It is the love that rarely speaks its name. For it is now unfashionable to talk of love of country, particularly as we prepare to mark the beginning of the first world war's four years of horror.
The beginning of which his party plans to commemorate as part of a display of British nationalism despite protests from many people all over the country.
But it is for love of the country of my birth that I shall vote no in the Scottish referendum on 18 September.
So he says.
In pre-referendum Scotland it is necessary to state one's qualifications for publicly joining in the febrile and sometimes abusive debate about Scotland's future.
Hmmm... so you call the debate "febrile" then come out flogging this old horse carcass:
One Scottish MSP has said that those who oppose independence are anti-Scottish, hence the need for me to establish credentials.
This is of course untrue. The MSP in question, Joan McAlpine, is an idiot but she didn't say that those who oppose independence are anti-Scottish. Way back in early January of 2012, Joan stupidly accused Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems of being "anti-Scottish" because they were trying to force through an early referendum and generally trying to interfere in the Scottish democratic process around it.
But it had nothing to do with whether they were in favour or opposed independence. She is still an idiot but nobody's said Unionists are anti-Scottish. Many by my own experience are insufferable wanks with their own plucky little versions of Scottish nationalism that fit well into a British Imperialist ideology. Ming's is one such example.
I was born in Scotland, my parents were Scottish, I went to school and university in Scotland, I married a Scot, I qualified in and practised law in Scotland, I represent a Scottish constituency, and I am the chancellor of Scotland's oldest university.
It's funny how it's always Liberal Democrats that insist on talking up their Scottish credentials, as if we don't believe them. Granted, if you heard Ming Campbell's upper class English accent that's understandable. I remember the Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland infamously proclaimed his Scottishness by professing his love of tunnock's tea cakes, whisky and the fact that his father spoke Gaelic.
What asinine nonsense. That kind of stuff really drags this debate into the gutter.
The advantages of the present union are often obscured by the smoke of the debate. For 300 years we have enjoyed the benefits of a single market.
This is true. The entire Union was founded by two elites looking to line their pockets with more gold by joining together.
We have lived at peace with each other save for the last convulsions of Jacobitism in 1745.
It is possible to live at peace with a neighbour and not keep them annexed. Ireland is such an example, but Ming wouldn't seriously suggest that Scotland and England would be at war if Scotland became independent. He'd just make a round about reference to it.
We have neither suffered invasion, nor civil war, fascism or communism. Look around you and see how few countries can make that claim.
This has no relevance in the modern world.
We have lived in a political system envied and copied around the world.
You mean copied by our former colonial possessions? And in any case, the fact that they copy us doesn't make our system good. Our system is absolutely appalling. We're a unitary state with a system that glorifies and reveres the "elderly and venerable" regardless of their character; this includes Landed Aristocracy being a part of the system in the House of Lords and the retention of a Head of State who apparently believes she was appointed by God. Most of those little ex-colonies that try to copy us don't retain those archaic monstrosities, you will notice.
We are members of the EU, Nato, the G7 and the Commonwealth, and have a permanent membership of the security council of the UN.
Scotland, with independence, will be a member of the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth. Having "permanent membership of the security council of the UN" is worth absolutely nothing, as recent years have shown.
This has absolutely no relevance to people in Scotland who are visiting "food banks" because they can't afford to buy food due to the economic recession. The only people that would really matter to are old establishment figures like Ming Campbell who get their jollies off that sort of thing.
Nor have we lacked a Scottish political voice in the UK. We have been given a parliament and a referendum has been confirmed.
A fellow in the comments section of that article answered this point superbly:
"we have been given a Parliament......"
"You lost me after that Mr Campbell. The idea that we have to be supplicants to determine our own future lies at the heart of the issue. You then say that Scotland's political future should be determined by the lowest common denominator of three failed Unionist political parties in Scotland. Your own party has proposed the quaintly called Home Rule for over a century. How many more decades or centuries do you think it will before you define that and propose that?"In recent times David Steel, Robin Cook, Malcolm Rifkind, John Smith, Gordon Brown, Charles Kennedy, John Reid, Alistair Darling and others have occupied the great offices of state or led UK-wide political parties. And three Scots, James Mackay, Derry Irvine and Charlie Falconer have become, in turn, lord chancellors of Great Britain.
Whether or not it is possible for Scots to join the Westminster elite, as Ming Campbell has done, does not matter in the slightest. It has absolutely no relevance and is no substitute for genuine democratic representation i.e. getting the government that the majority of us vote for.
Scotland and the Scottish have enjoyed influence beyond our size or reasonable expectation and in our UK, governments change seamlessly and without rancour.
"Beyond our size or reasonable expectation"? I thought you loved Scotland, Ming. You don't seem to think we're capable of very much. And whether or not governments "change seamlessly and without rancour" (I presume he means we don't need to protest in the street and get shot at like Ukrainians) is a matter of great debate.
Our human rights are protected, we have a participative democracy, and the rule of law is our very foundation.
Is he implying there will be none of those things in an independent Scotland?
Movements for independence are often based on some form of discrimination – ethnic, religious or economic, a democratic deficit perhaps, or persecution or institutional prejudice. None of these has blighted Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK.
Though ethnic, religious and economic discrimination as well as persecution and institutional prejudice have been leveled at Scots by the British government, admittedly a certain grouping of Scots that Ming's ancestors belonged to i.e. the Gaels, we aren't making arguments based on those grievances. That's a complete straw man.
The democratic deficit is very real though and we use that argument quite often, with good reason.
Has it been perfect? Of course not, but every few years we have had the unfettered choice to change course at successive elections.
Largely outwith the control of the Scottish people given that our future hinges on the whims of the English electorate.
We invented the NHS, created the welfare state and, more peacefully than others, divested ourselves of our past to the extent that former colonies and dominions have morphed into a Commonwealth that even countries with no historic connection with the UK want to join.
I don't even know where he's going with this. There's certainly no new NHS on the horizon, and the Welfare State such as the NHS in England and benefits across the UK are being dismantled rather quickly by a government the Scottish people did not elect.
I do not see any merit at all in the Old Imperial Club that he makes reference to. I think it's disgusting.
In Scotland we have kept our own legal system, our church and even the right of our football team to play in the World Cup.
How wonderful. Wouldn't it be great if we had our own government, head of state, membership of international organizations and the ability to prevent old swines like Ming Campbell from claiming Lordship when he retires?
Now we are invited to give up that history and the continuing opportunity it allows us.
To create something far, far better.
We are asked to make a decision that may be reversible in principle but in practice will be, to all intents and purposes, perpetual; to give up intangible benefits such as shared values, mutual respect, common responsibilities and family ties.
So because we will be independent from the rest of the UK that means we will somehow get rid of our shared values? The ones we still have left presumably, but there aren't many of those left. I don't even know them besides democracy, rule of law etc. I can't see us losing those...
But "mutual respect" and "common responsibilities" are just empty words, and the fact that I've just come back from Ireland visiting relatives reinforces the notion in me that you don't need to keep a country annexed in order to retain familial ties with relatives there.
A decision in September to leave the UK will bind our successors for generations to come. Are we not entitled to clear and unequivocal evidence that to do so would do more than satisfy the ambition of one political party?
I think that's been
most emphatically proven. I don't need to go much further with that. It's quite funny though hearing that from a Liberal Democrat whose Party would literally sell their soul in order to get into power.
Are we not entitled to be confident that we can meet the uncertainties of currency and of membership of international institutions?
I thought you said you weren't worried about currency and membership of international institutions and you were voting No out of some abstract Lib Dem Scottish Nationalist ideology?
Do we not require evidence that an economy based on unpredictable oil reserves and revenues can be sustained, with promises of high public spending and low taxation? None of these assurances is available.
The "White Paper" for Scottish Independence put forward by the SNP in December should answer those points. If Ming doesn't like the answers he should explain why rather than putting forward that tired old Unionist chestnut -
"But we don't have answers!" - "What's your question?" - "What currency will we have?" - "Well, we'll retain the pound because blah blah blah" - "I don't like that answer, therefore I will say we have none".Even on the balance of probabilities, the case for independence has not been made.
It has, and it is being reinforced.
But those, like me, who exercise our right to argue against independence also have a duty. And that is to recognise that the majority of Scots still prefer a solution that allows Scotland to remain in the UK but for its parliament to have greater powers, most particularly economic. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats publicly acknowledge this reality. They differ in nuance and detail, but not in principle.
The differences in nuance and detail are next to none. It is very true that the majority of Scots, including myself, want more powers. In fact the vast majority want something called "full fiscal autonomy" and "federalism", something his party once espoused. That has been forgotten long ago and virtually nothing is on offer.
If we vote No we will gain about 40% more income tax power from Labour, but only the ability to raise taxes, not lower them because allegedly we aren't allowed to "undercut the rest of the UK". There was also some talk of greater "job creation powers" being devolved to regional authorities in Scotland but that's got less to do with democracy and more about turning the regional authorities under Labour control into little fiefdoms. We're supposed to accept shit like that as an alternative for full independence and it just isn't working.
If a British Federation was on offer I would seriously consider it. It's not. It never will be and it certainly won't be from the Lib Dems.
The promises of the SNP are incapable of achievement, but it chooses to challenge the good faith of the three parties in their undertakings to embrace that principle. Its challenge would be effectively blunted if the three parties could agree on the process of implementation of that principle.
I'm sure they will, after watering down the pitiful offerings of powers even more to satisfy the Tories and wet-rags in the Liberal Democrats.
The secretary of state for Scotland should, in the event of a no vote, convene a meeting of representatives of these parties within 30 days of the vote.
The Secretary of State for Scotland couldn't convene a meeting of cutlery on a dinner plate. He is an imbecile who actively works against Scotland's interests by cheer-leading for the Conservatives when they threaten to abandon shipbuilding contracts with Scottish shipyards in the event of a Yes vote.
The parties should undertake to enter into heads of agreement, and put their proposals for greater powers for the Scottish parliament in their manifestos for the 2015 general election. And if in government, in whole or in part to introduce the appropriate legislation in the first Queen's speech after the election in May 2015. This would be the best and most practical demonstration of Better Together and "the best of both worlds".
How delightful. I'm sure it will be remembered for
decades to come, just like the infamous "jam tomorrow" promises following 1979's referendum.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1783380 times)