A libertarian returns to Scotland
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
the curriculum should highlight the fact that Scotland was once one of the world’s richest nations.
Comments made on previous template:Rob Read Stu is a RACIST!!!! LAlalalalala23 August 2004, 17:21:03 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyStuart Dickson Scots are not "caucasian". Scots come from every race in the world. To be Scots is not an ethnic qualification, it is a civic one. Exactly the same for the English. Is Naomi Campbell "caucasian", or Ashley Cole "caucasian", or Burt Kwouk "caucasian"? What a nasty little rascist Andrew Ian Dodge is. David When are you going to clean up your blog? Could you please make it clear that you do not welcome rascist contributors like Andrew Ian Dodge. Do you have a "Terms of Service" like yahoo.co.uk and Mr Dodge's service provider "mac.com"? Mac.com will be hearing from me regarding their customer's breach of contract.22 August 2004, 19:42:00 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyAndrew Ian Dodge Wow Stuart again with the racist bit. I have yet to see anyone comment on this thread that is the slightest bit racist. Your definition of "racist" seems to include anyone who disagrees with you. Might I point out that...the English and the Scots are both "caucasian" and thus are the same racial type.22 August 2004, 18:38:45 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplySquander Two Stuart, I hardly think you're qualified to use the phrase "logical conclusion".22 August 2004, 12:37:35 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyStuart Dickson Every time some contributor to this blog makes a rascist comment and I oppose their hatred, Squander Two comes back and defends them. The logical conclusion is that he shares with their hatred.21 August 2004, 16:06:47 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyStuart Dickson No. I find your attitude very distasteful. You are a nasty little rascist.21 August 2004, 16:01:43 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplySquander Two > No. And the prospects of one in the foreseeable future are slim. Thank you. So, apart from disagreement over the meaning of the word "socialism", you actually agree with David and the rest of us. Glad we cleared thst up.21 August 2004, 14:22:50 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyAlastair Ross This one is easy. The Labour Party is a member of Socialist International, as is the governing party of Singapore.21 August 2004, 11:08:12 GMT+01:00– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson Chris Hoy wins for Scotland! I have just been reliably informed that Shirley Robertson is not in fact our first consecutive gold medallist. She is our fourth. For the record the other 3 are: Angus Gillan and George Cornet (both 1908 London and 1912 Stockholm) and Rodney Pattison (1968 Mexico City and 1972 Munich). Scotland have won two gold and one silver today: not bad. It was the BBC that misinformed me regarding Shirley. Part of their daily mis-information service. Deja vu! Squander Two Although your agonising over the decline and fall of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party is a tale of woe to bring tears to the hardiest soul, it is not sufficiently moving to motivate me to give a damn. They can do what they like, it won't make one jot of difference because they are perceived as an English party. Americans don't vote for Canadian parties; Italians don't vote for Austrian parties; and Scots don't vote for English parties. And why should they? -"Is there still a mainstream Scottish political party that believes in lowering taxes and returning state-controlled "public" services to the realm of private enterprise?" No. And the prospects of one in the foreseeable future are slim. -"If not, why not?" Its the swing of the pendulum. What goes around comes around. The pendulum is stuck on Labour in Scotland because there is no fiscal accountability under the block grant system. When we get fiscal independence the follies of social democracy will hurt the electorate in their pocket, parties will see the opportunity and the SNP and LibDems will drift to the centre-right and pick up lots of votes. If you want eternal Labour government then you will oppose fiscal autonomy tooth and nail. -"If this change has occurred in Scotland but not in England, why do you think that is?" I don't perceive substantive difference between the English and Scottish Conservatives. The British Conservative Party is a monolithic, kowtowing brotherhood which discourages dissent in the colonies. London pays the piper and London calls the tune. The English Tories fit your description too: "turning into a tax-raising, state-spending-increasing, government-expanding party". Remember that it was Mrs Thatcher who took the share of GDP taken in tax to record levels in the UK (nearly 50% at its peak.) Tax as a % of GDP has actually fallen under Labour. -"in response to research on public opinion in Scotland". I haven't heard of this. Back to the Olympics. No wonder England want to keep hold of Scotland. Without us they would have no gold medals yet and be down in 27th place on the Medal Table. (They would also lose their seat in the UN Security Council and have to relocate the entire UK trident nuclear missile fleet south of the border.)20 August 2004, 20:34:59 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyStuart Dickson Squander Two Watching the Olympics. Get back to you once Chris Hoy and Craig McLean have sealed some more medals for Scotland. Well done Shirley Robertson: Scotland's first consecutive Gold medalist!20 August 2004, 16:57:20 GMT+01:00– Like – Reply
Squander Two > Why am I the only one expected to come up with long, detailed analysis of the tripe that you idiots write? Are you seriously implying that no-one here has provided any analysis of anything you've written? > When I do I am accused of lacking a sense of humour. When I don't I am accused of avoiding the questions. And when I am humorous I am accused of hypocrisy. No, when you take an obvious joke 100% literally, you are accused of lacking a sense of humour. When you pointedly avoid answering questions ("I am abstaining at present from debate"), you are accused of avoiding answering questions. And you're accused of hypocrisy when you reserve the right to make glib comments yourself but fly off the handle when anyone else does it. So go on: prove us all wrong. Answer the question. I didn't ask it as a rhetorical tactic; I would genuinely like to hear your opinion. It was a way back, so I'll ask it again, and even re-word it, for your convenience. A lot of people believe that the Scottish Tories have become essentially socialist, in that they have adopted the policy of raising taxes and raising government spending on "public" services. Now, you disagree with this use of the word "socialist", which you are entitled to do, so let's replace it with "left-wing". The issue at hand isn't the word used; it's the underlying phenomenon that it describes. The Scottish Tories may not be extremist left-wingers, but they have become sufficiently left-wing that, at least on issues of fiscal policy, there is no longer a mainstream right-wing party in Scotland. Furthermore, they claim to have made this change in response to research on public opinion in Scotland, which implies that Scots are generally fairly left-wing. The fact that the English Tories have not felt forced to make a similar change implies that the Scottish electorate is more left-wing than the English electorate -- or maybe it implies that the Scots Tories' research was flawed, or that the English Tories are simply reacting too slowly and that they too will have to make this change eventually. So, ignoring the word "socialist", what do you think? Is there still a mainstream Scottish political party that believes in lowering taxes and returning state-controlled "public" services to the realm of private enterprise? If not, why not? If this change has occurred in Scotland but not in England, why do you think that is? By the way, Nicola Sturgeon's words show that she clearly believes that private enterprise is a good thing, but her proposed method of increasing enterprise says to me that she doesn't have the faintest idea of why Scotland contains fewer entrepreneurs than it used to. Teaching children that Scotland used to be economically great won't help unless you change the economic environment of the country, something that she doesn't even allude to.20 August 2004, 10:01:13 GMT+01:00– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson Steve Now I am no fan of the LibLabs. I have never voted for either party and I find it hard to foresee circumstances in which I would. However, being a reasonable person, I would not call the LibDems "commies socialist marxists", nor the Labour Party "marxist" having "a common theme with fascists" without some evidence. Since the overwhelming consensus of public opinion is that neither the Liberal Democratic Party nor the Labour Party are marxist organisations I rather think that the burden of proof lies on you to present a case. Until you present such evidence I feel perfectly entitled to dismiss your rant as arrant nonsense. I repeat: grow up.20 August 2004, 09:44:18 GMT+01:00– Like – Replysteve shackleton Stuart Sorry to cover the same point again just re typing my comments and claiming case closed is no argument. The point being made was that you need to show why an opposite arguement is nonsense.20 August 2004, 08:37:31 GMT+01:00– Like – Replysteve shackleton Neil You will find that Bismarck's state was supported by statist of all kind, and was socialist in principle. Everything and everyone was tuned to the needs of the state, sounds socialist to me. On this point not many on the left are willing to admit that the nanny state we have is based on tory policy as so called left wing policy.20 August 2004, 08:34:17 GMT+01:00– Like – ReplyYaffle "Teaching enterprise skills"? Isn't this a bit like teaching humour, or teaching sense of rhythm? Whatever it means (if anything), I'd like to see our institutionally statist school system try...20 August 2004, 03:48:59 GMT+01:00
Post a comment