. I wonder if these Labour and Lib Dem MSPs will toe the line in that. I'm certain there will be those in the Labour group, and not necessarily the pro-indepence ones, who want rid of McConnell as well. It will be interesting to see what level of confidence the Labour MSPs have in the bumbling, Blairite sycophant they call their leader.

Congratulations to the Mr Salmond and the SNP and to the People of Scotland who voted for him.

Go for it Alex. Can you believe that we won't be seeing so much of McConnell. Can his wife now be removed from her job in Glasgow?

Now we have to rid ourselves of children of the Manse ie Gordon Brown and the dreadful Alexanders of Paisley.

[quote][bold]Hughie Greenock[/bold] wrote: [quote]You can get all the facts from: www.electionresources.org Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies? [/quote] Checked this out, and was surprised, nay, stunned to see the following fact: SNP list vote: [bold]633,401[/bold] Seats: [bold]26[/bold] Vote per cent: 31 Labour list vote: [bold]595,415[/bold] Seats: [bold]8[/bold] Vote per cent 29.2 Can anyone explain to me how the SNP got so many seats in the list? I though this was supposed to be [bold]proportional[/bold] representation... Maybe all those Gnats bleating on about democracy and conspiracies should have a long think about what really happened here.[/quote] The list system is designed to offset and adjust the constituency votes so that the overall seats are closely proportional to the total votes cast for each party. That's why its called [bold]proportional representation[/bold]. The reason SNP got many more list seats than Labour with a similar share of the vote is because it worked the opposite way on the constituency (i.e. bias to labour with similar vote share). It has still worked out overall that Labour needed less votes per seat than the SNP. Total votes cast gave the SNP a lead of about 50,000 which in my (very rough) estimate, if both parties had the same votes to seats ratio, the SNP would have gained an extra 5 or 6 seats with labour losing a couple and other parties picking up a couple.

Hughie Greenock wrote:

You can get all the facts from: www.electionresources.org Have a look at it and see if you can spot the other anomolies?
Checked this out, and was surprised, nay, stunned to see the following fact: SNP list vote: 633,401 Seats: 26 Vote per cent: 31 Labour list vote: 595,415 Seats: 8 Vote per cent 29.2 Can anyone explain to me how the SNP got so many seats in the list? I though this was supposed to be proportional representation... Maybe all those Gnats bleating on about democracy and conspiracies should have a long think about what really happened here.

The list system is designed to offset and adjust the constituency votes so that the overall seats are closely proportional to the total votes cast for each party. That's why its called proportional representation. The reason SNP got many more list seats than Labour with a similar share of the vote is because it worked the opposite way on the constituency (i.e. bias to labour with similar vote share).

It has still worked out overall that Labour needed less votes per seat than the SNP. Total votes cast gave the SNP a lead of about 50,000 which in my (very rough) estimate, if both parties had the same votes to seats ratio, the SNP would have gained an extra 5 or 6 seats with labour losing a couple and other parties picking up a couple.

Indeed, this list v. constituency business raises a question in my mind. Even if Labour got the Cunninghame North result overturned and took the seat themselves, would the additional members system and the list not mean that Labour would then lose one from the list and the SNP gain one, to balance the representation? Leaving the situation the same as before in terms of the size of each parliamentary party?

mairi macleod wrote:
go get im Alex, if lib-dems wont do what they were voted into do, then HELL MEND THEM, principles my foot they along with labour, got a gubbing, took there baw, will go into oblivion, and sulk, making waves in order in our democratic right to govern, and lose any credibillity they ever had, SERVES THEM RIGHT, BEST OF LUCK ALEX YOU CAN DO THIS.

But the Lib Dems are doing exactly what they were voted in to do - opposing a referendum.

Were they to go along with the SNP they would lose credibility by saying one thing to get elected and then doing the exact opposite.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm

'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the "maturity of leadership". '

I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn't publicly congratulated his election opponent yet.

Says it all

Diomedes Kane wrote:
Indeed, this list v. constituency business raises a question in my mind. Even if Labour got the Cunninghame North result overturned and took the seat themselves, would the additional members system and the list not mean that Labour would then lose one from the list and the SNP gain one, to balance the representation? Leaving the situation the same as before in terms of the size of each parliamentary party?

Very curiously indeed, that is apparently the only seat in the country where that would not happen.

I am disappointed the Lib Dems have focused on the referendum as an excuse, I take it they have never study the meaning of the word negotiation.
Well Lib Dems, knowledge is realising that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking in both directions anyway, you didn't even step up to the kirb...sad, very sad.

Iain wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm \'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the \"maturity of leadership\". \' I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn\'t publicly congratulated his election opponent yet. Says it all

As I said in an earlier post.
Amateurs built the Ark.. Professionals built the Titanic

Jan wrote:

Iain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm \'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the \"maturity of leadership\". \' I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn\'t publicly congratulated his election opponent yet. Says it all
As I said in an earlier post. Amateurs built the Ark.. Professionals built the Titanic

........and the Liberals are building the Marie Celeste.

David el escoc�s wrote:

Jan wrote:
Iain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm \'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the \"maturity of leadership\". \' I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn\'t publicly congratulated his election opponent yet. Says it all
As I said in an earlier post. Amateurs built the Ark.. Professionals built the Titanic
........and the Liberals are building the Marie Celeste.

Many a true word has been spoken in jest.
Nice one David.

Less talk about a referendum that would take place in three years time and more talk about how we can go forward with courage and dignity. We must allow the SNP to govern and prove to the Scottish people what they can achieve. In all honesty can they be worse than the last eight years under a LIb-Lab pact. I find it refreshing that we will no longer have to bow and scrape to the government at Westminster.

The 1974 McCrone report can be accessed via the Scottish Office website. The direct link is below.

For the record, I was never critical of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party having a co-alition with each other. I have been critical of what they have done together but holding government accountable is the duty of every citizen in a democracy.

That is the reason why Douglas Alexander should resign. I notice that The Scotsman is asking Alexander some difficult questions, I wonder if The Herald will?

Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

Freelance writer Mike Small has written a very positive and upbeat article about the SNP for "comment is free" on The Guardian website.

He is already taking a Telegraph style pasting from the "liberal "readers of that esteemed organ.

Pop over there , read the comments and see what passes for "good natured banter" at the Guardian.

We have seen Tony B-liars leadership and destruction...nothing could be worse than the last ten years.
I may forget Alex Salmond's words in years to come which led Scotland to where it is now..but I will never forget the feeling I had when I saw the figure that said the S. N. P. had won.

Scotland has a bright future ahead of it... though people will need courage and commitment to see it through.
Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day...

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: The 1974 McCrone report can be accessed via the Scottish Office website. The direct link is below. For the record, I was never critical of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party having a co-alition with each other. I have been critical of what they have done together but holding government accountable is the duty of every citizen in a democracy. That is the reason why Douglas Alexander should resign. I notice that The Scotsman is asking Alexander some difficult questions, I wonder if The Herald will? Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf[/quote] C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic, I have asked you umpteen times and you cannot answer me. You are having another go at The Herald, and you may be correct in what you say, but how can a paper let you criticise them and you say they are undemocractic?

Alex Porter wrote:
The 1974 McCrone report can be accessed via the Scottish Office website. The direct link is below. For the record, I was never critical of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party having a co-alition with each other. I have been critical of what they have done together but holding government accountable is the duty of every citizen in a democracy. That is the reason why Douglas Alexander should resign. I notice that The Scotsman is asking Alexander some difficult questions, I wonder if The Herald will? Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic, I have asked you umpteen times and you cannot answer me.

You are having another go at The Herald, and you may be correct in what you say, but how can a paper let you criticise them and you say they are undemocractic?

[quote] Ahead of the publication of the Government�s White Paper, Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell today launched the proposals of his party�s policy working group on the future of Britain�s Trident nuclear weapons system. The proposals, to be debated at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Harrogate, include: * Retaining the current Trident system but cutting Britain�s nuclear weapons by half, retaining only up to 100 warheads. * Extending the life span of the current Trident system and keeping options open on a final decision until at least 2014 in order to allow a clearer picture to develop with regard to nuclear proliferation and to threats to Britain, its neighbours and allies. * Using the cut in warheads to kick-start multilateral disarmament talks and sending a strong signal to non-nuclear weapons states that Britain takes its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty seriously. * A presumption in favour of the most cost effective replacement for the current Trident system being a submarine system based on the Trident missile of 3 boats carrying no more than 24 warheads each. Menzies Campbell said: "There is a measurable danger that if North Korea and Iran are confirmed over the next decade as nuclear states, they will set in train a course of nuclear proliferation which will materially alter the strategic situation.[/quote Ming should also have told us that Israel is a nuclear military power rated 4th of 3rd on the planet by the authoratative Jane's Defence Review. I think the Libdems are correct to maintain the only tested, proven safe, nuclear deterrent we have. Blair/Brown Labour are dead wrong to escalate our nuclear arsenal accourding to USUK. America is recklessly moving missilies into Poland and Eastern Europe. How will Russia reply? By building more missiles. How will they pay for this? By selling more arms tech to "anti-west" countries. Can you tell me a country on the planet that isn't a rogue nation according to it's reach? Governments like to maintain a monopoly of violence and surely the bigger they are the worse they get. The risk of Faslane should also be rated against the risk factor of walking down Great Western Road on Friday night.

Ahead of the publication of the Government�s White Paper, Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell today launched the proposals of his party�s policy working group on the future of Britain�s Trident nuclear weapons system.

The proposals, to be debated at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Harrogate, include:

* Retaining the current Trident system but cutting Britain�s nuclear weapons by half, retaining only up to 100 warheads.
* Extending the life span of the current Trident system and keeping options open on a final decision until at least 2014 in order to allow a clearer picture to develop with regard to nuclear proliferation and to threats to Britain, its neighbours and allies.
* Using the cut in warheads to kick-start multilateral disarmament talks and sending a strong signal to non-nuclear weapons states that Britain takes its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty seriously.
* A presumption in favour of the most cost effective replacement for the current Trident system being a submarine system based on the Trident missile of 3 boats carrying no more than 24 warheads each.

Menzies Campbell said:

"There is a measurable danger that if North Korea and Iran are confirmed over the next decade as nuclear states, they will set in train a course of nuclear proliferation which will materially alter the strategic situation.[/quote

Ming should also have told us that Israel is a nuclear military power rated 4th of 3rd on the planet by the authoratative Jane's Defence Review.

I think the Libdems are correct to maintain the only tested, proven safe, nuclear deterrent we have.

Blair/Brown Labour are dead wrong to escalate our nuclear arsenal accourding to USUK. America is recklessly moving missilies into Poland and Eastern Europe. How will Russia reply? By building more missiles. How will they pay for this? By selling more arms tech to "anti-west" countries.

Can you tell me a country on the planet that isn't a rogue nation according to it's reach? Governments like to maintain a monopoly of violence and surely the bigger they are the worse they get.

The risk of Faslane should also be rated against the risk factor of walking down Great Western Road on Friday night.

Jan wrote:
We have seen Tony B-liars leadership and destruction...nothing could be worse than the last ten years. I may forget Alex Salmond's words in years to come which led Scotland to where it is now..but I will never forget the feeling I had when I saw the figure that said the S. N. P. had won. Scotland has a bright future ahead of it... though people will need courage and commitment to see it through. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day...

Hello Jan, long time no talk.

When are you coming home, or do you like Bush too much who is a bigger liar than Blair?

[quote][bold]Iain[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: Another request from FM Salmond: Can we have more statistics on the Scottish economy Alex. Any more requests?[/quote] Perhaps, upon becoming FM he should get his Finance Minister to publish a balance sheet of the Scottish Executives' finances and subsequently a detailed annual (or 6 monthly) expenditure report as done by listed Plcs. That will enable us to see exactly how money has been spent and measure the improvements they make. Might cause some red faces on the Labour benches too :)[/quote] Iain, a very significant point. We expect and need much more accountability from our government. But did the SNP not have something to do with removing accountability recently regarding MSPs expenses? Or amarang. Never the less, well done Alec Salmond a man of integrity and vision and showing the leadership qualities required. Do not blink now.

Iain wrote:

Alex Porter wrote: Another request from FM Salmond: Can we have more statistics on the Scottish economy Alex. Any more requests?
Perhaps, upon becoming FM he should get his Finance Minister to publish a balance sheet of the Scottish Executives' finances and subsequently a detailed annual (or 6 monthly) expenditure report as done by listed Plcs. That will enable us to see exactly how money has been spent and measure the improvements they make. Might cause some red faces on the Labour benches too :)

Iain, a very significant point. We expect and need much more accountability from our government.
But did the SNP not have something to do with removing accountability recently regarding MSPs expenses? Or amarang.
Never the less, well done Alec Salmond a man of integrity and vision and showing the leadership qualities required. Do not blink now.

I note that the subsidy junkies are still trying justify the meaning of life.

And you are still trying to find a role in life.

Quote from John, anywhere "C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic". I don't think the press is undemocratic, but they are biased. A press has every right to be biased in favour of a particular political party, if they believe they are correct in what they print. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is SOME of the newspapers going overboard. By that I mean The Sun with its picture of the SNP logo resembling a noose. Now you could say a picture paints a thousand words and this picture got the message across very simply, but I just think it's in poor taste. The sun did the same with Neil Kinnock. That was also in poor taste (in my opinion). I know this doesn't answer your question John, but these are simply my thoughts...that yes, by all means support a particular party, but without the cruelty. Just about every political figure has been lambasted by the press and politicians should realise that it goes with the job. In short:- Undemocratic? No. Biased? Obviously.

Quote from John, anywhere "C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic".

I don't think the press is undemocratic, but they are biased. A press has every right to be biased in favour of a particular political party, if they believe they are correct in what they print. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is SOME of the newspapers going overboard. By that I mean The Sun with its picture of the SNP logo resembling a noose. Now you could say a picture paints a thousand words and this picture got the message across very simply, but I just think it's in poor taste. The sun did the same with Neil Kinnock. That was also in poor taste (in my opinion). I know this doesn't answer your question John, but these are simply my thoughts...that yes, by all means support a particular party, but without the cruelty. Just about every political figure has been lambasted by the press and politicians should realise that it goes with the job. In short:- Undemocratic? No. Biased? Obviously.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: The 1974 McCrone report can be accessed via the Scottish Office website. The direct link is below. For the record, I was never critical of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party having a co-alition with each other. I have been critical of what they have done together but holding government accountable is the duty of every citizen in a democracy. That is the reason why Douglas Alexander should resign. I notice that The Scotsman is asking Alexander some difficult questions, I wonder if The Herald will? Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf[/quote] Alex, I had a look at your suggested website for boycotting the anti-democratic press and I has an even bigger laugh, I wish I had looked at it last week. You are being asked to sign up and boycott The Record, Sun and Herald and yet here you are, on The Herald's website in a free democracy ciriticising them!!! Why do you not boycott them as you suggest? You will give us all a break. You are an Scottish imposter who hasn't got the guts, or brains to respond to a perfectly legitimate question. Tee hee hee, if nothing else you are good for a laugh. Gimme some more, I can't wait until your next helping.

Alex Porter wrote:
The 1974 McCrone report can be accessed via the Scottish Office website. The direct link is below. For the record, I was never critical of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party having a co-alition with each other. I have been critical of what they have done together but holding government accountable is the duty of every citizen in a democracy. That is the reason why Douglas Alexander should resign. I notice that The Scotsman is asking Alexander some difficult questions, I wonder if The Herald will? Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

Alex,

I had a look at your suggested website for boycotting the anti-democratic press and I has an even bigger laugh, I wish I had looked at it last week.

You are being asked to sign up and boycott The Record, Sun and Herald and yet here you are, on The Herald's website in a free democracy ciriticising them!!! Why do you not boycott them as you suggest? You will give us all a break.

You are an Scottish imposter who hasn't got the guts, or brains to respond to a perfectly legitimate question.

Tee hee hee, if nothing else you are good for a laugh. Gimme some more, I can't wait until your next helping.

[quote][bold]Sam Donaldson[/bold] wrote: Quote from John, anywhere "C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic". I don't think the press is undemocratic, but they are biased. A press has every right to be biased in favour of a particular political party, if they believe they are correct in what they print. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is SOME of the newspapers going overboard. By that I mean The Sun with its picture of the SNP logo resembling a noose. Now you could say a picture paints a thousand words and this picture got the message across very simply, but I just think it's in poor taste. The sun did the same with Neil Kinnock. That was also in poor taste (in my opinion). I know this doesn't answer your question John, but these are simply my thoughts...that yes, by all means support a particular party, but without the cruelty. Just about every political figure has been lambasted by the press and politicians should realise that it goes with the job. In short:- Undemocratic? No. Biased? Obviously.[/quote] Sam, At last, someone with sense. I agree with you entirely, and this is point I made last week. I too think they are unfair, as I told Alexo from Madrid last week, but we need to be careful we keep this in perspective, otherwise we will never inform those who we try to agree with us. Thanks again, perhaps some of our colleagues will stop the ranting and raving as it does Scotland no good at all. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

Sam Donaldson wrote:
Quote from John, anywhere "C'mon Alex, tell us why the press are undemocratic". I don't think the press is undemocratic, but they are biased. A press has every right to be biased in favour of a particular political party, if they believe they are correct in what they print. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is SOME of the newspapers going overboard. By that I mean The Sun with its picture of the SNP logo resembling a noose. Now you could say a picture paints a thousand words and this picture got the message across very simply, but I just think it's in poor taste. The sun did the same with Neil Kinnock. That was also in poor taste (in my opinion). I know this doesn't answer your question John, but these are simply my thoughts...that yes, by all means support a particular party, but without the cruelty. Just about every political figure has been lambasted by the press and politicians should realise that it goes with the job. In short:- Undemocratic? No. Biased? Obviously.

Sam, At last, someone with sense. I agree with you entirely, and this is point I made last week.

I too think they are unfair, as I told Alexo from Madrid last week, but we need to be careful we keep this in perspective, otherwise we will never inform those who we try to agree with us.

Thanks again, perhaps some of our colleagues will stop the ranting and raving as it does Scotland no good at all. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

Mac48 tried to say:

You really couldn't make this up!

You are right.

There's the Reverend and the Republican sitting down at the same table to dine. Who would have thought such violent, bitter enemies would look in the same direction let along pass the sugar bowl. Our esteemed ex-leader cannot even pick up a telephone and utter the word. "Congratulations."

Too many syllables?

Alex tried to laugh in print and said;

Tee hee hee , if nothing else you are good for a laugh.

Embarrassing, isn't it; a grown man making a sound like that when laughing?

Thanks, iang , for your link to the McCrone Report. Here it is again for anyone who missed it:
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/

and navigate (menu, top left) to 2006/Feb - bottom link is the McCrone report.
Mibbe we should all put a copy in our PCs, just in case...

The Scottish Press in my opinion did not suss the opinion of the people. Hey ho, who cares the people are not that stupid as has been proved. Bring it on The Daily Record, who remembers when they defended the miners? The Sun hated them and was the mouth piece for Maggie who called them the 'The enemy of the State' When did an allegience form? Oh that will be when Tony Blair and New Labour took hold. Disgraceful, fawning ,sycophants New Labour,hold your head in shame. Old Labour have the courage of your convictions get them out.

[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Jan[/bold] wrote: We have seen Tony B-liars leadership and destruction...nothing could be worse than the last ten years. I may forget Alex Salmond's words in years to come which led Scotland to where it is now..but I will never forget the feeling I had when I saw the figure that said the S. N. P. had won. Scotland has a bright future ahead of it... though people will need courage and commitment to see it through. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day...[/quote] Hello Jan, long time no talk. When are you coming home, or do you like Bush too much who is a bigger liar than Blair?[/quote] Because my husband and I refused to accept the dole and moved to prevent it, you pillory us, what right do you have more than I to do so? I gave my country my son...Tony Bliar sent him home in a box. I have no love for B-Liar nor Bush...but at least the American people did something about Bush. I note, we don't have the same democracy in Scotland. The people can vote..but they better vote right otherwise, ballot papers get spoiled, politicians stamp their feet and beat their breasts throw their toys out of their prams and demand recounts and these are supposed to be grown educated men and women...God Help Us All.

John wrote:

Jan wrote: We have seen Tony B-liars leadership and destruction...nothing could be worse than the last ten years. I may forget Alex Salmond's words in years to come which led Scotland to where it is now..but I will never forget the feeling I had when I saw the figure that said the S. N. P. had won. Scotland has a bright future ahead of it... though people will need courage and commitment to see it through. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day...
Hello Jan, long time no talk. When are you coming home, or do you like Bush too much who is a bigger liar than Blair?

Because my husband and I refused to accept the dole and moved to prevent it, you pillory us, what right do you have more than I to do so?

I gave my country my son...Tony Bliar sent him home in a box.
I have no love for B-Liar nor Bush...but at least the American people did something about Bush.
I note, we don't have the same democracy in Scotland. The people can vote..but they better vote right otherwise, ballot papers get spoiled, politicians stamp their feet and beat their breasts throw their toys out of their prams and demand recounts and these are supposed to be grown educated men and women...God Help Us All.

Sam said; [quote]I don't think the press is undemocratic,[/quote] I think they are. The recent attempt to discredit an SNP MSP and the one in the Scotsman today are both attempts to undermine democratically elected representatives. Both stories were held back until they were calculated to cause maximum damage. There was a time the press was respected, but there has has been a sea change in public attitude brought about by the press's inability to challenge leadership when they lie to us. The way they accepted WMD were buried everywhere in Iraq and justified a pro-active war (now longer than WWI) simply spurred the degredation. [bold]Where are the investigative journalists gone?[/bold] [bold]Where are the journalists who sought justice?[/bold] The lowering of standards is partly the work of our governments and their keen ability at spin, and journalists accepting with question unattributal "leaks." That, and government officials leaning hard on the press and editors add to the disilluision that journalists are lazy, unprincipled hacks. Publishing owners are another matter. Rupert Murdoch has made a mockery of every newspaper bought by his company. The only way he bought so many was getting politicians to drop restrictions on ownership. Press's woes over revealing sources, infiltration by MI6 and the CIA, the slavish adoration of celebrity status, and stories like "Freddie ate my hamster'" all bring the press into disrepute. The press is the very foundation of democracy; it is there to protect the right of free speech, to protect citziens; inform and to educate. Cross that line unwittingly or deliberately and you have undermined that which you purport to serve and protect.. [bold]Truth is the casualty.[/bold]

Sam said;

I don't think the press is undemocratic,

I think they are.

The recent attempt to discredit an SNP MSP and the one in the Scotsman today are both attempts to undermine democratically elected representatives. Both stories were held back until they were calculated to cause maximum damage.

There was a time the press was respected, but there has has been a sea change in public attitude brought about by the press's inability to challenge leadership when they lie to us. The way they accepted WMD were buried everywhere in Iraq and justified a pro-active war (now longer than WWI) simply spurred the degredation.

Where are the investigative journalists gone?

Where are the journalists who sought justice?

The lowering of standards is partly the work of our governments and their keen ability at spin, and journalists accepting with question unattributal "leaks." That, and government officials leaning hard on the press and editors add to the disilluision that journalists are lazy, unprincipled hacks. Publishing owners are another matter. Rupert Murdoch has made a mockery of every newspaper bought by his company. The only way he bought so many was getting politicians to drop restrictions on ownership.

Press's woes over revealing sources, infiltration by MI6 and the CIA, the slavish adoration of celebrity status, and stories like "Freddie ate my hamster'" all bring the press into disrepute.

The press is the very foundation of democracy; it is there to protect the right of free speech, to protect citziens; inform and to educate. Cross that line unwittingly or deliberately and you have undermined that which you purport to serve and protect..

Truth is the casualty.

Should read

and journalists accepting without question unattributal "leaks." T

Too much multi-tasking equals too many typos.

Get real. Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...? The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter. We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.

Get real.

Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...?

The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter.

We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.

The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist.

Yes, protecting and nurturing Scotland for the benefit of its citizens IS a single issue. Independence means being competitive.

So what are you moaning about? Feeling morally superior, are you?

David el escoc�s wrote:

Jan wrote:

Iain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm \'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the \"maturity of leadership\". \' I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn\'t publicly congratulated his election opponent yet. Says it all
As I said in an earlier post. Amateurs built the Ark.. Professionals built the Titanic
........and the Liberals are building the Marie Celeste.

And the SNP would put us all on the Bounty

Scotmid said:

And the SNP would put us all on the Bounty

If it leads to Paradise, why not? But don't fret, folk like you will be given a lifeboat, provisions, a compass, and a copy of Master and Commander to read on the journey.

Oh dear looks like the nats (along with all other large parties, except the tories) voted in favour of the single ballot paper that everyone is now so bitterly compaining about ....oh well. Live and learn. Not all we Dougies fault it would seem. But I see Angus Robertson is demanding Douglas Alexander reconsiders his postion. Why? His party voted in favour of the stupid idea too. Hmmm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634577.stm

He also insisted Sir Menzies Campbell had put no pressure on them not to deal with the SNP. "There has been no heavy-handed pressure whatsoever."

You have gote to be joking of course Ming has said NO Come on Nicol stand up for scotland and the right for the People vote for there self it is not for parties to say we know whate it best for you (just as Labour has said for 50 Years)

Did anyone hear Jack say ,today, that he was still standing by to step in if Alex Salmond fails to form a government. How does everyone feel about that.
Also, re media, the Times headline today was: Salmond concedes defeat - with reference to fact that will form a minority government. For a second I was shocked but clearly that was how it was supposed to be taken

Did anyone hear Jack say ,today, that he was still standing by to step in if Alex Salmond fails to form a government.

No

You cannot hear a tree fall in the forest, or a scream in outer space.

For goodness sake people....

The press dont like the SNP. Get over it. If enough people dont like it then they wont buy the paper and they will soon understand.

Why should they suddenly take the SNP to their Bosom now that they have 1 more seat in the parly? They were pumping out their pro labour rot before the election when the SNP were allegedly 32 points ahead and no one bohered then, the newspapers still sold.

If you are so desperate to have a pro SNP newpaper, then you could always launch one. If the public are so fed up with whats around then obviously they will snap it up - problem solved.

Remember - the Majority of the electorate did note vote SNP last Thursday.

Just time for a reality check I thought.

..where these days we do a referendum rather than a mutiny. Our parents were able to build "affordable" houses. Now that we've lost this art, the South Sea Islands seem infinitely more attractive than a tiny starter box in Aberdeenshire. USUK will sink us with the Pequod ! Harpooner Brown trained as an EHM at the famous Havard Postgraduate School. They brainwashed him well. But d'ye expect him to hit any targets. Globalisation means one party, one player. They've retaken Hong Kong, next year it will be Aberdeen where Chinese as we know it in Scotland has been spoken for centuries. When you visit a "Scottish" engineering faculty do you see any natives these days? Captn Finney may take selected crew aboard his 20 knot New Zealand design. Where they don't have a problem with INDEPENDENCE, remoteness, peripherality, their own currency, a parliament and a highly skilled working class. I've visited Highlands and Islands Enterprise's palatial HQ in Inverness and asked the pleasant receptionist to see their marine engineering expert. Still waiting to hear. To me Jack McC. typifies out Scottisih Expense Account Culture that will keep us fast tracked to the bottom. Do I wan't him to run Scotland from his villa in Spain with his band of freelooaders and hanger on. No and good riddance.

..where these days we do a referendum rather than a mutiny.

Our parents were able to build "affordable" houses. Now that we've lost this art, the South Sea Islands seem infinitely more attractive than a tiny starter box in Aberdeenshire.

USUK will sink us with the Pequod ! Harpooner Brown trained as an EHM at the famous Havard Postgraduate School. They brainwashed him well. But d'ye expect him to hit any targets.

Globalisation means one party, one player. They've retaken Hong Kong, next year it will be Aberdeen where Chinese as we know it in Scotland has been spoken for centuries. When you visit a "Scottish" engineering faculty do you see any natives these days?

Captn Finney may take selected crew aboard his 20 knot New Zealand design. Where they don't have a problem with INDEPENDENCE, remoteness, peripherality, their own currency, a parliament and a highly skilled working class.

I've visited Highlands and Islands Enterprise's palatial HQ in Inverness and asked the pleasant receptionist to see their marine engineering expert. Still waiting to hear.

To me Jack McC. typifies out Scottisih Expense Account Culture that will keep us fast tracked to the bottom. Do I wan't him to run Scotland from his villa in Spain with his band of freelooaders and hanger on. No and good riddance.

How true Kemo Sabe! Was thinking about why such bile from some quarters over the very idea of Independence, from conversation yesterday. It occured to me, and this may be controversial, that some of it, the Alex Ferguson football supporting franchise, is influenced by Scots-Irish orange/protestant/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit. I say this, in case of misunderstanding, as a protestant by birth - rather than belief.

Having watched the events unfold in Ulster today ,with McGuinness of Sein Fein stating to the world that he is working towards a United Ireland ,and therefore breaking the Union .
Paisley ,Blair are very relaxed about it ,because it means that Ulster can get good goverance while Sein Fein and DUP work together yet keep their set goals of unioinism and united Ireland .
Yet in Scotland Brown cannot work with SNP ,Libs cannot help in the good goverance of Scotland because help ma boab SNP want a democratic referendum on Independence .
Seems bombs and bullets are better than votes in Unionist thinking ..
Certainly makes me wonder !!!

scotleag wrote:

David el escoc�s wrote:
Jan wrote:
Iain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6635005.stm \'Mr McConnell said Nationalist leader Alex Salmond still had to prove he had the \"maturity of leadership\". \' I wonder if JM has enough Duraglit polish for that neck of his. To my knowledge he still hasn\'t publicly congratulated his election opponent yet. Says it all
As I said in an earlier post. Amateurs built the Ark.. Professionals built the Titanic
........and the Liberals are building the Marie Celeste.
And the SNP would put us all on the Bounty

Nice one Scotleag. Would you prefer the Tories chasing another General Belgrano?

Or Labour taking us up the Clyde in a banana skin?

Scots-Irish orange/protestant/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit.
Oh, aye. To paraphrase:

The future's Brit. The future's Orange.

Politics show today, with Andrew Neil - the gargoyle from Glenburn- presented piece on forming of minority government by showing a picture of three mini party leaders dressed "hilariously" (not) in giant tartan hats and kilts, then moved quickly on to talk about Ireland in a tone dripping with gravitas. So we were the opening comedy act.
Yes, LA, and if you'd been in glasgow recently you'd see so many orange people (fake tan) that you'd think you were in LA.

Yes, LA, and if you'd been in glasgow recently you'd see so many orange people (fake tan) that you'd think you were in LA.

LOL.

And sporting beer bellies - the battle of the bulge.

Old Brillo Pad struggles to attain humour at any level. He should get fit fast - he's a heart-attack victim if I ever saw one.

leowoman wrote:
Politics show today, with Andrew Neil - the gargoyle from Glenburn- presented piece on forming of minority government by showing a picture of three mini party leaders dressed "hilariously" (not) in giant tartan hats and kilts, then moved quickly on to talk about Ireland in a tone dripping with gravitas. So we were the opening comedy act. Yes, LA, and if you'd been in glasgow recently you'd see so many orange people (fake tan) that you'd think you were in LA.

Andrew Neil....is he the one with the teased-out brillo-pad hairstyle?

David el escoc�s wrote:

leowoman wrote: Politics show today, with Andrew Neil - the gargoyle from Glenburn- presented piece on forming of minority government by showing a picture of three mini party leaders dressed "hilariously" (not) in giant tartan hats and kilts, then moved quickly on to talk about Ireland in a tone dripping with gravitas. So we were the opening comedy act. Yes, LA, and if you'd been in glasgow recently you'd see so many orange people (fake tan) that you'd think you were in LA.
Andrew Neil....is he the one with the teased-out brillo-pad hairstyle?

Sh!t...someone beat me to it. OK less of the subtlety...is he the fascist smary w@nk who pontificates and knows SFA?

STOP PRESS...STOP PRESS...Ian Paisley recognises the pope. he said, "Is that no' the pope?"

[quote][bold]Alex Bruce[/bold] wrote: Get real. Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...? The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter. We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.[/quote] If independence is such a red herring then why is Scotland's economy performing like the economies of other small nations? Why do we not have the economic conditions that create standards of living and education comparable to Switzerland, Norway and Denmark for instance or a health service as effictive and well run as France? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the entire world should be governed by one central oligarchy without wasting time on things like democracy? Independence will put the power to influence economic growth in the hands of those who put Scotland's interests first and foremost and will not waste obscene amounts of money on useless identity cards and [bold]illegal[/bold] weapons of mass destruction.

Alex Bruce wrote:
Get real. Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...? The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter. We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.

If independence is such a red herring then why is Scotland's economy performing like the economies of other small nations? Why do we not have the economic conditions that create standards of living and education comparable to Switzerland, Norway and Denmark for instance or a health service as effictive and well run as France?

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the entire world should be governed by one central oligarchy without wasting time on things like democracy?

Independence will put the power to influence economic growth in the hands of those who put Scotland's interests first and foremost and will not waste obscene amounts of money on useless identity cards and illegal weapons of mass destruction.

People-spotter wrote:
STOP PRESS...STOP PRESS...Ian Paisley recognises the pope. he said, "Is that no' the pope?"

Don't believe you, Paisley canny form his words wi'out spitting..he canny say the word Is.. it comes oot Ish and the word that comes oot shat.
So unless he said "Ish shat no the pope" he's been misquoted!

leowoman wrote:
How true Kemo Sabe! Was thinking about why such bile from some quarters over the very idea of Independence, from conversation yesterday. It occured to me, and this may be controversial, that some of it, the Alex Ferguson football supporting franchise, is influenced by Scots-Irish orange/protestant/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit. I say this, in case of misunderstanding, as a protestant by birth - rather than belief.

You said "Scots-Irish orange/protestant/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit." Funny no-one took offence. But if you said about the labour party "Scots/Irish/green/catholic/labourist/papist type bullshit" folk would have been rightly annoyed. We don't want any of this bigotry in Scotland.

Yes and, as he never tires of telling us, he is a former Paisley Grammar school boy. He appears regularly in Private Eye, where they use a photo of him with a prostitute wearing a very fetching white singlet- Andrew that is. Also presents This Week and , horrendously is BBc's regular politics presenter. He is one of those, now that he has attained the giddy height sof greatman-ness, who talks patronisingly about Scotland -in order to please his masters. one of whom was Murdoch)
God Forbid, he should have a heart attack

[quote][bold]Iain[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Bruce[/bold] wrote: Get real. Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...? The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter. We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.[/quote] If independence is such a red herring then why is Scotland's economy performing like the economies of other small nations? Why do we not have the economic conditions that create standards of living and education comparable to Switzerland, Norway and Denmark for instance or a health service as effictive and well run as France? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the entire world should be governed by one central oligarchy without wasting time on things like democracy? Independence will put the power to influence economic growth in the hands of those who put Scotland's interests first and foremost and will not waste obscene amounts of money on useless identity cards and [bold]illegal[/bold] weapons of mass destruction.[/quote] Sorry that should have been why is Scotland's economy [bold]NOT[/bold] performing like the economies of other small nations?

Iain wrote:

Alex Bruce wrote: Get real. Why should the Lib Dems enter into coalition with a party that will expend its entire energy over the next 4 years on using every possible opportunity to agitate for independence rather than getting on with improving the lot of the Scottish people by delivering real policies...? The SNP are a single-issue party who have no other reason to exist. And when we talk about democratic mandates, let's not forget that a large majority of Scottish voters chose parties which do not support independence, therefore I don't believe the Nationalists can assume any kind of moral high ground on this matter. We live in a globalised world where we shoud be expending all of our energy on maximising our economic competitiveness rather than navel-gazing about the hugely expensive constitutional red herring that is independence.
If independence is such a red herring then why is Scotland's economy performing like the economies of other small nations? Why do we not have the economic conditions that create standards of living and education comparable to Switzerland, Norway and Denmark for instance or a health service as effictive and well run as France? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the entire world should be governed by one central oligarchy without wasting time on things like democracy? Independence will put the power to influence economic growth in the hands of those who put Scotland's interests first and foremost and will not waste obscene amounts of money on useless identity cards and illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry that should have been why is Scotland's economy NOT performing like the economies of other small nations?

#Sam 5.44pm "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth." An example: Alf Young and others have ignored criticisms of GERS in order to facilitate the anti-independence propaganda of the Labour Party. Given that the chief editors of The Herald, Mark McGhee and Alf Young are Gordon Brown's buddies (co-ordinating 'the message' during the election) can we expect them to search and report the truth about the election vote debacle and demand the resignation of Brown's Scottish general Douglas Alexander? Did The Herald hide opinion polls during the election? Do they properlly comment on the true demand for independence and a constitutional referendum? No. "Its first loyalty is to the citizens." Have they given a fair and balanced account of the election ? No. I don't mind partisan but The Herald has passed off opinion as fact in this election. I could go on and on. "Its essence is discipline of verification." Did they verify GERS? No. Did the Sunday Herald (Hutcheon) verify their story about "Cash for policies" No? "Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover." Have Alf Young and Mark McGhee maintained their distance from Gordon Brown? Eh, no. Gordon, Alf and friends have another friend, the director of mruk who are not an accredited polling organisation and used their polls at strategic times during the election. The methodolody was not published. Why is McConnell not getting crucified for not calling Salmond to offer his congratulations? "It must serve as an independent monitor of power." The list here could be endles. Will they call for Douglas Alexander's head who as Secetary of State for Scotland is responsible for the elecions? "It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise." Yeh, the mob can try to discuss things about the din of trolls online. And a letters page which is edited. "It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant." The young are switching online to get information which is not party propaganda. The Herald's readership is falling as it alienates a large percentage of its readers who want independence. People aren't interested in being mislead on signifcant matters. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional. Why was the Angelika Kluk case the banner headline on the day that Scotland changed its favourite party after 50 years? "Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience." How many articles were not reflected in the stories of the jounalists? Journalists have had to be compliant or not be given jobs (See article by Murray Ritchie, former Chief Editor of The Herald in his blog) The role of a journalist in a democracy is just one angle of approach here. The role of the media in democracy is another. The press complaints commission for example have as their press 'code of conduct' a section on accuracy: "i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. GERS not challenged in reporting. Distorted information about the level of support for independence etc." "ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published." Stories running about "Sex romp" that had no sex at all... "iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact." All of Scotland's newspapers have failed here in this section during the election. I expect the trolls to pick meaninglessly at this and not engage in debate. However, for all intellegent persons here, this could be the beginning of a meaniful dialogue about the lack of democracy in our media. And, it is foreign owned and acts against the interests of the Scottish people of every political shade who need a proper democratic press in order to live in a healthy democracy. Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' media: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

#Sam 5.44pm

"Journalism's first obligation is to the truth."
An example: Alf Young and others have ignored criticisms of GERS in order to facilitate the anti-independence propaganda of the Labour Party. Given that the chief editors of The Herald, Mark McGhee and Alf Young are Gordon Brown's buddies (co-ordinating 'the message' during the election) can we expect them to search and report the truth about the election vote debacle and demand the resignation of Brown's Scottish general Douglas Alexander? Did The Herald hide opinion polls during the election? Do they properlly comment on the true demand for independence and a constitutional referendum? No.

"Its first loyalty is to the citizens."
Have they given a fair and balanced account of the election ? No. I don't mind partisan but The Herald has passed off opinion as fact in this election. I could go on and on.

"Its essence is discipline of verification."
Did they verify GERS? No. Did the Sunday Herald (Hutcheon) verify their story about "Cash for policies" No?

"Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover."
Have Alf Young and Mark McGhee maintained their distance from Gordon Brown? Eh, no. Gordon, Alf and friends have another friend, the director of mruk who are not an accredited polling organisation and used their polls at strategic times during the election. The methodolody was not published. Why is McConnell not getting crucified for not calling Salmond to offer his congratulations?

"It must serve as an independent monitor of power."
The list here could be endles. Will they call for Douglas Alexander's head who as Secetary of State for Scotland is responsible for the elecions?

"It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise."
Yeh, the mob can try to discuss things about the din of trolls online. And a letters page which is edited.

"It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant."
The young are switching online to get information which is not party propaganda. The Herald's readership is falling as it alienates a large percentage of its readers who want independence. People aren't interested in being mislead on signifcant matters.

It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
Why was the Angelika Kluk case the banner headline on the day that Scotland changed its favourite party after 50 years?

"Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience."
How many articles were not reflected in the stories of the jounalists? Journalists have had to be compliant or not be given jobs (See article by Murray Ritchie, former Chief Editor of The Herald in his blog)

The role of a journalist in a democracy is just one angle of approach here. The role of the media in democracy is another. The press complaints commission for example have as their press 'code of conduct' a section on accuracy:

"i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
GERS not challenged in reporting. Distorted information about the level of support for independence etc."

"ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published."
Stories running about "Sex romp" that had no sex at all...

"iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."
All of Scotland's newspapers have failed here in this section during the election.

I expect the trolls to pick meaninglessly at this and not engage in debate. However, for all intellegent persons here, this could be the beginning of a meaniful dialogue about the lack of democracy in our media. And, it is foreign owned and acts against the interests of the Scottish people of every political shade who need a proper democratic press in order to live in a healthy democracy.

Join the boycott of our anti-democratic 'Scottish' media:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Jan wrote:

People-spotter wrote: STOP PRESS...STOP PRESS...Ian Paisley recognises the pope. he said, "Is that no' the pope?"
Don't believe you, Paisley canny form his words wi'out spitting..he canny say the word Is.. it comes oot Ish and the word that comes oot shat. So unless he said "Ish shat no the pope" he's been misquoted!

No...that's what Shon Connery would have shed. Ish that not right Mish Moneypenny?...Shorry Shon! Esh N P fur me!

Before all you Braveheart types get too excited about joining forces with beardy, open toed sandal types in the Green party (who have just been told to take a hike by the Libdems), have a look at their website.
Salmon features will need to use roller skates to get to his main job in London if these nutters get their way. Ban roads, ban cars, ban the real world. Unless they build a railway station outside my house, I won't be going anywhere! Which means I will need to stay in and read the hilarious drivel on this site.
PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!

[quote][bold]stevethebarge[/bold] wrote: Before all you Braveheart types get too excited about joining forces with beardy, open toed sandal types in the Green party (who have just been told to take a hike by the Libdems), have a look at their website. Salmon features will need to use roller skates to get to his main job in London if these nutters get their way. Ban roads, ban cars, ban the real world. Unless they build a railway station outside my house, I won't be going anywhere! Which means I will need to stay in and read the hilarious drivel on this site. PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts! [/quote] "PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!" is what you said. Actually, the sales figures are due at the end of the month, so you made this all up just 'cos you wanted to say something! If papers say their sales aren't falling, do you believe them? Mr Gullible......come on down.

stevethebarge wrote:
Before all you Braveheart types get too excited about joining forces with beardy, open toed sandal types in the Green party (who have just been told to take a hike by the Libdems), have a look at their website. Salmon features will need to use roller skates to get to his main job in London if these nutters get their way. Ban roads, ban cars, ban the real world. Unless they build a railway station outside my house, I won't be going anywhere! Which means I will need to stay in and read the hilarious drivel on this site. PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!

"PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!" is what you said. Actually, the sales figures are due at the end of the month, so you made this all up just 'cos you wanted to say something! If papers say their sales aren't falling, do you believe them? Mr Gullible......come on down.

People-spotter wrote:

Jan wrote:
People-spotter wrote: STOP PRESS...STOP PRESS...Ian Paisley recognises the pope. he said, "Is that no' the pope?"
Don't believe you, Paisley canny form his words wi'out spitting..he canny say the word Is.. it comes oot Ish and the word that comes oot shat. So unless he said "Ish shat no the pope" he's been misquoted!
No...that's what Shon Connery would have shed. Ish that not right Mish Moneypenny?...Shorry Shon! Esh N P fur me!

Shat's right, forgot about Shean he does speak like shat...but so does Paisley, he is so bad folk around him carry towels.

What are exactly are the rules when no Party has enough votes on its own?

Surely its a basic requirement for the parties to work together even though it will be a compromise for all three?

Would somebody advise the Lib Dems that they demanded PR so surely they knew that this kind of challenge would arise and that sulking and refusing to come to the Party is not acceptable.

The country needs them .

[quote][bold]Paperazzi[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]stevethebarge[/bold] wrote: Before all you Braveheart types get too excited about joining forces with beardy, open toed sandal types in the Green party (who have just been told to take a hike by the Libdems), have a look at their website. Salmon features will need to use roller skates to get to his main job in London if these nutters get their way. Ban roads, ban cars, ban the real world. Unless they build a railway station outside my house, I won't be going anywhere! Which means I will need to stay in and read the hilarious drivel on this site. PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts! [/quote] "PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!" is what you said. Actually, the sales figures are due at the end of the month, so you made this all up just 'cos you wanted to say something! If papers say their sales aren't falling, do you believe them? Mr Gullible......come on down.[/quote] I still can't get the Herald or the Sunday Herald in M�laga. I also can't get tablet, Lees macaroon bars, snowballs, midget gems, MB bars or penny whoppers. I have found an outlet for Belcher's square slice and mutton pies, so the Mediterranean diet is being somewhat enhanced. Vote PSOE and bring caramel wafers to the people!

Paperazzi wrote:

stevethebarge wrote: Before all you Braveheart types get too excited about joining forces with beardy, open toed sandal types in the Green party (who have just been told to take a hike by the Libdems), have a look at their website. Salmon features will need to use roller skates to get to his main job in London if these nutters get their way. Ban roads, ban cars, ban the real world. Unless they build a railway station outside my house, I won't be going anywhere! Which means I will need to stay in and read the hilarious drivel on this site. PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!
"PS No indication that sales of the hated press have fallen now that the SNp got the most seats. What a surprise. Boycott all boycotts!" is what you said. Actually, the sales figures are due at the end of the month, so you made this all up just 'cos you wanted to say something! If papers say their sales aren't falling, do you believe them? Mr Gullible......come on down.

I still can't get the Herald or the Sunday Herald in M�laga. I also can't get tablet, Lees macaroon bars, snowballs, midget gems, MB bars or penny whoppers. I have found an outlet for Belcher's square slice and mutton pies, so the Mediterranean diet is being somewhat enhanced. Vote PSOE and bring caramel wafers to the people!

Daily circulation and sales figures are available on various media websites. But as you are boycotting them all cos they don't think the sun rises at bannokburn every day, you won't be reading them, will you.

The problems for Unionist hoping that the SNP might look incapable of governing in minority is that the intelligent ones are starting to think the opposite. When this sinks in all they muppets who argued for the Libs to stay out will be screaming for them to get in. Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian: "However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election. This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the �30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on. This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

The problems for Unionist hoping that the SNP might look incapable of governing in minority is that the intelligent ones are starting to think the opposite. When this sinks in all they muppets who argued for the Libs to stay out will be screaming for them to get in.

Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian:

"However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election.

This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the �30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on.

This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

I forgot. I also can't get caramel logs. I'd murder for a caramel log. Alex...did you bring back any caramel logs? I've found Irn Bru, but no Tizer. Where can I get Tizer? I know I'm a bit off-message here, but I need a real mixer for my whisky. Give to me the Grouse & Tizer & I'll vote for anybody!

.. what next, will the Scots ban, forks and spoons too , asked an american friend.

Before all you Braveheart types get too excited ..

If you've ever thought about doing it, Ayatollah McConnel will have banned it.

stevethebarge wrote:
Daily circulation and sales figures are available on various media websites. But as you are boycotting them all cos they don't think the sun rises at bannokburn every day, you won't be reading them, will you.

Do you actually believe these figures? Check how the figures are collated. Who buys up the surplus? Not everything you read is true.

Had caramel logs but these communal Spanish types wholfed the lot. That aside, there is a genuine real conspiracy in my barrio: A specialist whisky shop right opposite my metro. They saw me coming.

Folks', no matter what we say here...one way or another the decision will be made...without us. Boycotting and vilifying papers and the opposition will have no effect on the decision.
What will be, will be, and all we can do, is pray they make the right decision for the people of Scotland.

Cancerboy - I was very careful in my wording not to cause offense but I did not think that orange/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit was to be taken seriously by any sentient human being. We could have a history lesson, though and disentangle the myth from the reality. I speak as an offspring of Scots-Irish protestant masonic bullshit.

To David el escoc�s, M�laga

Make your own tablet. It's just sugar held together with fat. Boil it up, beat it to a frenzy and pour into a tray.

If you're stuck then check with my MSP, Karen Whitefield.

SteveThe Barge,

Before all you Braveheart

a small headed man with no anus, a fake Norwegian and Troll, admits to being baffled by Bannockburn.

"What food is a "Bannock," he asks. "And why should I eat it if it's burnt?"

It is a very outdated notion of the SNP which presents its supporters as duped Romantics who dream of wielding a claymore and waving their willies at their enemies. This is a stereotype perpetuated by the various anti-democratic unionist groups roaming the land. Hello Mr Platitude, th.is is dial-a-cliche

Jimmie wrote:
Freedom is not going to be handed to us. Not when they can continue to steal our oil as long as we wait. Freedom needs to be taken from the oppressor.

leowoman, I rest my case.
Off to bed now, up early tomorrow to help increase norwegian oil Fund. It doesn't get out of the ground by itself, ye know!

Leowoman said:

It is a very outdated notion

It is, but ...

Watch their rage if we laugh at Robin Hood's romantic fiction on television, or Admiral Nelson saying, "Kiss me whatsit," or Henry VIII chopping off his wive's heads for a bit of nukey on the side, or Lord Byron, Emperor of romance, saying, "Let's hire a boat for a fun trip across the bay." Morris dancers? Sheesh. Lake District Dales? Have they ever seen a real mountain? And so on, and so forth.

Try making those asides without the engine running for a quick getaway ...

Invariably it's only Trolls who resort to it.

SteveTheBarge said:

It doesn't get out of the ground by itself, ye know!

But you do, whenever it's a full moon. LOL.

[quote][bold]Buggerlugs[/bold] wrote: For goodness sake people.... The press dont like the SNP. Get over it. If enough people dont like it then they wont buy the paper and they will soon understand. Why should they suddenly take the SNP to their Bosom now that they have 1 more seat in the parly? They were pumping out their pro labour rot before the election when the SNP were allegedly 32 points ahead and no one bohered then, the newspapers still sold. If you are so desperate to have a pro SNP newpaper, then you could always launch one. If the public are so fed up with whats around then obviously they will snap it up - problem solved. Remember - the Majority of the electorate did note vote SNP last Thursday. Just time for a reality check I thought.[/quote] 8:26pm Sorry buggerlugs, the majority of the electorate who voted did vote SNP, unless of course im missing something and the other three Unionist party's were reperesented under the Unionist Alliance. Those who could'nt be bothered to vote dont count.

Buggerlugs wrote:
For goodness sake people.... The press dont like the SNP. Get over it. If enough people dont like it then they wont buy the paper and they will soon understand. Why should they suddenly take the SNP to their Bosom now that they have 1 more seat in the parly? They were pumping out their pro labour rot before the election when the SNP were allegedly 32 points ahead and no one bohered then, the newspapers still sold. If you are so desperate to have a pro SNP newpaper, then you could always launch one. If the public are so fed up with whats around then obviously they will snap it up - problem solved. Remember - the Majority of the electorate did note vote SNP last Thursday. Just time for a reality check I thought.

8:26pm
Sorry buggerlugs, the majority of the electorate who voted did vote SNP, unless of course im missing something and the other three Unionist party's were reperesented under the Unionist Alliance. Those who could'nt be bothered to vote dont count.

Craigy said:

Those who could'nt be bothered to vote dont count.

Well spoken.
Since when did a non-vote signify anything but absence from an election?
[The only people who interpret silence as a point of view are torturers.

That's true LA but sometimes just can't haud ma wheesht. Does being in an ex-pat club in Zambia and refusing to stand up for God save the queen count as laughing? They did't think it was funny.

[quote][bold]leowoman[/bold] wrote: Cancerboy - I was very careful in my wording not to cause offense but I did not think that orange/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit was to be taken seriously by any sentient human being. We could have a history lesson, though and disentangle the myth from the reality. I speak as an offspring of Scots-Irish protestant masonic bullshit.[/quote] Definition of orange: Odious Repulsive Antagonistic Narcissistic Gang of Eejits BTW before anyone jumps on the football associated bigotry bandwagon I will state for the record that I am a Rangers supporter. Havin seen some of these people close up in side football stadia, I am qualified to make an assessment of them. Apparently they were also spawned by the same socio-evolutionary abherration that gave rise to the Klu Klux Klan.

leowoman wrote:
Cancerboy - I was very careful in my wording not to cause offense but I did not think that orange/unionist/kingbilly type bullshit was to be taken seriously by any sentient human being. We could have a history lesson, though and disentangle the myth from the reality. I speak as an offspring of Scots-Irish protestant masonic bullshit.

Definition of orange:

Odious
Repulsive
Antagonistic
Narcissistic
Gang of
Eejits

BTW before anyone jumps on the football associated bigotry bandwagon I will state for the record that I am a Rangers supporter. Havin seen some of these people close up in side football stadia, I am qualified to make an assessment of them.

Apparently they were also spawned by the same socio-evolutionary abherration that gave rise to the Klu Klux Klan.

Yes Iain, I believe that is true. On the up side they also contributed to the great sound of the folk music of the American South. But take your point.

Leowoman said:

Does refusing to stand up for God save the Queen count as laughing?

I have witnessed the Queen her self sitting during that dirge. How disrespectful can One get?

Alex Porter wrote:
Had caramel logs but these communal Spanish types wholfed the lot. That aside, there is a genuine real conspiracy in my barrio: A specialist whisky shop right opposite my metro. They saw me coming.

You're their best customer, judging by the amount of drunken pish you spout on here.

leowoman wrote "as a protestant by birth"

The only thing anyone is by birth is a boy or a girl

Let's call it the dirge of the eternally supine. "Send her victorious. Happy and glorious. Long to reign over us...(forelock tugging lackeys)
God save notre haricot vert."

Scotmid said:

The only thing anyone is by birth is a boy or a girl

Shows how little you know about life. Sexuality isn't a simple as your politics.

Jock Tamson's Runt said:

You're their best customer, judging by the amount of drunken pish you spout on here.

before falling off his bar stool, legless.

Tomorrows headlines! - Gordon Brown enters unification Talks with China! China promises to pay off UK national debt, a debt that is acquired following disasterous PFI programme! UK population taxed at 100% of income to pay costs of financing PFI! China has offered UK a way out by offering to pay off PFI DEBTS AND RETURN SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS TO PUBLIC! Ofcourse there will bea price for this union! The surrender of all the nations assets land and sea! The surrender of all democratic principles! UK big business leaders urge unification with China to save us all from catastrophy!Tesco boss says it is essential for survival of UK and UK jobs! Michelle Mone says she will move her business back to UK if deal is agreed! Far fetched - not if you follow the logical arguements of the unionists to there unholy ends! Last minute breaking news! Counter bid from President of Oil and Gas rich Russian Oligarchy Incorporated! But details of Russian bid sketchy! But it is thought Oligarchy will finance bid by retaining Scots/Irish energy assets and sell offf England and Wales to highest bidders! Private equity houses are thought to be behind this Russian bid! Far fetched again! Is it? Who would have thought that today that London Establishment would sit round a table drinking tea with with a one time terrorist but will not talk to democraticall elected Scottish politicians who chose the ballot box rather than the bullet and the bomb! The Unionist establishment is hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt! How long before the rest of Scotland wakens up to this fact! Or will they wait till all of our cities, towns and villages are drowning in a sea of drugs, crime, privately owned hospitals and schools A dog eat dog society of the worst kind! - A Unionist created nightmare!

Tomorrows headlines! - Gordon Brown enters unification Talks with China! China promises to pay off UK national debt, a debt that is acquired following disasterous PFI programme! UK population taxed at 100% of income to pay costs of financing PFI!
China has offered UK a way out by offering to pay off PFI DEBTS AND RETURN SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS TO PUBLIC!
Ofcourse there will bea price for this union! The surrender of all the nations assets land and sea! The surrender of all democratic principles! UK big business leaders urge unification with China to save us all from catastrophy!Tesco boss says it is essential for survival of UK and UK jobs! Michelle Mone says she will move her business back to UK if deal is agreed!
Far fetched - not if you follow the logical arguements of the unionists to there unholy ends!

Last minute breaking news! Counter bid from President of Oil and Gas rich Russian Oligarchy Incorporated! But details of Russian bid sketchy! But it is thought Oligarchy will finance bid by retaining Scots/Irish energy assets and sell offf England and Wales to highest bidders! Private equity houses are thought to be behind this Russian bid!

Far fetched again! Is it?

Who would have thought that today that London Establishment would sit round a table drinking tea with with a one time terrorist but will not talk to democraticall elected Scottish politicians who chose the ballot box rather than the bullet and the bomb!

The Unionist establishment is hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt! How long before the rest of Scotland wakens up to this fact! Or will they wait till all of our cities, towns and villages are drowning in a sea of drugs, crime, privately owned hospitals and schools A dog eat dog society of the worst kind! - A Unionist created nightmare!

Scotleag,
or a hermaphrodite, in which case you could impregnate yourself.
There was a hint of irony in my phrasing. Its called a sense of humour even extends to one's self, sometimes.

Iain said:

How long before the rest of Scotland wakens up to this fact!

They have, only some arel unsure what to do about it.

LA "Sexuality isn't a simple as your politics. " Something which should be pointed out to the SNP's big bucks provider Brian Souter and to all those pro-SNP homophobic types you hang out with over on The Scotsman's site. And yes, my politics are simple. Truth, freedom, democracy, justice. Can't get much simpler than that. Thanks for the (intended, I'm sure) compliment. Leowoman "or a hermaphrodite, in which case you could impregnate yourself." Something, I have been advised to do on several occasions, but in more florid terms. I was aware from the moment I posted that someone would pick up on that. But the point is still valid. Richard Dawkins, in 'The God Delusion,' points out the stupidity of talking about monetarist children or keynesian kids and asks why we accept religious labelling for children. In your previous post on the topic I'm not so sure it's soh. It came across to me as having to define yourself as having been brought up in the tribe you disparage - "it's okay for me to say this as I was brought up as one"

LA

"Sexuality isn't a simple as your politics. "

Something which should be pointed out to the SNP's big bucks provider Brian Souter and to all those pro-SNP homophobic types you hang out with over on The Scotsman's site.

And yes, my politics are simple. Truth, freedom, democracy, justice. Can't get much simpler than that. Thanks for the (intended, I'm sure) compliment.

Leowoman
"or a hermaphrodite, in which case you could impregnate yourself."

Something, I have been advised to do on several occasions, but in more florid terms.

I was aware from the moment I posted that someone would pick up on that. But the point is still valid. Richard Dawkins, in 'The God Delusion,' points out the stupidity of talking about monetarist children or keynesian kids and asks why we accept religious labelling for children.

In your previous post on the topic I'm not so sure it's soh. It came across to me as having to define yourself as having been brought up in the tribe you disparage - "it's okay for me to say this as I was brought up as one"

[quote][bold]LA[/bold] wrote: Scotmid said: [quote]And the SNP would put us all on the Bounty[/quote] If it leads to Paradise, why not? But don't fret, folk like you will be given a lifeboat, provisions, a compass, and a copy of [italic]Master and Commander[/italic] to read on the journey.[/quote] Paradise? Celtic Park? Not too many SNP votes there. Or is the biblical paradise? Where the serpent of coalition stalks the prelapsarian SNP? tempting them with thr forbidden fruit of the Mondeo? Or more like the real Bount?. Where those cast adrift make it back to Britain and live happily after. While those on the Bounty ( in the movie led by Mel Gibson yet again, uncannily) end up isolated from the rest of the world and two centuries down the line have to call in the British police to investigate incest and paedophilia because the locals are al too inbred to sort it out themselves?

LA wrote:
Scotmid said:
And the SNP would put us all on the Bounty
If it leads to Paradise, why not? But don't fret, folk like you will be given a lifeboat, provisions, a compass, and a copy of Master and Commander to read on the journey.

Paradise? Celtic Park? Not too many SNP votes there.

Or is the biblical paradise? Where the serpent of coalition stalks the prelapsarian SNP? tempting them with thr forbidden fruit of the Mondeo?

Or more like the real Bount?. Where those cast adrift make it back to Britain and live happily after. While those on the Bounty ( in the movie led by Mel Gibson yet again, uncannily) end up isolated from the rest of the world and two centuries down the line have to call in the British police to investigate incest and paedophilia because the locals are al too inbred to sort it out themselves?

Not really,sl, it was a recognition of the fact that this can be a delicate subject, at least here. I was deliberately stereotyping myself, because that is the language of the discourse in some parts of Scotland. Also I wasn't brought up as one since my parents were open minded and did not force me into an extant mould. That is how irony works and, like an onion, can have many layers.

Oh. dear, someone sounds rather annoyed. Please take the couch and I will listen, as Freud said to Dora.

Scotmid said:

I'm losing the place - what was I talking about?

Let's stick to the point - your irrational hatred of all things Scottish.

Souter? Well, I know the Reverend Dobson had an obession to photograph little girls naked but it doesn't negate his work of genius, Alice in Wonderland.'

As for the Scotsman's web site; I've long since abandoned it and its gutter journalism to Trolls like you and weak moderators. You are well matched.

I think that was an ambush, LA. Call the Cavalry. They'll rescue us, what with their yellow ribbons and their brand new gold watches and their "truely was the son of god's, John Wayne True Grit-isms.

Leowoman: they condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Try as you might, you cannot find a single thing the like about Scotland or its people, let alone a politician. Gay? Straight? he's just a sleazebag.

He's singing a "short people song - tiny hands, tiny feet, tiny little voices that go beep beep beep" instead of an astral weeks' song - "I will drive my chariot down your street and sing. Hey me, I'm dynamite and I don't know why." (almost)
Its all about the confidence.

Leowoman: It's report Blair stands down tomorrow, Wednesday.

That puts Brown in, McConnell and Alexander out. (Oh, how they must wish they were not beholden to Westminster rule.) The entire landscape of UK politics will alter overnight ...

Onwards ...

Such a goddam shame to see the back of Blair. I thought Doogie was Broon's boy.
So Blair's last meglomaniacal act was to talk to every microphone and camera he could find and tell us what a great legacy he has left and how he singlehandedly wrestled the Irish into submission.
Still, good news, the times of fantasising that I would don my balaclava and milk trayman black, leaping across the roof tops wielding a high powered sniper rifle , have come to an end. I might though find another to replace him. Shouldn't be too difficult. Still Blair, with his God and belief in his ineffable rightness while blowing up children in Iraq is going to be quite tough to replace in the old loathesome hypocrite stakes.

I am astonished and dismayed at the number of contributors who admit they haven�t read the McCrone report. It is my opinion that every member of the electorate should have had and read a copy. The despicable decision to keep this report under the wrap of secrecy for over thirty years is to the Shame of both the Labour and Tory governments. I urge everyone to study this report then write to your MP for an explanation. In addition I would urge all readers to read Niall Aslen�s paper �The Great Deception� Which exposes the myth of the of the Scottish Subsidy economy. Indeed Niall shows Scotland is in SURPLUS. On the question of the LD� refusal to join the SNP in a coalition because of the referendum question � not very democratic, but that is there view. However given that they agree largely with the remainder of the SNP policies I see no reason why they could not go into discussions with the SNP on areas of common agreement. with a similar approach to the greens and agree a �Confidence and supply� arrangement. That would still leave them free to vote against a referendum proposal. For a comprehensive and erudite essay on these matters I recommend readers look at Ian Hamiliton QC blog @ http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/

I am astonished and dismayed at the number of contributors who admit they haven�t read the McCrone report. It is my opinion that every member of the electorate should have had and read a copy. The despicable decision to keep this report under the wrap of secrecy for over thirty years is to the Shame of both the Labour and Tory governments. I urge everyone to study this report then write to your MP for an explanation.

In addition I would urge all readers to read Niall Aslen�s paper �The Great Deception� Which exposes the myth of the of the Scottish Subsidy economy. Indeed Niall shows Scotland is in SURPLUS.

On the question of the LD� refusal to join the SNP in a coalition because of the referendum question � not very democratic, but that is there view. However given that they agree largely with the remainder of the SNP policies I see no reason why they could not go into discussions with the SNP on areas of common agreement. with a similar approach to the greens and agree a �Confidence and supply� arrangement. That would still leave them free to vote against a referendum proposal.

For a comprehensive and erudite essay on these matters I recommend readers look at Ian Hamiliton QC blog @ http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/

re Sannymac

I read the McCrone report - but then I knew what it would say before I read it!
Do the Lib Dems really agree with so many SNP policies? If they did we would have a coalition right now! Or am I being cynical?
The same cynic that knew what the McCrone report would say before I read it!

sannymac said;

I see no reason why they could not go into discussions with the SNP on ... and agree a �Confidence and supply� arrangement. That would still leave them free to vote against a referendum.

They don't even need to vote against it.

The arithmetic is not there to win a vote. When it comes to the crunch they can simply abstain. In other words, the independence issue in this government led by the SNP is a non-issue, a non-impediment, there is no conflict of ideology or aims, which begs the question, why not form some sort of alliance with the SNP, serve Scotland, and serve their voters simultaneously?

The answer has to be, orders comes from Whitehall, and Stephen is not strong enough a leader to resist pressure.

[quote]Ofcourse there will bea price for this union! The surrender of all the nations assets land and sea! The surrender of all democratic principles! UK big business leaders urge unification with China to save us all from catastrophy! Tesco boss says ...[/quote] Thank you, Iain More, for deliniating the bigger picture. Scottish political truth is seldom cloaked in the po-faced solemnities emitting from McConnels's sour grape party, the Libdems, and their appointed "Czars" to control every aspect of scottish behavior and irreverrence. Chiefs of Police love their equally po-faced inanities and themselves just as much: didn't the G9 Glengeagles go swimmingly. As Crime has been the growth industry since the Thatcher years they expect to need more power and be paid even more. Why do your judges, crocodile fiscals and lawyers wear such kinky clothes and wigs [it's the way they are!] and mumble such blethers while calling for social work reports and psychiatric reports which they certainly need? Because it's our legal system enshrined in foosty tomes, amazing expense accounting and charging by the hour and everlasting bullshit. That there were any benefits at all form the 1707 treaty of ruinyon from it's very inception is our chief delusion. That Chinese certainly don't share as they eye up control of our jucier assets ....

Ofcourse there will bea price for this union! The surrender of all the nations assets land and sea! The surrender of all democratic principles! UK big business leaders urge unification with China to save us all from catastrophy! Tesco boss says ...

Thank you, Iain More, for deliniating the bigger picture. Scottish political truth is seldom cloaked in the po-faced solemnities emitting from McConnels's sour grape party, the Libdems, and their appointed "Czars" to control every aspect of scottish behavior and irreverrence.

Chiefs of Police love their equally po-faced inanities and themselves just as much: didn't the G9 Glengeagles go swimmingly. As Crime has been the growth industry since the Thatcher years they expect to need more power and be paid even more.

Why do your judges, crocodile fiscals and lawyers wear such kinky clothes and wigs and mumble such blethers while calling for social work reports and psychiatric reports which they certainly need? Because it's our legal system enshrined in foosty tomes, amazing expense accounting and charging by the hour and everlasting bullshit.

That there were any benefits at all form the 1707 treaty of ruinyon from it's very inception is our chief delusion. That Chinese certainly don't share as they eye up control of our jucier assets ....

[quote]The arithmetic is not there to win a vote.[/quote] Exactly. The voters of Scotland killed off the referendum idea by electing 46 Labour + 17 Tory + 16 Lib Dem members who all explicity rejected it in their manifestos. So why is Salmond insisting on it ? Because his choice is : a) minority rule, no coalition with the LIb Dems, he gets to propose his referendum but it is voted down in parliament . b) coalition with the Lib Dems, no referendum vote takes place in parliament at all, because he has agreed to shelve the idea. With option a) he gets to whinge about the nasty unionist parties ganging up on the SNP, he gets more SNP members as ministers; and he can blame all failures to deliver their wild pre-election promises on the other parties. (So don't expect your student loans paid off any time soon) With option b) he gets half of the SNP baying for his blood and denouncing him as an anti-Scottish traitor, a couple of Lib Dems taking up cabinet positions, and an expectation from the Scottish people that he should actually deliver what he promised. What would you choose, in the circumstances ?

The arithmetic is not there to win a vote.

Exactly. The voters of Scotland killed off the referendum idea by electing 46 Labour + 17 Tory + 16 Lib Dem members who all explicity rejected it in their manifestos.

So why is Salmond insisting on it ? Because his choice is :

a) minority rule, no coalition with the LIb Dems, he gets to propose his referendum but it is voted down in parliament .

b) coalition with the Lib Dems, no referendum vote takes place in parliament at all, because he has agreed to shelve the idea.

With option a) he gets to whinge about the nasty unionist parties ganging up on the SNP, he gets more SNP members as ministers; and he can blame all failures to deliver their wild pre-election promises on the other parties. (So don't expect your student loans paid off any time soon)

With option b) he gets half of the SNP baying for his blood and denouncing him as an anti-Scottish traitor, a couple of Lib Dems taking up cabinet positions, and an expectation from the Scottish people that he should actually deliver what he promised.

What would you choose, in the circumstances ?

Archie asked: [quote]So why is Salmond insisting on a referendum?[/quote] Hundreds of years of Scotland as a sovereign country; protecting the values, culture and identity of Scotland; the empirical knowledge Westminster 's rule always favours the south particularly in times of severe economic hardship; the sytematic destruction of Scottish steel, shipbuilding, fishing, and auto industry as a way of "taming" Scottish hegemony; vast areas of material deprivation ignored; decades of emigration destroying families, hopes and ambitions; the depletion of rural communities; historical venality, mendacity and fecklessness of politicians of all parties with no allegiance to Scotland; full control over Scottish domestic and foreign policy; a new world order for the 21st century, Scotland a genuine part in it; small is beautiful. [bold]But above all, for the enhancement of well-being, confidence, and the spiritual happiness of the people of Scotland.[/bold] LA

Archie asked:

So why is Salmond insisting on a referendum?

Hundreds of years of Scotland as a sovereign country; protecting the values, culture and identity of Scotland; the empirical knowledge Westminster 's rule always favours the south particularly in times of severe economic hardship; the sytematic destruction of Scottish steel, shipbuilding, fishing, and auto industry as a way of "taming" Scottish hegemony; vast areas of material deprivation ignored; decades of emigration destroying families, hopes and ambitions; the depletion of rural communities; historical venality, mendacity and fecklessness of politicians of all parties with no allegiance to Scotland; full control over Scottish domestic and foreign policy; a new world order for the 21st century, Scotland a genuine part in it; small is beautiful.

But above all, for the enhancement of well-being, confidence, and the spiritual happiness of the people of Scotland.
LA

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2009 A Gannett Company