Glasgow East

Started by Gman, July 15, 2008, 09:55:52 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Nice to see some folk picking up on my post. Most kind of you!
I will deal with Nick first....sure you will be delighted (well I guarantee if you stepped into the same restaurant as me I wouldn't ignore you ;))!
SNP= Scottish National Party. A group of people who want to run the affairs of their own country. This is not small minded. No more than a teenager turning into adulthood wanting to stand on their own 2 feet.
As for parochial...that is a word pertaining to a PARISH! This is a Derbyshire could be described as a parish (vladman now ducks ;D).

We are no more south than Sweden/Norway/Denmark etc, they are not totally run by southerners either!

I wish to apologise for both Blair (spit)/brown. I would not have wished them on anybody to be honest. They however are an example of "Unionists" so I cannot be held responsible as I didn't vote for either of them.

Tyrant = Mrs T (never forgive her for the poll tax, an illegal action on Scotland.)

As for Scotland not winning elections, the facts are the majority of the "British" population live in the south. At the end of the day they will always be the folk who really make or break political parties.
Why do the unionist parties always focus on the south? Its where the most votes are. For decades Scotland has voted Labour and had a Tory Government. Why the change now? Has Scotland changed? Only inasmuch as folk are beginning to see through Labour and are moving towards the SNP. What got Labour into office was the swing of votes in the what is often called "middle England" (not that I'm sure where they exactly mean by that) .
The only time Scotland comes into the equation is if the election is tight in England then Labour historically have benefitted by this.
Not for much longer I would think!

The Orkneys and Shetlands...if the folk of the Orkneys/Shetlands want to go back to the peiod where they were run by Norway, then that is up to them, and I will respect their decision!

As for Slim....not small minded, a small minded person doesn't see both sides, or read the various manifestos of parties, I do!
Parochial...see above....

I said your view on Europe "MAY be very much as", the word MAY being the all important word!
We are not equal partners in this relationship and never have been. I love the way Unionists phrase the union "a sovereign state" as opposed to the takeover it actually was/is. There was NO vote given to Scots, rather a deal done behind doors where the actual public protested.
A bit like accepting the European union. There is a clamour (quite rightly, Labour promised a vote/referendum and have failed to give one) for a vote on this but it is all goig on behind closed doors much to the disgruntlement of the ordinary people.

Thatcher (there I did it....see I am a real man with a real grasp of politics...feel free to applaud and cheer) on her first term did actually some decent stuff. Even I would say that. If she had been stopped after that I may have actually only spoke highly of her. However when she got her second term she rode roughshod over everybody.  A tyrant is a person who holds vast or absolute power in state or power. Are you telling me she actually did anything her "cabinet" asked her to do? They were famous for whimpering and bowing their heads. So yes by definition a TYRANT!
Maybe you should look up meanings of words used than picking up on not menyioning her now so lofty position.

As to winning elections please see answer above.

You think it won't happen? Well I do and I live here.
Thanks for reading


Ironcally as an SNP voter I don't agree with everything they say.
Religion if at all should be taught at home or church, not at school.
I am very much against seperate schools. It causes untold problems on the purse of the tax payer.
For example, where you have falling school numbers, everytime there is need to merge schools there is this shout that you can't touch "faith" schools. Why should a half empty school be open because of a church?
Why should folks that go to non demoninational suffer?
If a religion is so keen to have its own schools then they should pay ANY excess needed to keep them open.
The folk who agree with Catholic schools, how would you react to Muslim schools, Mormon schools JW schools? well if its ok for one religion you have to say its ok forall the others.
Time to just have SCHOOLS.


We will moan abut "our" leaders and not the "English" which ironically most vocal in the complaints department are folk who vote Labour up here.
I don't blame the English taking the piss in government (well sometimes) as its my fellow Scot who handed them the powers.
Take that away and we have to take up our own responsibility.


Constitutional reform is potentially the most serious issue for the UK to face in the short to medium term, and some of the comments in this thread have been silly...but that's this website for you, I guess ::)

But, to my mind there is a considerable distance to be travelled before the UK sees Scotland going off on it's own. Not least of the issues, is what sort of Scotland do we want?

Because, the goal is not simply to vote in a referendum, but to actually focus and decide on what type of small country we would be. And frankly, that takes vision, motivation, inspiration & tough economic & political choices, and we simply do not possess politicians who have the necessary vision & passion.

In this country, we can't build a fecking motorway without getting bogged down in beuracracy & red tape. If we went alone, we'd have to be much more dynamic & inventive, and I know people will say that this would happen naturally as a result of independence...but I'm not so sure.

Econmically, how would we support ourselves? Just rely on oil, I think not, and would we be a low tax economy that is a really attractive place for business to come....with our public sector I think not.

So, for me there is too many unanswered questions before I would consider making the leap, but I can see that the debate is gaining momentum and if the Nats win a few more like Glasgow East, the chances of independence happening, become ever more likely in some form or other.




A good article indeed.

Supposed to be a an SNP b-b-q tonight at the Back o' Bennachie but got caught up with things at home. The weather is great so I suspect it will be a rather jolly affair.  8-)


I'd just like to expand on something that vladman wrote in reply #30:

QuoteI love the way Unionists phrase the union "a sovereign state" as opposed to the takeover it actually was/is.

The whole issue of sovereignty was specifically excluded from the Treaty of Union in 1707 and ever since there has never been any attempt to alter that. It has only been assumed, probably because of its location, that the British Parliament is sovereign.

'The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law...I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all of the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.'

SOURCE: McCormick v Lord Advocate 1954(1953 SC 396),

'greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example, constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'

SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.

Thailand Express

Excellent research Scotnat.
The biggest problem with the "union" was the bias towards England.  At the time England only had twice the population of Scotland yet the number of MPs in the united parliament did not represent that ratio.  There should really have been some sort of power sharing agreement between the two countries rather than having all the decision making moved to London.

In the next few years I think it highly likely that we will have a scenario where the SNP control Scotland and the Tories control England.  IMO rather than a complete separation this will lead to a federalisation of the UK with more power being devolved from Westminster to Holyrood.


July 27, 2008, 09:22:37 am #38 Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 11:58:29 am by Dods
Maybe some bribery would help - bought and sold for Scottish gold ...


Sure I picked the most extreme example because frankly I found the comparison ridiculous.
I`m not assuming Scottish Nationalism is inherently bigoted although the idea of any form of nationalism is to me abhorant, I