I was trying to come up with a witty and apposite acronym for BBC to describe what I have just seen on TV, but all I could manage was Beyond Belief Cunts.
Watching BBC World News here in Accra, I have just seen forty minutes of intense and non-stop Israeli propaganda. A live press conference by Netanyahu and Ehud Barak followed by a long, long interview with Mark Regev in which the most searching BBC question could fairly be paraphrased as “How can you be certain that those dastardly Palestinians will not break the ceasefire and start firing rockets again?”
No attempt whatsoever to give a Palestinian a chance to put over their viewpoint. Now fifty minutes of solid coverage around the ceasefire without a single Palestinian view or pro-Palestinian or pro-peace view. And in that entire fifty minutes not one mention of Palestinian dead.
Beyond Belief Cunts. Actually, it’s not a bad effort.
Do you know of any bookies quoting a spread on the % vote for ‘yes’?
I had a quick look at links from politicalbetting.com, but couldn’t find any. The MORI poll predicts 34%, if the ‘don’t knows’ are allotted the most straightforward way, or we assume they don’t vote, which comes to the same thing. I’m not sure whether that would be worth buying or selling; would have to study some comps.
…and just to round off, a last comment to Mary.
“He or she will get no argument from me, as I make it a rule not to allow myself to get drawn in…”
That says it all, doesn’t it. I’ve noticed that Mary – in contrast to a number of other posters – never actually discusses (let alone argues about) anything. Mary is above the fray; entirely convinced of her own rectitude, she just lays down the law in ex cathedra fashion. If Mary says something, so it must be, no questions, no doubts.
Over and out (for the moment).
Herbie, have you by any chance heard that the PA people in Ramallah (and their representatives in London) aren’t to keen on Hamas in Gaza? Perhaps something to do with the fact that Hamas won the last elections?
I’m pretty sure that if they wanted to get their voice onto the BBC then they would (and could). But they don’t want to.
Are you (idealogically) connected with the Ramallah puppets in some way?
Komodo : so you haven’t got a reply from Bliar’s office yet? I must email it and ask the same question(s) – as should as many of our readers as well, I urge them to do it.
@Robin – I’ve checked their manifestos and they haven’t got a policy on most of the questions I raised.
Too strict an application of residence-plus-(r)UK-citizenship as a requirement for getting Scottish citizenship would annoy a lot of Scottish people living, working, or studying in England etc. temporarily. I know many Scots living in England who are not sure how many years they will be staying where they are, who think they might return to live in Scotland some time, and who’d be much more angry at not getting Scottish citizenship than they would ever be at not having a chance to vote in the referendum. Telling them they could get it if they ever came back to live in Scotland wouldn’t placate them.
“As to whether Scottish citizens will be able to retain rUK citizenship, that would be up to westminster”
Only true in the strictest sense. A Scottish government could say that people in some or indeed all categories would not be able to get Scottish citizenship unless they renounced formerly-UK-now-rUK citizenship.
The main subcategories of people entitled to Scottish citizenship I’m thinking of here are those living in Scotland and those living in rUK.
I don’t know whether you would give up your UK citizenship (I assume you hold this, from what you say) if the Scottish government insisted on your doing so before it gave you Scottish citizenship, but if any Scottish government did say that, it would be extremely unpopular.
What would be likely to happen is that it wouldn’t say that, and 95% of Scottish citizens chose to keep their UK citizenship.
What point, then, in having ‘independence’?
Perhaps I’ll email Alec Salmond and ask him whether he’ll give up his own UK citizenship if a Scottish citizenship comes into existence.
In this sense, the UK isn’t like Czechoslovakia. If Scotland went genuinely independent, you’d get two states – Scotland and EWNI. And most Scottish citizens would want to be both citizens of Scotland and citizens of EWNI!
(Cue many people from outside the UK scratching their heads in puzzlement! A lot of them can’t even understand why there’s a Scottish team in the World Cup!)
I would probably take up Scottish citizenship, if I could get it without losing my UK citizenship. Why? Because it might come in useful some time, either for me or for family members. But if I had both passports in my pocket in Slovakia and I got run over in the street, it would be the UK one I got out. And because I know that entering a country on one passport and then asking for protection afforded by a second passport can be a recipe for trouble, it would be the UK one I showed on entry too. This stuff can soon get much more than symbolic.
Republic of Ireland is not considered a foreign country under English law re. the terms of their independence settlement and Irish citizens can hold dual citizenship with UK and vice versa. Indeed no passport is needed to travel between these sovereign independent states.
Nobody can tell you exactly what the Scottish independence settlement will look like, not even the SNP/Scottish Govt as they will be only one of the parties negotiating it, but there is no obvious reason why Scotland could not get a similar settlement to Ireland. Especially considering that, unlike Ireland, we would achieve independence peacefully and take successor state status and our share of sovereign debt etc.
So I suggest there will be no border controls, people will be able to have dual citizenship and Scotland will not be considered a foreign country for legal reasons by rUK, but of course these all depend on Westminster too. I believe the Scot Govt will set out their proposals in the Independence White Paper next year.
Re. Irish Settlement:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/section/2
2 Republic of Ireland not a foreign country.
(1) It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or aircraft shall be construed accordingly.
Habbabkuk
“Herbie, have you by any chance heard that the PA people in Ramallah (and their representatives in London) aren’t to keen on Hamas in Gaza? Perhaps something to do with the fact that Hamas won the last elections?”
Yeah, I’d heard a whisper.
“I’m pretty sure that if they wanted to get their voice onto the BBC then they would (and could). But they don’t want to.”
You may be sure, but you’d be wrong. The BBC wants only to push the Israeli terrorist agenda. The PA are no more likely to get on than Hamas, or any other Palestinian voice. You see, the BBC are scum. That’s what we’re dealing with here. They’re utterly complicit in Israeli terrorism. It’s so obvious even you must have noticed it.
The Israeli terrorist machine doesn’t discriminate between Gazan civilians and Hamas. They don’t care. They’re terrorists. So the idea that the PA wouldn’t want to speak out in favour of their people in Gaza is just bizarre. It’s kinda like you’ve been overdoing it and need a rest. I thought you were off for one.
Are you (idealogically) connected with the Ramallah puppets in some way?
I’m not really a big one for politicians. They’re mostly grasping scum. My interest is in the plight of the Palestinian people. I’m a bit soppy like that.
Komodo, Robin et al; I really think you’re wasting your breath. Some people are just not ready for independence. I know a contemporary from school who is still at home with his mother. I’m 56.
If you want to know what the ‘blue-nose bigots’ think of the SNP and Independence, head over to FollowFollow or RangersMedia. Or look for the banners at the club formerly known as Ragers (sic).
Donald – yes that is why assume people born in Scotland but currently resident elsewhere in UK (or anywhere in world) would also be eligible to apply for citizenship, but since I did not specifically ask them about that I can’t pass on an answer. I don’t see why the Scottish Govt would want to impose “too strict” rules on this.
I agree its not obvious in their manifesto, that was why I emailed them. Hopefully will be clearer in white paper.
Yes Scotland could make a rule refusing to allow dual citizenship with rUK, again I didn’t ask them that either. Such rules are generally reciprocal though. Westminster could also refuse dual citizenship but see my post above re. Republic of Ireland.
If either Scotland or rUK forced me to choose citizenship of only one country then I would choose Scotland, so yes I would give up my (r)UK passport if I had to. If I was able to retain dual citzenship then i would but I would use Scottish passport as priority at all times and UK as back-up.
The point of Independence is so that Scotland gets to choose its own government that has full control over all policies incl. finance and foreign policy, rather than these being decided by London. And so that Scottish people actually get the govt they vote for not the one SE England votes for.
Under current UK ‘democracy’ the 5.2million popln of Scotland voice, political and social desires are drowned by the 50million+ in EWNI. I also believe Scotland would be better off economically outwith the Union, as under Barnett formula Scotland gets less back from Westminster than we pay to them. So that we can preserve the NHS (will be privatised in rUK) and a hundred other reasons. The main point being political representation and real power in Scotland, not London.
A good source of reasons for independence and good debate site check:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com
PS – confused, why would it not e like Czech / Slovakia? As you say it would basically create 2 countries – Scotland and rUK/EWNI, is this not what happened when Czechoslovakia split into Czech Rep and Slovakia?
Donald – apologies, I gather my posts above should have been addressed to Donald S…I think..
Ah but Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland don’t have the right to UK citizenship.
(They did have that right before 1937, or at least the right to get UK ‘dominion’ passports, and in that period they were still caused difficulties by Irish-UK relations. Any Irish citizen in their right mind got a UK dominion passport if he wanted to travel abroad, whether he liked it or not. Irish passports weren’t recognised in the Commonwealth, and as for outside the Commonwealth, Ireland didn’t have any embassies until it set one up in the Vatican in 1946.)
Would you want to keep the right of Scottish citizens to choose to retain UK (or get rUK) citizenship? E.g. if someone living in Scotland in 2014 gets his Scottish passport, and then in 2044 he wants an rUK one too, should he get it? Or would he have lost the chance if he didn’t opt in by 2015?
You can say that that’s up to the rUK govt, but it would be reasonable for people from all parts of the UK to expect it to be dealt with in the negotiations between the Scottish govt and the rUK govt regarding ‘independence’. (Here I let the ‘r’ in ‘rUK’ denote ‘rest of’, seguing into ‘rump’.)
Many Scottish citizens will want to have the right to live in England even if relations between the Scottish and rUK govts deteriorates – and the best way to keep it is to hold rUK citizenship.
If Scottish citizens in Scotland can continue forever to get rUK passports, but rUK citizens in England can’t get Scottish passports, then clearly we do not have a position where Scotland and rUK are equal in the relationship. This is important, and ‘rUK’ would mean something more than ‘EWNI’, more than ‘rump’ or ‘rest of’. It would in effect be a bigger entity of which Scotland remained part.
The trouble is, remaining part of that bigger entity – which is probably what most people want who intend to vote ‘yes’, let alone everyone who’ll be voting ‘no’ – requires agreement with the rest of that entity. A Scottish govt can’t expect to decide these matters on its own.
I have to wonder what would be the point of all this. Scotland’s part of the bigger entity already!
Note that the setting up of ‘Ireland’ as an independent state did happen peacefully (in 1937, after the Vatican okayed the new constitution – but whilst this is a juicy fact, the real business was to do with redemption payments), whereas the state established in 1922 (‘Irish Free State’) was a British dominion.
Herbie : you’re wrong,actually. PA spokesmen have appeared on the BBC. But certainly not during the last fighting.
But anyway, let’s leave it like that. All Israelis are genocidial murderers, the BBC are scum and politicians are mostly scum as well (of the grasping variety). Whatever you say!
ex Jonathan Cook, journalist 57 minutes ago.
{https://www.facebook.com/Jonathan.Cook.journalist}
There has been a drip-drip of recent stories providing small clues that the US is becoming increasingly ineffectual in its promotion of Israeli interests. The terms of the Gaza ceasefire was one example, but the Palestinians’ UN bid appears to be bringing this matter to a head.
Today, Haaretz reports that US efforts to bully Abbas into signing away the Palestinians’ rights to take Israel to the Hague over war crimes – one of Israel’s chief concerns about the statehood bid – have been rebuffed. The Palestinians have apparently refused to countenance any changes since they distributed their draft resolution today – voting will take place in the General Assembly on Thursday.
This indicates less the determination of Abbas and his team to defy the US, though certainly their backs are against the wall too, and more the fact that the US has lost much of its influence on and control over the diplomatic process.
It should be possible to measure the extent of that loss on Thursday when we see how the 27 EU member states vote.
~~~~
France will vote in favour. Australia against. The UK will do as Israel and the US dictate and therefore will probably abstain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20514194
Habbabkuk
I see. You do straw men as well as red herrings.
Obviously PA people will have appeared on the BBC. That’s not the point though, as you well know.
The point is that they won’t appear with anything even remotely close to the multiple appearances from Israeli spokesmen and their other terrorist apologists.
But at least you do concede the other points, so it hasn’t been a total waste of time.
And hopefully once the Palestinians achieve even that limited UN recognition they’ll be able to pursue the Israeli terrorist state through the mechanisms of the ICC.
Could get interesting.
I know I shouldn’t….but I simply can’t resist.
Compare and contrast :
Herbie at 4.46 pm : “The PA are no more likely to get on (ie, the BBC)than Hamas, or any other Palestinian voice”
Herbie at 5.56 pm : “Obviously PA people will have appeared on the BBC”.
What weed are you on, Herbie?
The Fatah leadership – these are the guys who got a slice of the action from the cement for the wall, and who signed the Oslo agreement, a main plank of which wasn’t the return of the refugees, the return of land, a dismantling of any of the Jewish settlements, or the paying of reparations, but the establishment of a casino in Jericho. They won’t be taking anyone to the Hague. About the only good thing I can find to say about them is that at the moment they are showing some respect to Hamas.
@Donald S
Yawn. Pull it out.
But back to topic, with thanks to Donald for pointing out that this conversation has a Scottish dimension.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/11/27/the-future-of-bbc-in-scotland/
All those lives. All that killing and all that mayhem. For this?
Kabul Bank ‘diverted £540 million to group of 12 in massive fraud’
Afghanistan’s biggest private bank was a massive fraud scheme from its founding, with £540 million ($861 million) diverted to a clique of beneficiaries including the president’s brother, a British-funded audit has found.
Kabul Bank used deposits to make huge fraudulent loans to a small circle of shareholders, political figures and their companies, with little expectation they would be repaid.
Staff were ordered to forge documents to create proxy loans under fictional names, or the names of cleaners and drivers. Millions were also plundered by shareholders in fraudulent expenses, rent and purchases.
At the same time 10 airline pilots were on the payroll, apparently to help smuggle vast sums of cash out of the country to Dubai via Kabul airport.
New details of the scale of fraud have been disclosed in a forensic audit of the bank, which needed a bail-out to survive when the wrongdoing emerged in 2010.
The bank’s near collapse triggered a financial crisis and became emblematic of the rampant crony capitalism which has undermined the Afghan state since 2001.
/..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9706093/Kabul-Bank-diverted-540-million-to-group-of-12-in-massive-fraud.html
This all makes me think of an essay question.
Rubric: Impartiality in journalism is impossible.
Discuss (not more than 750 words).
Mary, we have the same kind of siphoning of bank assets over here. It’s called bankers’ bonuses. They are all corrupt. Worst of all is the Grand Masters of the banking brotherhood, the Rothschilds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYCCB0Q7xUw&feature=related
Some great music in this documentary.
New World Flag – To be flown 21st December 2012
http://www.coia.org.uk/nwo_flag.png
Yes John and probably more of the same behaviour to come.
Did you see Lord Patten at the DCMS committee today? He did not like being challenged on how he spent his time bearing in mind all his other extensive interests. The MP questioning him, Phillip Davies, was trying to find out how much of Patten’s time was allocated to BBC matters. When he was asked if he would provide a detailed list, Patten said very abruptly ‘Certainly not’ yet he is a public servant in his capacity of the chair of the BBC trust. A certain arrogance comes with power.
@ Mary
Shakespeare> “the insolence of office”
Indeed,
Yes, behind that friendly, smiling exterior lurks an arrogant bastard.
The PRC Chinese called him, variously, a “serpent”, an “eternal sinner”, the “whore of the East”, a “tango dancer” and “a prostitute who opens his legs for President Clinton”. They may have got a detail or two wrong (I think he opened his legs for Mrs Thatcher), but by God they may have been onto something.
@John Goss – you think the guys who control the banks make most of their money from bonuses??
N_ you have to have read Mary’s previous comment about the siphoning of bank money into personal accounts in Afghanistan to understand the logic of my comment.
Mary I didn’t see Patten but I can imagine.
Remember Atlantic Bridge? The American equivalent ALEC (American Legislative Executive Council) is alive and kicking. It is funded by most if not all of the multinational companies on Mark Golding’s new flag (7.09 pm). It is probably about time therefore Mr Craig Murray dug out the dirt on this organisation too before we all sink in the sludge of corporate defacation.
‘defecation’ sp.