Jump to content
Pat's Guide to Glasgow West End
harper

Scottish Independence ...

Recommended Posts

Tactically exactly what needed to be done.

Did it cone as a big surprise then, that the unionist parties would try and block a referendum, Sam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest larrytrooper

Iain Gray? As far as I know he's still in post.

I do not think Iain Gray is the first minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point Oz,

It was Donald Dewar who decided Scots architects were not good enough and employed the Spanish chap to do it, he died before completion.

At the time there was a local building that was traditional and perfectly wonderful, but labour decided to go the Spanish route.

Then hired an English/Australian builder who was not on short list. I think Logan was the preferred builder but the Pollies knew better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point Oz,

It was Donald Dewar who decided Scots architects were not good enough and employed the Spanish chap to do it, he died before completion.

At the time there was a local building that was traditional and perfectly wonderful, but labour decided to go the Spanish route.

As I recall the Holyrood design and build project was of sufficient value that it had to advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union at which point it became fair game for anyone who wished to bid. Nothing to do with Donald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think so.

There was a huge amount of noise for an independent Scotland, so Smith used the idea to kill off the chance of an independent Scotland.

Dewar also had Scottish waters referred to, when issuing licenses for oil exploration changed the name on the charts from Scotland to Northern English Waters.

He, Dewar did not want an independent nation either.

None of them did or do want to lose the revenue that has kept them alive for years. Without the revenues from, oil gas and whisky the UK would be a much, much poorer nation than it is now.

Which brings me to this question, am I correct in thinking the (English) BBC is not going to broadcast the Glasgow commonwealth games?

If that is true, why? Could anyone think if the games were in England the BBC would not broadcast them then?

Donald when he died certainly left a huge amount of money, he also has a large collection of very, very valuable paintings, some which are on display in a well known solicitors office.

As such a good man of the people, I wonder if the paintings will be lent to the Glasgow art gallery? perhaps his family will just decide to sell them? Which I must say they have every right to.

Interesting topic Larry and looks as if this is correct. I've started a new thread:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think so.

There was a huge amount of noise for an independent Scotland, so Smith used the idea to kill off the chance of an independent Scotland.

Dewar also had Scottish waters referred to, when issuing licenses for oil exploration changed the name on the charts from Scotland to Northern English Waters.

He, Dewar did not want an independent nation either.

None of them did or do want to lose the revenue that has kept them alive for years. Without the revenues from, oil gas and whisky the UK would be a much, much poorer nation than it is now.

I didn't know the chance of an independent Scotland had been killed off, Larryt.

Which brings me to this question, am I correct in thinking the (English) BBC is not going to broadcast the Glasgow commonwealth games?

If that is true, why? Could anyone think if the games were in England the BBC would not broadcast them then?

"The Scotsman reports that the BBC has turned down the opportunity to be the host broadcaster of the event, which would have meant it providing cameras and television equipment from its headquarters in Glasgow."

Very bad, and strange, news.

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/10/08/16027-bbc-will-not-be-host-broadcaster-of-glasgow-2014-commonwealth-games/

Donald when he died certainly left a huge amount of money, he also has a large collection of very, very valuable paintings, some which are on display in a well known solicitors office.

As such a good man of the people, I wonder if the paintings will be lent to the Glasgow art gallery? perhaps his family will just decide to sell them? Which I must say they have every right to.

He's dead, Larryt, so 'good man of the people' or no - he'll hardly be involved in any such decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know the chance of an independent Scotland had been killed off, Larryt.

.............................

Just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......................Donald when he died certainly left a huge amount of money, he also has a large collection of very, very valuable paintings, some which are on display in a well known solicitors office.

As such a good man of the people, I wonder if the paintings will be lent to the Glasgow art gallery? perhaps his family will just decide to sell them? Which I must say they have every right to.

Just a wee touch of jealousy there Larry? Not everyone can be wealthy or be savvy enough to buy art which increases in value.

Not everone can be a good man of the people. The others will just have to learn to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest larrytrooper

Just a wee touch of jealousy there Larry? Not everyone can be wealthy or be savvy enough to buy art which increases in value.

Not everone can be a good man of the people. The others will just have to learn to live with it.

I have never said independence has been killed off.

What makes you think he bought them all? He was given presents too, just like your queen.

It is just human nature I suppose, talk the talk, but when an opportunity comes, grab it in both hands. A great example has got to be the recent scandal with their expenses.

Sam's correct, you have no answers for his points. You are not discussing the question of independence, you are waffling and changing the subject with wee one liners, very poor, try to give some sensible credible answers to us staying in the union please. After all it is meant to be a discussion and other posters who may not agree with either of us, perhaps would wish some reasons put forward by you. My previous points regards the oil, gas, whisky for example have been ignored, it seems no one wishes dsicuss that.

At least Pat agreed about the ignorance of the BBC. Do you agree with the BBC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall the Holyrood design and build project was of sufficient value that it had to advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union at which point it became fair game for anyone who wished to bid. Nothing to do with Donald.

The Architect was chosen by the client to produce design drawings on which the tenders were based.

The Building contract was a "Managemernt Contract" where the builder in this case Bovis Lend Lease provided the expertise to plan construction, let and manage contracts for the actual building.

Because of the political pressure it was decided to "fast track" the project ie let foundation contracts before building is fully designed and start building before completion of the working plans. This can be done on projects of a well known type eg multi-storey office blocks but on a project of the nature it spells disaster.

This was against the advice given but being pollies they knew better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless, of course, the Nats make a really, really good case for independence and the majority of Scots fall for it. I see no sign of that whatsoever.

what's to 'fall for'. You clearly think there is a great case for this Union, please tell me what that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's to 'fall for'. You clearly think there is a great case for this Union, please tell me what that is?

Good question:)

I think the SNP have made a good case for independence but sadly lack a strategy to carry it through:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest larrytrooper

As I recall the Holyrood design and build project was of sufficient value that it had to advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union at which point it became fair game for anyone who wished to bid. Nothing to do with Donald.

Please G12 do not be so daft, Donald had everything to do with it.

It was always a political decision.

Do you think if a new parliament building was being erected in London it would not be a modern Christopher Wren from England that was chosen to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please G12 do not be so daft, Donald had everything to do with it.

It was always a political decision.

Do you think if a new parliament building was being erected in London it would not be a modern Christopher Wren from England that was chosen to do it?

And what did DD stand to gain by this decision, Larry? I have to admit, it's not obvious to me. mellow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest larrytrooper

And what did DD stand to gain by this decision, Larry? I have to admit, it's not obvious to me. mellow.gif

The talk at the time Harps., was the Spaniard was the flavour of the month, (he died before completion and his wife was involved in quite a stooshie about the place not being done to his spec.)One of the other suggestions which was very popular in Scotland, was a competition with Scots or even UK architects competing.

Earlier Pat said DD could have had no bearing on where his paintings went. I wonder why not, his will could have loaned them to the art galleries.

Does any one seriously think DD had no influence on the building? He publicly refused the alternative building which most people thought would be a superior venue. Still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question:)

I think the SNP have made a good case for independence but sadly lack a strategy to carry it through:(

The strategy is there, what is fluid is timing.

What is being avoided by supporters of the Union is why we should remian with the status quo. The reason is simple because every benefit they will list for us is a negative based on 40 years of undermining the Scottish People. The SNP strategy is to strike out for independence when our people are ready to make that stride, that needs education and possibly a seminal moment of UK mismanagement (the Tories may yet provide that) to push the fearties to a position where self determination and self responsiblity is desired.

Ask many people in Scotland who oppose independence, why? Along with the 'empire' nutters you will get a vast majority who will utter 'we cannae afford it'. FFS we are an oil rich nation, Scotland is still a net exporter of energy, we have the intelligence and the wits to run our own nation but according to some, we are a lesser nation than Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, etc.

That's the Unions epitaph, after 300 years of this Union we as a nation are so cowed we are happy to be managed as cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strategy is there, what is fluid is timing.

What is being avoided by supporters of the Union is why we should remian with the status quo. The reason is simple because every benefit they will list for us is a negative based on 40 years of undermining the Scottish People. The SNP strategy is to strike out for independence when our people are ready to make that stride, that needs education and possibly a seminal moment of UK mismanagement (the Tories may yet provide that) to push the fearties to a position where self determination and self responsiblity is desired.

Ask many people in Scotland who oppose independence, why? Along with the 'empire' nutters you will get a vast majority who will utter 'we cannae afford it'. FFS we are an oil rich nation, Scotland is still a net exporter of energy, we have the intelligence and the wits to run our own nation but according to some, we are a lesser nation than Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, etc.

That's the Unions epitaph, after 300 years of this Union we as a nation are so cowed we are happy to be managed as cows.

I think the longstanding strength of support for Labour in Scotland has prevented many voters engaging with the notion of Independence, samsc. I also think, as you point out, that there are many who think that 'we cannae afford it'.

Something I see as an issue is that the country has so many problems that are greater than in England, worse health, more unemployment and so on that they are too busy dealing with day to day issues to think of a bigger picture and possibilities.

In particular, Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, struggles with much higher indices of deprivation, low income, etc than the rest of the country. It's not just about being cowed - people need to be inspired and reassured because for so many life is very tough. They're not thinking about politics and not aware that they have any power with regard to self-determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the longstanding strength of support for Labour in Scotland has prevented many voters engaging with the notion of Independence, samsc. I also think, as you point out, that there are many who think that 'we cannae afford it'.

Something I see as an issue is that the country has so many problems that are greater than in England, worse health, more unemployment and so on that they are too busy dealing with day to day issues to think of a bigger picture and possibilities.

In particular, Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, struggles with much higher indices of deprivation, low income, etc than the rest of the country. It's not just about being cowed - people need to be inspired and reassured because for so many life is very tough. They're not thinking about politics and not aware that they have any power with regard to self-determination.

And, you know what Pat, all of that is true after 300 years of this accursed Union. Can those people not see that, should those stats alone not be justification for doing it ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest larrytrooper

The strategy is there, what is fluid is timing.

What is being avoided by supporters of the Union is why we should remian with the status quo. The reason is simple because every benefit they will list for us is a negative based on 40 years of undermining the Scottish People. The SNP strategy is to strike out for independence when our people are ready to make that stride, that needs education and possibly a seminal moment of UK mismanagement (the Tories may yet provide that) to push the fearties to a position where self determination and self responsiblity is desired.

Ask many people in Scotland who oppose independence, why? Along with the 'empire' nutters you will get a vast majority who will utter 'we cannae afford it'. FFS we are an oil rich nation, Scotland is still a net exporter of energy, we have the intelligence and the wits to run our own nation but according to some, we are a lesser nation than Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, etc.

That's the Unions epitaph, after 300 years of this Union we as a nation are so cowed we are happy to be managed as cows.

Absolutely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please G12 do not be so daft, Donald had everything to do with it.

It was always a political decision.

Do you think if a new parliament building was being erected in London it would not be a modern Christopher Wren from England that was chosen to do it?

If Donald had had his way it would have been built somewhere near Anniesland ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talk at the time Harps., was the Spaniard was the flavour of the month, (he died before completion and his wife was involved in quite a stooshie about the place not being done to his spec.)One of the other suggestions which was very popular in Scotland, was a competition with Scots or even UK architects competing.

Earlier Pat said DD could have had no bearing on where his paintings went. I wonder why not, his will could have loaned them to the art galleries.

Does any one seriously think DD had no influence on the building? He publicly refused the alternative building which most people thought would be a superior venue. Still do.

As I thought I'd pointed out previously, Holyrood was a major public procurement contract. Much as we may not like European Law it is quite clear projects and contracts above a certain value have to be advertised Europe wide. Buggin's turn is no longer acceptable.

As for Donald's will - I doubt he'd even thought about what would happen to his bits and pieces. I don't suppose he was excepting to die when he did.

As for an alternative building. Are we talking about the Royal High? I understood the problem there was that it simply wasn't big enough. It was planned when the expectation was one MSP from each of the then parliamentary constituencies and not the 129 members + anciliary staff, minders and hingers-on we have now. Seen from the outside the early meetings in the General Assembly building + office space provided across the road in the old Lothian Regional Council buildings opposite NLS seemed to work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I thought I'd pointed out previously, Holyrood was a major public procurement contract. Much as we may not like European Law it is quite clear projects and contracts above a certain value have to be advertised Europe wide. Buggin's turn is no longer acceptable.

As for Donald's will - I doubt he'd even thought about what would happen to his bits and pieces. I don't suppose he was excepting to die when he did.

As for an alternative building. Are we talking about the Royal High? I understood the problem there was that it simply wasn't big enough. It was planned when the expectation was one MSP from each of the then parliamentary constituencies and not the 129 members + anciliary staff, minders and hingers-on we have now. Seen from the outside the early meetings in the General Assembly building + office space provided across the road in the old Lothian Regional Council buildings opposite NLS seemed to work fine.

The Scottish Parliament building still provides better value than Wembley Stadium, The New Treasury Building, the Dome, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scottish Parliament building still provides better value than Wembley Stadium, The New Treasury Building, the Dome, etc.

That's the kind of airy-fairy nonsensical statement which put a lot of people off getting involved in discussions about such matters.

Better value in terms of what? Better value for money? Holyrood cost money to build and will never have any oppertunity to recoup that cost. Wembley and the Dome cost money too but have regular opportunities (football matches, concerts, exhibitions etc) to recoup some of the cost.

Which provide(s) better value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the kind of airy-fairy nonsensical statement which put a lot of people off getting involved in discussions about such matters.

Better value in terms of what? Better value for money? Holyrood cost money to build and will never have any oppertunity to recoup that cost. Wembley and the Dome cost money too but have regular opportunities (football matches, concerts, exhibitions etc) to recoup some of the cost.

Which provide(s) better value?

'airy fairy nonsensical statement' oh dear, oh dear. So that post is the reason you have not engaged in any meaningful way in this thread, very prophetic.

Better value in terms of cost, better value in terms of contribution to the lives of the people they represent, better value in what it offers. We will also recoup some of the cost from the nice wee visists the tourists make - small as it is, its a damn site more than we will see back from the three examples I quoted.

Do you think we will recoup any of the costs of the £650 million Treasury Building? Do you think the £827 million paid to get Wembley built will result in a pay back to the taxpayer? Very naive. Now lets look at that jamboree tent on the banks of the Thames, what was it, a £900 million taxpayers money chucked at it, eventually taken over by a US businessman to whom all the profits flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...