After seven months of appalling results, Alistair Darling was today thanked for his “hard work and honesty” in a brusque dismissal. Fans were quick to point out that in his previous job he had won no trophies, in fact rather the opposite. A whole series of dismal results had led to confidence ebbing away, and the recent disastrous performances by Gordon Brown and George Robertson were the last straw.
A key factor in the dismissal was the dissatisfaction of the wealthy shareholders in the City of London, banks and in the United States who are the owners. It was pointed out that some of the major players in the campaign, like the entire journalistic staff of BBC Scotland, had not been achieving the results expected.
The news was broken by a smug fat git
Speculation is now rife about who will lead the team for the rest of the campaign. Odds-on is John Reid, who supporters believe could increase the intensity of threat and violence which is now needed. There is some worry however whether his associations will appeal to the core fan base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A
One possibility being seriously considered by the owners is to look abroad for new management. One well-placed source told the BBC “When the entire campaign is predicated on the idea that the Scots are incapable of running anything, it looks a bit odd to have a Scot in charge.”
George Robinson? Oh, who gives a fuck anyway.
If Dr John Reed were appointed to head the yes campaign then I think that would lend considerable weight to the theory held by some that the UK govt does really want Scotland to break away from the UK.
There’s another common thread worth noting. The rot first set in on Unitedness on 8 November 1973 when Margo overturned a huge Labour majority in the Govan by-election [I voted for her]; and the lack of strong united leadership became apparent after Govan’s favourite son, Alex, retired to his claret cellar on 19 May 2013.
Vronsky
Thanks, amended. Ashamed to say he is a fellow Dundee graduate.
Excellento!
Hardly surprising that the Tories have brought back George Robinson to help keep the Act of Union. As I recall, he was the second Member for Tregony during the Rotten Parliament, the first of many, starting in the early 18th century.
Brougham helped get rid of the Cornish rotten borough in 1832, but its spirit lives on!
I love it. Thanks Craig.
So Rangers supporters are to have a new hero …. Celtic chairman John Reid. Delicious.
I wonder how long it’ll be before we hear from the Helmsdale United supporters club.
The dangers of extrapolating data:-
This is a graph of the death rate in England and Wales. If we extend both traces it’s clear that by the middle of the century nobody will be dying at all.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/asmrchart2_tcm77-280418.png
Do you think he’ll get booted off the committee of three hundred as well?
Must support Kempe – such extrapolations are silly. If they worked, measles vaccination would have resurrected the dead. Trends are nice lines, reality is badly behaved curves. The majority for independence will be substantial, a line drawn in the democratic space far removed from Excel spreadsheet functions.
The Unionists are sunk: they are headless and they have no case. They have a few lords, a clutch of millionaires and some fat cats on the telly. But no soldiers on the street. Outside of Tolkien, phantom armies don’t win wars.
The referendum question is simple: do you want to govern yourself, or are you some kind of nutter? I doubt if very many Scots will get the answer wrong.
So, to stay on topic:
Without having any particularly strong opinion on whether the Scots should vote for independence or not, I would then to agree with those who are sceptical that a yes vote would somehow usher in a bright new dawn for Scotland.
If we argue that the question is one of superior political ethics and morality on the part of Scottish politicians, then we have to pay attention to those posters who have underlined the considerable presence of Scottish politicians at Westminster as part of a UK govt. Their record is not such as to inspire confidence in the belief that they are ethically or morally superior to non-Scottish politicians.
(As a parenthèse, I can’t resist saying that what I’ve heard and read about Mr Salmond reminds me very much of the late Harold Wilson, of whom he appears to be somewhat of a reincarnation. You will note their striking similarities – Mr Wilson, too, made great play of ushering in a new age, he came across as a new-style, rational, straightforward, honest-talking politician (his rational discourse spiced by the occasional outburst of well-timed “passion”) and events proved in the end that, as someone once remarked cruelly, his guiding principle was an absence of all principle. All on all, a sad disappointment to those who voted for him in 1964 and 1966…)
If, on the other hand, we hold the view that it is not the politicians’ fault – that they are all victims of the present world order, puppets in the grip of global finance and corporations (such views have been expressed on this blog) – then it flows from this that there is no reason either to be optimistic about the future behaviour of, or the quality of life in – in terms of political, economic or social morality – of an independent Scotland.
Have I missed out something obvious?
We
must
stay
on
topic….
or else the Bogeyman will come to get us.
Ce qui est une parenthèse?
Ici http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenth%C3%A8se
Mary
The English word didn’t come to mind when I wrote. I think in that context it would have been “as an aside” or “as a side-thought” or something along those libes
As in : “Je dirais entre parenthèses que…” ( = I should say, as an aside, that..)
“Have I missed out something obvious?”
Yes. You always do.
When you say:
“If, on the other hand, we hold the view that it is not the politicians’ fault – that they are all victims of the present world order, puppets in the grip of global finance and corporations (such views have been expressed on this blog) – then it flows from this that there is no reason either to be optimistic about the future behaviour of, or the quality of life in – in terms of political, economic or social morality – of an independent Scotland.”
You don’t seem to appreciate that this “present world order” is currently fighting for its survival, on a number of fronts.
The question then becomes how best can Scotland position itself for both a collapse of the present world order and its survival.
I’m sure Nassim Nicholas Taleb would agree that Scotland is best positioned for either eventuality by maintaining financial links in the meantime but allowing itself the ability to quickly make sovereign independent financial decisions in its own interest should that need arise.
Judging by the look on his face on the lama could restore gross national happiness of a once great team, south of the new Bhutan.
Herbie
“You don’t seem to appreciate that this “present world order” is currently fighting for its survival, on a number of fronts.”
_______________
That may be correct, but only to the extent that any world order, at any given time, is susceptible to development and therefore mutation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The question then becomes how best can Scotland position itself for both a collapse of the present world order and its survival.”
_________________
Again correct, to the extent that any component of the current world order has the capacity to so position itself in any meaningful way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I’m sure Nassim Nicholas Taleb would agree that Scotland is best positioned for either eventuality by maintaining financial links in the meantime but allowing itself the ability to quickly make sovereign independent financial decisions in its own interest should that need arise.”
__________________
Who is Nassim Nicholas Taleb?
That aside, what you write illustrates what I say about “meaningful”. If, for instance, you’re referring to Scotland “keeping the pound sterling in a currency union”, the kind of hybrid you’re proposing is apparently not on offer – Scotland will not be able to.
But perhaps you didn’t mean that, so it would be helpful if you could flesh out what you said by explaining what you meant by “maontaining financial links in the meantime” and ” sovereign independent financial decisions”, together with concrete examples.
“If, for instance, you’re referring to Scotland “keeping the pound sterling in a currency union”, the kind of hybrid you’re proposing is apparently not on offer – Scotland will not be able to.”
Really?
“A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.”
“Of course there would be a currency union,” the minister told the Guardian in remarks that will serve as a major boost to the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, who accused the UK’s three main political parties of “bluff, bluster and bullying” after they all rejected a currency union.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound
This from Wiki is a reasonable summary of Taleb’s work:
“He criticized the risk management methods used by the finance industry and warned about financial crises, subsequently profiting from the late-2000s financial crisis.[18] [19] He advocates what he calls a “black swan robust” society, meaning a society that can withstand difficult-to-predict events.[10] He proposes “antifragility” in systems, that is, an ability to benefit and grow from a certain class of random events, errors, and volatility”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb
Herbie
You don’t like the example I gave (of the currency union).
Fair enough – I did make it clear that this was only an example – but could you now respond to my invitation to be more precise, which read as follows
“But perhaps you didn’t mean that {ie, currency union} so it would be helpful if you could flesh out what you said by explaining what you meant by “maintaining financial links in the meantime” and ” sovereign independent financial decisions”, with concrete examples.”?
Thanks.
Obviously, maintaining currency union after independence = “maintaining financial links in the meantime”.
And, an independent Scotland will be better positioned to take its own sovereign decisions, quickly and nimbly, should there be any threat to the stability of sterling, rather than having such decisions taken in London.
In the new circumstances occasioned by severe currency pressure there will be a number of options available to an independent Scotland that would not be available within the Union.
It’s just smart positioning.
I was listening to the radio this afternoon, they were talking about a Scottish suffragette. I didn’t listen to all of it but I did hear her reasons, not for equality of the sexes, she genuinely believed that if women got the vote there would be no more wars, no poverty, no inequality, no injustice. Women would not allow such things to happen.
We know now how wrong they were, in politics women aren’t much different to men, some are even worse. Nothing changed. Just a pipe dream, like he ones I keep hearing from the Nationalists.
I quite agree that the projection is fairly pointless. But the trend is not.
Herbie
OK, I think we’ve got there.
All that pompous, learned-sounding stuff in your original post, viz:
“I’m sure Nassim Nicholas Taleb would agree that Scotland is best positioned for either eventuality by maintaining financial links in the meantime but allowing itself the ability to quickly make sovereign independent financial decisions in its own interest should that need arise.”
boils down, after questioning by me, to no more than saying that Scotland should stay in a currency union with the UK until it is advantageous for it not to do so, whereupon it would leave said union.
Great! And very convincing as a strategy.
The only flaw in that devilishly cunning bit of “positioning” is that it’s been ruled out by the leaders of Britain’s three main political parties.
The only politician you quote as having said it would be possible is who, exactly? I think you forgot to give his name in your post at 17h26…..
**********************
Anyway, you’ve diverted from the thrust of my original post, written at 15h20.
Grateful for any comments you might have on that main thrust. What do you think, for instance, of the idea that Mr Alex Salmond is a modern Scottish version of the late Mr Harold Wilson?
Can they put Lord George Robertson at the helm? Please?
His service to the British Union by killing Scottish Nationalism stone dead with the mighty weapon of devolution, and his performance converting listeners at this independence debate shows a campaigning ability likely unmatched among the No Campaign team, despite stiff competition from Brown, Reid, Lamont, Darling et al.
Haw Haw for No! Make it so!
Believing ‘superior political ethics and morality’ to be a valid argument is of course impotent thinking within a ‘Life is Beautiful’ box that allures to remaining in the bomb shelter until the siren wails continuously rather than actively sharing responsibility to douse the flames of destruction and collapse.
Goodness and decency does reside in the human psyche being suppressed most of the time by a need to survive the unavoidable implosion of our present paradigm dominated by greed and selfishness.
The rest of ‘La Vita è Bella’ is just musical notes – applepie, applepie, applepie.
“Believing ‘superior political ethics and morality’ to be a valid argument is of course impotent thinking within a ‘Life is Beautiful’ box that allures to remaining in the bomb shelter until the siren wails continuously rather than actively sharing responsibility to douse the flames of destruction and collapse.
Goodness and decency does reside in the human psyche being suppressed most of the time by a need to survive the unavoidable implosion of our present paradigm dominated by greed and selfishness.”
___________________
What on earth is the above purple prose supposed to MEAN? Translation into clear English welcome.
Habby
I only explain these things to you because you’re so ignorant of world affairs you can’t work it out for yourself.
Anyway. Here’s your latest howler:
“The only flaw in that devilishly cunning bit of “positioning” is that it’s been ruled out by the leaders of Britain’s three main political parties.”
They’re lying.
That’s their strategy. Their only one.
The more observant will note that these thieving parasites and their fellows across the western world have a proven habit of lying about everything.
If we assume that the trends are linear:
then Scotland will vote yes
and a few years later…
everyone will be vegetarian
everyone will earn their living as an Elvis impersonator
“They’re lying.”
What a convenient argument, everyone who doesn’t agree with you is lying and everyone who does isn’t.
But what the anonymous politician actually said was that currency union would be horse traded for the nukes on the Clyde.
So just how principled are the Nationalists? Will you trade nukes for union with the rest of Britain? Let the Bank of England control your economy set your interest rates, in exchange for hosting a nuclear submarine base?