And another thing…

Personally I think there are plenty of constitutional issues that are interesting.

Take your interest in transport for instance. Due to devolution you cant vote on transport issues that affect your own constituency as transport is a devolved issue handled by MSPs. You can of course influence transport in England – where no-one voted for you and no-one can vote you out. Same for health, and education, and culture and so on and on.

Perhaps you’re lack of interest in constitutional matters stems from not wanting to talk about the glaring injustice of the West Lothian Question?

It makes me very angry reading a post like this.

In terms of tackling poverty on your own door step, the Labour party in Glasgow have failed miserably. And the same for Scotland as a whole.

Scotland has been in the grip of Labour for decades and in that time the grip of poverty in Scotland has increased.

Scotland has the worst poverty in western europe and that it the legacy of our place in this ridiculous constitutional freak show of the UK.

I really think independence is coming and I desire it very much because it is the only thing that is going to free us up to actually do something about the poverty in this country.

And also, the break up of the UK will be wonderful for finally deflating the Great British ego so that England also might be able to stop wasting its resources on WOMDs and illegal wars and start using them to deal with its own serious problems with poverty.

I find the hypocrisy of Scottish Labour people really bizarre. I really think you’ve lost sight of – well, everything.

Bottom line: you guys favour trident, favoured the war in Iraq – favoured all of that over the fight against poverty.

The SNP didn’t and don’t.

Hmm… no, not really. I just find the whole thing a bit dull.

“transport, for instance”

Ah yes, transport is a European Union competance.

So when are you standing as MEP

Can we knock this poverty argument on its head please?

On the whole the poor have got better off under Labour: the likes of the minimum wage and tax credits have improved the lot of most poor people. SO ABSOLUTE poverty has decreased.

However, and my 2nd biggest criticism of Labour (after following Bush into Iraq) is that the rich have got even richer. So RELATIVE poverty has increased.

To reiterate

ABSOLUTE Poverty down
RELATIVE Poverty up

Relative poverty is important and a social democratic and previously occasionally socialist party should have done a hell of a lot more to tackle it.

But I sincerely believe that many of those who quote figures about poverty increasing genuinely do not realise that most poor people are better off, and the working poor significantly so.

I also think that no major party, nor the SNP (with its low tax, lite-regulation tiger), is offering to tackle relative poverty.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to label the party of Government’s Conference a “hate fest” and then apologise, not for making that insulting description, but for merely talking about that party at all.

Sort yourself out Tom.

It’s true, I am gifted with a special kind of arrogance.

But surely you, Jeff, as one of the decent nats, can admit that Salmond’s schadenfreud moment at the 2005 conference, and the audience’s gratuitous cheering at Watson’s sentence, was hardly the behaviour of a moderate “nice” party?

An airport link, so vital, that in all the years that Labour has been in power in Glasgow and Renfrewshire Councils, Holyrood and Westminster, they did precisely nothing about it.

Perhaps if your colleagues in Holyrood hadn’t been so determined to make a political point out of forcing the benighted Edinburgh tram system on the new SNP government, there would still have been money left for GARL.

Just you keep sticking your head in the sand, Tommy old boy. That way you won’t see Labour being swept away next year.

Tom – what you write about IS interesting to the rest of us in what is still the UK. I am very much a unionist since I believe that, despite certain imbalances , Scotland and England have – to use a biological term – a symbiotic relationship and I am concerned that the SNP are out to break that union. I don’t trust Alex Salmond who I feel is not concerned about independence for Scotland but power for Alex Salmond ….

I agree that that is not a nice thing to say or do.

I do not think however that it qualifies the party as ‘hateful’.

“…or when they casually cancel a vital airport link on the basis that it’s in Glasgow”

I think you’ll find that the only new part of GARL was to have been built going through St James Playing Fields in Paisley. Not Glasgow. Paisley. Where reaction to GARL was at best mixed.

But as others have said surely many of the matters you say are more important relate to devolved issues and thus the SNP Government rather than the constitution/devolution/indepedence per se?

Or are such Holyrood matters considered off-limits for Westminster MPs, even in the context of a blog?

Or do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post?

Lara
I really think independence is coming and I desire it very much because it is the only thing that is going to free us up to actually do something about the poverty in this country.
*********************************************

Think it through. How will independence ‘free us up’? What can Scotland miraculously do as an independent nation that it somehow can’t do now. Other than go the IMF for a bailout rather than SE England taxpayers.

And as for Chris upon Thames.

Let me tell you something about absolute and relative poverty. If you have 5.5 million not wishing to work and being allowed not to work, no political system on earth is going to make them wealthier relative than people who do wish to work.

Instead of trotting out tired old socialist guff, do a bit of thinking.

Independence for Scotland – just in time for Scotland to be subsumed by the EU, or would the Nats be committed to withdrawal?

You might find it dull but it since an increasing number of your constituents are voting SNP you are going to have to develop an interest if you want to keep your job.

Sammy asks what can Scotland do as an independent nation that it can’t do now?

Er. Everything.

>> Scotland has the worst poverty in western europe and that it the legacy of our place in this ridiculous constitutional freak show of the UK.

I’m not denying there is grinding poverty, but where does this claim of the worst poverty in Western Europe come from? Last month it was that Glasgow East had a worse life-expectancy of Lithuania.

>> And also, the break up of the UK will be wonderful for finally deflating the Great British ego so that England also might be able to stop wasting its resources on WOMDs and illegal wars and start using them to deal with its own serious problems with poverty.

Oh grow up. Half the Labour party was against the invasion of Iraq. Ain’t you lucky to have found one MP who supported it so “armchair fascist appeasers” like yourself can carry on screeching about a war which they barely made a dent in and which has been over for four years, at least.

Well for this Little Englander, much more interesting would be your views on the West Lothian question, Tom.

Alec

Labour were the government who brought us into the war in Iraq. They are responsible for that atrocity. The blood is on their hands.

I only remember one Labour MP resigning as a result of being against it, Robin Cook, and honour will be associated with his name forever.

As for the rest… I can’t think of any Labour MP who was against that war who demonstrated their oppsotion to it ala Robin Cook. So there are no excuses.

And spare me the insults, for goodness sake. I wasn’t armchair bound in my personal opposition to the war but took to the streets alongside millions the world over who were outraged by our government’s actions. It wasn’t much, but what else to do when the government you voted for bulldoze over your good faith like that.

I’ll never vote for Labour again because of that.

Alec,

The war in Iraq did not finish four years ago.

The body count is currently about 13 people per day dying from bombs and gun attacks.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Note also that most of the casualites of allied air raids and attacks have been women and children.

I repeat: most of the casualities in this war killed by the US and British have been women and children.

You can google this stuff easily:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-air-raids-hit-mostly-women-and-children-1669282.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/5161326/Number-of-women-and-children-killed-in-Iraq-air-raids-disproportionately-high.html

>> Er. Everything.

Paint her hair bright blue?

Idiot.

>> The war in Iraq did not finish four years ago.

Some think it finished six years ago. Think about what I said very carefully. It would be difficult to deny that *violence* was continuing, but the war was declared finished four years ago whether you care to admit to it or not.

It’s pretty rich to brand the invasion “illegal” (are you qualified in supra-national law? No, you are not), and then gloss over this point.

>> The body count is currently about 13 people per day dying from bombs and gun attacks.

Every day 26,000 people die across the world, often through violence or preventable disease. And you’re obsessing about 13 being killed by Europeans.

Now you’re appealing to Joe Sloboba who was the victim of the full fury of deranged, malevolent Stalinist thugs ‘cos he wasn’t reporting a high enough death-toll.

His opposition to the invasion was one based on *principle*. The moment you claimed “illegality”, the onus fell on you to demonstrate you held this as well and were not an lunatic who has become unhinged by Iraq and has spent six years screaming at Blair ‘cos he didn’t bend to your will.

Having submitted yourself to the pack, you absolutely loath Blair for not doing the same.

>> I repeat: most of the casualities in this war killed by the US and British have been women and children.

Most of the casualties in a lot of wars are women and children. What’s so special about this one?

>> You can google this stuff easily

Googling for facts and figures is to be considered a worthless endeavour. You gave me two links out of, what?, the 100,000 you received. I detect bias, both in your choice of search criteria and in your selection of data.

But, if you insist. The articles refer to the same report. How many people have been killed by Coalition air-raids? Forty-six per cent of 50 deaths would be 23, which does not make much of a case.

I repeat, how many civilian deaths are you accusing Tom of being responsible for? No, don’t give the figures quoted in the articles. Those refer to *total* deaths since 2003, which have overwhelmingly been caused by the same people opposing the invasion.

Thus, the invasion and post-invasion forces – which was justified by Saddam Hussein’s continued violation of binding UN resolutions, and has been accepted by UN councils and the democratically elected Iraqi government can be argued to be opposing the sort of lunatic who kills children accepting sweets from Americans, or uses children as decoys when driving in bombs.

Plus, d’you think I didn’t notice how you have turned most of the dead into non-people (as they weren’t being killed by American and British troops)?

From one article:

>> The study found that 19,706 of the victims, or 33 per cent, were abducted and killed execution-style, with nearly a third of those showing signs of torture such as bruises, drill holes or burns.

>> That compared with 16,922, or 27 per cent, who died in bombings, most of them in suicide attacks.

That is, killed by other Iraqis/Muslims. But you cannot even acknowledge this.

>> And spare me the insults, for goodness sake.

You de-person tens of thousands of Iraqis ‘cos they weren’t killed by Europeans, thus allowing you the thrill of declaring your opposition to this, and they have the nerve to demand respect???

>> As for the rest… I can’t think of any Labour MP who was against that war who demonstrated their oppsotion to it ala Robin Cook. So there are no excuses.

Dozens and dozens of MPs voted against the invasion. What are you talking about? I can think of that junior minister who resigned his position, and Brian Sedgemore who left the Labour Party altogether.

Your argument fails.

Nigel “In a Romp” Griffiths supported the invasion, but resigned over Trident. Will you allow him the status of a human being?

>> I wasn’t armchair bound in my personal opposition to the war but took to the streets alongside millions the world over who were outraged by our government’s actions. It wasn’t much,

You’re right. It was naff all. One jolly jaunt on a fine early spring morning, with hot food and warm clothing, and then home again.

If you had half the moral courage you claim to, you would have offered to live under the Ba’athists (demise of which, despite all of what’s happened, a majority of Iraqis *continue* to see as beneficial). But you didn’t, thus making your as much of an “armchair fascist appeaser” as you accuse me and Tom of being culpable for Arab-on-Arab violence (see how silly you sound?).

>> but what else to do when the government you voted for bulldoze over your good faith like that.

I am not and never have been a member of the Labour party, and never have voted Labour.

>> I’ll never vote for Labour again because of that.

They’re slashing their wrists already. Any defeat in 2010 is not going to be down to that. If it were, they would have been voted out in 2005 when emotions were still raw.

It must really, really, *really* rile you that most Britons simply don’t care about your obsessions.

You are a moral blackhole, and I am embarrassed to have marched alongside goons like you.

>> Every day 26,000 people die across the world, often through violence or preventable disease. And you’re obsessing about 13 being killed by Europeans.

My John Bercow moment, I think. Those “bombs and gun attacks” are unlikely to be the work of British or American troops, yet Lara goes on to specify the “disproportiate” killing of women and children by those actors.

What a dishonest person.

Pffwwwwhiiiif

And there goes Alec disappearing up his own backside.

That’s the trouble with the internet. Full of loonies.

And not all of them are cybernats, eh Tom?

Alec’s one of your crowd. An avid unionist. Perhaps even typical.

>> As for the rest… I can’t think of any Labour MP who was against that war who demonstrated their oppsotion to it ala Robin Cook. So there are no excuses.

Your name vill alzo go on ze little book… vhat ist it?

Don’t tell him, Pike!

I’ve stopped bothering to respond to most of Tom’s posts, the last few in particular; yes, some SNP supporters have gone over the line every now and then, just as some Labour supporters do. But the party as a whole has backed away from them or criticised them (not, say, allowed the Attorney General to carry on in her job when she’s a criminal)…
But Sammy here asks a pertinent question I truly feel the SNP have not responded to adequately:
“What can Scotland miraculously do as an independent nation that it somehow can’t do now[?]”

The party haven’t done enough to show people what life in an independent Scotland would be like, and what sort of “settlement” would be hoped for with Westminster after a successful plebiscite.

For starters, we could start putting all the oil money we possibly can into a fund a la Norway’s (which incidentally is now the largest “savings account” in the world, being somewhat larger than Norway’s entire GDP, even after they dipped into it for this minor recession they’ve had (as opposed to the colossal meltdown we’ve experienced in comparison)…
Another good one: we could abandon the stupid idea of allowing private mail deliveries. In an independent Scotland, the only mail carrier could be the Scottish Mail Service. No free rides for TNT to deliver a bulkload to the local sorting office, skimming all the profits and allowing the PO to cary the can for the last mile under the universal service. And no, I’m not happy about the Government awarding the contract to TNT, but sadlyLabour have made things so tight with the budget, and screwed up the postal system so much, the Government here must make the best decision in terms of taxpayers, not Westminster-run agencies, even if a lot of the affected workers are in Scotland.

Another goody: we could stop paying our share of the new Trident system. It’ll apparently be about £100 Billion, and Scotland makes up roughly 10% of the population, so we’ll assume for arguments sake there’s another £10 Billion in NHS funding, or maybe scrapping student loans, or building an airport link or five. Oh, and it’s off-topic here, but isn’t it great how hypocrites like Willie Bain talk about supporting tuition fees when they themselves paid none. Won’t hold my breath out for him to refund us all on principle. Did you pay fees Tom?

>> Another good one: we could abandon the stupid idea of allowing private mail deliveries. In an independent Scotland, the only mail carrier could be the Scottish Mail Service.

You cruel, cruel person. I have a wife and kids and mortgage… am I an enemy of the workers?

People in Glasgow South are not going to vote on the basis of Iraq. It will be at the back of their minds but it won’t decide their vote. Neither will they vote on the basis of their constitutional preferences, though that will also be at the back of their minds. What they will vote on is a whole range of issues from council tax to policing to the NHS, jobs, pensions, anti socal behaviour, housing, why on earth the bankers should still be getting millions of pounds worth of bonuses when they have screwed up so spectacularly, schools, whether Megrahi should have been released, bus services, how often their bins get emptied,dog fouling and so on. They will be able to compare and contrast how well an SNP Government in Scotland has represented their values and interests with how well a Labour Government in London has – and how well a Labour Council in Glasgow has. And they will also no doubt consider who will be best placed to defend those values and interests when, as seems likely, the Tories get back into power.

>> yes, some SNP supporters have gone over the line every now and then, just as some Labour supporters do.

In my experience, saying, “we’re not perfect but what about them?” is the tactic of a cheat who’s lost the argument and is trying to win through default (cf. Salmond’s “I’m not whiter than white”).

>> But the party as a whole has backed away from them or criticised them [...]

I’m not sure who said that, as all I can see in this room is a stonking great big elephant. Where has the party, as a whole, backed away? The cheer at Wilson’s conviction was not from a nat pub-room… it was from the *party* *conference*.

It’s not just a question of minions, in the comments boxes, it’s one of the angry brigade being put into positions of authority.

The likes of Michael Russell or Shona Robison, who weren’t even born in Scotland. Entirely serious calls to ‘return’ Berwick, or for ‘bi-lingual’ food labels. That hilarious effort to present Salmond as a potential UNSG.

Anne “Happy Snappy” McLaughlin’s choice of posting handle which points to a worrying fixation.

Salmond’s, himself, cry for the haggis to the death. Or his threat to throw his rattle out the pram ‘cos he couldn’t muscle his way into a PM debate. Or his turning the Diageo affair into a rant about “London boardrooms” (just as that little reactionary, Lara, doesn’t seem to be aware… or care… that there’s urban deprivation in England as well).

In short, his complete inability to admit to a single error of judgement.

>> (not, say, allowed the Attorney General to carry on in her job when she’s a criminal)…

I have made clear, before, my views on this, but so what? It’s not like using tax-payers’ money to finance a party political project set up by an Islamist SNP PPC.

>> Another good one

>> Another goody:

If you say so. Once more, introducing unrelated information is a sign of someone who’s floundering.

>> For starters, we could start putting all the oil money we possibly can into a fund a la Norway’s (which incidentally is now the largest “savings account” in the world, being somewhat larger than Norway’s entire GDP, even after they dipped into it for this minor recession they’ve had (as opposed to the colossal meltdown we’ve experienced in comparison)

Norway =/= Scotland. For a start, Norway didn’t have the avaricious bankers who helped create this mess (Iceland did, which is maybe why you didn’t mention her). Also, drop the chavenistic cant about it being “our” oil… there is something in a country called “sharing”, and it was “shared” with the rest of the UK.

If you really must call for the ‘return’ of Scottish oil, I hope you have a business plan for repaying all the money invested in the NHS or post-war regeneration (as these were a “shared” project, the per capita 10% from Scotland would have been unlikely to be sufficient to kick-start a scheme in only Scotland).

Countries such as Norway or Finland or Latvia are commonly cited. I wonder if this includes Norway’s history of social eugenics is included, or Finland’s propensity for gun massacres, or Latvia’s collaboration with the Nazis and residual sympathies.

Or, is it only the nice bits?

>> we could abandon the stupid idea of allowing private mail deliveries. In an independent Scotland, the only mail carrier could be the Scottish Mail Service.

Um, why? If a state-owned service ain’t working, it should either wisen-up or close-down – not have an analogue opened up just to satisfy doctrine (which, considering Salmond’s deals with Trump, is not part of his doctrine).

What makes me giggle about those saying they’d never again use Amazon (for cancelling the deal with the Royal Mail) or lambasting private carriers, is that they’re saying this via the *Internet*. Do they not have to worry about contributing to this lose of RM business?

>> we could stop paying our share of the new Trident system.

Trident is as relevant to this discussion as Iraq was to urban deprivation, i.e. nothing really. Plus, a mere £10 billions in its life-time? D’you know how much the NHS costs *every* *year*?

>> Scotland makes up roughly 10% of the population,

Indeed she does. That would mean, if you were capable of talking about grown-up issues such as the economy, she’d inherit 10% of the national debt (added to considerably by the former pride of the Scottish banking system).

>> Oh, and it’s off-topic here,

You’ve made it so. I think you’re developing the same bad manners as Salmond is you think this gives you credit in continuing, but if you insist:

>> but isn’t it great how hypocrites like Willie Bain talk about supporting tuition fees when they themselves paid none. Won’t hold my breath out for him to refund us all on principle. Did you pay fees Tom?

Checking Wiki, I see Tom is a mere HND graduate from Napier College. Even had he gone to uni, this was at a time when about 15% did. not the 40% now. D’you *know* about finances?

Asking him if how he intended to pay for his sons’ university educations would have been more relevant.

I agree with Indy. I need a lie down.

I like to think that Mr. Harris was doing a spot of fishing with this post and he’s reeled in a few folk. Well done, Tom.

>> And there goes Alec disappearing up his own backside.

Yeah, that’s right. Barge your way onto someone else’s blog, spray the place with wee-wee to satisfy your pathological need for everything to be viewed through the prism of Iraq…

… then when someone responds, come out with more insults. No argument. No politicals/rhetorical points. Just insults.

I note you have still to reveal by what definition you say Scotland has the worst poverty in Western Europe.

The problem with this deranged Iraq-nonsense, is that France and Germany – opponents of the war – also have areas of urban deprivation. France has nuclear weapons.

Your fundamental anti-democratic tendancies reached new pits claimed only Robin Cook had displayed any principle. This was both factually and morally wrong. You would cast the 100+ Labour MPs who voted against the invasion (and, presumably, a goodly part of the Party) out of the tent.

Admit it, you don’t give a hoot about Iraqis. You cannot even mention those who were killed by other Iraqis/Muslims (i.e. 95%+). It’s all about *you*, and how *you* have wiped your conscience clean (for voting for Labour in 2001 and/or 1997).

What have you actually done other than a wee jaunt in February 2003? Like Anne Clywd or Nigel Griffiths, did you display any awareness of Iraqis’ plight before the invasion? Like Harry Barnes, have you joined any Friends of Iraq associations, and worked with trade unionists or charities to bring their country back into a state of normalacy?

Or have you, and I personally, think this is far more like, done diddily-squat and only squealed from the safety of your Western street that Iraqis should have submitted themselves to another 30 years of the Ba’athists?

I repeat, you are a moral blackhole, and the sound we have just heard is of one million anti-fascists turning in their graves.

>> That’s the trouble with the internet. Full of loonies.

Don’t tell him, Pike!

@Lara Wednesday 21 October 2009 at 10:41 pm
//
That’s the trouble with the internet. Full of loonies.
//

Saw a carton a while back which has a bloke hunched over his PC. Shouting to his partner

“I’ll be up soon darling, but there’s somebody wrong on the internet”

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but:

>> we could abandon the stupid idea of allowing private mail deliveries. In an independent Scotland, the only mail carrier could be the Scottish Mail Service.

The SNP supports modernization of the Royal Mail.

And, the funny thing is, Sammy, I didn’t support the invasion either.

Now, who watched Question Time.

Sammy you really boost your case by making fun of Scottish accents. How can they be independent when they can’t even speak properly.

That was really fascinating Alec, thanks.

It’s like reading political commentary from the Beano.

Great job.

Well done.

You’re a child, Lara. An overgrown child.

Indy, awa’ an’ bile yer heid, ye bampot.

“And, the funny thing is, Sammy, I didn’t support the invasion either.”

Not funny, hilarious.

It demonstrates the point at which you completely disappear up your own backside.

Alec: I’m not going to spend too long on this here, I have other things to do and I’m also having the unrivalled joy of what the NHS says is “probably” swine flu, or at the least a nasty cold…

In no particular order:

Scottish Mail Service: yes, the SNP currently supports modernisation to one degree or another of the RM. What would happen, post-independence, to a scottish mail service is another matter. I suspect a more nationalised role would emerge; in the current situation the best solution would be to nip back 20 years and stop the opening of competition. Sadly I’ve misplaced my DeLorean keys…

On the “we’re not perfect but look at them” bit; No party is perfect. Including the SNP, Labour, the Tories, the Lib-Dems, the Greens and any of the minor parties (and that’s without even getting stuck into the even-less-perfect parties like the BNP et al who are an affront to decency). Every group will have it’s share of extremists, liberals, modernists, conservatives etc.
I think a lot of the outrage and subsequent cheering/jeering of Watson’s sentencing was the perception that Labour-affiliated persons can commit crimes that would see us imprisoned and escape with a slap-on-the-wrist (like a certain Baroness). I’m sure such cronyism existed during the Tory years as well, and I suspect in an independent Scotland where the SNP are an elected government in full control, some claims o such favouritism would no doubt surface (although I’d hope they be groundless).
As for your comments on Mike Russell or Shona Robison “who weren’t even born in Scotland”, are you suggesting that such people are not allowed to enter in Scottish politics? Based on their place of birth or race? Dangerous track you’re running there. I myself am an immigrant to Scotland, but it IS my home, and I am committed to working in all of Scotland’s interests, even the ones of people born in England, Wales, Ireland and the rest of the world. I think the best way of doing so is to campaign for freedom from London’s self-obsessed bubble.

On Norway and oil, I mentioned Norway because of it’s wise policy of saving it’s massive oil revenues for a rainy day rather than spending on more current concerns. As for returning oil revenues, I have never advocated the return of any monies from the 30 years of North Sea oil and gas. As you say, they are shared, albeit unequally I feel, around the UK. To try and backdate this would be massively complicated and probably impossible. Better that, upon independence, Scotland assumes control of those oil fields within her waters and disposes of the rights and revenues accordingly.
Of course during the “settlement” phase, we would have to talk about National Debt. A lot of it is in Scottish-based banks. A lot more is for things like Trident, the military’s actions overseas etc.
I don’t think it’d be fair for Scotland to just assume 10% of said debt. There would have to be negotiation, like “we don’t want our share of the nuclear weapons and subs, so we’ll give them to you for xx billion”. Of course, useless nonsense that only benefits London, money that was stolen from the pot to pay for the Dome or for the London Olympics, I don’t think it’d be right for us to have to assume debt for them when some of that money according to even the unjust Barnett formula would belong rightfully to Scotland, Wales and NI.

Granted on the HND faux-pas there. Mea culpa. Didn’t check but I should have remembered from my notes that Tom is an HND holder, not a degree holder (of which there is nothing wrong I might add), although it was just a question. The fundamental inequality of politicians like (for instance) Jack McConnell, Willie Bain calling for student fees when they didn’t have to pay them and aren’t even proposing to pay theirs back on principle, is hypocritical. Asking Tom about his children isn’t something personally I’d feel 100% comfortable doing, on account that Tom’s background and history is of public note, he chose that when he stood for election. His children’s are not, and what their future actions may be when they are over the age of 18 and thus completely private adults is not in the public interest (unless they stand for election)…

I am genuinely sorry for the long off-topic reply here btw Tom; I did actually start my own blog at one point, but I am fickle and often didn’t update it often enough to bother; I’m a better responder on blogs that a creator…

>> It demonstrates the point at which you completely disappear up your own backside.

Um, why? You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do. Which is what is at the root of your descent into barely stable sanity over the past six years.

While we’re at it, any chance of explaining which yardstick you’re using to label Scotland as having the worst urban poverty in Western Europe [1] and why you’re a better moral-creature than Nigel Griffiths, Anne Clywd and Harry Barnes (to name but three)?

[1] Personally, I think you’re comparing Scotland to stated countries such as Germany, France, Spain, Italy in their entirities. If one were to break them down, there would certainly be regions of similar area and/or population which are in worse conditions than Scotland (assuming this can be taking as one single mass, which she can’t).

Hi, Math,

>> I think a lot of the outrage and subsequent cheering/jeering of Watson’s sentencing was the perception that Labour-affiliated persons can commit crimes that would see us imprisoned and escape with a slap-on-the-wrist (like a certain Baroness).

No, it was malicious (and, when considering the posture over Abdul Bassett-Baby, downright hypocritical). This was in 2005, before the current rot became undeniable.

Have there been many criminally-minded Snuppies who’ve had the book thrown at them? How’s the party getting on dealing with Kenneth “Gays are Sad People” Gunn?

Plus, Scotland has not escaped from legal censure, but suffered precisely what the law demands. She is right, I suppose, that her offence is on a par with a speeding offence… but – just as I would question a DPP, say, remaining in position after an arrest for kerb-crawling – I question her remaining in position.

I think she should go, but I also think that beligerent drunk, Darcus Howe is being a race-bater on the subject.

>> On the “we’re not perfect but look at them” bit; No party is perfect.

Perfectly fair. But, when one turns a party-movement into a personality cult (e.g. Salmond) in which one presents oneself as an arbiter of egalitarianism and probity, and resorts to this line only when the contents of one’s whitened sepulchre are revealed, one should not be surprised if others call one to account. Of course, Salmond is surprised, making him disreputable.

>> As for your comments on Mike Russell or Shona Robison “who weren’t even born in Scotland”, are you suggesting that such people are not allowed to enter in Scottish politics? Based on their place of birth or race? Dangerous track you’re running there.

Look at how I’ve reeled Lara in with the four years remark. It would look pretty odd for someone, such as me, who has been arguing against petty nationalistic envy to say the above.

Of course it doesn’t matter to me. It matters, however, to Russell and Robison. Think about this next time you see them ‘admitting’ to having been born in England, *but* insisting they’re real Scots. Russell’s learning Gaelic and has now got a real Scots accent! Robison was reminded of her true heritage daily as a child with, I recall, tartan carpets.

The most ardent nationalists have often been outsiders, desperately trying to make amends for their offence of being born in ‘enemy territory’.

Also, unless you came from outwith the UK, you ain’t an immigrant.

>> I don’t think it’d be fair for Scotland to just assume 10% of said debt. There would have to be negotiation, like “we don’t want our share of the nuclear weapons and subs, so we’ll give them to you for xx billion”.

Bad luck! An independent Scotland could only abstain from what has *yet* to be incurred, e.g. Trident. Money yet to be spent ain’t debt, of course.

How much d’you actually wish independence, or d’you imagine it to be like teenagers living in a side room in which meals and heating are provided pro gratis?

>> Better that, upon independence, Scotland assumes control of those oil fields within her waters and disposes of the rights and revenues accordingly.

You’d better hope the Shetland Isles don’t declare a UDI.

>> I think the best way of doing so is to campaign for freedom from London’s self-obsessed bubble.

Some team-spirited individuals might think that campaigning with Yorkshire or Cornwall or the Midlands could attain a similar ends, whilst others think all of ‘England’ is one malign homogenous mass vying to bring down ‘Scotland’.

>> . A lot of it is in Scottish-based banks. A lot more is for things like Trident,

Not really. You keep talking about £100 billions spread over several decades… the banking bailout was as much as half of that, *in* *one* *event*.

>> the military’s actions overseas etc.

Actions voted for by Scottish legislators, supported by a majority of Scottish inhabitants, fought for by Scottish volunteers. Or, are they not real Scots?

Plus, just as with the matter of postal services, you’re out of the SNP loop. Angus “Private Pike” Robinson thinks an independent Scotland would be able to allow Britain to pay her rent for military bases, benefitting the local economies and allowing Scots to fight for those overseas military actions; and avail herself of all the benefits of NATO.

Just not have Trident on Scottish territory. Clean hands, eh?

>> On Norway and oil, I mentioned Norway because of it’s wise policy of saving it’s massive oil revenues for a rainy day rather than spending on more current concerns.

Norway =/= Scotland. Maybe the oil revenue could have been better spent; maybe I could have asked that girl out when I was 19. But it didn’t happen. Scotland was not and is not a humble, small country… she has all the inheritences and memories of the clout and grandeur which came from Britain and Empire.

Salmond does not imagine reverting to the status of a small country on the fringes… he imagines taking the sugar and spice and all things nice, and leaving the slugs and snail and puppy dog tails for Britain (cf. no mention of black ex-pat Scots in Homecoming, thus negating any question of our willing involvement in slavery). Not a reputable plan.

As we’re pursuing the Norway-analogy, what d’you think of making public your salary? Or, is it only the nice bits?

>> Asking Tom about his children isn’t something personally I’d feel 100% comfortable doing, on account that Tom’s background and history is of public note, he chose that when he stood for election.

Which is why I said it would be “as relevant”. In other words, I don’t think it is relevant. The introduction of student fees certainly sucks, but when there’s a three or four fold increase in student numbers, how d’you suggest paying for it?

>> I am genuinely sorry for the long off-topic reply here btw Tom; I did actually start my own blog at one point, but I am fickle and often didn’t update it often enough to bother; I’m a better responder on blogs that a creator…

No shame in that. Tom offers this space for others to debate or babble away. I likely disagree with him more than I agree with him, but I retain a certain respect.

If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here. Lurking on the blog of someone whom one neither agrees with nor respects – such as Lara is doing – is plain bad manners.

Laura may be up to whatever, best not animadverted on a sunday, but I don’t see how she is lurking with so many posts to her name:

lurker, noun
lurk⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

Synonyms:
1. Lurk, skulk, sneak, prowl suggest avoiding observation, often because of a sinister purpose. To lurk is to lie in wait for someone or to hide about a place, often without motion, for periods of time. Skulk suggests cowardliness and stealth of movement. Sneak emphasizes the attempt to avoid being seen. It has connotations of slinking and of an abject meanness of manner, whether there exists a sinister intent or the desire to avoid punishment for some misdeed. Prowl implies the definite purpose of seeking for prey; it suggests continuous action in roaming or wandering, slowly and quietly but watchfully, as a cat that is hunting mice.

Another 90 examples of resistance against illegal invasion.

Interesting Link Alex: but the invasion wasn’t illegal, and you are just trolling, or you would present something other than news of the Islamo-fascists’ latest atrocity.

“The White House said President Barack Obama had spoken to Mr Maliki and Mr Talabani to pledge his support.
Mr Obama said the attacks were an attempt to derail the peace process.

“These bombings serve no purpose other than the murder of innocent men, women and children, and they only reveal the hateful and destructive agenda of those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that they deserve,” Mr Obama said in a statement.

“The UK’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband said “such acts of terrorism can have no justification, and must be condemned without reservation”.

Has it occurred to you that Sadam wasn’t immortal and that at some point these people or their successors would have turned their hatred into organised violence anyway?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tom_harris/glasgow_south#votingrecord

Tom Harris voted strongly for…

– ID Cards
– Anti-Terrorism Laws
– Iraq War
– Trident
– Hunting Ban

Oh yes Tom. You’re really taking the fight to poverty.