tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post109042264504446660..comments2023-05-01T16:14:04.382+01:00Comments on Scots and Independent: A message for over-excitable unionists everywhere:Richard Thomsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-83207034545069434872008-11-04T10:39:00.000+00:002008-11-04T10:39:00.000+00:00Hi Stuart,Thanks for the comments. If my attention...Hi Stuart,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments. If my attentions have been dragged elsewhere in recent days, then I apologise. <BR/><BR/>Your 1rst paragraph goes right to the heart of the issue. I find it quite revealing that some people’s determination to try and salvage a meaningless anti-SNP point has led them to argue a ridiculous and unwinnable case, suspending in the process any good judgement with which they might previously have been blessed. <BR/><BR/>As for your second point, Scottish banks clearly needed capitalisation as well as liquidity. Every situation is different. However, since the unionist charge was that Scotland would have been unable to take the sort of measures required to restore financial stability, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to highlight the scale of action which other countries have been able to take.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>RichardRichard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-29273943187933154902008-11-04T03:08:00.000+00:002008-11-04T03:08:00.000+00:00It seems to me that the Norwegian minister was try...It seems to me that the Norwegian minister was trying to defend his country's banks - in that they aren't the same basket cases as ours - rather than attacking Alex Salmond per se. However, some of the SNP's opponents have clearly been keen to spin the remarks as the latter.<BR/><BR/>However, this does beg the question - irrespective of the meaning of more colloquial terms like 'bail-out' and 'rescue', if Norway's action amounted merely to improving liquidity, then Alex Salmond was wrong to use that example to demonstrate that Scotland could have saved our own banks, because they required recapitalising?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-57118729496175153672008-11-03T19:05:00.000+00:002008-11-03T19:05:00.000+00:00Bye, then.Bye, then.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-29884719192233206122008-11-03T17:00:00.000+00:002008-11-03T17:00:00.000+00:00The Daily Mail referred to Mr Salmond “praising No...The Daily Mail referred to Mr Salmond “praising Norway for ‘<B>bailing out</B>’ its banks”.<BR/><BR/>The Telegraph then referred to “Mr Salmond's claim that Norway had <B>bailed out</B> its banking sector”.<BR/><BR/>(my bold)<BR/><BR/>But whether “bailout” or “rescue”, your elaborate attempts to establish substantive differences between the two words and your increasingly accusatory tone don’t really leave this thread with anywhere else to go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-25969068201600857852008-11-03T16:52:00.000+00:002008-11-03T16:52:00.000+00:00Nice touch of condescension there!But you make it ...<I>Nice touch of condescension there!</I><BR/><BR/>But you make it so easy, SU.<BR/><BR/>It's clear that Norway had a £35bn bond issue. That is what Mr Salmond was referring to. It's clear also that the Minister takes exception to this £35bn liquidity injection being described as a bail out. What's so difficult for you to grasp about this, other than your unfathomable need to always find some imagined fault to pin against Alex Salmond/the SNP?<BR/><BR/><I>So you think the Daily Mail is “completely discredited”. What about the Telegraph? Is every media outlet which doesn’t back up your view “completely discredited”?</I><BR/><BR/>I said the Mail story was discredited - do keep up. To save you the bother, Angus Macleod's reheating of it in The Times is discredited also. The Telegraph article is almost impartial in comparison. <BR/><BR/>Isn't the real problem this - you lost the argument here so long ago that you've completely lost sight of what it whatever point it was you were trying to make in the first place?Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-25994580935224317492008-11-03T16:34:00.000+00:002008-11-03T16:34:00.000+00:00Nice touch of condescension there!Your argument ho...Nice touch of condescension there!<BR/><BR/>Your argument holds no water. Look at <A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/3280030/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-back-down-after-Norway-says-were-not-like-Scotland..html" REL="nofollow">this</A>:<BR/><BR/>“Mr Salmond's claim that Norway had bailed out its banking sector”<BR/><BR/>So you think the Daily Mail is “completely discredited”. What about the Telegraph? Is every media outlet which doesn’t back up your view “completely discredited”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-10879522674395946152008-11-03T16:14:00.000+00:002008-11-03T16:14:00.000+00:00OK – I'll make this as simple as I can:1. There's ...OK – I'll make this as simple as I can:<BR/><BR/>1. There's been a liquidity injection of c. £35bn into the Norwegian economy. This is a fact.<BR/><BR/>2. It is this which Mr Salmond was referring to as a rescue package. Now, I appreciate this must be painful for you to acknowledge, but since it is happening, it's impossible for Mr Salmond to be wrong when he says it is happening. <BR/><BR/>3. The Norwegian Minister said there'd been no 'bail out'. Presumably when he did so, he was fully aware of his country’s liquidity injection. Therefore, in speaking of there not having been a 'bail out', the minister must be referring to something other than liquidity. Like capitalisation, for instance.<BR/><BR/>For the minister to be contradicting Mr Salmond, as you’d like to suggest he is, they would need to have been talking about the same thing. Quite clearly - unless of course you are now suggesting that the Minister is wrong - they weren't. I'd have thought might have been obvious to you, if you weren't so intent on trying to salvage something from the ridiculous position into which you've now landed yourself.<BR/><BR/>The Daily Mail article you posted is completely discredited. Your attempt to justify the ‘arc of insolvency’ was just risible. Your later and more sober attempt to claim that the Norwegian Minister’s unspun comments somehow damaged SNP comparisons fell flat, because no-one in the SNP disputes what he says. Now, you’re having to try and pretend that the Minister meant something which he didn’t, in order to try and discredit Alex Salmond when he points quite accurately to something which did happen!<BR/><BR/>Your position is utterly, utterly ludicrous. Please, spare yourself the agony of trying to sustain it further.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-20625323691945855232008-11-03T15:12:00.000+00:002008-11-03T15:12:00.000+00:00So Norwegian banks were "rescued" but not "bailed ...So Norwegian banks were "rescued" but not "bailed out"?!<BR/><BR/>Uh huh. Sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-48767367439541301712008-11-03T13:58:00.000+00:002008-11-03T13:58:00.000+00:00Olé! AM2's bull slams straight into the wall...Olé! AM2's bull slams straight into the wall...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-27828321595109524832008-11-02T21:19:00.000+00:002008-11-02T21:19:00.000+00:00Are you seriously trying to establish a semantic d...<I>Are you seriously trying to establish a semantic distinction between "rescue" and "bail out"?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm certainly happy to draw a distinction between liquidity and capitalisation. Presumably you are also? <BR/><BR/>In terms of linguistic precision, I'm happier with 'bail out' in the context of investing capital into particular banks than I would be in terms of describing a general injection of liquidity. While a 'bailing out' could clearly be part of a 'rescue package', a 'rescue package' needn't necessarily involve a 'bailing out'. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, there was a liquidity injection, which is what I suspect Mr Salmond was referring to in describing a 'rescue package' of c. £35bn. Since this liquidity injection is a matter of record, unless you are suggesting that the Foreign Minister inadvertantly overlooked this when denying that there had been any 'bail out', then I fail to see what the problem is.<BR/><BR/>However, if you regard 'bailing out' as including an injection of liquidity, then in the interests of intellectual honesty, maybe you should take the matter up with the Foreign Minister direct. If you do, please share any response you get on your blog - I'd love to see what they have to say in reply :-)<BR/><BR/>It all seems fairly straightforward to me. But then again, I'm not pathologically determined to try and portray the Norwegian Minister's remarks as being anything other than an informed contribution to the debate. <BR/><BR/><I>Can you refer me to any technical definitions of those terms in this context?</I><BR/><BR/>Probably not. I wouldn't recommend wasting your time looking for it either. No-one writing anything requiring the precision of a technical definition would ever use a description such as 'bail out'. Too many folks around who might go on to misunderstand it, you see :-)Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-92103823417844605772008-11-02T19:54:00.000+00:002008-11-02T19:54:00.000+00:00RichardAre you seriously trying to establish a sem...Richard<BR/><BR/>Are you seriously trying to establish a semantic distinction between "rescue" and "bail out"?<BR/><BR/>Can you refer me to any technical definitions of those terms in this context?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-5755779772929503712008-11-02T16:33:00.000+00:002008-11-02T16:33:00.000+00:00SU - I'm presuming the £35bn comment was a referen...SU - I'm presuming the £35bn comment was a reference to this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/24/business/EU-Norway-Bank-Aid.php<BR/><BR/>Since it's a liquidity measure, it can be described accurately as a rescue package. As it's related to liquidity rather than capitalisation, it would also be correct to say that it does not amount to a 'bail out' of any banks.<BR/><BR/>If so, then there's no circle needing squared...Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-36035469464924467342008-11-02T16:29:00.000+00:002008-11-02T16:29:00.000+00:00Richard - apologies for going so far off topic on ...<I>Richard - apologies for going so far off topic on this one</I><BR/><BR/>Not a problem, Leaves. I'm sure you're both able to handle yourselves. As long as it remains on the right side of civil, I'm happy to 'haud the jaikets', as it were.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-76257896356466307282008-11-01T14:34:00.000+00:002008-11-01T14:34:00.000+00:00RichardYou said: “I have no difficulty with the Mi...Richard<BR/><BR/>You said: “I have no difficulty with the Ministers comments whatsoever.”<BR/><BR/>Really? So square this circle...<BR/><BR/>* <A HREF="http://heritage.scotsman.com/halifaxbankofscotland/Shareholders-count-cost-of-bailout.4587592.jp" REL="nofollow">Scotsman report</A>: “Mr Salmond said Norway ... had been able to come up with a £35 billion rescue package for its banks…”<BR/><BR/>* Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre: “the Norwegian government has not bailed out any banks.”<BR/><BR/>* Ambassador Bjarne Lindstrøm: Claiming that “Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.”<BR/><BR/>So who is right? Did Norway bail out any banks: yes or no?<BR/><BR/>If yes, Salmond is right. If no, it’s Støre who is correct. But one thing’s for sure: Lindstrøm’s a diplomat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-43982947619786591172008-11-01T14:22:00.000+00:002008-11-01T14:22:00.000+00:00Leaves:We're off topic because you chose to misrep...Leaves:<BR/><BR/>We're off topic because you chose to misrepresent me on four counts. Even now, you have only partially and rather gracelessly retracted them, following up with inferential vagaries which undermine even that.<BR/><BR/>* I placed Winnie Ewing's picture within that post because she was one of the three people whom I quoted making arguably fascistic comments. Indeed, in the same breath she called the unionist parties "traitors" and "enemies of Scotland". Are you expressing approval of such ideas simply because she is "a highly symbolic figure within the party"?<BR/><BR/>* The conceptual links between some of the more outrageous cybernatism and elements of mainstream party ideology are precisely what I am driving at. Well observed.<BR/><BR/>* I know exactly what Poppy Scotland does. Thanks for acknowledging that your first claim was incorrect, but you have yet to realise that your inference did not flow from the implication which you wrongly imagined me to be making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-65154132714094499522008-11-01T11:00:00.000+00:002008-11-01T11:00:00.000+00:00SU, As we are now so far off topic I will be brief...SU, As we are now so far off topic I will be brief and perhaps could continue this in another place... Hell, you could even try returning humour and good natured discourse on your own blog for a change...<BR/><BR/>Your argument rests on semantics of language rather than considering the bigger picture - the overall tone and impression that you create. <BR/><BR/>* Whilst you do not directly label Winnie Ewing as a facistic Nat you know full well what message is conveyed by placing her image with that post. You know that she is a highly symbolic figure within the party and therefore you know what impression you are creating of mainstream members by such a posting.<BR/><BR/>* On the points referring to fundamentalism and anti-English sentiments I accept that you do not <I>explicitly</I> throw these at the door of all members. However, you do continually and frequently post articles which take some statement (often from a Scotsman/Herald online loon) and then try to tie their views back to the mainstream party: Again, you know full well that you are trying to create an image.<BR/><BR/>* Whilst you did not specifically say that Salmond was dishonouring the war dead you did say "He’s specifically excluding servicemen and women from elsewhere in Britain and beyond, whose valiant sacrifices have equally protected our values and ways of life." - again you know full well that you are implying some deliberate insult from the First Minister. Again, you are creating an image. And on that story you still haven't come to terms with the fact that the press release was for the launch of Poppy Scotland, a charity that supports Scottish servicemen/women. <BR/><BR/>Richard - apologies for going so far off topic on this one - hopefully you can see that I was trying to back up your point about some commentators going out of their way jump on any story, no matter how trivial sometimes, in order to back up the image that they try to create about the party. Sadly SU's blog is not the worst example.... that award has to go to the Scotsman, particularly when they run bizzare and idiotic stories such as <A HREF="http://news.scotsman.com/politics/SNP-accused-of-rigging-odds.4648191.jp" REL="nofollow">this one yesterday about Nats trying to "rig" the bookies odds...</A>Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01290436372566496124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-70552125443241119982008-11-01T10:29:00.000+00:002008-11-01T10:29:00.000+00:00I have no difficulty with the Ministers comments w...I have no difficulty with the Ministers comments whatsoever. He could even have added that since Scotland was heavily industrialised at the time oil was discovered while Norway was not; that Scotland is urbanised in a way that Norway is not; that the Norwegians didn't face the same balance of payments crisis as Britain in the late 70's/early 80's so didn't face the same pressure to get the oil pumping as quickly as possible; that there were further differences. These are points I've often made myself, but none of them prevent or prohibit comparison.<BR/><BR/><I>The UK falling into recession has no bearing on the debate over the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s comments.</I><BR/><BR/>No, but it has a bearing on your attempt to claim that since there is evidence of individual insolvencies (as there always is, even in times of enormous prosperity, incidentally), that Murphy's claim was justified. Given the relative prosperity of both Norway and Ireland and their freedom to set policies to chart their way out of the present situation, I'd still have their position over that of Scotland in the UK any day of the week.<BR/><BR/>For the record, with their well-educated workforce, self-reliant attitude to the world and abundance of energy resources, I wouldn't bet on Iceland being down for too long either. <BR/><BR/><I>I do wish you’d stop moving the goalposts in order to score vacuous points against me and instead consider his actual remarks.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm moving no goalposts. It's not my fault if you've chosen to back a losing argument here. <BR/><BR/>If you wanted to consider the Ministers comments in isolation, you shouldn't have done so through the medium of a clearly ridiculously partisan Daily Mail article.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-52505945485560719392008-11-01T09:41:00.000+00:002008-11-01T09:41:00.000+00:00If I can perhaps add a bit of balance and repeat w...If I can perhaps add a bit of balance and repeat what I've said elsewhere....<BR/><BR/>- The Norwegian minister's comments were, I suspect, intended to give the impression that the country was trying to keep out of the domestic political fray rather than take sides, but the Mail misrepresented this to make it look like he was slapping the SNP down;<BR/><BR/>- I think the arc of insolvency jibe was probably coined by a newspaper columnist, indeed I don't think Jim Murphy was even SS at the time it was first used.<BR/><BR/>In any case, it's just a soundbite and hyperbole and shouldn't be over-interpreted. And the same goes for the 'arc of prosperity' soundbite which gave rise to it. Insolvency is a term usually associated with business entities rather than nation states, and I suspect the word was chosed merely because it sounded like prosperity and thus was a good rhetorical juxtaposition.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, if you look at what Jim Murphy said in its fuller context then it's obvious that he didn't mean the term 'insolvent' in a literal sense:<BR/><BR/>"Look at this arc of prosperity, what some commentators are now calling calling the arc of insolvency: Iceland, Ireland and Norway."<BR/><BR/>"Iceland as a country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Ireland is officially in recession. Ireland and Norway are trying to borrow from the US and Russia."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-17734049919803880822008-11-01T06:50:00.000+00:002008-11-01T06:50:00.000+00:00RichardDid Salmond’s “arc of prosperity” rhetoric ...Richard<BR/><BR/>Did Salmond’s “arc of prosperity” rhetoric mean that every Irish, Icelandic and Norwegian person was prosperous? Clearly not. And by the same token, “arc of insolvency”, “arc of austerity” etc are impressionistic phrases. Norway is clearly the strongest of the three, but Iceland is equally obviously in dire straits, with interest rates now at 18% to enable an IMF rescue loan. The Irish bubble has burst quite spectacularly and they’ve had an austerity budget slashing already very low public spending on health and education. But I don’t think we’re going to agree on what Jim Murphy meant or didn’t mean, so I’ll let it drop.<BR/><BR/>But in respect of Mr Støre’s unguarded remarks, I wonder if we’re talking at crossed purposes here. The Norwegian Foreign Minister made the following substantive points (among others). These points are independent of the Daily Mail’s editorial slant, which was the focus of the inevitable response by their ambassador. So for you to gloss over such issues and on that basis to try and posture that I’m “behind” in this debate is quite remarkable.<BR/><BR/>* Comparisons between Norway and Scotland have “some clear limitations”. One very obvious example would be that Norway has double the UK’s oil.<BR/><BR/>* Infrastructure development meant that it took the Norwegian oil industry 20+ years to generate a surplus.<BR/><BR/>* Even in Norway, very little such oil and gas revenue makes it into the exchequer. (The obvious implication is that even if a proportionally smaller futures fund was to be to be established here, we couldn’t rely on such revenues to remain in fiscal balance.)<BR/><BR/>* Direct quote: “the Norwegian government has not bailed out any banks”. For obvious diplomatic reasons the Norwegian Ambassador is duty-bound to downplay and indeed deny the implication of that remark, but the fact remains that it runs counter to Alex Salmond’s reported version of events.<BR/><BR/>The UK falling into recession has no bearing on the debate over the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s comments. I do wish you’d stop moving the goalposts in order to score vacuous points against me and instead consider his actual remarks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-74889153068325627162008-11-01T06:49:00.000+00:002008-11-01T06:49:00.000+00:00Chris / LeavesPerhaps unwittingly, you misrepresen...Chris / Leaves<BR/><BR/>Perhaps unwittingly, you misrepresented me in all four of your claims in your first post. In turn:<BR/><BR/>1. The <A HREF="http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/10/fascistic-cybernats-tiny-fringe.html" REL="nofollow">post</A> post entitled “Fascistic CyberNats: a tiny fringe?” featured an SNP member referring to “pro-union Scots (aka. English)”, an SNP activist saying that people who favour independence are “more Scottish” than those who don’t and a senior SNP figure (Winnie Ewing) saying that the unionist parties are only “claiming to be Scottish”. So while it would be true to say that I’ve questioned whether the fanatical fringe is as tiny and marginal as some people might like to think, that is very far from having “labelled” you “all” as “having "facistic" tendencies” – which was your claim, and which I would appreciate if you would now retract.<BR/><BR/>2. I note that you haven’t attempted to justify your claim that I labelled you all as “being out and out fundamentalists”. No surprise, as I didn’t. That being the case, would you kindly withdraw your false statement?<BR/><BR/>3. I do not “maintain on all possible occasions” either that “all” SNP supporters or that “the SNP” itself is “anti-English” (again, your words) and I defy you to present any link/quotation in which I have <I>ever</I> made such a suggestion. Indeed, Glasgow University research (Miller & Hussain, 2006) found that only 46% of Scottish nationalists harboured feelings which could perhaps be construed as “anti-English”, as I have previously mentioned. As that percentage is nowhere near “all”, a retraction again seems in order.<BR/><BR/>4. I did not say that “all”, or even some of you, had “insulted the war dead”. Rather, in <A HREF="http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/10/salmonds-politicisation-of-poppy-week.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>, I took exception to Alex Salmond’s attempts to apply phrases such as “our forces”, “our country”, “our nation”, “our values”, “our way of life” to refer exclusively to Scottish forces, Scottish values etc. That struck me, and continues to strike me, as divisive and thereby deeply distasteful. But at no point did I suggest that he (or anyone) was insulting the war dead. So on your fourth misrepresentation, I would again request that you retract.<BR/><BR/>If we can get beyond these four items, I’ll happily reply to the remainder of your second post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-87041115105087254792008-11-01T01:38:00.000+00:002008-11-01T01:38:00.000+00:00SU - allow me, sir, to salute your courage and you...SU - allow me, sir, to salute your courage and your indefatigability. It's a heroic attempt, but you're still talking bollocks.<BR/><BR/>Murphy's meaning in speaking of an arc of insolvency is clear - it's to disparage the performance of neighbouring countries in an attempt to discredit the idea that an independent Scotland might in some way emulate aspects of their success. <BR/><BR/>Murphy was keen to trumpet the Daily Mail headline which the Norwegians have now slapped down so firmly. By extension, he can consider himself similarly slapped.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Norway, unlike the UK, is still forecast to experience growth this coming year. If the feature of their economy that is 'insolvency' is to be used to justify Murphy's infantile jibe, where does that leave a UK in recession?<BR/><BR/>I'd quit while I was behind if I were you... :-)Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-88012144887701702542008-10-31T18:49:00.000+00:002008-10-31T18:49:00.000+00:00SU >>Please don't misrepresent me.<&l...SU <BR/><BR/>>>Please don't misrepresent me.<<<BR/><BR/>I'll ignore the rank hypocrisy in that request.<BR/><BR/>* You ran a post entitled "Fascistic CyberNats: a tiny fringe?" with a picture of Winnie Ewing<BR/><BR/>* You over-analysed the word "our" and with respect to Salmond's poppy appeal statement and objected to him paying respects to the Scottish war dead. You portrayed the statement as it as anti-English and political. If, for instance, Boris Johnson had made the same tribute to the war dead from London would you jump to a similar conclusion? <BR/><BR/>* You are obsessed - unhealthily obsessed in fact - with "CyberNats" and try to pin the mutterings on online loons on the rest of us - ignoring that such rants are common to both sides...<BR/><BR/>* You maintain on all possible occasions that the SNP is anti-English, conveniently ignoring that the party has many English people within it - in fact as I have pointed out to you on a few occasions, I am English and we are proportionally representative of the origins and identities of all those that live within Scotland.<BR/><BR/>* You dismissed the research that proved that composition (amongst other things) as being SNP and therefore to be treated with cynicism. In fact it was independent, ESRC backed research, performed by Prof Jim Mitchell from Strathclyde University. Go to www.epop08.com/papers/documents/JamesMitchell.doc and see for yourself...<BR/><BR/>* While I'm on the subject the research shows that the party is extremely pragmatic: 85.6% believe we need to concentrate on making devolution work in order to achieve independence, 89% believe that we need to work with other parties if we are to achieve independence and 64.7% believe that whilst independence is an ultimate goal it may need to take take second place: Hardly fits with your portrayal of a party that continually picks fights and is obsessed with a single issue is it?<BR/><BR/>I used to enjoy your blog and could respect your points of view and constructive engagement. Of late you have however become downright insulting and I do genuinely feel that the "Salmond’s politicisation of Poppy Week" posting was a grotesque smear on my party. Your latest bout of excitement was the commentary around the Daily Mail story, which is now utterly discredited: As Richard is saying in his posting you have got to the stage where everything is "‘typical’ of some vice you imagine is held universally by those of my political persuasion"...Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01290436372566496124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-38051471214923927032008-10-31T18:06:00.000+00:002008-10-31T18:06:00.000+00:00Of course not! As is obvious, neither Ireland nor ...Of course not! As is obvious, neither Ireland nor Norway <I>are</I> insolvent.<BR/><BR/>But, as is equally obvious, insolvencies certainly form a significant part of each of their economic situations right now.<BR/><BR/>You've clearly read far too much into Mr Murphy's comment. He simply <B>did not say</B> that either country is insolvent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-37005561280290686382008-10-31T17:20:00.000+00:002008-10-31T17:20:00.000+00:00And I dare say there's many toys in Harrods, too. ...And I dare say there's many toys in Harrods, too. What's your point, caller?<BR/><BR/>You contend, against all the available evidence, that Jim Murphy hasn't described Ireland and Norway as insolvent. Are you suggesting here that he ought to have done?Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-9757750813943896912008-10-31T17:00:00.000+00:002008-10-31T17:00:00.000+00:00There are many insolvencies in both Ireland and Ic...There are many insolvencies in both Ireland and Iceland.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-.htmlssion/businesses-which-make-profit-from-.htmlssion-1510531.html" REL="nofollow">Irish Independent</A>, 25 October 2008: "There's been an 86 per cent increase in the number of formal insolvencies so far this year."<BR/><BR/>As for Iceland, aren't Glitnir, Landsbanki and Kaupthing insolvent? Today budget airline <A HREF="http://www.sterling.com/" REL="nofollow">Sterling</A> went under.<BR/><BR/>And even in Norway, the Bank of Norway <A HREF="http://www.barentsobserver.com/tough-times-for-norwegian-economy.4523139-16175.html" REL="nofollow">believes</A> that unemployment will double next year. Various other concerns are spelled out in <A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/10/29/afx5617491.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> Forbes article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com