I guess we are in for a full three years of anti-Scottish lies from the mainstream media. One of the most common unionist lies is that Spain would veto Scottish independence, as claimed in today’s Independent. This canard has been about for years and is assiduously spread by unioinists. I have discussed it in the past with senior Spanish diplomats, and they have been unanimous that it is impossible that Spain would seek to veto Scottish membership.
Firstly, nobody in the EU has ever left the EU voluntarily, let alone been expelled, and the idea that 5 million EU citizens in a stongly pro-EU country would be thrown out against their will is not in the realm of practical politics. The whole dynamic of the EU is expansive, with countries continually accepted into membership who technically should not be. Everybody knows, for example, that Romania and Bulgaria were not remotely close to compliance with the acquis communitaire when they were admitted. There is no appetite anywhere in the EU to argue that an EU member successor state would have to re-apply.
Secondly, Scots are much liked internationally. There is a strong popular understanding throughout Europe of Scottish desire for independence – bagpipes, Braveheart and a separate football team are an intrinsic part of this strong Scottish popular recognition. There are no votes in Europe in being beastly to the Scots, and that includes Spain. The Spanish government are not stupid. It would be very unpopular in Spain to act against the Scots, and would infuriate the Catalans and actually boost the independence movement there. Tactically, there are times when it is best to pretrend to be relaxed about self-determination, as Cameron is doing.
Thirdly, there is a real difference here with the Kossovans. Spain does not oppose Slovenia, Croatia or other parts of the former Yugoslavia from EU membership. It did not oppose the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Spain does not automatically argue against EU membership for splitting states – that is a lie spread by English unionists. Unlike Kossovo, the Scottish state is not inextricably linkes with organised crime, and is not outside the EU.
Finally, as an example of Unionist lies and tricks, read the Independent article very carefully. You will see that the anaonymous “source” of the claim that Spain will veto Scottish EU membership is not anything to do with the Spanish government, but a Whitehall official.
The actual headline of the article should be:
“Whitehall Official Lies that Spain Would Veto Scottish EU Membership”.
Wonder what happened to Larry from St Louis/Yugostiglitz… perhaps he got eaten by the Wicked Witch of the West!
.
Are you consumed, or consumer? That is the question.
‘Larry from St Louis’
Every time he disappears, you start calling for him, Suhayl. I don’t get it.
Yes John Macadam I see that his first wife’s parents were unhappy with the findings of the inquest into her death. The coroner seems to have been protecting him as mention of his infidelity was not allowed.
.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/suicide-verdict-on-lord-caithnesss-wife-inquest-skirts-around-details-of-peers-troubled-marriage-as-coroner-told-of-wifes-threats-to-kill-herself-stephen-ward-reports-1428079.html
.
{http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-reopen-file-on-caithness-death-1367727.html}
.
Incidentally the coroner mentioned in the first link is Nicholas Gardiner, the same coroner who opened the inquest into Dr Kelly’s death. This inquest was never held as it was opened and adjourned on the same day followed immediately by the Hutton Inquiry which was set up by Falconer. {http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-189234/Kelly-inquest-adjourned.html}
> “Suhayl. I don’t get it.”
.
I think i understand – Colouring in the cartoons. An artist would be remiss to ignore word and tint.
Well, we now have an honourable, pink, rational and very welcome ghostly visitation from the long-deceased Binyamin Franklin. So, I was wondering where his compatriots with the other amusing pseudonyms had gone, it’s been so long…
.
Perhaps there has been some Amelia Earheart event over the Pacific. Captain Noonan, Daniel Boone an’ all that final frontier business. One cannot help feeling that Craig’s website is the current final frontier – or one of a number of such liminal regions.
.
Or perhaps they are still with us, closer than skin to bone, as Madame Blavatsky might have intoned. Can’t you feel it? Yes, I’m sure I feel a Larry in the house! Is there a Larry in the house?
.
Ah, Nuid, for a bit of ghostly fun and hot jazz to brighten up the foggy January evenings! Wouldn’t you agree, Benny?
Ken W,
When you, as a nationalist bigot, has ANYTHING at all, get back to ME.
Thank you.
Suhayl,
1932: Earhart landed in a field at Culmore, north of Derry. She had, of course, intended to fly to Paris.
My uncle, who died a few years ago aged 91, saw Earheart crossing the coast of Ireland at low altitude, as he was standing in a field in west Donegal. He waved to her. He realised who she was later, when her flight was reported in the local paper.
.
I’ll go with the ghostly fun and hot jazz – I hate this time of the year!
To avoid any confusion, John Stack’s contribution at post 12 is the kind of petty nationalist bigotry that I’m talking about.
Nuid – wow, what a wonderful story!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxYVOAdwGx0
.
Amy Johnson was the other one, possibly shot down by her own side, by mistake over the Thames.
@daniel – I’m not all that keen on patriotic speeches of the kind that you’re referring to, but to be honest I didn’t find it bigoted. Bigotry requires for there to be negative discrimination, and I didn’t see any of that.
.
I’d quite like to see Scotland get its independence without any ‘rousing patriotism’ – but as an Englishment I’d quite like to see Scotland get enough space to form decent, progressive governance. We’ll kick the Tories out in the rest of the union soon enough, one hopes!
@Suhayl – are you having a seance for the spirit of Larry? Fun!
.
I’ll get the kettle on and join you.
Craig,
I wonder if you are aware of developments within BBC Radio Scotland’s programming. “Newsweek Scotland”, which has been running for 30 years has been axed. The programme offered (must use past tense now) informative debate, invited internationally acknowlewdged experts and addressed in depth matters which concern Scotland, at this interesting point in her development. The programme cannot be said to have been financially profligate. The blog by the presenter, Derek Bateman, testifies to the shock, anger, amazement of many listeners as to why this invaluable source of information should have been removed. Questions as to the BBC’s motives have been raised in the Scottish Parliament and there is a Facebook campaign to support retention of the programme. Some have argued that allegations of bias and partiality might reasonbaly be made. BBC Scotland has proposed replacement by a Saturday version of the daily morning news programme. Such a news programme will, of necessity, offer no room for extended analysis and in-depth debate. A read through the various blogs will give you a flavour of the subjects which Mr Bateman brought to our attention with in-depth analysis. I wonder if you have any views on this strange example of programming. Here is the link to the last of the blogs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radioscotland/2012/01/newsweek-scotland-keep-calm-an.shtml
Daniel
“To avoid any confusion, John Stack’s contribution at post 12 is the kind of petty nationalist bigotry that I’m talking about.”
.
Well thats a relief, thanks for the clarification. It just looks like vague romantic twaddle to me. As others have pointed out “true Scot” comes across much like the daily Record’s daft car sticker campaign.
I wouldn’t take his opinions as representative in any way though, as you appear to do.
The people of Scotland will be doing the voting, that is everyone living there who are registered to vote irrespective of place of birth or whatever a “true Scot” might be. As far as I know the only people attempting to make an semi-ethnic definition of what a Scot is by attaching place-of-birth rights to the vote are the Labour party in an amendment to the Scotland bill. The SNP oppose this idea, as indeed do all those I have spoken to. Scotland has never been an ethnic polity: never will be. William McIlvanney once described Scotland, to rousing cheers, as “a mongrel nation”. That will not change.
A bland ITV news report on the “referendum consultation” just now, ended with a generic mention of haggis and whisky on Burns night, and was immediately followed by a 10 second mention of british soldiers rowing across an ocean for charity, accompanied by a yacht advertising “Tallisker” along its length. Not sure if accidental or intentional tv dinner mind management – beware the spin-nacles.
Ken
Instinctively, I find patriotic appeals to nationalism to be an unattractive proposition – ‘the last refuge of the scoundel’, if you like. Salmond’s appeal to nationalist sentiment is disengenuous as it is ugly as he is well aware that Devolution Max, not full independence, is in Scotland’s best interest. This is what the Scots will vote for. They are not keen on biting the hand that feeds them. Salmond knows it too, which is why he is such a canny operator. All we need now is Devolution Max for the English.
jon
Devolution Max is the way to go. It just doesn’t make any sense to me to break up this already small nation of ours for the reasons I outlined. I am almost certain that the Catholic minority on the west coast will not be as as sanguine as you are about the break up of the union. If you think that sectarian nationalist Scots are not bigoted then you are wrong. I’ve met enough of them in my time to know that John Stack is one of them.
Daniel, your sentence: “This is what the Scots will vote for. They are not keen on biting the hand that feeds them.”
If you are well read then you will know that Scotland pays in more to the UK government than it gets back and you are therefore telling porky pies. If on the other hand you are merely ignorant you should look up Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland (GERS) in google.
I must say though, you really should look at that sentence again, and then look in the mirror, before spouting on about ugly prejudice: you appear to be full of it yourself.
The rationale being that the Scots will not vote for full independence?????….Hmmm, yep, kinda makes sense….Lol.. Everybody knows that Scotland is disproportionately subsidized by England….The Scots certainly know it which is precisely why they will vote in favour of Devolution Max. Salmond knows that maintaining the status-quo with one hand while increasing local autonomy with the other, is sure fire way of fleecing ever more sums from the Westminster coffers. Oh, and direct your slurs elsewhere.
“Scotland has never been an ethnic polity: never will be. William McIlvanney once described Scotland, to rousing cheers, as “a mongrel nation”. That will not change.”
Excuse me, but I’m not convinced, neither are the minority of Catholic Scots I talk to. You may me blind to Scottish bigotry, but I have first hand experience of it when I lived in Scotland, as have many other English folk currently living their. Nationalism is ugly, as are its potential consequences.
Daniel:
” Everybody knows that Scotland is disproportionately subsidized by England”
Well no Everybody doesn’t know that at all: only stupid people who refuse to look further than the Daily Mail are of that opinion. Did you read what I said? Can you Google GERS? What does it say?
Dont tell me, just chew on it, or go back to your sponge.
Not a Daily Mail reader. I hate it. Your point is a red-herring since full independence implies no UK subsidy. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots would prefer a non-subsidized Scotland given that the reduction in tax revenues acruing would inevitably disadvantage Scotland?
The notion that so-called Scottish oil will necessarily buttress this which is usually the counter argument is a fallacy since ownership is a legal matter as yet unsettled. We then potentially get into the issue of who legally benefits from say, “English” coal. The constitutional ramifications resulting from independence are thus a minefield. Salmond knows full independence is a non-starter which is why the evolution Max third option was introduced.
@Daniel, interesting. As an English person I have experienced minor anti-English prejudice, strangely from the extended family of a close Scottish friend at his wedding, at which I wore a kilt in his clan’s tartan. I was proud to be asked – despite what the sporran was made of! – and went ahead. But I attracted resentment from some quarters because of something the English did to the Scots before I was born, and I felt a bit silly (though intrigued), having to explain that I wasn’t responsible for it.
.
If the people in Scotland go for Devo Max in a well-informed vote, then that’s fine with me. But I don’t have enough *reliable* information to hand to take your word for it that Scots would be financially disadvantaged by full independence. If I lived in Scotland, I’d read up on it a great deal more, but I’m still inclined towards full independence so they can have a proper crack at it.
.
If a three-question vote was to be held, I wonder what would happen if 30% each went for full and max, and 40% for the status quo? Would that be a win for the union or would another vote be held for devolution of one kind or the other?
Am I the first to see the Spanish government deny this story put about by the UK government. Is the UK Government deliberately deceiving the voters of Scotland.
As to subsidy. Of course we’re subsidised. England subsidises Scotland. England subsidises Europe. England subsidises…. you get the picture. Nobody in Scotland ever paid one penny of tax, and every penny of tax raised in Scotland was wholly spent in Scotland. Not one penny went to the London Underground, or MoD HQ in London, or UK bases in the south of England, or all those lovely embassies abroad. All that was paid for only by the English who award their state employees a London Living allowance from their own money just for living in their own country
On subsidy, I should mention again that age-old conundrum – mentioned partly in jest! If English conservatives feel that Scotland is a disproportionate cost to the Union, why are they so opposed to its independence?
jon,
I think the tories position is that a ‘united’ kingdom would be beneficial to the people of the UK as a whole, not least in terms of the more preferable negotiating and decision-making position it would be able command within the context of the EU. They clearly believe that the benefits accrued through the existing arrangements outway the potential costs. The breaking up of already small nations into even smaller ones, appeal to the worst human impulses and to me make no sense particularly during periods of economic crisis. I hate the tories, but on this I agree with them. Maybe Mr Murray is looking for an ambassador role.
John Macadam,
The people of the Shetlands and the people of Cornwall also pay taxes to the evil English in Westminster, and in time they too will doubtless demand independence? The SNP know very well that full independence is a non-starter which is why their calls for it are disengenuous. They have already admitted, for example, that independence will still involve Scotland being fiscally tied to the Bank Of England. Fiscal autonomy is a pre-requisite for independence. Five and a half million people will not be able to generate sufficient tax revenues to fund this barmy project and if you think that Germany has the appetite to underwrite independence during this period of austerity, think again. I have yet to hear a serious argument from the pro-independence side of the debate.
There is a phrase, ‘No True Scotsman…’ which has come to bear a wider usage as in, for example, “No true Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Jew would do such-and-such so the perpetrators of such-and-such cannot be Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Whatever”. I knew there was an additional pharse wrt John Stack’s “true Scot” term. Just providing this for everyone’s interest.
.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Heh, Suhayl – I beat you to it! See my comment at [23 Jan, 2012 – 5:44 pm] – and wasted on everyone 😉
> I think the tories position is that a ‘united’ kingdom would be beneficial to the
> people of the UK as a whole, not least in terms of the more preferable negotiating
> and decision-making position
.
Daniel thanks, I see what you mean. In the context of the “new political centre” (i.e. all British parties are right-wing free-marketeers of various stripes) that would make sense. But as a Lefty interested in a kinder path, I think the sum of justice is increased if part of the UK can break away and become more progressive. The Scots can thumb their noses at American wars if they wish, they can continue free higher education, and bolster their welfare state if they wish. Salmond recently spoke of a deliberately progressive path for Scotland, which (a) may have scared the bejeesus out of Westminster, and (b) could be infectious when the north of England gets to see how a progressive path makes a fairer society.
.
I am not under the illusion that Scotland will be the land of milk and honey if they break away or go for Devo Max – and they will have surely some malicious skulduggery pitted against them. But I think the benefits of trying for this will trump any extra bargaining power that the unbroken UK has, given that England is sticking to the politics of austerity and privilege for the time being.
Thanks very much, Jon, sorry, I missed that! Ah well…