Advertise
-
Books
-
The Written World
Here’s something to keep you occupied over the weekend. [Will there be a quiz? - Ed] Possibly… The BBC magazine has an short and interesting, but un-embeddable, audio slide-show of Melvyn Bragg’s Radio 4 five-parter, In Our Time: The Written World. The British Library has more online information about the texts and technology featured in each [...] read our review » -
What has The Third Man got to say about Northern Ireland?
Short answer: very little, other than he enjoyed the environs of Hillsborough Castle, enjoyed working with the local politicians, and has Gerry Adams to thank for Bobby his dog. Peter Mandelson’s book The Third Man has captured media headlines in recent weeks as the Times serialised the most juicy bits. But what did he have [...] read our review »
-
Risk of going beyond either/or…
This is article was first published in Fortnight magazine back in February 2003. Chris Farrington is now a Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellow funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences’ in the School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin. Although the circumstances it describes has changed radically and [...] read our review »
-
Comment on “To preserve a distinctively open-handed Scottish social model”, the UK may be the safest choice…
on 15 April 2012 at 1:00 pm
” Salmond’s plan is a good one if it was 1975…”
I am sure if this was 1975 you (as did all those who favoured the union in 1975) would be denying that which you are prepared to accept now that it is in the history books.
The ongoing unionist position now seems to be-yes, the SNP were right about the oil and the prospects for an independent Scotland in the 1970s (in spite of unionists-notably Dewar saying Scotland at the time would be like Bangladesh (shades of the economists “Skintland” eh?) but they are not right now.
So given the track record of unionists, I say the SNP have much more credibility than unionists on the future prospects of Scotland-and I have history on my side
Go to comment
Comment on Scottish referendum: the unionist case is still all over the place
on 22 February 2012 at 7:13 pm
for DT123 “Once and for all ,yes or no”
No electorate can realistically tie the hands of its successors. I state this as a reality-the issue will never be over until “yes” wins.
If you think that is unfair, just bear in mind that none of the many countries who have rejected continuing London rule asked to come back, as people generally find it rather pleasant to be governed by parties they actually elect.
Go to comment
Comment on In a Scottish three way split the middle option is the likely winner….
on 26 January 2012 at 5:52 pm
Reader-If the unionists main aim is to keep devo max off the ballot paper they may well succeed.
If they do, the electorate are unlikely to like it, meaning that the unionists are risking much more than they think in their rampant compacency-if such a thing can exist
Go to comment
Comment on Maybe the referendum question is not so simple
on 26 January 2012 at 2:16 pm
“Do you agree to Scotland becoming an independent state?”
I think it might be acceptable (from a pro-independence perspective) to make the question:
“Do you agree or disagree to Scotland becoming an independent state?” Answers being:
I agree or I disagree.
Anything more favourable to the anti-independence position would itself be biased. e.g. references to leaving the UK really does not work as many see (possibly historically inaccurate I know) the United Kingdom as continuing, as the Queen will remain monarch of both Scotland and England.
Many will also see the concept of social union as meaning we are not leaving in a meaningful sense..
Go to comment
Comment on In a Scottish three way split the middle option is the likely winner….
on 26 January 2012 at 1:53 pm
Reader “The obvious solution is for the other Scottish parties to put various enhanced devolution proposals in their 2015 manifestos. Drinks all round.”
I take it you are not from Scotland:-)
Many Scots lived through the 1979 devolution referendum in which Sir Alec Douglas-Home promised Scotland a better deal on devolution if only they would vote no. Those who did not live through it will be told about it!
Instead Margaret Thatcher refused any form of devolution to Scotland.
Additionally, if any “Scottish” party.does support Devolution Max, how on earth will it get it through a UK parliament without a favourable result in a referendum (or even with a favourable result, which is another issue).
So the unionists will be against the best mechanism for achieving their supposed ends.
Salmond will make sure that the Scottish people get what they vote Be that devo max or independence) for and the unionist parties will end up opposing the will of Scots destroying themselves for a generation (assuming thay have not already done so..
Go to comment
Comment on Unionist cause in Scotland should fight from a position of strength
on 19 January 2012 at 5:00 pm
Twilight
On the first point I see no reason to expect the SNP to split in the short term.
They are much more now that just a vehicle for achieving independence, and if that is achieved, part of the reason for that would be lack of belief in their opponents.
Over time, a number of new parties/alignments would develop e,g. I assume Murdo Fraser would get to take over a separate genuinely Scottish Tory Party (renamed?)
At the moment the unusable best attack by the unionists is “we are useless, don’t take the risk that some day we might be in charge of and independent Scotland”
The turn off re Britishness is that it is no longer (the extent to which it ever was is a matter of genuine dispute) in the interests of Scotland. Scots recognise that Britain is no longer a world power, whereas England/Britain has found it difficult to accept that, and wastes enormous amounts of money on dubious foreign adventures and Trident.
I was happy enough to accept the term “British” until saying you are British came to be accepted as meaning you were in favour of the union. So until Scotland is independent I will not accept that description, after that I would accept it rather as I assume Norwegians accept Scandinavian.
Go to comment
Comment on Unionist cause in Scotland should fight from a position of strength
on 19 January 2012 at 2:56 pm
“Alex may be Hellbent on turning Scotland into yet another Euro basket case.”
Ah, Lee Reynolds, as an SNP member I found your article much more sensible than most unionist (Scottish style) commentaries-but look at what you are up against in trying to run a positive campaign
Go to comment
Comment on Next steps towards a Scottish referendum
on 16 January 2012 at 1:28 pm
Unionists (Scottish version) want to portray Independence as something totally different from Devolution Max/Full Fiscal Autonomy (presumably because in spite of the supposed fundamental difference they see that the first might very soon follow the second
In a sense it is different (as per “power devolved is power retained”) but that will not be a winning approach for the unionists by reminding Scotland that legally any power under a devolved situation can be pulled back by the Westminster government.
Nationalists on the other hand see Independence (the transfer of ALL powers) as being on a continuum which includes Devolution max/Full Fiscal Autonomy (the transfer of MANY powers) as the immediately preceeding point.
The second view is likely to prevail in Scotland, and either Devo Max etc will not be on the ballot paper, irritating many in Scotland and resulting in blame for the unionists, and more votes for independence, or it will be on the ballot paper, and if the winning choice, will indeed (as nationalists believe and unionists fear) lead to independence.
Go to comment
Comment on Another Post on Scotland…..
on 15 January 2012 at 7:39 pm
“If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland”
Scotland will have its revenge on his Lordship
After Scotland declares independence, there will gradually be a series of plebiscites starting with Berwick on Tweed (and that really might happen) such that all of England North of Watford becomes part of greater Scotland over time-that will teach him to meddle in another nation’s affairs!
Go to comment
Comment on Johann Lamont – a Gael in charge…
on 18 December 2011 at 4:09 pm
“The SNP approach seem to be, ‘We have a Problem here, we will make it very costly in terms of personal liberty and finance for anyone manifesting this problem in public and shaming Scotland’ while the Labour approach seem, while also recognizing this problem, want to deal with the cause rather than the effect. Labour contributions in the debate did seem to have a greater appreciation of the reality on the ground regarding sectarianism and it’s many manifestations in the public arena”
As a proud Glaswegian, nominally Catholic though rationally agnostic, the son of an Irish Catholic mother and a Scottish Protestant father, I wholly reject your analysis
No party in Scotland, until the recent dominance of the SNP, had come close to achieving what the SNP have achieved which is an almost identical percentage voting support from Protestants and Catholics.
The “Scottish” Labour Party and the “Scottish” Tories were happy with the historical tribal support of Catholics for Labour and Protestants for the Tories so I will accept no nonsense on that front from unionists, Tory or Labour-they were the ones who swept sectarianism under the carpet!
Go to comment