![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aggravated
Wireless so touchy here. Turn on something, and your apt to have it go wonky.
Dave not too sure about wireless, and I'm hearing about it. I've plenty of laptops
he can use. Trying to wean him off a desktop, but it's taking a few years.
ocicats_bengals
The Cattery
Wireless so touchy here. Turn on something, and your apt to have it go wonky.
Dave not too sure about wireless, and I'm hearing about it. I've plenty of laptops
he can use. Trying to wean him off a desktop, but it's taking a few years.
Better go and sort the wireless problems out. Be right back with the rams.
Am not getting the crisp shots I like using the telephoto lens on these settings,
so may go out for another round next week or so. It's hard to get a clear, crisp sunny day
this month as we head in to deep autumn. Monday is supposed to get below 50' with rain.
so may go out for another round next week or so. It's hard to get a clear, crisp sunny day
this month as we head in to deep autumn. Monday is supposed to get below 50' with rain.
Seems the folk that print the signs forgot the extra 'L' in Edzell.
The cattle were far out in the field, and as Nadja snapped away, they started
taking a keen interest in us. Scared of starting some stampede like movement,
we decided to head for the car. In Fettercairn, we noticed the tyre that
which seems to have a slow leak, was flat, so we pumped it up to continue
on to Edzell. I think we'll go back out in a fortnight to see if the leaves
have changed more, and with another lens. Photos as soon as Photobucket cooperates.
Web is giving me aggro today. :-P
The cattle were far out in the field, and as Nadja snapped away, they started
taking a keen interest in us. Scared of starting some stampede like movement,
we decided to head for the car. In Fettercairn, we noticed the tyre that
which seems to have a slow leak, was flat, so we pumped it up to continue
on to Edzell. I think we'll go back out in a fortnight to see if the leaves
have changed more, and with another lens. Photos as soon as Photobucket cooperates.
Web is giving me aggro today. :-P
Sweet jellyfish.
Rebuttal To Jim Murphy's Claim That 'Most Scots No Longer Want Independence by D. Y. Coull
Posted on 2009.09.23 at 15:54Current Mood:
amused
Current Music: Across the Universe
Jim Murphy has never had a proper job. Even when he was officially a student, he had already started being a full time politician. I remember when I first heard of Jim Murphy, he was the secretary of the Scottish region of the National Union of Students. From that power base in student politics he went on to become the president of the NUS at a British level, and then he went straight into being a professional Labour Party politician. This was a well-worn career path followed by many other government ministers before him (Jack Straw, to give one other example).
> From the Edinburgh Evening News
> Wednesday 23 September
> Most Scots no longer want independence, says Murphy
That is a very odd headline. Is Murphy saying that "most Scots" USED
TO BE in favour of independence, but that there has now been a substantial drop in support for independence, leading to a situation where, although independence supporters used to be the majority, they are now the minority? If that is what he is saying, it must be the first time any Unionist politician has ever admitted that independence might ever be supported by the majority. As for Jim Murphy's "evidence" for a drop in support for independence, it is, of course, completely non-existent. It's just wishful thinking. Because of the re-introduction of a Scottish Parliament, the job of Secretary of State for Scotland is already much diminished from the sort of power that Willie Ross (for
example) used to wield. Jim Murphy can't even claim to represent the Labour Party in Scotland, that's supposed to be Ian Gray's job. And if Scotland moves towards independence, then, instead of having a part-time job, Jim Murphy will be out of a job altogether. This man who has seen Labour politics as his path to greatness since he was neglecting his studies for student politics now sees independence as a threat to his chosen life career.
> MOST Scots, including many who used to back independence, now say "thank goodness" Scotland is part of the >UK, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy claimed today.
Jim Murphy was addressing a business convention, and it is true that one of Scotland's richest men, Tom Farmer, who has in the past indicated some degree of support for the SNP, now says now is not the time for independence. But "most" people in Scotland are not Scotland's richest men, and Tom Farmer will have exactly the same number of votes in a referendum as the rest of us will have. If one multi-millionaire is hedging his bets, that does NOT translate into "most Scots, including many who used to back independence" deciding they don't want independence. Again, what we have here is just wishful thinking by a politician who sees a threat to his job, without a shred of evidence to back up Jim Murphy's assertions.
There is only one way to settle what "most Scots" want, and, to quote a phrase made famous by one of Murphy's Labour colleagues, BRING IT ON .
> From the Edinburgh Evening News
> Wednesday 23 September
> Most Scots no longer want independence, says Murphy
That is a very odd headline. Is Murphy saying that "most Scots" USED
TO BE in favour of independence, but that there has now been a substantial drop in support for independence, leading to a situation where, although independence supporters used to be the majority, they are now the minority? If that is what he is saying, it must be the first time any Unionist politician has ever admitted that independence might ever be supported by the majority. As for Jim Murphy's "evidence" for a drop in support for independence, it is, of course, completely non-existent. It's just wishful thinking. Because of the re-introduction of a Scottish Parliament, the job of Secretary of State for Scotland is already much diminished from the sort of power that Willie Ross (for
example) used to wield. Jim Murphy can't even claim to represent the Labour Party in Scotland, that's supposed to be Ian Gray's job. And if Scotland moves towards independence, then, instead of having a part-time job, Jim Murphy will be out of a job altogether. This man who has seen Labour politics as his path to greatness since he was neglecting his studies for student politics now sees independence as a threat to his chosen life career.
> MOST Scots, including many who used to back independence, now say "thank goodness" Scotland is part of the >UK, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy claimed today.
Jim Murphy was addressing a business convention, and it is true that one of Scotland's richest men, Tom Farmer, who has in the past indicated some degree of support for the SNP, now says now is not the time for independence. But "most" people in Scotland are not Scotland's richest men, and Tom Farmer will have exactly the same number of votes in a referendum as the rest of us will have. If one multi-millionaire is hedging his bets, that does NOT translate into "most Scots, including many who used to back independence" deciding they don't want independence. Again, what we have here is just wishful thinking by a politician who sees a threat to his job, without a shred of evidence to back up Jim Murphy's assertions.
There is only one way to settle what "most Scots" want, and, to quote a phrase made famous by one of Murphy's Labour colleagues, BRING IT ON .
Wonder about the 'exiled American' part.
From the "Brechin Advertiser", Thursday, September 3, 2009
AMERICANS WON’T BOYCOTT SCOTLAND
An exiled American has expressed support for the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, taken by Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, following our story in last week’s “Brechiner”, where the grandson of a former resident of the city, now resident in the States, expressed his disgust at the decision.
Mrs Keri Coull of Balnabreich Cottages explained “A few days ago we had a visit from a friend who is a lawyer back in California."
"While spending a week in Edinburgh for the Festival, she came up to Brechin just for the day.”
“Regarding Megrahi, she simply said she didn't know enough about the case to comment. Unfortunately, ignorance hasn't stopped some of our fellow countrymen from commenting!”
“Kenny MacAskill consulted the prison authorities (who advised release), he consulted doctors (who advised release), he consulted the Parole Board (who advised release), he consulted relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing (whose opinions were divided, on both sides of the Atlantic), he got an earfull from both Hilary Clinton and the President, but, in the end, it was down to the Justice Secretary of Scotland to make a decision.”
“And I think he made the right one. I'm ashamed of the arrogant reactions of some of my fellow Americans, and I'm proud that Scotland sets an example of civilisation to the world.”
“Mind you I know from personal telephone conversations, e-mails, and websites, that opinion in the US is far from being as unanimously critical of Scotland as some have tried to suggest.”
“As for the ridiculous figures produced by some alleged ‘poll" for Fox News - come on, guys, it's Fox News we're talking about.”
“The reality is that this storm will blow over. Americans are not going to ‘boycott Scotland’.”
“But what won't go away are questions about the Lockerbie bombing. Although Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds, and rightly so, I personally am not convinced he was the culprit.”
“Oh, he's no saint, he was a secret agent of the Libyan government, and like government agents everywhere he probably did bad things. But there is doubt about his conviction for this crime. And if he didn't do it - who did?”
“That would mean the real culprits are still at large. Although neither the USA nor the British government seem keen on the idea, I think it's time for a public enquiry.”
From the "Brechin Advertiser", Thursday, September 3, 2009
AMERICANS WON’T BOYCOTT SCOTLAND
An exiled American has expressed support for the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, taken by Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, following our story in last week’s “Brechiner”, where the grandson of a former resident of the city, now resident in the States, expressed his disgust at the decision.
Mrs Keri Coull of Balnabreich Cottages explained “A few days ago we had a visit from a friend who is a lawyer back in California."
"While spending a week in Edinburgh for the Festival, she came up to Brechin just for the day.”
“Regarding Megrahi, she simply said she didn't know enough about the case to comment. Unfortunately, ignorance hasn't stopped some of our fellow countrymen from commenting!”
“Kenny MacAskill consulted the prison authorities (who advised release), he consulted doctors (who advised release), he consulted the Parole Board (who advised release), he consulted relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing (whose opinions were divided, on both sides of the Atlantic), he got an earfull from both Hilary Clinton and the President, but, in the end, it was down to the Justice Secretary of Scotland to make a decision.”
“And I think he made the right one. I'm ashamed of the arrogant reactions of some of my fellow Americans, and I'm proud that Scotland sets an example of civilisation to the world.”
“Mind you I know from personal telephone conversations, e-mails, and websites, that opinion in the US is far from being as unanimously critical of Scotland as some have tried to suggest.”
“As for the ridiculous figures produced by some alleged ‘poll" for Fox News - come on, guys, it's Fox News we're talking about.”
“The reality is that this storm will blow over. Americans are not going to ‘boycott Scotland’.”
“But what won't go away are questions about the Lockerbie bombing. Although Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds, and rightly so, I personally am not convinced he was the culprit.”
“Oh, he's no saint, he was a secret agent of the Libyan government, and like government agents everywhere he probably did bad things. But there is doubt about his conviction for this crime. And if he didn't do it - who did?”
“That would mean the real culprits are still at large. Although neither the USA nor the British government seem keen on the idea, I think it's time for a public enquiry.”
On the 3rd of July 1988, Iran Air flight IR655 was over the Straits of Hormuz, in Iranian air space, on the regular scheduled flight to Dubai.
The US navy ship Vincennes fired two missiles at this passenger plane, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. Most of the dead were Iranian, but there were also citizens of the UAE, India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and Italy on board the plane. Despite it being established almost immediately that the flight was a civilian flight, the USS Vincennes received a hero's welcome back to the USA at the port of San Diego, and the Captain of that ship, who had given the order to fire the missiles which killed 290 civilians, was awarded the Congessional Medal of Honour by President Reagan.
I wonder how the relatives of those 290 folk, including the 66 children, felt, on seeing a mass murderer welcomed back as a hero, and being given a medal by his country's Head of State? Revenge is an ugly emotion, but it would not be surprising if some of them would have agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that "the skies would rain blood" in revenge.
Five months later, the skies rained blood over Lockerbie.
The US navy ship Vincennes fired two missiles at this passenger plane, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. Most of the dead were Iranian, but there were also citizens of the UAE, India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and Italy on board the plane. Despite it being established almost immediately that the flight was a civilian flight, the USS Vincennes received a hero's welcome back to the USA at the port of San Diego, and the Captain of that ship, who had given the order to fire the missiles which killed 290 civilians, was awarded the Congessional Medal of Honour by President Reagan.
I wonder how the relatives of those 290 folk, including the 66 children, felt, on seeing a mass murderer welcomed back as a hero, and being given a medal by his country's Head of State? Revenge is an ugly emotion, but it would not be surprising if some of them would have agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that "the skies would rain blood" in revenge.
Five months later, the skies rained blood over Lockerbie.
The Scottish government, acting in accordance with Scottish law and after due consideration and consultation, releases a terminally ill man whose conviction was widely believed to be flawed and whose appeal against that conviction was widely considered likely to succeed. The USA protests. Yet the USA actively SUPPORTED the release of other convicted terrorists. In fact, the USA put pressure on the British government to release large numbers of terrorists who not only confessed their guilt but took pride in it and who were welcomed back as heroes by their communities, as part of the "Good Friday Agreement". Double standards would be a polite way of putting it.
Toronto "Israel/Palestine: Mapping models of Statehood & Paths to Peace"
Posted on 2009.06.22 at 12:41
"Israel/Palestine: Mapping models of Statehood & Paths to Peace"
http://www.yorku.ca/ipconf/
Jewish groups blast 'anti-Zionist' conference at Toronto university
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/109
http://www.yorku.ca/ipconf/
Jewish groups blast 'anti-Zionist' conference at Toronto university
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/109
Current Mood:
cold
On Twitter, Doug Saunders wrote about Scotland receiving "London subsidies". But there are NO "London subsidies" . They are a complete myth. The people of Scotland pay taxes, which go to London. Some (but not all) of what they pay to London gets returned. It's not a "subsidy".
It's their own money. For more detail, see http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/greatd
Doug Saunders asked "What does "self" gain by being constricted into
ever-smaller administrative jurisdiction? Isn't that very shallow?"
- Keeping the organisations and the people who influence our lives as close as practical doesn't seem "shallow" to me. It seems like good democratic practice. As for being "constricting", surely it is distant, remote, power sources, over which we have little or no control, which are more constricting.
Doug Saunders wrote "The people who 'live there' are already represented by their country's govt +EU+ plus regional legislature. Why a new one?"
- It's NOT "a new one". The Scottish parliament already exists. What is proposed is that all of the powers which were "reserved" for the London government when the Scottish Parliament was set up should be transferred to this body which already exists. Far from increasing the levels of government over us, this would REDUCE government by scrapping an entire tier of it so far as Scotland is concerned - we
would not be governed from London.
"Who's this "self" to be self-determining?" - the people who live in Scotland now. ALL of them. Regardless of where they came from. So, for instance, somebody who was born in Pakistan but lives here now would have a vote in the self-determination referendum, and somebody who was born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada would not.
Doug Saunders wrote "All of Europe is already goverened by the people
who live there". - THAT is highly debatable!
The turnout for European elections is extremely low precisely because most people feel they are just window-dressing, and that they have little control over what the gigantic Euro-bureaucracy does.
Doug Saunders asked "why recreate an ancient ethno-religious border?"
- but nobody has proposed doing any such thing. There is no need to "re-create" the border between Scotland and England, it already exists, it never at any time ceased existing. There have always been different legal systems on each side of the border. For instance, juries consist of 12 people in England, but of 15 people in Scotland. The laws on selling your house are so different you that somebody trained in English law would be no help with selling your house in Scotland, you would need somebody specifically trained in Scottish Law. The laws on marriage are different; so different you would get teenage couples in England running away to cross the Scottish border to get married in Scotland without parental consent. This has ALWAYS been the case, there is nothing new about it, there is nothing to "re-create".. These are just a few of the ways in which the border has always been a reality. There are many more.
HOWEVER, there is no suggestion of erecting border posts, or preventing the free movement of people, or anything like that. People from England, or France, or Poland, can move freely to Scotland at present, and that would not change with independence.
Doug Saunders wrote "'National sovereignty' and 'self-determination'
were 2 concepts that turned 20th century into a bloodbath".
- aggressive Nationalism, as exemplified by the Nazis for instance, certainly caused a bloodbath, but that kind of aggressive Nationalism is AGAINST self-determination. It seeks to suppress the manifestation of national cultures which do not fit in with that of the "master race". And it wasn't "self-determination" which created the bloodbath, killing many millions of people, unleashed by Stalin's USSR. That was caused by seeking to impose a grey uniformity.
http://twitter.com/DougSaunders/sta
It's their own money. For more detail, see http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/greatd
Doug Saunders asked "What does "self" gain by being constricted into
ever-smaller administrative jurisdiction? Isn't that very shallow?"
- Keeping the organisations and the people who influence our lives as close as practical doesn't seem "shallow" to me. It seems like good democratic practice. As for being "constricting", surely it is distant, remote, power sources, over which we have little or no control, which are more constricting.
Doug Saunders wrote "The people who 'live there' are already represented by their country's govt +EU+ plus regional legislature. Why a new one?"
- It's NOT "a new one". The Scottish parliament already exists. What is proposed is that all of the powers which were "reserved" for the London government when the Scottish Parliament was set up should be transferred to this body which already exists. Far from increasing the levels of government over us, this would REDUCE government by scrapping an entire tier of it so far as Scotland is concerned - we
would not be governed from London.
"Who's this "self" to be self-determining?" - the people who live in Scotland now. ALL of them. Regardless of where they came from. So, for instance, somebody who was born in Pakistan but lives here now would have a vote in the self-determination referendum, and somebody who was born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada would not.
Doug Saunders wrote "All of Europe is already goverened by the people
who live there". - THAT is highly debatable!
The turnout for European elections is extremely low precisely because most people feel they are just window-dressing, and that they have little control over what the gigantic Euro-bureaucracy does.
Doug Saunders asked "why recreate an ancient ethno-religious border?"
- but nobody has proposed doing any such thing. There is no need to "re-create" the border between Scotland and England, it already exists, it never at any time ceased existing. There have always been different legal systems on each side of the border. For instance, juries consist of 12 people in England, but of 15 people in Scotland. The laws on selling your house are so different you that somebody trained in English law would be no help with selling your house in Scotland, you would need somebody specifically trained in Scottish Law. The laws on marriage are different; so different you would get teenage couples in England running away to cross the Scottish border to get married in Scotland without parental consent. This has ALWAYS been the case, there is nothing new about it, there is nothing to "re-create".. These are just a few of the ways in which the border has always been a reality. There are many more.
HOWEVER, there is no suggestion of erecting border posts, or preventing the free movement of people, or anything like that. People from England, or France, or Poland, can move freely to Scotland at present, and that would not change with independence.
Doug Saunders wrote "'National sovereignty' and 'self-determination'
were 2 concepts that turned 20th century into a bloodbath".
- aggressive Nationalism, as exemplified by the Nazis for instance, certainly caused a bloodbath, but that kind of aggressive Nationalism is AGAINST self-determination. It seeks to suppress the manifestation of national cultures which do not fit in with that of the "master race". And it wasn't "self-determination" which created the bloodbath, killing many millions of people, unleashed by Stalin's USSR. That was caused by seeking to impose a grey uniformity.
http://twitter.com/DougSaunders/sta
I'm getting one!!!
bouncy
Hi LJ mates. Please follow my 140 character updates on Twitter. @ocicat_bengals I've realised trying to blog my life is a disaster, but will check back from time to time. Recent posts include how the American 'revolution' wasn't, in 140 characters.
