danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I believe the exact quote was "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead." Whether by that he meant the SNP or the desire for independence isn't clear, but on both counts he was clearly wrong.
Will you vote for independence?
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The vast majority of the public debate is. I've had abuse from mindless Unionist morons (some of it downright weird), but in any crowd you get a handful of mindless morons.
What amuses me is that one day Darling complains about being "monstered" by the Yes side, which he clarified as meaning being "consistently negative" about Unionists. (He was specifically talking about criticism of the Barrhead Travel email).
The next day, his mate Lord Robertson literally calls the Yes side monsters, implying we are "Demons".
Robertson said that "the forces of darkness would simply love" Scottish independence. He made explicit links with Basque terrorism, going on to say "Basque extremists" are watching the referendum campaign with "undisguised interest" and that "I contend that it is far from scaremongering to use the term Balkanization to predict what might happen if Scotland were to break from its 300-year-old union". Talking specifically about the Balkan conflict, he predicts in Scotland "a tragedy with incalculable consequences."
He drew comparisons with the American Civil War, mentioning "rivers of blood", and then asserted that "the Northern Irish... would see a reappearance of old demons".
"It would be cataclysmic for Scotland to become independent, it would aid the forces of darkness, it would threaten the stability of the western world".
Now, that's more than "negative". It's far more of a "monstering" than criticism of the Barrhead Travel email. No Yes camp figure described Bill Munro in anything like those terms (demon, giving succour to the forces of darkness, fostering terrorism, leading to a cataclysm). It's also deluded nonsense. There is no ethnic cleansing dimension. There will be no bloodbath. The only "cataclysm" will be that Lord Robertson loses his House of Lords perks and allowances.
(He is also, incidentally, on the Board of Directors of the Weir Group, which, oh what a surprise, made a statement critical of independence just after Robertson was drafted into the Better Together campaign as part of "Team Labour").
The media consistently gives credence to the No camp smears of Yes campaigners, but Better Together don't seem to have to answer for either their fringe nutters or the deluded language right at the heart of their campaign.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Turns out the Unionist side is embarrassed by George. He went too far. The Record is comparing him to Private Frazer in Dad’s Army.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Salmond and Sturgeon are both on record several times as saying that a No vote would mean the end of the matter for "a generation". (Which we can take as meaning about 25 years).
If you compare it with devolution. The 79 referendum was won for Yes by a simple majority (at 51.6%), but not by enough to meet the 40% rule (that 40% of Scotland's total registered electorate had to vote Yes, although no Westminster government since 1955 has had a simple majority, never mind meet a 40% quorum!). However, the issue was laid low until the 1997 referendum.
However, I think we can safely say that the subsequent 18 years of Tory government is what led to the strong pro devolution vote in 1997 (74.3% for question one, "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament").
We might find a similar rise in support for independence if a lengthy period of Westminster austerity follows a No vote (as it would, whoever wins the 2015 general election); No voters might well begin to "kick themselves" that being Better Together turns out to mean much the same as being "all in it together".
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
what's your gut feeling about what the result will be mate?
there's no minimum turnout is there?
To be fair neither have said that, they have said its a once in a generation opportunity, meaning simply with the make-up of the Scottish parliament it is likely to be a long time till they have a majority (and thus a mandate to hold a referendum) again. Though that is just prudent politics they are playing the game well is all, like mourinho saying Chelsea won't win the title.
Being that they are a party that's raison d'etre is an independent Scotland and everybody knows this any time they win a majority or are in coalition with a party that also support independence they can hold a referendum, as long as its in their manifesto and possibly even if its not.
IMO independence is inevitable now because of the damage that has been done to the lib dems and labour in Scotland throughout this campaign and also lib dems being in coalition at Westminster, the snp are going to get more majorities soon and if they do we will have another referendum then another then another as many as it takes.
That's how I see it going anyway, quite damaging to Scottish politics for a time but it is already damaged with only the SNP retaining credibility so a necessary evil. Westminster is already broken beyond all repair and totally irrelevant up here and devo-max is a sham, so independence is becoming the only viable option we have left and people are starting to realise it. I only hope enough realise it first time to save us a lot of turmoil, and oil revenues.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No minimum turn out, no.
If you read this thread back from the beginning, you'll see I was calling it for No right up until about a month or so ago. Now I'm not so sure. I think there's a good chance Yes will scrape it. The polls are still saying No is in front, but all around me I'm seeing previous undecideds going for Yes. That's just my experience, but if that's a real trend, and if the majority of undecideds do opt for Yes, then Yes wins.
Look at it this way: Eddie Izzard backs Better Together (and did a benefit gig for them in Edinburgh last Friday, which was not sold out). Eddie backed Ken Livingstone against Boris in 2008 (donating thousands to the Labour Party). He backed Labour in the 2010 general election. He backed the AV Yes campaign. He's a fair barometer of who will lose.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
And I think that's a fair bet, too.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes.doesn't the better together campaign include both tory and labour? well that's gonna go well
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Robertson has both insulted and threatened Yes voters
Published on 9 April 2014
Ian Bell
It was once said of the Brookings Institution that "if think tanks themselves were countries, Brookings would have aircraft carriers".
Among those who ponder policy for a living, the organisation based on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue is as big and as influential as they come. Nice to see it spares some thoughts for Scotland.
In point of fact, Brookings has called on Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, former stalwart of Nato, new Labour and the GMB union, to fill in any gaps in its knowledge of the north European Atlantic fringes. Specifically, the peer who once said devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead" was asked for thoughts on a referendum hereabouts on September 18. If he was taken seriously, the Pentagon has just gone to defcon one.
We have established, I think, that some people believe independence for Scotland would be a bad idea. We know there are those who deplore the idea that the United Kingdom could be reduced to a rump. We've all heard of patriots who despise any version of nationalism that isn't the British variety. What we hadn't yet encountered was a case against independence that could make The Day the Earth Stood Still sound pedestrian. Other Unionists make do with routine prophecies of doom. Lord Robertson will settle for nothing less than a "cataclysm", up to (and not necessarily excluding) the fall of the West. On this reading, Yes voters could put the entire world order at risk. Who knew?
Lest you think I'm joking, what Lord George said was this: "The loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the West to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms." Someone will no doubt be along shortly to call that a positive case for the Union. For now, it makes you wonder just what was going through Lord Robertson's mind when he was Nato's secretary general or, for that matter, the minister responsible for the UK's nuclear weapons. This is how he saw the world and Britain's place in it?
Apparently so. The peer, who among other things serves the Washington-based Cohen Group in "providing advice to corporate leadership", also said: "If the United Kingdom was to face a split at this of all times and find itself embroiled for several years in a torrid, complex, difficult and debilitating divorce, it would rob the West of a serious partner just when solidity and cool nerves are going to be vital. Nobody should underestimate the effect all of that would have on existing global balances and the forces of darkness would simply love it."
Let's be clear. The Brookings Institution is a very serious outfit, one accustomed to hearing serious ideas proposed by some of the finest minds available. On this occasion, presumably due to a booking mix-up, it heard the suggestion that those who vote for independence will ally themselves with "the forces of darkness". Vladimir Putin? Al Qaeda? The makers of Britain's Got Talent?
Britain's got Lord Robertson. You could almost sympathise. The veteran Atlanticist, who long ago forgot to distinguish between loyalty to the United States and any local ties, wants us to believe, first, that the UK's military power is significant; secondly, that it could be lost entirely if 8.5% of the population exercise a right to self-determination. Then he wants Americans to buy the idea that this deserves to be called a cataclysm.
If he means every word, there is a streak of authentic paranoia running through Lord Robertson's analysis. It falls to him, it seems, to tell Scots and Catalans and Belgians how to run their affairs. If they refuse to obey, only chaos and cataclysm await. The "forces of darkness" line would be a nasty enough jibe were it not so hilarious, but that isn't the end of it.
There is, for example, the ugly suggestion that "the Northern Irish who would see a reappearance of old demons" if Scotland voted for independence. There is the creepy innuendo provided by yoking together the First World War centenary with the possible "fragmentation of Europe" to provide "an irony and a tragedy with incalculable consequences". All this because you feel entitled to a country you can call your own?
One consequence of independence, easily calculable, would be an end to the posturing of Lord Robertson and other pensioners from the military-industrial complex. He turns his rhetorical amplifier up to 11 for a reason. His is language typical of the people who turned the effort to curb terrorism into a perpetual war in which any excuse, even a democratic referendum in a small country, will do. His is also the language of those who fear that losing an argument means losing control.
Lord Robertson, this Scot within the British establishment, still sees his country in terms as old as the Union: we are needed to make up the military numbers. He doesn't waste time with those "positive contributions" or bonds of affection. In essence, he is accusing Scots of letting the side down just by contemplating a reduction in London's power. And by London's power he means the power to assist Washington whenever required.
The peer isn't just inveighing against nationalism. He is speaking out, so he believes, on behalf of the global order he has served through most of his career. His is the dispensation that gave us Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo and GCHQ. Lord Robertson is front and centre among those who maintain Scotland as a repository of WMD. Yet he denounces a few million Yes voters as the tools of "our enemies". So much power in a few ballot papers. Nevertheless, fantastic as the language is, his lordship manages to be both genuinely insulting and threatening. It turns out that those Yes voters handing out leaflets on street corners and arguing in village halls risk "giving the dictators, the persecutors, the oppressors, the annexers, the aggressors and the adventurers across the planet the biggest pre-Christmas present of their lives".
It's less a red scare than a blue and white saltire-effect scare. Against stiff competition, it counts as the most lurid, demented peroration a Unionist has managed thus far. The search for this month's winner in the referendum shocker stakes can be called off. Lord George has won the rosette, the certificate, and the chance to audition for the Dr Strangelove remake.
It's quite a bomb he's dropped. Unfortunately for him, all the casualties will be on his own side. An argument for the Union surely has to stay somewhere within the vicinity of plausibility. The idea that the Western alliance depends on Scotland's contribution to the UK's diminishing contribution is liable to cause hollow laughter in the White House and the Pentagon. It will certainly cause hilarity in every other quarter.
One tip for Lord Robertson and his kind: you'll never be able to deal with the demand for self-determination, chaps, if you don't make even a wee effort to understand it. We understand you only too well, after all. If comedy night at Brookings was a guide, you're just not trying. And that is funny.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobil...h-insulted-and-threatened-yes-voters.23909371
Published on 9 April 2014
Ian Bell
It was once said of the Brookings Institution that "if think tanks themselves were countries, Brookings would have aircraft carriers".
Among those who ponder policy for a living, the organisation based on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue is as big and as influential as they come. Nice to see it spares some thoughts for Scotland.
In point of fact, Brookings has called on Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, former stalwart of Nato, new Labour and the GMB union, to fill in any gaps in its knowledge of the north European Atlantic fringes. Specifically, the peer who once said devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead" was asked for thoughts on a referendum hereabouts on September 18. If he was taken seriously, the Pentagon has just gone to defcon one.
We have established, I think, that some people believe independence for Scotland would be a bad idea. We know there are those who deplore the idea that the United Kingdom could be reduced to a rump. We've all heard of patriots who despise any version of nationalism that isn't the British variety. What we hadn't yet encountered was a case against independence that could make The Day the Earth Stood Still sound pedestrian. Other Unionists make do with routine prophecies of doom. Lord Robertson will settle for nothing less than a "cataclysm", up to (and not necessarily excluding) the fall of the West. On this reading, Yes voters could put the entire world order at risk. Who knew?
Lest you think I'm joking, what Lord George said was this: "The loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the West to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms." Someone will no doubt be along shortly to call that a positive case for the Union. For now, it makes you wonder just what was going through Lord Robertson's mind when he was Nato's secretary general or, for that matter, the minister responsible for the UK's nuclear weapons. This is how he saw the world and Britain's place in it?
Apparently so. The peer, who among other things serves the Washington-based Cohen Group in "providing advice to corporate leadership", also said: "If the United Kingdom was to face a split at this of all times and find itself embroiled for several years in a torrid, complex, difficult and debilitating divorce, it would rob the West of a serious partner just when solidity and cool nerves are going to be vital. Nobody should underestimate the effect all of that would have on existing global balances and the forces of darkness would simply love it."
Let's be clear. The Brookings Institution is a very serious outfit, one accustomed to hearing serious ideas proposed by some of the finest minds available. On this occasion, presumably due to a booking mix-up, it heard the suggestion that those who vote for independence will ally themselves with "the forces of darkness". Vladimir Putin? Al Qaeda? The makers of Britain's Got Talent?
Britain's got Lord Robertson. You could almost sympathise. The veteran Atlanticist, who long ago forgot to distinguish between loyalty to the United States and any local ties, wants us to believe, first, that the UK's military power is significant; secondly, that it could be lost entirely if 8.5% of the population exercise a right to self-determination. Then he wants Americans to buy the idea that this deserves to be called a cataclysm.
If he means every word, there is a streak of authentic paranoia running through Lord Robertson's analysis. It falls to him, it seems, to tell Scots and Catalans and Belgians how to run their affairs. If they refuse to obey, only chaos and cataclysm await. The "forces of darkness" line would be a nasty enough jibe were it not so hilarious, but that isn't the end of it.
There is, for example, the ugly suggestion that "the Northern Irish who would see a reappearance of old demons" if Scotland voted for independence. There is the creepy innuendo provided by yoking together the First World War centenary with the possible "fragmentation of Europe" to provide "an irony and a tragedy with incalculable consequences". All this because you feel entitled to a country you can call your own?
One consequence of independence, easily calculable, would be an end to the posturing of Lord Robertson and other pensioners from the military-industrial complex. He turns his rhetorical amplifier up to 11 for a reason. His is language typical of the people who turned the effort to curb terrorism into a perpetual war in which any excuse, even a democratic referendum in a small country, will do. His is also the language of those who fear that losing an argument means losing control.
Lord Robertson, this Scot within the British establishment, still sees his country in terms as old as the Union: we are needed to make up the military numbers. He doesn't waste time with those "positive contributions" or bonds of affection. In essence, he is accusing Scots of letting the side down just by contemplating a reduction in London's power. And by London's power he means the power to assist Washington whenever required.
The peer isn't just inveighing against nationalism. He is speaking out, so he believes, on behalf of the global order he has served through most of his career. His is the dispensation that gave us Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo and GCHQ. Lord Robertson is front and centre among those who maintain Scotland as a repository of WMD. Yet he denounces a few million Yes voters as the tools of "our enemies". So much power in a few ballot papers. Nevertheless, fantastic as the language is, his lordship manages to be both genuinely insulting and threatening. It turns out that those Yes voters handing out leaflets on street corners and arguing in village halls risk "giving the dictators, the persecutors, the oppressors, the annexers, the aggressors and the adventurers across the planet the biggest pre-Christmas present of their lives".
It's less a red scare than a blue and white saltire-effect scare. Against stiff competition, it counts as the most lurid, demented peroration a Unionist has managed thus far. The search for this month's winner in the referendum shocker stakes can be called off. Lord George has won the rosette, the certificate, and the chance to audition for the Dr Strangelove remake.
It's quite a bomb he's dropped. Unfortunately for him, all the casualties will be on his own side. An argument for the Union surely has to stay somewhere within the vicinity of plausibility. The idea that the Western alliance depends on Scotland's contribution to the UK's diminishing contribution is liable to cause hollow laughter in the White House and the Pentagon. It will certainly cause hilarity in every other quarter.
One tip for Lord Robertson and his kind: you'll never be able to deal with the demand for self-determination, chaps, if you don't make even a wee effort to understand it. We understand you only too well, after all. If comedy night at Brookings was a guide, you're just not trying. And that is funny.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobil...h-insulted-and-threatened-yes-voters.23909371
I don't as I said, also because of defections from the other parties to the SNP which have already started, they are winning the argument.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
sorry, I should have said it's a fair bet if No wins. I'm not so sure now that No will win.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Robertson's "analysis" is deranged. It is frightening that he was the NATO chief. If that's the quality of their analysis, then it's no wonder they're always at war.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
How long before we get Cameron saying things like oh I don't know Selkirk has always been an eternal part of England etc?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Watch his breakfast table for toasted bannock with marmalade. That'll be the start of it.How long before we get Cameron saying things like oh I don't know Selkirk has always been an eternal part of England etc?
Me neither, I'm the same as you have started to think recently yes have a real chance of winning.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Didn't Sir Walter Scott write the great English novel, after all?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
danny la rouge This may be a stupid question as well but is it 100% certain that the UK government will accept the result? I know that sort of thing is usually more associated with developing countries but you never know ...
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
My psychologist said he's noticing a lot more folk going to yes on his FB, I'm not noticing it as I know only a handful of no voters as it is. You keep hearing in the press about Labour councillor/ex councillors going public for yes, you never read it the other way round.
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
Legally they HAVE to. They(no-one is) are not allowed to interfere in a country's right to self determination iirc. Hubby isn't here so can't ask him what law it is, but I think he said it was some international law.
Shameful, from the man who is refusing to debate salmond cause "its a matter for the people of Scotland to decide".
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
cameron just doesn't want to go down in history as the PM who oversaw the break up of the Union. Cos it'll make him look a right mug.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
hasn't exactly stopped other countries in the past though.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Well, there is the Edinburgh Agreement 2012 in which Cameron says he will accept the result. But there are opinions that say there's nothing to stop him going back on that.
Similar threads
