Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 29th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Brown under fire for by-election visit snub



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2008
By Gerri Peev and Hamish Macdonell
GORDON Brown will not visit Glasgow East in the run-up to the constituency's by-election.
Opposition parties have accused Mr Brown of "running scared" of the poll – but No 10 aides point out that this is consistent with the convention that prime ministers steer clear of by-elections.

Mr Brown also faced taunts at Prime Minister's Quest
ions over its timing.

The next MP for Glasgow East could win the election on the back of just 5,000 votes, as the poll is being held in the middle of the Glasgow Fair holiday period, in a constituency that already has a notoriously low turnout. A shorter election time generally favours the incumbent party – in this case Labour.

Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, asked why Mr Brown was only allowing a three-week run beforehand.

"Isn't it simply down to the fact that you are scared of a bloody nose from the SNP?" Mr Brown hit back the SNP would have complained no matter when the election was held.

Labour party managers yesterday also confirmed Labour would not begin the process of choosing a successor to Wendy Alexander until after the by-election.

The whole process, including the nomination of candidates, will be put off until 28 July.

Labour leaders want the party's sole focus to be on the poll and they will expect all potential candidates to campaign hard in Glasgow East to show commitment to the leadership.



The full article contains 247 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

ThomasP,

03/07/2008 00:04:23
We have been here before.

Gordon Brown does not vist by-election constinuencies.
2

Ken_Fitlike,

03/07/2008 00:12:31


MacCavity disappears again.

Only this time he won't escape the fallout.

Your finished Gordon, it's time, bring it on.

3

Richardinho,

03/07/2008 00:13:00
I thought labour were fearing a low-turnout? Shurely it's the most apathetic who are likely to vote labour?
4

truthsleuth,

03/07/2008 00:22:02
The SNP steer clear of holding a poll on independance.
I thought that was their principle aim.
5

John PM,

Edinburgh 03/07/2008 00:27:01
They don't even bother standing any more. Witness their cowardice against David Davis!

Three weeks, during the Glasgow fair, well if they scrape back in it won't be for too long.

No doubt being beaten into 5th place by the BNP in Henley was actually a real triumph! I'm sure David Cairns thinks it is and the other 'newspeak' stooges at the Scottish office.

Even if Labour get h*mped in Glasgow East I expect Brown to cling onto power btw. Labour have no shame.
6

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 03/07/2008 00:31:54
I thought brown attended the by-election in Crewe, england, or was I mistaken.The forecast of the result is a landslide Victory for the SNP with labour coming in 3rd behind the socialist party.
7

Claymore,

03/07/2008 00:35:47
Angus Robertson is letting his delusions of grandeur get the better of him.
8

Claymore,

03/07/2008 00:35:58
6 Scotindy. Seek help.
9

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 03/07/2008 00:37:43
Is Gordon afraid to go too far from Downing Street in case someone else moves in while he is away ?
10

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2008 00:57:37
# Truthseeking claymore.

Is your given name, Excaliber?

Don't you know that Mor(e)dred awaits you?

Troll(s) please desist. Don't you realise that you don'texist in reality!
11

Raj Persaud's ghost writer,

03/07/2008 01:33:28
He was all over Crewe and Nantwich like a rash. The arrogance in the west of Scotland the Labour party has is contemptuos beyond belief.
12

Edward,

03/07/2008 01:42:34
It will be interesting to see who does turn up from London Labour during the Glasgow East Campaign
13

Guga II,

Rockall 03/07/2008 01:44:54
Maggie Broon is probably too scared to turn up in Glasgow East, as the sight of his dour face would be enough to put anyone off.

Anyway, somebody might start asking awkward questions about why. after 50 years of the Labour mafia, Glasgow East is one of the poorest and unhealthiest places in the country.
14

scotstoun_voter,

glasgow 03/07/2008 01:57:08
oh dear poor mr boon wont be seen in glasgow east maybe he sees anothe fabolous lab result like the had in crewew and henley?? lets see....
15

Edward,

03/07/2008 02:03:48
its a bit of a disgrace that they hold the election during the glasgow trades holiday, but then again, what else could we expect from Labour
16

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 03/07/2008 02:07:35
You know, by refusing to release Scotland's council tax benefit money (£400M) and the prison building money (£120M) Brown is punishing the people of Glasgow East. Add to this the losses to Scotland by changing the health baseline (£342M) and other funds withdrawn.

Labour are grinding people into further poverty in order to punish Scotland for voting SNP. They are trying to prevent the SNP delivering a good social programme.

This is the type of politics they indulge in. Glaswegians' lives have been made a misery by this party and it goes on and on and on.

17

Uilleam Mor,

Harare, Glasgow, Scotland 03/07/2008 02:10:09
What can one say.

A resigning MP, resigning on the grounds of stress, but with the allegation in the background that he is being investigated for some £227,000 of expenses paid to his family.

An election called in lighting time with the date scheduled to fall in the middle of the Glasgow Fair hoiday people. ( and in a constituency that had less than 30% turnout at the last general election)

Now tell us, what does this say about Labour commitment to democracy, and the widening of voting to increase turnout.

Reminiscent of gerrymandering all to common in Fascist Europe, it does seem that Labour are hell bent on manipulating the democtaric process, especially since in the csse of Jack(Two Jobs)McConnel MSP he will not resign, but whereas in David Davis's constituency Labour will not field a by election candidate for the Westminster seat.


You couldn't make this up and it is shocking , just shocking.

No wonder Labour take illegal bungs and get away with it. They are truly the enemy of democracy and we can only wonder what they do in the background.
18

Snuffy Ivy,

Aberdeen 03/07/2008 02:14:48
Now that Labour's plan has been released, the SNP should plan accordingly and beat the cr*p out of them.
Labour seems finished in Scotland methinks.
19

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 03/07/2008 04:30:25
There is no escape for the Labour party from the facts:-

This constituency contains disgraceful levels of poverty - FACT

Those in this constituency suffer abismal health - FACT

Unemployment in this area is amongst the highest in Scotland - FACT

The people of this constituency have faithfully voted Labour for decades - when this is considered in the context of the above those constituents have been kicked in the teeth by those they believed would protect and help them - FACT

The low turnouts in this constituency are concrete evidence of a population largely disenfranchised by the political process. This can be directly related to the points above - FACT

These are FACTS which cannot be disputed by the Labour party.

Labour have a poverty of vision that matches the poverty of there heartlands.

POVERTY - POOR HEALTH - SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DISENFRANCHMENT

The bedrocks of a labour stronghold.

Absolutely disgraceful blood boiling stuff.
20

John S,

03/07/2008 06:25:29
David Marshall could have resigned on or before the 25 June 2008 to allow this by-election to be held on the 17th July, before the start of the Glasgow Fair and before the UK Parliament recess which starts on 22nd July.
Two by-elections held on 15 July 2004, recess 22 July.
One by-election held on 14 Jul 2005, recess 21 July.
Two by-elections held on 19 July 2007, recess 26 July.
One by-election to be held on 24 July 2008, recess 22 July.
Spot the odd one out ?
21

donald,

glasgow 03/07/2008 06:30:55
Gordon Gubbed in the Ghetto.
22

steve 1511,

aberdeen 03/07/2008 07:10:55
look around the east end and you see 50 years of labours contempt for the area and its people
23

danielrober,

03/07/2008 07:23:14
Out of interest or even importance has any of the other parties, ACTUALLY come up with an alternative plan to Labours long term social mobility choices? Just wondering. After all the others paties are describing this palce as another Helmand provence (its not). SO what the plan man?
24

LEAL,

03/07/2008 07:40:55
Gordon Brown was never going to parade himself around Glasgow East,draped in his Union Jack.But will we see Dr John Reid draped in his?
25

Number 6,

Germany 03/07/2008 08:45:16
So english by-elections are ok to attend but not Scottish ones Brown ??.

When is the Scottish media going to start investigating the sleaze allegations against the current Labour incumbent. You know, the one suddenly standing down for "Health reasons". What a pathetic,
pathetic party Labour are.

#4 Your ignorance of the subject Referendum shines through like a beacon. Where did you get that trash from ? your local labour candidate ?
26

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 09:31:29
Very prudent move Gordon you obviously realise what a liabilty you are to your own party.
27

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 09:37:42
4 Troll

How many accounts do you have anyway?
The SNPs position from even before the election was to hold the referendum in 2010 that hasnt changed.
Labour on the other hand first off didnt want a referendum then they did but only the so called "Scottish cabal" then the Scottish cabal changed its mind again and then again while insisting they get to control all aspects of the referendum including forming the question and setting the date from the opposition benches and then they changed their minds again or I should say had their minds changed for them by London Labour.

And all you can do is whinge about the SNP sticking to their manifesto promise while Labour spin reverse spin cartwheel back flip and do the splits all in a matter of days.
Obviously just sh*t stirring for the sake of it.
28

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 03/07/2008 09:49:49
Obviously he doesn't want to turn up in the deprived Glasgow East as a living advert for what Labour can produce for your neighbourhood. Poor, downtrodden, subservient, benefits-claiming, etc. Despite all that Weegies have a fine sense of humour and he would no doubt have a few robust knock backs for being North British for example.

But mostly he probably doesn't want to turn up in case it inflames the apathetic to vote for another party. He just needs to go and do it quickly.
29

Publius,

Girvan 03/07/2008 09:57:30
17 Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel

You are mistaken. The UK government has released the council tax benefit. It has merely said that if council tax abolished, there won't be any council tax benefit to release.

You must be out of touch with the nuances of Scottish politics.
30

Publius,

Girvan 03/07/2008 10:04:23
#30 MisterN
You write that "The SNPs position from even before the election was to hold the referendum in 2010 that hasnt changed."

At best this a half truth. SNP manifesto said 'likely date of 2010'. This implies that the open to another date a year or two either way.

Whenever the propose to hold referendum they had better enter negotiations with at least one other party a.s.a.p. or they will never get a bill for a referendum passed by Holyrood. Having their supporters pour abuse everyone else is not likely them get a bill through.
31

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State........ Coatbridge 03/07/2008 10:05:57
Don't worry labourites...he will do an about turn and appear, he'll more than likely send John Reid since the East end is where he has a wee connection.
32

Publius,

Girvan 03/07/2008 10:10:26
31 The Former Mr. Angry (and others)

You need to think space and geography. All countries have pockets of prosperity and pockets of deprivation. To some extent one feeds on the other. The prosperity of large parts of Edinburgh may be partly brought about the deprivation of large parts of west Scotland.
Some geographers have speculated that regionalism, devolution, federalism etc aggravate the problem. They suggest that regional capitals suck resources from their regions, so in the UK Edinburgh prospers at the expense of Glasgow, Manchester at the expense of Liverpool, Leeds at the expense of Bradford and Sheffield and so on. This model also fits parts of Germany and other European countries.
33

Talorthane,

03/07/2008 10:13:59
It's reported that all 46 Labour MSPs will be out campaigning in Glasgow East.

The SNP will be delighted that this number must include: Wendy Alexander, George Foulkes, Jackie Baillie, Duncan McNeill, etc.

Perhaps a slogan for the SNP, given that Foulkes will be making an appearance could be:

"The SNP are trying to makes services in Scotland better than in England.

And, what's worse is that, they are are doing it deliberately!"

34

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 10:18:24
33

You are splitting hairs that have already been split.
At the end of the day theyre position is as clear as day open and honest I have no idea what Labours position is even now do you?
And what if the referendum is held after the next elections and the SNP has its forcasted 33 seats in Westminster and an increaced majority of seats in Edinburgh.
I think they will be in a very strong position indeed to force through a referendum dont you?
It certainly looks like the likliest scenario to me.
Labour are in freefall the Tories are still despised and mistrused in Scotland and the Lib Dems are a joke.
The SNP are not the party which should be worrying whether its going to gets its policies across its the other parties who should be worrying about where they are going to be and how they are going to fight the next elections.
The SNP are not the party with the worries.
35

Talorthane,

03/07/2008 10:18:25
Will Alistair Darling make an appearance? Trying to avoid the pubs, lorry drivers, car drivers, etc.

Will Douglas Alexander make an appearance? Trying to avoid last year's voters.

In fact, how many of Labour's Scottish known faces are not liabilities?
36

Jimmy the Pie,

03/07/2008 10:22:16
Gordon Brown now leads the most unpopular Labour government in history, according to a new "poll of polls" for The Independent.

No wonder he's not putting in an appearance.

Vote SNP, the only party for ALL the people of Scotland.
37

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 10:26:48
32

How many times has this little argument got to do the rounds?
Council tax benefits are monies due and owed to individuals it is not state owned money and as long as the council tax exists then so does this owed money.
LIT wont be introduced for 3 to 4 years so the council tax will still be used as the local taxation method as will the money "OWED" through benefits and over payment.
That is the money the SNP are referring to and that is the money the UK government is trying to steal from the individuals it actually belongs to.

Now has that finally sunk in yet or are you planning to troll this cr*p out again and again and again?
38

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 10:52:37
#35

This is exactly the kind of lie perpetuated by unionists that has resulted in the continuation and indeed normalisation of poverty-stricken areas in Scotland,w hcih are the worst by far in Europe.

Depravation on a scale that it exists in Scotland does not exist in any other northern or central European country and certainly doesn't exist on the same scale in Southern European countries.

What people in Scotland must get into their heads is that having whole areas of cities languishing in poverty is not the norm in our neighbouring countries.

Some of the bigger countries like Germany and France have poor areas consisting largely of immigrant populations who they have failed to integrate properly into mainstream society, though it's not so big a problem in Germany.

In Scotland, we have whole sections of the indigenous community, together with ethnic minorities, who exist in conditions that you will not find elsewhere in western Europe. Go to any city in Western Europe and you will not find anything that has suffered the gross neglect of the east end of Glasgow.

The only way, as time has proven, that Scotland will introduce a more even distribution of its wealth and resources in order to create better conditions across the board is through self-government, which will allow us to act freely enough to work towards those ends.

It is frankly shocking and dispicable of unionists to continue to perpetuate the lie that it is somehow normal to have areas like the east end of Glasgow which exceed every statistic in the book for poverty, violence, crime, drugs, ill health, lefe expectency etc etc.

The union has been a disaster for Scotland. We should have a society that resembles Norway or Switzerland. Instead we've got the worst statistics in the western world for just about every social evil.
39

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 10:53:47
I have said it before and I will say it again .
The vast majority of voters never ,ever read a manifesto , or dissect a policy ,only the chattering classes , and political junkies like us that post on here worry about the minutae of policy.
The people in this election in Glasgow East will vote either by habit or by feeling.
For the SNP to take this seat their would have had to be a monumental shift in attitude and feeling since 2005.
so the question is , "is that the case?"
My answer would be an overwhelming yes there has , is it enough for this seat to fall into the SNP lap ...perhaps , but for sure the best Labour can hope for is a very much reduced majority.
For goodness sake this is the 26th safest seat in UK of ALL parties if it falls it is not only the end of Brown it is the end of Labour Party full stop.
Stand by for the dirtiest campaign ever , not quite of Mugabe proportions but not far off .
There will be intimidation , lies , scaremongering cheating , falsified postal votes ,non voters having their votes cast , smears ,lies and innuendo.
The establishment cannot let this seat fall into SNP hands .
Together they will unite in every dirty trick possible to ensure Labour retain the seat .
Then they will spin it as a great victory and the end of the SNP.
Just like in Garscadden in 1977 where the SNP had a massive swing yet Dewar managed to just hang on to the seat , a couple of weeks later Margo stood in Hamilton by election was trounced and the SNP fall from grace stated and lasted till late 90s.
It is essential that every Nationalist possible hits the streets and assists in this fight we need to win this seat against all the odds and all the barriers .
Scotland needs this victory .
people of Glasgow East do your duty , your country needs you
40

John S,

03/07/2008 11:01:49
#38 Talorthane,You forgot to add will Des Browne make an appearance to tell the Glasgow East voters 'You've never had it so good'
41

The Spook in Leith,

03/07/2008 11:02:33
#40
#41
#42...All excellent posts and all i can say is, you have hit the nail on the head several times..
42

The Spook in Leith,

03/07/2008 11:04:09
#42

"and political junkies like us that post on here worry about the minutae of policy."

Well that surely does not refer to AM2..lol
43

MisterN,

03/07/2008 11:14:14
42

Aye but I think the media has the biggest say in how most folk vote. Unfortunatly the great unwashed are still influenced by what they read in the tabloids which is why there are still so many people voting Labour today in spite of all the sh*te they have wrapped around themselves.
A continuous negative spiel from the media against the SNP can and will sway large sections of voters as well as not fully reporting the disasters that have befallen Labour and the Lib Dems.
44

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 11:15:25
41

Absolutely but at the end of the day we get what we vote for.
45

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/07/2008 11:20:35
"GORDON Brown will not visit Glasgow East in the run-up to the constituency's by-election."

How out of character for Macavity.............
46

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 11:25:20
Now we know why Blair and Brown have both been to Gaza they thought it was one of their safe seats
47

Tartan Tory Tango,

03/07/2008 11:35:59
#42 Rodster: and you Nats wonder why the rest of us make unpleasant remarks about your political grouping being more like some kind of cult than anything else and how it has ominous echoes in history etc etc.
48

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 11:38:37
~50 Tartan Tory Tango
Truth hurt does it ?
49

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 11:42:06
Gordon Brown did not go to Crewe and Nantwich prior to the election there. That is a simple fact.

#41 - The most deprived area of the UK is actually in Tower Hamlets, London. Though that does not excuse the dreadful state of the East End of Glasgow.

Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened in Scotland if there had been no Union. What we do know was that in 1707 Scotland was a country ruled by a tiny elite in which most people had absolutely no say over how they were governed, owned no land, lived in appalling poverty and spent most of their time scraping a day-to-day existence. In fact, given the huge cultural, religious and linguistic differences that then existed between the Highlands and the Lowlands, it is quite possible that Scotland could well have ceased to exist.

Basically, without knowing what the alternative would have been, a claim that the union has been a disaster for Scotland is unsustainable.
50

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 11:43:13
#50 Tartan Tory tango
you cannot refute the message so give a slur instead, standard Unionist debating artform
51

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 11:54:19
#53 - As you say, it would be a shock if the most unpopular government in British polling history (I think) holds this seat and the SNP is ideally placed to hoover up the votes of dissatisfied electors. But as you also say at your post at #42 we have been here before. What happened to the SNP at the 1979 general election?
52

Tartan Tory Tango,

03/07/2008 12:07:35
#53 Rodster: what is the message? That the SNP are trying to ram their separatist agenda down the throats of a disinterested populace by tagging it on to populist non independence related policies and hoping that Salmond’s popularity, allied to the fact that Labour have almost inevitably run out of steam after many years, will be enough to see the Nats through.

Who cares about the odd broken promise here and there? Don’t all political parties indulge in that (to a greater or lesser extent)? It’s all as one anyway: everything’s of secondary importance to “the cause”. Well, you Nats are going to come back down to Earth with a jolt if the populace of Glasgow East are canny enough to give the bloody nose to you rather than Brown!
53

John S,

03/07/2008 12:25:06
We have to remember this by-election is different from any of the others and this will include the May 2010 ? general election and that is we have a SNP lead Scottish Government and our Scottish Westminster MP's take the back seat when it comes to politics within Scotland.
Brown under fire for by-election visit snub.
A problem with Gordon Brown is his dislike of voting contests, he didn't stand for the Labour Party leadership in 1994 because of the rumoured pact with Tony Blair.
He made sure his take over from Tony was unopposed.
He broke the 2005 Labour manifesto on the EU referendum.
Gordon's friend Wendy Alexander was returned unopposed
He got cold feet and didn't hold a Autumn 2007 general election.
Gordon Brown has never led his party into any national electoral contest, and does not like the thought of it.
54

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 12:26:59
52

Complete bullsh*t as usual from you.
We know for a fact that Scotland has not benefitted from the union relative to going it alone by comparing where we are with similar countries which have gone it alone over the same period in time.
e.g The Scandinavian countries and Denmark.
And look at Ireland comparring when it was part of the Union relative to where it is now.
Ireland went through the worst period of its history within the union because of the union with its potato famine now look at it thriving and cosmopolitan and throwing its weight around Europe with its peoples constitution.
No comparrison to Scotland still smothered by Westminster with little say on our own internal problems let alone international weight or influence.
You f*cking unionist make me sick with your lying self deluding fake conceived idea of our place in the union. We are nothing more than an ethnic minority with a voice with the impact of a mouse squeek internally and internationally.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS A FACT NOT AN OPINION OR POLITICAL STATEMENT.

54

Most people were taken in by the state owned press and their scaremongering lying bullsh*t.
55

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 03/07/2008 12:38:27
Typical of Gordy, he's sh@t his pants.
56

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 12:40:04
#57 - A magnificent rant thank-you.

Of course, in reality we have absolutely no idea what would have happened in Scotland. All we know is what Scotland was like in 1707. It was an autocratic society that denined the vast majority of the people who lived within its borders even the most basic rights.

To compare Scotland with the Scandinavian countries is not to compare like with like. For a start, culturally, religiously and socially they are all basically single entities. Scotland is not now and certainly was not 300 years ago. Whether you like it or not, the Highlands and Islands were essentially a different country to the Lowlands - as the wars of the mid-18th century showed. There is absolutely no guarantee that Scotland would have survived into the 20th century as one country.

If you look at Ireland, it was a country that did not exist as a single entity prior to its almalgamation within the United Kingdom. I cannot deny the terrible depridations the Irish suffered and, unlike the Scots, the Irish chose to get out of the UK. However, subsequent to this they then went through a very bloody civil war, to be followed by 60 years of economic stagnation and mass migration. The last 15 years or so have been very good to Ireland, but even now the country has no cradle to grave welfare system as we have in Scotland, and I believe it is also in recession, unlike Scotland.

57

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 12:45:20
#55 Tartan Tory Tango
Separatists ,Nats good old unionist negative terms , but again goobledegook in your post .

You seem quite happy to accept Scotland's position as a very junior member in an unfair union.
You seem happy to accept (and probably blame the people) the plight of the people in Glasgow East " a lower life expectancy than war torn Gaza"
highest social deprivation in Western Europe , some wards with 60% unemployment , drugs , crime and all done in the union watch and under the dominance of your sworn enemies the Labour party .
Your view is so narrow and so bigoted you would rather see Labour releceted and the people to have no hope than see the SNP gain a seat .
A sea change that might just spur Westminster to do something for once for these your fellow subjects and countrymen.
It is only when the SNP are strong that the wh@re of parliaments lifts its head north of the border and does anything .
Yet you and your ilk would rather see a Labour victory than progress for these people .
What kind of people are you Unionists???
58

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 12:46:31
#52 and 59

The so-called Highland-Lowland divide was something that evolved only in recent history, after the union in fact. As it happens, it's totally exaggerated and perfectly false to claim that there was a divide, and there certainly isn't now.

But, anyway, you are again demonstrating the particular species of parochialism that applies to unionists. You think, Ah, Scotland is divided between Highlands and Lowlalnds, therefore it can't be a country!

Oh really. And what about other countries that are much more divided than Scotland, countries like Italy, famous for its North South divide (as is England by the way), or France which includes lands which are culturally worlds apart (like Provence v Normandy - one being medittarenean and the other central European).

And what about the many faces of Russia? Or the North of Norway which becomes Lapland.

The people of Dortmund cannot understand the people of Munich because their dialects differ so much.

Different areas with differences are the norm for all countries. In fact, Scotland is a more culturally compact and straightforward country than just about all others.

One thinks of India and the infinite variety of Indian cultures. Or China. Or the difference between coastal Brasil and the inland forested areas - worlds apart.

The Lowland-Highland divide hardly compares and doesn't exist now anyway.

And of course, I save the best example till last - Switzerland, where I live - divided into several distinct parts of German, French and Italian speakers. It's still one country though.

Sorry, Border Scot, that argument doesn't mean a thing. And we all know that every Scot is a Highlander at heart. Where do you think the main influx of people into our cities post-industrial revolution came from? Yes, the Highlands.
59

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 12:52:04
#59

Scotland is VERY comparable to the Scandanavians, just as Italy and Spain and Greece are very comparable.

We share some common denominators, especially with Norway, which we don't share with anyone else. Norway is the society that Scotland would have most resembled if we had been independent. It's by no means a perfect society they have there, but it's the best in the world.

Culturally, of course, we would have resembled Ireland much more than we do now. But, economically and socially, Scotland would be similar to Norway just as Spain is similar to Italy.

It is a very sad fact that Scotland was absorbed by into the British Empire and prevented from evolving as a country in itself. Very sad, but something we can redress.
60

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 12:58:03
#61 - No the Highland Lowland divide was a long-established and often determining factor in Scottish history for many centuries before the Union. Now it is not such an issue, but 300 years ago it was. Why was it that lowlanders filled the armies that harried the highlands in the mid-18th century?

As you say, countries can be home to many cultures, religions, languages and so on. I live in one now. It is called the UK.
61

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 13:01:45
#62 - In what ways is Scotland comparable to the Scandinavian countries? And why would we have been culturally like the Irish? I am surprised you cannot see the contradiction. You are saying that Scotland would have evolvd like deeply protestant Norway, but culturally we would have been just like the Irish. How does that work?
62

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 13:18:18
64 Just another account used by the cybertroll

The point I made was we should be comparable to the Scandinavian countries and would have been outside of the union and how is Irelands development at any level relative to Norways influenced in anyway by being a predominantly catholic country as opposed to protestant?
Obviously you know you are full of sh*t so now we are down to taking the discussion away from the topic.
What a troll.
63

European Scot,

03/07/2008 13:19:39
63 Border Scot

"As you say, countries can be home to many cultures, religions, languages and so on. I live in one now. It is called the UK."

If the 'UK' is a country, what pray is Scotland ?
64

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 13:28:56
59 Troll

#57 - A magnificent rant thank-you.

"Of course, in reality we have absolutely no idea what would have happened in Scotland. All we know is what Scotland was like in 1707. It was an autocratic society that denined the vast majority of the people who lived within its borders even the most basic rights."

No improvement over the last 300 years then is there?

None of the above mentioned countries have developed because of their respective religious faiths they have developed because of financial and global events in fact their religious beliefs have mellowed over time as have ours.
Our cultures are not disimilar at all.
And we have closer cultural links with Ireland than we have with England thats for sure.
You just make this sh*t up as you go along.

"If you look at Ireland, it was a country that did not exist as a single entity prior to its almalgamation within the United Kingdom"

GTF YOU LYING TORAG.

What cradle to grave welfare system??? are you referring to the cradle to grave welfare system UK governements are going flat out to privatise?? that cradle to grave welfare system?

And even if a cradle to grave welfare system actually existed are you saying its because of a political union and wouldnt have occured outside this union?

Again GTF either come up with something honest and relative or find yourself somewhere more suitable to your talents like the Sun blog or the daily record.

No wonder you try and hide yourself behind so many accounts.
65

MisterN,

Scotland 03/07/2008 13:32:52
63

And you will live in a diverse cultural country in the future called Scotland only you wont be an ethnic minority with no voice.
66

Traquir , Alba,

03/07/2008 14:01:30
Not to worry Gordon Brown will be there in spirit and
in the thousands in leaflet form especially with
his bosom buddy Maggie -

see - tinyurl.com/3odecx
67

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 03/07/2008 14:03:42
#66

Ignore #63, Border Scout. He's so uninformed he thinks the UK is a country. It is a union of nation states. Pity the poor tw@t.

68

Traquir , Alba,

03/07/2008 14:11:21
It looks like we nationalists are in big trouble
now that the official "how to" guide on
"Preserving the Union" has been published.
The unionists will be formidable
opponents and no doubt Glasgow East will be
crawling with them wrapped in their Union Jacks
practicing the black art of unionism as spelled
out in this guide.

see - tinyurl.com/3lg5j2

Be afraid, by very afraid :)
69

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 14:18:33
Border Scot,

But the UK is made of three different countries and is not a country but a unuion between countries. I'm afraid that's a fact you cannot escape. That's why Scotland has it's own parliament, for example, and it's own name, and football team, and cultural traits which we associate exclusively with a country called Scotland. Denying that doesn't help the unionists cause.

We are more like Norway than any other country in an industrial and geographical sense. We share the same sea faring industries, oil being the obvious one, and fishing. Our landscapes are similar, with lower areas of fields and hills in the south and mountain-island-tundra landscapes in the north and west.

Ireland is the country we resemble most in a cultural sense, as is obvious by the overlap between our music, language, myths and legends, centuries of migration between the two countries etc. The kingdom of the Scots was largely formed by people coming to Scotland from the ancient kingdom of Ulster, of course. So it's no surprise that we retain a cultural similarity.

I don't see why that should bother you. It is actually nice to have these affiliations with another country.

I'm afraid you're giving me the version of what you would like things to be instead of what they actually are. Scotland and England are not the same country. Scotland is very different from England in many ways. Get over it.
70

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 14:25:43
#71 Traquair the Url was brilliant , but so scarey in fact the uninoists on here just now must have been trained with that , hiliarious
71

Scheme,

03/07/2008 14:27:58
#60 Rodster Re: "What kind of people are you Unionists???"

There are 2 types of unionist:

(i) The ahm alright jack brigade who think, "ah've a guid joab 'n a nice hoose, why should ah pit that at risk"

(ii) The scum element on benefits who think "this is shight but it whid be worse if we went it alone." Not all on benefits are scum I'll add, but there is a percentage who are happy with their lot, ie. rent paid and regular giro. They don't give a flying f**k what becomes of Scotland.

Labour are depending on both.
72

Rodster,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 14:30:49
#74 Scheme altohugh my question was rhetorical thanks for that .
You will not be surprised that the unionist it was directed at ,or should I modestly say nailed with that post , never replied .
73

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 03/07/2008 14:30:57
#35

I'm not sure it follows that because Edinburgh is prosperous, Glasgow must suffer as a consequence. Parts of Glasgow are prosperous and parts of Edinburgh are not. The usual common denominator in the decaying areas is the presence of a Labour MP or MSP.
74

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 03/07/2008 14:39:30
Interesting that they should now choose to sign the contract for the new aircraft carriers.

They can now crow in Glasgow (by-election campaign underway) and in Fife (possible by-election coming due to ill health.)
75

Traquir , Alba,

03/07/2008 14:57:07
Here is another Labour parasite that should be forced
to resign - see tinyurl.com/3rkes6. We can even be
generous enough to allow them to use the
same excuse of ill health if that helps them lose face.

Also it should be noted that anybody can
now make a request to the House Of Commons
for full details of an MPs expenses. I would encourage
people to make requests for Scottish Labour MP
expenses since there is no doubt a treasure
trove of sleaze and corruption awaiting discovery.
Freedom Of Information requests can be simply sent
to the email address - foicommons@parliamen
t.uk
see tinyurl.com/3mskcd

The full article for "First Class" MP Anne Moffat is

MP’s expenses revealed after two-year battle

By Paul Hutcheon
Moffat gives up fight to keep details from public

A SCOTTISH Labour MP who ran up the highest travel bill of any Westminster politician has had a breakdown of her expenses published after a two-year battle for disclosure.

Anne Moffat's record bill was made up of thousands of pounds' worth of first-class rail and air fares, as well as trips to Malta and Portugal.

She is now being asked further questions about her expensive trips, particularly those to Glasgow and central London.

The landmark decision to publish the claims may open the floodgates for a spate of other revelations about MPs' allowances.

It follows a two-year fight by Green Party activist Michael Collie for publication of Moffat's travel bill.

The Labour MP was criticised after billing the taxpayer for nearly £40,000 in travel costs between 2003 and 2004, the highest claim of the year, Her huge bill led to questions being asked about the nature of her claims and prompted Collie to request more details through freedom of information (FOI) legislation.

The UK parliament's decision to refuse publication of Moffat's claims was overturned by the Information Commissioner, whose judgment was backed earlier this year by the Information Tribunal.

Westminster
76

Traquir , Alba,

03/07/2008 14:57:35
cont.

Westminster authorities stepped up their defiance by taking the matter to the High Court, an extraordinary move which they only backed down from last month. Collie was handed a breakdown of Moffat's expenses on Friday.

The figures show she claimed £9792 in rail fares over the 12-month period, including £7211 for journeys from London to "Glasgow or Edinburgh".

These 26 journeys cost an average of £277 each, a sum that suggests the Labour MP was travelling first class. A standard return between both cities, in 2007 prices, costs £91. She also claimed £1817 in rail fares for 42 trips between Heathrow and Central London, with each ticket averaging £43.

At today's prices, a standard "open return" between the airport and King's Cross station costs £13.60, while the Sunday Herald was quoted a price of £18 for a "first open return".

Moffat, formerly Anne Picking, also racked up £15,712 in air fares between London and Edinburgh or, "in a few cases", Glasgow. The 51 tickets averaged £308.

Despite claiming around £22,000 in rail and air travel between London and Scotland, she also managed to claim £12,289 in mileage for a total of 24,129 miles.

In addition, she claimed £910 in travel for visiting Lisbon on parliamentary business, and £942 for a trip to Valletta in Malta.

The controversial Labour MP slashed her extravagant travel claims as a result of the fallout from her record bill.

Between 2006 and 2007, she claimed around £12,000 in travel - a 70% drop compared with three years earlier.

Publication of the travel bill is another blow for Moffat, whose reselection as the Labour candidate for East Lothian is the subject of an internal party investigation.

Moffat won the reselection vote despite failing to win the support of a majority of branches. Her victory was further marred by Labour bosses confirming an inquiry into the way the ballot was conducted.

Collie said: "Ms Moffat has some serious questions to answer. How can she claim ov
77

Traquir , Alba,

03/07/2008 14:57:56
cont.

Collie said: "Ms Moffat has some serious questions to answer. How can she claim over £1800 for travelling by rail between Heathrow and central London? And, how can she justify a mileage claim of almost 25,000 miles?"

"I'd be amazed if the local party will not now deselect Ms Moffat."

Moffat could not be reached yesterday.
78

Talorthane,

03/07/2008 14:59:10
#77 Brian Hill

I think this may be countered by a few announcements by the Scottish Government over the next three weeks; either things that they bering forward, or things that they been holding off for just such an occasion.

However, even if they manage to scrape though, after desperately throwing everything they have at it, how many more by election s might there be over the next year?

Jack McConnell's seat is coming up soon.

Wendy Alexander, has seen her chance at the big time come and go. How long will she stick around, in deference to someone else?

Then there's Nicol Stephen, in a similar situation.

If Glasgow East End has become a realistic possibility for the SNP, then each of these three seats are within their grasp.

79

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 15:09:52
#72 - Where have I denied that Scotland is a country? It would be ridiculus for me to do so, just as it would be ridiculous for you to deny that the UK is a country.

My language and the language of my forefathers is not gaelic and never has been. There is a part of Scotland - the Highlands and Islands - which shares an historical link with Ireland, but many other parts of Scotland have none at all. My part of Scotland, or example, has much more in common with the NE of England -linguistically, culturally and historically - than it does with any part of Ireland.

Our development is also completely different to Norway's. Norway did not play an integral part in the construction of the biggest empire the world has ever known, neither was it ever industrialised in the way that Scotland was. In fact, Irish migration to Scotland from the mid-ninteeenth cetury onwards was precisely because were at the heart of the Empire and were so heavily industrialised because of this. It's why so many Irish people went to England as well.

True, we do now have an oil industry and a fishing industry, but we also have a very large financial services industry, which is certainly significantly bigger than the fishing we do.

It seems to me that you are painting a picture of how you would like Scotand to be: the wealth and social democracy of the Norwegians, combined with the craic and the passion of the Irish. That is absolutely fair enough. But that is not the same as saying this is how Scotland would have turned out if the union had not happened.
80

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 15:10:38
#74 - You really don't like the majority of Scots, do you?
81

Border Scot,

03/07/2008 15:15:01
#67 - Please outline the ways i which we are more culturally linked to Ireland than England. In fact, I would be interested to know how you define Scottish culture in the first place.

The cradle to grave welfare system is the one which you and I both live in, and which they do not have in Ireland.

82

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 15:36:35
Border Scot

The language of our forefathers was predominantly Gaelic, though in your part of the world, granted, it was more p-Celtic (i.e. Welsh) than Q-Celtic (i.e. Gaelic), and you suffered the influence of Northumbrians of course. The Scottish borders, like the border regions of all countries, have a bit of a hybrid tendency.

But for the greatest part of Scotland it's linguistic heritage is Gaelic, also in so-called Lowland areas, hence the Gaelic place names that you see all over the country (from Glasgow to Glenrothes, Dundee to Skye).

Naturally, we have a very signficant Pictish (p-Celtic) influence in the east and north-east, and a very signifcant Norse influence on the coasts (Sutherland being derived from the Norse for Land of the South - which is was for them).

Our historical ties with Norway are also immense and it is a pity that we got sucked into the union and then the British Empire which tore us away from our Nordic links, more's the pity. We could have been an independent country operating within the Nordic Council by now.

http://www.norden.org/start/start.asp

Just look at what we have missed out on. It breaks your heart.

Yes, I know our development has been completely different from Norways. That's the point that I am making, not you. The point I'm making is that we could and should have developed like Norway. Instead, we got sucked into the union and Empire and are now paying the price we have already have always been paying.

This idea that Scotland somehow benefited enormously from the empire is as spurious as it gets. Most people in Scotland either had to work in terrible conditions or else join the army to go fighting abroad in far off places they had never heard of. And then many more of them were forced to emigrate.

Our country was all but destroyed by the empire and even if a few individuals prospered the country has suffered immense cultural and political damage as a result (almost to the point it doesn't exist)
83

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 15:36:52
Our country was all but destroyed by the empire and even if a few individuals prospered the country has suffered immense cultural and political damage as a result (almost to the point it doesn't exist) while some of our people, like you, have been conditioned into actually believing that being ruled or dominated to the point of being ruled by another country is actually a good thing.
84

European Scot,

03/07/2008 15:40:13
82 Border Scot !

" Where have I denied that Scotland is a country? It would be ridiculus for me to do so, just as it would be ridiculous for you to deny that the UK is a country."

So if as you state the UK is a country, and you also don't deny that Scotland is a Country, then we are faced with the inevitable conclusion, that we have a country within a country.
As far as I can remember, my geography teachers never mentioned that one.
I do remember States, and Regions, within countries, but never countries within countries.
Is this a Unionist thing ?
85

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 15:42:00
#82

"Where have I denied that Scotland is a country? It would be ridiculus for me to do so, just as it would be ridiculous for you to deny that the UK is a country."


But you are denying Scotland its status as a country by forcing others to accept that it is subordinated to the bigger country of the UK, which you think is a country but isn't.

What bit is it about the "United" Kingdom you don't understand?

United what? United goats?

No, united countries.

The UK is not a country but a union between different countries. That is what it is. Punto.
86

Jackie Priest,

03/07/2008 15:49:46
#84

Please list the ways in which we are culturally linked to England.

Is it because we all watch the same TV programmes?

But they watch these programmes all over the world, and most of the programmes are made in America. Then even Saudi Arabia has Who Wants to Be A Millionaire. Does that make us culturally the same as the Saudis?

Is it language? But Scots is different from English and repseresents a comepltey seperate development from the English language as spoken by the English. And then, if it's language, why are the Irish, Amercians, Canadians, Australians, etc culturally different from the English buit we are not? Actually, Scots takes us further away from the English than Irish English takes the Irish away from the English. We are even more different from the English than the Irish are when it comes to language.

Is it football. No. Everyone p