Alexander Under Fire From Mps Angry Over Poll Count Debacle (from The Herald Election Site)

Douglas Alexander, Scottish Secretary, yesterday struggled to defend the government's role in the Holyrood voting fiasco as he faced a call for his resignation from the SNP in the Commons.

Under attack from MPs on all sides of the House, Mr Alexander resisted a full independent inquiry preferring instead to wait for the Scottish Electoral Commission review of the elections which will be published by the summer.

The exchanges came as the LibDems rejected a plea from the Greens to enter talks on the future governing coalition of Scotland.

Nicol Stephen's party had come under pressure to meet the Greens on Thursday to discuss a rainbow coalition involving the SNP, LibDems and the two Green MSPs. A spokeswoman for the Lib- Dems said that it was "politely declining" the offer.

In the Commons, a succession of MPs, including Labour back benchers, questioned the Scottish Electoral Commission's ability to investigate decisions regarding the voting system for which it had been partly responsible.

Mr Alexander said: "Our first obligation is to secure answers. There is a statutory review, which has begun, by the Electoral Commission. I've made clear that where that inquiry touches on matters directly within the responsibility of the Electoral Commission there will be independent assessment."

He acknowledged the concerns about postal ballots; the e-counting machines; and the significant number of spoilt ballot papers - about 100,000 - but he was not prepared to take responsibility for what went wrong.

Outside chamber, Angus Robertson, Moray's SNP MP, said: "The Secretary of State for Scotland refused to answer basic questions during Scottish Questions today. Did he take the final decision on a single ballot paper? Was there any further testing on the design of the ballot paper following that decision and will he publish all ministerial correspondence regarding this issue and his department's role?

"It is ludicrous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to continue to be responsible for Scottish elections, and for the Westminster government to deny that they are indeed responsible. We are calling for him to stand down and for future legislation to fully devolve responsibility for elections held in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament."

David Mundell, Shadow Scottish Secretary, accused Mr Alexander of ignoring repeated warnings about the pitfalls of the introducing the new voting system, new ballot papers and a new method of counting on the same day.

Mark Lazarowicz, Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, said: "There's no doubt that great damage has been done to trust in the political system by the events of last Thursday and Friday."

He argued that local elections should not be held on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary vote in future.

Meanwhile, the firm behind the electronic vote-counting system insisted it was not to blame for the delays which marred the count, which resulted in the SNP winning 47 seats and Labour winning 46.

DRS Data Services said that initial investigations showed that the delays which occurred across the country had nothing to do with their machines.

The company blamed the "unprecedented volume" of spoiled ballot papers, which needed to be checked manually, for the delays, apparently because voters were confused by the use of different voting systems in the parliamentary and council elections.

DRS said that it was able to deliver both sets of results within 24 hours - something it said would have taken days if the counts had been done manually.

In a statement, DRS said five of the 32 counts had been adjourned until Friday morning. "Investigations are under way as to the precise cause of these delays, but at this early stage it appears likely that the unprecedented volume of ballots requiring manual adjudication was the major contributory factor," the statement said. The company added: "DRS would like to make it absolutely clear that the electronic counting process was not responsible for any spoilt ballot papers."

The American observers said that the vast bulk of the spoiled ballots had two votes in the regional list, and the vast bulk of those had one vote for one of the smaller parties, and, again, the vast bulk of those included a vote for the Greens.

My guess is that without Douglas Alexander's blatant fraud, the Greens would be where they went into this election, near enough.

This is a sacking offence. He was warned against it from the start.

And it's easy to fix. Like Mike Dailly's case says, those voters can be contacted and given another secret ballot. So too those who never got their postal votes in time.

Please follow link below and observe the depths to which the Unionist press have risen

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/frontpage.cfm

the see Press Complaints Commission

Nothing surprises me anymore about the sheer incompetence of the Labour party.
They were warned by the Arbuthnott Commission and the Electoral Commission.
See this BBC News link for more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6622963.stm

This reminds me of the pension fiasco: Gordon Brown was warned by officials that pensioners would be badly hit by his decision to remove the tax credit from pension funds, yet he went ahead.

It also reminds me of the dogged intelligence on WMD and Iraq: Labour was warned that there was no WMD but still they went ahead.

For how much longer we will have to suffer these bunch of inept numpties ruining our lives??

http://trenator.blogspot.com

Derick, this from todays Scum.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/489703784_ca7210aebd_b.jpg

Disgraceful. And The Herald burying the Douglas Alexander story on page 2? Oh, is Mark McGhee a pal of Gordon's then or not? And is Douglas not Gordon's Scottish general?

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

There you go, Ken McDonald seemed to get all the figures in a couple of hours, whereas the man responsible couldn't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm

it wisnae me, it wisnae me, alexander's no yer man
it wisnae me, it wisnae me, ah didnae make the voting plan
if you want know who did it then you just keep askin'
it wisnae me, it wisnae me, it wisnae alexander's plan

I do wish people would stop talking about re-running the whole thing, or partly re-running it. It can't happen now. It is over and to start selecting certain parts is absurd. What happened happened and we need to live with it and learn from it. I still say the vast majority of us read the instructions carefully and followed them and did not spoil our papers. I also think that many who didn't were lazy and not very sensible in the way they approached the new procedure. I went to my Polling Station already aware that I needed to take care to get the procedure right. Also, I have to say this. A few years back, when we went to participate in a "YES" or "NO" two question referendum I was approached in one Polling Station by a woman who said to me "Who'se the Labour man hen? I don't know who tae vote fur." Is it any wonder 100,000 ran into problems last week? The vote is now over and done with and I think the priority now is to ensure that the Lib-Dems are never allowed to forget that their antics now prove that they intend to wreck this new parliament if they possibly can. I think we should be exerting pressure on them to say why the issue of a referendum 3 years away is such a huge issue, and why, so afraid are they of giving us a chance to express a view, that their priority is to attempt to wreck this opportunity the SNP has to prove it can handle government. The Lib-Dems have indeed learned a lot from Labour last time round. Especially when it comes to living up to the definition of the word democracy. I think it may cost them dearly, as it should.

I do wish people would stop talking about re-running the whole thing, or partly re-running it. It can't happen now. It is over and to start selecting certain parts is absurd. What happened happened and we need to live with it and learn from it. I still say the vast majority of us read the instructions carefully and followed them and did not spoil our papers. I also think that many who didn't were lazy and not very sensible in the way they approached the new procedure. I went to my Polling Station already aware that I needed to take care to get the procedure right. Also, I have to say this. A few years back, when we went to participate in a "YES" or "NO" two question referendum I was approached in one Polling Station by a woman who said to me "Who'se the Labour man hen? I don't know who tae vote fur." Is it any wonder 100,000 ran into problems last week?

The vote is now over and done with and I think the priority now is to ensure that the Lib-Dems are never allowed to forget that their antics now prove that they intend to wreck this new parliament if they possibly can. I think we should be exerting pressure on them to say why the issue of a referendum 3 years away is such a huge issue, and why, so afraid are they of giving us a chance to express a view, that their priority is to attempt to wreck this opportunity the SNP has to prove it can handle government. The Lib-Dems have indeed learned a lot from Labour last time round. Especially when it comes to living up to the definition of the word democracy. I think it may cost them dearly, as it should.

Let Alexander resign. If he doesn't Brown will kick him out.

Watch this space.

I watched the statement at Westminster today. Alexander got a kicking from all sides, yet showed no remorse, apology, humility or grace, simply standing up time after time at the Despatch Box to reassure us all that the Electoral Commission inquiry will clear everything up.

He really is an oleganious tosspot of the highest order.

BB said:

He really is an oleganious tosspot of the highest order.

LOL. Good term. But you pay him too much of a compliment.

#Jo, Glasgow on 12:37am today

Spot on.

On the Alexander front .. I don't think much will happen to him .. and i would be surprised if he resigns. We are talking about a man who is scheduled for higher office in the next few weeks as one of Gordon Brown's best friends, and even the fiasco which was this last election will probably not claim his scalp.

Mike Dailly and the rest of the lawyers continuing to pop up all over the place wanting to contact the voters to give them a second chance makes more of a mockery of the electoral process than the way it was handled .. although I hear from another journalist that lawyers have already been contacting people .. haven't seen that in print yet though but if true, it certainly goes against what they should be doing, which is keeping out of our democratic process.

Peter said of Alexander;

We are talking about a man who is scheduled for higher office

Which means he will NOT be where he is now. Promotion? Demotion? Who cares, so long as he is gone.

Alexander will stay. Brown's wee boy is the safest man in Westminster. I would like to request a 'polygraph' test of him please. The question will be....'Have you ever had sexual relations with this man'?
Come on Herald journo's....now's the time to print the story we all know is there....

Jo.
Bang on.

As for all these legal challenges, what rights do lawyers have of seeing and identifying individual voters? I was always under the impression ballots were personal to the voter, these people are only in it for the money and probable political gain, they are making a mockery of our country and an already discredited electoral system.
The ballot papers and system of voting may not have been ideal, however 93% of us seem to have had no problem with it, why should the 7% minority be given a second chance because of their own ignorance and/or carelessness? Incidnetaly, I dont hear from any disgruntled voters demanding re-runs, its all lawyers and Labour party hacks.
As for the Lib-Dems, stuff em, everyone knows or suspects their strings are being pulled by Campbell in his unholy dealings wih Brown, hopefully they will pay at the ballot box next time.

I forced myself to watch the Alexander child perform in what passes for Scottish Question time. Now I remember that there is such a thing as a "Scottish" Office and why.

I can hardly express my disgust at the sychophantic numpty nonentities and their master's prepared question/statements on how wonderful the Union has been to sycophantioc numpies the past 300 years. Even their Lib Dum poodles had to show that ignorance was bliss in solidarity with the shamelss ones.

Donald,

I understand your anger and your disgust.

Allan:

Alexander will stay. Brown's wee boy is the safest man in Westminster.

And that will be where Brown takes him ... out of harm's way. Remember, the incompetent get promoted.

Oscar wrote:
There you go, Ken McDonald seemed to get all the figures in a couple of hours, whereas the man responsible couldn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm

Doesn't this mean that when "Douglas Alexander told the House of Commons he had no idea what the true number of spoilt papers was" he was lying to or misleading Parliament ? Surely there is no higher political 'crime' and so he should be sacked/resign?

The only other excuse is that he is o incompetent that he can'y find data that the BBC can - again he should resign for that.

#Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 12:49am today

"He really is an oleganious tosspot of the highest order."
o�le�ag�i�nous
�adjective
1. having the nature or qualities of oil.
2. containing oil.
3. producing oil.

Aye, Scottish oil belongs to London enough.

He didn't even know how many votes were spoiled? Secretary of State for Scotland and hasn't asked his civil servants for a simple fact about how many people lost their votes? He's too wrapped up in spin and intrigue to be aware of the remit of his job. A jouranlist got the info in no time..

Why is The Herald not asking these monumental questions? What a disgraceful affront to journalism. Why no prominence to this story? Friends of Gordon? Douglas Gordon's acolyte?

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

Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?

There is only one man who has a bigger brass neck than Mr Alexander and even better for evading responsibilities and he is his political master Gordon Brown. Please please people of Renfrewshire and Fife vote them out at the next election.

Argentocoxus wrote:
Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?

Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.

The paper was designed to stitch up the Greens and Socialists. They did research, which only now has been published, which showed how it would stitch up the Greens and Socialists. And then the results stitched up the Greens (the Socialists had already done it to themselves).

I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because: The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated. For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that???? Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened. Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled. Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election. I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.

I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because:

The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated.

For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that????

Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened.

Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled.

Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election.

I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.

On one hand we now know that a good proportion of the Scottish electorate are extremely stupid.

On the other, some parties, notably Labour, are saying they have been cheated of votes.

What are we to conclude from this?

You have to be completely stupid to vote Labour. (As if we already didn't know!)

English Bob wrote:

Argentocoxus wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?
Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.

I dont think that a subsidy of �1500 per head in Scotland is throwing money at us,when you think of what Scotland has put into the Union.

paul wrote:

English Bob wrote:
Argentocoxus wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?
Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.
I dont think that a subsidy of �1500 per head in Scotland is throwing money at us,when you think of what Scotland has put into the Union.

IDIOT!!!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is one born every day!

Here's the impartial chap who'll steer the Electoral Commission inquiry for Douglas Alexander.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/samyouger.cfm

[quote][bold]Vince[/bold] wrote: I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because: The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated. For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that???? Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened. Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled. Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election. I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.[/quote] This from the BBC......Figures obtained from returning officers at each of Scotland's counts showed the final tally of rejected papers was almost [bold]142,000.[/bold] Earlier estimates had put the number of spoilt papers at about 100,000. The investigation suggested [bold]almost 7%[/bold] of the total votes cast were not counted towards who was elected.

Vince wrote:
I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because: The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated. For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that???? Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened. Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled. Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election. I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.

This from the BBC......Figures obtained from returning officers at each of Scotland's counts showed the final tally of rejected papers was almost 142,000.

Earlier estimates had put the number of spoilt papers at about 100,000.

The investigation suggested almost 7% of the total votes cast were not counted towards who was elected.

When you see the network of bully boys that Blair surrounds himself with,DARLING,Reid,McConnell,Alexander,Blunkett,Clarke,Mandelson to mention a few , you then realise he almost emulates Hitler. Hitler probably didnt kill many people personally but he had a whole army of bully boys to do the dirty for him .Blair(IRAQ) tries to make himself look the mr.nice guy while his HENCHMEN like Alexander and Reid do the necessary to keep Blairs ego satisfied. NEW labour has been a disaster for working class people ,Blair has turned Britain into a cesspit of corruption in the same league as Mugabe and more like a third world junta than a sophisticated orderly democracy that ensures equality ,not GREED and corruption that seems to be the priority for those who through a flawed election system we are forced to tolerate while they are in power. When we have an election process that does not rely on political parties funded by millionaires and a media that does not only promote establishment parties and a two party system,when those two parties have a looooong history of sleaze and corruption,cash for peerages.We might see some return to a reasonable rational form of PEOPLE power which Scotland sadly lacks at the moment. THE SAFEST DEPOSITORY "Who will govern the governors?" There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government. Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS http://www.ljpr.cjb.net

When you see the network of bully boys that Blair surrounds himself with,DARLING,Reid,McConnell,Alexander,Blunkett,Clarke,Mandelson to mention a few , you then realise he almost emulates Hitler.

Hitler probably didnt kill many people personally but he had a whole army of bully boys to do the dirty for him .Blair(IRAQ) tries to make himself look the mr.nice guy while his HENCHMEN like Alexander and Reid do the necessary to keep Blairs ego satisfied.

NEW labour has been a disaster for working class people ,Blair has turned Britain into a cesspit of corruption in the same league as Mugabe and more like a third world junta than a sophisticated orderly democracy that ensures equality ,not GREED and corruption that seems to be the priority for those who through a flawed election system we are forced to tolerate while they are in power.

When we have an election process that does not rely on political parties funded by millionaires and a media that does not only promote establishment parties and a two party system,when those two parties have a looooong history of sleaze and corruption,cash for peerages.We might see some return to a reasonable rational form of PEOPLE power which Scotland sadly lacks at the moment.

THE SAFEST DEPOSITORY "Who will govern the governors?"

There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

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

Bye Jack -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9AaTRYOFsw

I'm still loving this one Alex, it's jumped up by nearly 30,000 hits since it was posted a few hours after the Sunday Herald's volte face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Tiz6INF7I

I voted labour all my life,never again after I have discovered how they treated us with treachery,any Scot who votes labour now shouls ask themselves,why do I continue to supress my country..............23 April 1975 �If, in five years� time North Sea oil is contributing massively to the UK budget, while the economic and social condition of West Central Scotland continues in the poor state that it is today, it would be hard to imagine conditions more favourable to the growth of support for the nationalist movement. Very determined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will therefore be necessary and the Scottish people will have to be persuaded that their problems really have received the attention and expenditure they deserve if this outcome is to be avoided.� With these words and on that date in 1975 Dr Gavin McCrone, Chief Economic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, concluded his advice to the Westminster Cabinet. The paper, which is now available on the web, advised the then Labour Government that an independent Scotland would have a massive budget surplus. He advised also that �Very determined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will therefore be necessary�� This was to avoid the evils of Scottish independence. There was another way. The Labour Government suppressed the Report. Westminster took all, and Labour started a campaign of lies that goes on to this day. Worse. The bare minimum of the McCrone report was not followed. The Scottish economy was put into reverse. The manufacturing base was gutted. The car industry was destroyed. Linwood was closed. Bathgate was closed. The entire steel industry was shut down and there is scarcely a shipyard left on the Clyde. The suppression of the McCrone report was designed to defeat the SNP, and it had that short term effect. Its long term effect has created bitterness between two countries who for three hundred years had rubbed along together. We Scots are bitter that our industry has been devastated, that a quarter of our children live in poverty, and that we are portrayed as the sick nation of Europe. The South of England is bitter because it sees us as subsidy junkies. The oil bonanza might have been shared, as McCrone considered, but it didn�t happen. The South East of England is bloated with oil money. People earn in a year more than their fathers did in a lifetime. House prices have risen disastrously beyond the reach of those in ordinary jobs. To see what it has cost Scotland look aboot ye. But the worst result is lack of trust. Because of the great betrayal in the suppression of the McCrone report we trust no one. This could not be more evident than in the suspicion with which we treat the Secretary of State for Scotland. He comes among us crying down his own country and assuring us that there is a black hole in our economy. If this is so who put it there? The best person to tell us the state of the nation is not Douglas Alexander but the man who has run Scotland for the last eight years. But the Labour Party doesn�t trust Jack McConnell. He may have gone native. He may be pro Scottish instead of pro Labour. Similarly we don�t trust Douglas Alexander. He may be deceiving us as we were deceived by the suppression of the McCrone report. Sir Walter Scott wrote, �Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.� Douglas Alexander is trapped in that web. Has he ever told the old folks in his father�s church that but for the suppression of the McCrone Report the oil could have been shared, and the grim poverty of their old age avoided? I too am in my old age but I manage. Having read the McCrone report I know that there is no black hole in our economy. I know more. I know that the economy is not the nation. It is the servant of the nation. If you ever go across the sea to Ireland you will see what is done by an independent people without oil. As Mike MacKenzie points out elsewhere in this blog, Douglas Alexander is a career politician worried for his job. Why do we only hear from him when an election is near? Douglas, you have three jobs. MP, Minister for Transport, and Scottish Secretary. As Transport Minister you have nothing to say to us. Transport is a devolved matter. Your remit is solely English. All the former duties of Scottish Secretary have been devolved to Jack McConnell and you keep him out of the web. You may represent a Scottish constituency but your jobs are wholly English. Why are you here briefing against your own people in an election in which you are not a candidate? Since the McCrone report was suppressed we trust no one: certainly not someone who passes himself off as a Scottish Secretary with no jobs to do. That is the terrible result of the big oil lie. It is for us in Scotland to see that the damage is repaired. I can never remember a time when I was not a Scottish Nationalist. Neither can I remember a time when I did not love England. The special relationship between our two countries should not be the subject of cheap trafficking by cheap politicians like Douglas Alexander THE MCCRONE REPORT WAS RELEASED UNDER THE THIRTY YEAR RULE. IT CAN BE ACCESSED ON THE WEB BY CLICKING HERE: http://www.snpyouth.org/documents/mccronereport.pdf (THIS FULL PRINT-OUT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY YOUNG SCOTS FOR INDEPENDENCE VIA THEIR WEB SITE)

I voted labour all my life,never again after I have discovered how they treated us with treachery,any Scot who votes labour now shouls ask themselves,why do I continue to supress my country..............23 April 1975
�If, in five years� time North Sea oil is contributing massively to the UK budget, while the economic and social condition of West Central Scotland continues in the poor state that it is today, it would be hard to imagine conditions more favourable to the growth of support for the nationalist movement. Very determined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will therefore be necessary and the Scottish people will have to be persuaded that their problems really have received the attention and expenditure they deserve if this outcome is to be avoided.�

With these words and on that date in 1975 Dr Gavin McCrone, Chief Economic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, concluded his advice to the Westminster Cabinet. The paper, which is now available on the web, advised the then Labour Government that an independent Scotland would have a massive budget surplus. He advised also that �Very determined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will therefore be necessary�� This was to avoid the evils of Scottish independence.

There was another way. The Labour Government suppressed the Report. Westminster took all, and Labour started a campaign of lies that goes on to this day.

Worse. The bare minimum of the McCrone report was not followed. The Scottish economy was put into reverse. The manufacturing base was gutted. The car industry was destroyed. Linwood was closed. Bathgate was closed. The entire steel industry was shut down and there is scarcely a shipyard left on the Clyde.

The suppression of the McCrone report was designed to defeat the SNP, and it had that short term effect. Its long term effect has created bitterness between two countries who for three hundred years had rubbed along together. We Scots are bitter that our industry has been devastated, that a quarter of our children live in poverty, and that we are portrayed as the sick nation of Europe. The South of England is bitter because it sees us as subsidy junkies.

The oil bonanza might have been shared, as McCrone considered, but it didn�t happen. The South East of England is bloated with oil money. People earn in a year more than their fathers did in a lifetime. House prices have risen disastrously beyond the reach of those in ordinary jobs. To see what it has cost Scotland look aboot ye. But the worst result is lack of trust. Because of the great betrayal in the suppression of the McCrone report we trust no one.

This could not be more evident than in the suspicion with which we treat the Secretary of State for Scotland. He comes among us crying down his own country and assuring us that there is a black hole in our economy. If this is so who put it there? The best person to tell us the state of the nation is not Douglas Alexander but the man who has run Scotland for the last eight years. But the Labour Party doesn�t trust Jack McConnell. He may have gone native. He may be pro Scottish instead of pro Labour. Similarly we don�t trust Douglas Alexander. He may be deceiving us as we were deceived by the suppression of the McCrone report.

Sir Walter Scott wrote, �Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.� Douglas Alexander is trapped in that web. Has he ever told the old folks in his father�s church that but for the suppression of the McCrone Report the oil could have been shared, and the grim poverty of their old age avoided?

I too am in my old age but I manage. Having read the McCrone report I know that there is no black hole in our economy. I know more. I know that the economy is not the nation. It is the servant of the nation. If you ever go across the sea to Ireland you will see what is done by an independent people without oil. As Mike MacKenzie points out elsewhere in this blog, Douglas Alexander is a career politician worried for his job. Why do we only hear from him when an election is near?

Douglas, you have three jobs. MP, Minister for Transport, and Scottish Secretary. As Transport Minister you have nothing to say to us. Transport is a devolved matter. Your remit is solely English. All the former duties of Scottish Secretary have been devolved to Jack McConnell and you keep him out of the web. You may represent a Scottish constituency but your jobs are wholly English. Why are you here briefing against your own people in an election in which you are not a candidate?

Since the McCrone report was suppressed we trust no one: certainly not someone who passes himself off as a Scottish Secretary with no jobs to do. That is the terrible result of the big oil lie.

It is for us in Scotland to see that the damage is repaired. I can never remember a time when I was not a Scottish Nationalist. Neither can I remember a time when I did not love England. The special relationship between our two countries should not be the subject of cheap trafficking by cheap politicians like Douglas Alexander

THE MCCRONE REPORT WAS RELEASED UNDER THE THIRTY YEAR RULE. IT CAN BE ACCESSED ON THE WEB BY CLICKING HERE:

http://www.snpyouth.org/documents/mccronereport.pdf

(THIS FULL PRINT-OUT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY YOUNG SCOTS FOR INDEPENDENCE VIA THEIR WEB SITE)

Our unionist pals: You are starting to catch on. A minority government could be a godsend for Alex Salmond. Problem is that these parties are now entrenched in anti referendum rhetoric. The Libs don't trust anyone anymore, least of all what Labour tell them. They are petrified of being blamed for independence. All roads lead to independence. Unionists ain't that good at constitutional matters. With the situation in England and not wanting to vote for a Scot and the mess up here you fail to see (partly because of the fear and denial of the unionist parties) that Britain IS IN a constitutional crisis. By the time you lot catch up Scotland will have the presidency of the EU, lol. 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." Ok Labour trolls, time to start screaming for the Libs to beg Alex for a coalition with a referendum, lol.

Our unionist pals:

You are starting to catch on. A minority government could be a godsend for Alex Salmond. Problem is that these parties are now entrenched in anti referendum rhetoric. The Libs don't trust anyone anymore, least of all what Labour tell them. They are petrified of being blamed for independence.

All roads lead to independence. Unionists ain't that good at constitutional matters. With the situation in England and not wanting to vote for a Scot and the mess up here you fail to see (partly because of the fear and denial of the unionist parties) that Britain IS IN a constitutional crisis.

By the time you lot catch up Scotland will have the presidency of the EU, lol.

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."

Ok Labour trolls, time to start screaming for the Libs to beg Alex for a coalition with a referendum, lol.

Hey, I'm a real genuine actual person

Who's this 'Derrick, North Isle' person? Not another bl**dy troll, surely. At this rate we could bottle and sell 'Eau de Trolle'

Derick with one r

PS offer the libdems a single choice referendum on a defined list of more powers for Holyrood - and watch them decline!
MING HAS SPOKEN

[quote][bold]Ted[/bold] wrote: The American observers said that the vast bulk of the spoiled ballots had two votes in the regional list, and the vast bulk of those had one vote for one of the smaller parties, and, again, the vast bulk of those included a vote for the Greens. My guess is that without Douglas Alexander's blatant fraud, the Greens would be where they went into this election, near enough. This is a sacking offence. He was warned against it from the start. And it's easy to fix. Like Mike Dailly's case says, those voters can be contacted and given another secret ballot. So too those who never got their postal votes in time.[/quote] It does seem likely that many people voted twice in the List section and not at all in the constituency section. But how can you tell which would have been thier preference had they only voted once? Many supporters of a "big" party would have a smaller one as their second pereference - after all if you are a Labour supporter you wouldn't also vote SNP or vice versa. Having ome sort of partial revote would be crazy. It would infringe the so-called secrecy of the ballt and also give over 100,000 people the opportunity to vote now knowing how their vote could influence the final result. It's all or nothing: stick with what we have or rerun the whole thing. And let's not forget that if a First Minister isn't elected by the end of the month there will have to be another election anyway.

Ted wrote:
The American observers said that the vast bulk of the spoiled ballots had two votes in the regional list, and the vast bulk of those had one vote for one of the smaller parties, and, again, the vast bulk of those included a vote for the Greens. My guess is that without Douglas Alexander's blatant fraud, the Greens would be where they went into this election, near enough. This is a sacking offence. He was warned against it from the start. And it's easy to fix. Like Mike Dailly's case says, those voters can be contacted and given another secret ballot. So too those who never got their postal votes in time.

It does seem likely that many people voted twice in the List section and not at all in the constituency section. But how can you tell which would have been thier preference had they only voted once? Many supporters of a "big" party would have a smaller one as their second pereference - after all if you are a Labour supporter you wouldn't also vote SNP or vice versa.

Having ome sort of partial revote would be crazy. It would infringe the so-called secrecy of the ballt and also give over 100,000 people the opportunity to vote now knowing how their vote could influence the final result.

It's all or nothing: stick with what we have or rerun the whole thing.

And let's not forget that if a First Minister isn't elected by the end of the month there will have to be another election anyway.

I think it is clear that the Unionists are scoring an own goal here. Leaving Salmon alone in government makes him very powerful indeed. There may be a problem with passing a lot of legislation but all the other executive functions will not be shared by a unionist 'leveller'.

As a nationalist, I think this serves the idea of independence well. However as a democrat I favour balanced government. After a few years of controlling government advertising budgets and negotiations with an intransigent London and a petty alliance to avoid co-alition the SNP could win the next election with a much increased number of MSPs and a referendum with a straight yes/no answer (i.e. no 'more powers' option). The best option for the Unionists really is to have an immediate referendum which the SNP could well lose and then contain independence that way with the SNP hamstrung.

So, Unionists - are you entrenched in your rhetoric or are you going to grovel to Alex to accept the LibDems in co-alition with an immediate referendum?

Bit tough thinking on yer feet eh? Not used to it, mmm.

My aged mother went to the polling station. After she had completed her papers, she realised she had filled hers in wrongly. (a bit flustered as there was a muttering queue behind her). She told an official behind the desk that she had made an error. The official said there was no proble. He ripped up her paper and issued another!

[quote][bold]Vince[/bold] wrote: I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because: The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated. For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that???? Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened. Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled. Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election. I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.[/quote] No-one was denied a vote, they either did,nt bother turning out , did'nt read the ballot paper properly or were to thick to work it out, college educated, a ten year old could understand it. does'nt say much for Labours education, education,education. Does it? Enough is enough, have the inquiry and accept the outcome..93% of the population managed it first time, it would be wrong to re-run the election in whole and scandelous to only re-run in it certain areas, these options are mostly being pursued by opportunist lawyers and sulking politicians. GET OVER IT its happened and bar the inquiry that should be that.

Vince wrote:
I demand a re-election. Not because I disagree with the outcome and because 100,000 were too stupid to fillout their ballot paper correctly but because: The ballot was not organised to accomodate the level of understanding and education of all the people legally entitled to vote. Strangely enough, if a wheelchair bound person were to declare thsi then they would be given opportunity to go to a station where their mobility issue coudl be accomodated. For God's sake teher wasn't even a dummy paper with false names put up in each of the booths to show voters how the papers were different and what to do. How hard is that???? Just because someone isn't college educated and has the necessary spatial awareness to complete a ballot paper appropriately doesn't mean to say they should be denied their vote and this is what happened. Spoiled ballot papers should only be just that - deliberately spoiled (and perhaps that should be one of the options on the paper). Anything else is a mistake, not spoiled. Election manipulation (fraud?) will continue until those arranging are held to account and the only way to do this is to force re-election. I seriously believe this world would be a better place if Al Gore had challenged Dubya in court the first time round. There are always ways round to continue government if this were to be required.

No-one was denied a vote, they either did,nt bother turning out , did'nt read the ballot paper properly or were to thick to work it out, college educated, a ten year old could understand it. does'nt say much for Labours education, education,education. Does it?
Enough is enough, have the inquiry and accept the outcome..93% of the population managed it first time, it would be wrong to re-run the election in whole and scandelous to only re-run in it certain areas, these options are mostly being pursued by opportunist lawyers and sulking politicians.
GET OVER IT its happened and bar the inquiry that should be that.

Obsessive cutting and pasting a mental illness. Official. by our mental illness correespondent.

There is a mouse thing. It means you can scroll up and down to read what other folks has said, ken/ innit?

English Bob wrote:

Argentocoxus wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?
Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.

what are doing here then bob?

craigy wrote:

English Bob wrote:
Argentocoxus wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?
Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.
what are doing here then bob?

Isn't that obvious,I am here subsidising you.

So, 140,000 spoiled ballot papers and the labourites claim Douglas whatsisname spearheaded a "brilliant campaign"!

Another question which should not be too difficult to answer.
"How many postal ballots were requested, how many were issued and how many were returned?

[quote][bold]craigy[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]English Bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Argentocoxus[/bold] wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?[/quote] Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.[/quote] what are doing here then bob?[/quote] [italic]italic[/italic] So now you know----------------Political row brews as Scottish subsidy soars to record high FRASER NELSON AND HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTLAND's annual subsidy from England has shot up to a record �2,200 a head, according to official government figures, having more than doubled since Labour came to power. Gordon Brown's spending bonanza has pushed Jack McConnell's budget to Scandinavian levels at a time when Scotland's tax burden dropped below that of England, Poland and Canada. The figures from the Scottish Executive sparked a political storm yesterday as MSPs asked why it has failed to translate world-class spending into world-class public services. In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent �45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy. But only �34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an �11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised. The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a �7 billion subsidy from England. The Scottish Conservatives last night demanded to know what was going wrong. Derek Brownlee, their finance spokesman, said that while some of Scotland's higher spending needs are due to sparse population, the real culprit is "the Lib-Lab Executive's refusal to look at real reform in public services". The Scottish National Party has long argued that the annual study, entitled Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) is a piece of statistical "propaganda". It says that if oil wealth is counted, then Scotland is subsidising England. But Jim Mather, the SNP's economic spokesman, said he was alarmed at the growing disconnect between economic growth and government spending in Scotland. "If the figures are correct, the Executive has serious questions to answer about their stewardship of Scotland's economy," he said. "Is there any other country in Europe that has experienced such a devastating slip in revenue against expenditure?" Mr Mather said that rising oil prices would help Scotland, but only if the country was independent. The tax haul from oil is expected to almost treble, from �4.3 billion in 2003-4 to �11.7 billion in 2006-7. Labour seized on the GERS report to say it destroyed the case for Scottish independence. "This is a hammer blow to those who talk about independence, or even fiscal autonomy. This shows that there is money that Scotland gets from being part of the UK which it wouldn't get if it was independent," a spokesman said. The SNP counters that, even if an independent Scotland was in deficit, it would simply borrow money on international markets as the UK does. For more than a century, Scotland has received a greater share of money than its population would indicate. The Executive has long defended this, saying the greater role of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and greater deprivation demands more spending. But the subsidy - which was just �1,055 per head in 1997-98 - is becoming increasingly controversial in England, where a growing number of MPs want a new system for dividing government funds across the UK. State spending in Scotland is next year forecast to soar to �51.6 billion - or 52.2 per cent of the national economy. This is not only higher than the UK's 45.2 per cent, but also any country in the developed world save Sweden, Denmark and France. But the tax revenue for Scotland in 2003 - the last full year where figures are available - shows Scotland has the seventh lowest tax take among the world's 30 most developed countries. Under the rules of devolution, the Scottish Executive cannot save money - or even turn down the sums sent from the Treasury each year. Its annual budget increase is decided by a system known as the Barnett Formula. Related topics Government spending http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=469

craigy wrote:

English Bob wrote:
Argentocoxus wrote: Why are we not getting the views of Linda in Shettland? Or Derrick in North Isle, Dave "down at the club" in Govan, Clare of Dumfries, Joyce of Govan, etc, etc. C'mon Sandra and Mike, where are they?
Probably no subsidy involved.You scots understand very well about being subsidised,a way of life so to speak.
what are doing here then bob?

So now you know----------------Political row brews as Scottish subsidy soars to record high
FRASER NELSON AND HAMISH MACDONELL

SCOTLAND's annual subsidy from England has shot up to a record �2,200 a head, according to official government figures, having more than doubled since Labour came to power.

Gordon Brown's spending bonanza has pushed Jack McConnell's budget to Scandinavian levels at a time when Scotland's tax burden dropped below that of England, Poland and Canada.

The figures from the Scottish Executive sparked a political storm yesterday as MSPs asked why it has failed to translate world-class spending into world-class public services.

In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent �45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy.

But only �34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an �11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised.

The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a �7 billion subsidy from England.

The Scottish Conservatives last night demanded to know what was going wrong. Derek Brownlee, their finance spokesman, said that while some of Scotland's higher spending needs are due to sparse population, the real culprit is "the Lib-Lab Executive's refusal to look at real reform in public services".

The Scottish National Party has long argued that the annual study, entitled Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) is a piece of statistical "propaganda". It says that if oil wealth is counted, then Scotland is subsidising England.

But Jim Mather, the SNP's economic spokesman, said he was alarmed at the growing disconnect between economic growth and government spending in Scotland.

"If the figures are correct, the Executive has serious questions to answer about their stewardship of Scotland's economy," he said. "Is there any other country in Europe that has experienced such a devastating slip in revenue against expenditure?"

Mr Mather said that rising oil prices would help Scotland, but only if the country was independent. The tax haul from oil is expected to almost treble, from �4.3 billion in 2003-4 to �11.7 billion in 2006-7.

Labour seized on the GERS report to say it destroyed the case for Scottish independence. "This is a hammer blow to those who talk about independence, or even fiscal autonomy. This shows that there is money that Scotland gets from being part of the UK which it wouldn't get if it was independent," a spokesman said.

The SNP counters that, even if an independent Scotland was in deficit, it would simply borrow money on international markets as the UK does.

For more than a century, Scotland has received a greater share of money than its population would indicate. The Executive has long defended this, saying the greater role of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and greater deprivation demands more spending.

But the subsidy - which was just �1,055 per head in 1997-98 - is becoming increasingly controversial in England, where a growing number of MPs want a new system for dividing government funds across the UK.

State spending in Scotland is next year forecast to soar to �51.6 billion - or 52.2 per cent of the national economy. This is not only higher than the UK's 45.2 per cent, but also any country in the developed world save Sweden, Denmark and France.

But the tax revenue for Scotland in 2003 - the last full year where figures are available - shows Scotland has the seventh lowest tax take among the world's 30 most developed countries.

Under the rules of devolution, the Scottish Executive cannot save money - or even turn down the sums sent from the Treasury each year. Its annual budget increase is decided by a system known as the Barnett Formula.

Related topics

Government spending
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=469

Well it appears that an English rose has settled that arguement,as all the feel good for a day anti-union mob disappear up their own orifices,when presented with fact,perhaps the hero of the hour McCrone can help,thought not.

Even the English aren't too impressed with 'Wee Dougie. See the comment in the times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1764094.ece

English Bob of Renfrew: -
May I suggest that before you put pen to paper (metaphorically) again on the subject of subsidies, you take the time to read the McCrone report and the recent paper by Niall Aslen � �The Great Deception�. Such an approach will keep your foot out of your mouth.

Bella Houstoun: -
Glad to see you�ve read the report, but why did you not do so before the election. Now make sure that you circulate it among your friends and family.

english rose, an english country garden: -
When you�ve read both the papers indicated above, perhaps you will have the good manners to return to apologise the Scottish Nation.

English Rose, if you look carefully you'll see your story is eighteen months old. Of course your money is gratefully received, I often wipe my arrrrse with your shiny new �20 notes when I run out Unionist newspapers.

Wee fat boab wrote:
Well it appears that an English rose has settled that arguement,as all the feel good for a day anti-union mob disappear up their own orifices,when presented with fact,perhaps the hero of the hour McCrone can help,thought not.

Nonsense.
All tax raised in Scotland through companies with their HQs in London is counted as English tax.
Scotland subsidies England.

Jack McConnell wrote:

Wee fat boab wrote: Well it appears that an English rose has settled that arguement,as all the feel good for a day anti-union mob disappear up their own orifices,when presented with fact,perhaps the hero of the hour McCrone can help,thought not.
Nonsense. All tax raised in Scotland through companies with their HQs in London is counted as English tax. Scotland subsidies England.

"subsidises"

"As for all these legal challenges, what rights do lawyers have of seeing and identifying individual voters?"

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 they have no right to see the ballot paper of individuals, let alone identifying them.

Even in the event of Data Subject Access Request, I would believe that the individual voter has no right to see the ballot paper. The ballot paper may contain a number that identifies the voter but that is not enough for it to be released under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Hopefully any legal challange will be thrown out on its ear.

Mike Dailly might think he has a case but personally I think he is deluded.

It is also worth mentioning that Mike Dailly from the Govan Law Centre, that organisation gots funding from the Scottish Executive and that a New Labour Politican sits on the board of trustees as its secretary.

So much for independence, seems there is a possible case of possible conflict of interest and vested interest.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

English Bob said:

Isn't that obvious,I am here subsidising you.

Erm, no. You are whittling away hours and days of your lonely life Trolling on Internet web sites as an outlet for your aggression. It is the modern equivalent of shadow boxing.

Not a healthy occupation, not a healthy occupation at all.

English Bob has already said that he only sees the Scots, whether pro or anti union, as "subsidy junkies". Ergo he has nothing else to say.leo

Just a small point but I think relevant none the less.

What should have also been taken into account is the number of adults in this country who are unable to read or write and who were handed a voting paper that would in no way have been easy for them to understand. Simple enough for those of us on this board but not so for some unfortunate others. Had they been given a single sheet of paper that only required them to put an X beside a symbol or name they recognised I think the number of papers wasted may have been reduced somewhat.

leowoman wrote:
English Bob has already said that he only sees the Scots, whether pro or anti union, as \"subsidy junkies\". Ergo he has nothing else to say.leo

If you must post at least post fact,English Bob applauded the SNP for having the courage to want to go it alone.It was the others that he slated as subsidie junkies.The subsidy story may be months old so what the McCrone report is lost in the mists of time.Agree or disagree with his statements and I happen to question them,but I can't find anything to contradict the essence of his posts.Pretending that there is no substance to them benefits no one,better to find a way to rectify matters.

I had hoped that co-operation and goodwill would have been the starting point to address the needs of the Scottish nation instead of selfish posturing. We want to see collaboration in spite of ideological differences, a focus on the main things in common regarding policies instead of backroom deals from Westminster trying to undermine not just the SNP but Scotlands democratic right to be governed by the party selected. Westminster fears a referendum and will do everything within its power not to allow the Scottish people a "right" to vote one way or another. How can they object to a multi questioned referendum that may come down on staying within the Union anyway and resolve the problem for many years hence. What right has any party to deny us this right! What lengths of Machiavellian scheming will they stretch to. By holding back from dialogue the Libdems are saying "To hell with Scotlands priority of needing a stable situation for government, our own views/needs come first!" Let the Scottish people take note! As for Labour - pathetic does't begin to describe them. They shame themselves!!! It proves that any party with Task masters in Westminster cannot be trusted to act faithfully for the best interests of our Great Nation. Scotland deserves better than this! Scotland will not forget!!!