To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

'Forlorn hope I know, but some unbiased reporting once in a while wouldn't go amiss!'

It was too important for that. The Establishment couldn't afford to lose. Us poor Mail on Sunday readers even have to suffer reading articles by that media lauded politician, Jim Murphy, about some of the names he was called on his Irn Bru crates as he spoke across Scotland.

The quality of the Guardian has been deteriorating for years. Not the paper it was. Most of them seem to either be owned by Murdoch or the Barclays or that family who are extreme right wing and own the Mail. This is off topic I know but how can anyone really have faith that what they are reading isn't a product of manipulation by the owner? I don't know how much influence they really have these days or how many votes were swayed by the press but it doesn't feel very comfortable.

claig the Mail is normally right wing is it not?!

I suppose it is too incredible for Yes to contemplate that the majority of newspapers found it difficult to support independence because, like the majority of voters in Scotland they came to the conclusion it simply was not a good idea?

I thought The Guardian coverage of this was appalling. Loads of articles supporting independence from the likes of Deborah Orr and Suzanne Moore with little to show they knew anything about Scotland beyond possibly having been in Edinburgh during the Festival. Presumably because anything Cameron was against they have to be in favour of.

Then the volte face of the official editorial.

'the Mail is normally right wing is it not'

It is and it was against independence which is why they will give Jim Murphy, the lauded Labourite, space to make his case.

But to be fair to the Mail, they let Alex Salmond write a piece on the eve of the vote too.

Us poor Mail on Sunday readers even have to suffer reading articles by that media lauded politician, Jim Murphy, about some of the names he was called on his Irn Bru crates as he spoke across Scotland.

How can any paper force its readers to "suffer reading articles" if they don't want to?

Well we have to suffer reading the headline. I read the article merely to see how sorry they wanted us to feel for Jim and how anti they wanted us to be to be to the YES campaign, some of whose supporters were calling him names as he addressed the people on his Irn Bru crates.

The problem is that all the passion and ideals about what an indy Scotland would be from activists and speakers... they don't change the fact that the basics of currency, economics and membership of the EU which formed the foundation of iScotland were a mess. I also had a deep distrust of the way any criticism was batted away with claims it was scaremongering.

We're told the fear came from Better Together, despite it's faults I'd say that the fear came from being asked to take a leap into the unknown, and being told not to look down or check your parachute.

Looks like we're headed for a neverendum.

Tommy Sheridan - Vote SNP next year for 2020 Indyref

Maybe we're supposed to be grateful that they are talking about having a referendum rather than just declaring independence. I haven't read the article as it's behind a pay/sign up wall.

I thought the point of the independence referendum was to trust the people in Scotland to make decisions about the future of Scotland. We made a decision and has not even been respected for a week. Apparently we're too old, too greedy and too stupid to know what we voted for.

Here's an interesting article in the Independent about the campaign leading up to the referendum.

The Mail have a video of some Yes supporters confronting Jim as he addresses the people.

As Jim is overwhelmed and is losing as ordinary people shout him down, some socialist Labour type tries to help him out by saying to the Yes supporters that "the capitalists will win". He keeps repeating that as if trade union solidarity and comradeship will make the Yes campaigners agree with Jim. But a Yes campaigner says "you're the capitalists"

It was a great referendum, it energised the people of Scotland. They were passionate and aware of the arguments. It has politically engaged millions of people. Hopefully, they will get the politicians they deserve and the policies they deserve.

Someone shouts that Jim is a "red Tory"

I have just read the Tommy Sheridan article. He says something that I think will gain traction among many people

"I am encouraged so many have decided to become politically involved and stay politically engaged. Leaving politics to the politicians is a recipe for poor governance."

I kept reading the word "Westmonster" and thought it must be a spelling mistake, but after reading it for the third time, I realised what it was. I have never heard that before.

I don't think Jim Murphy's point was so much that people called him names, or even the egg throwing thing. It was that he was shouted down so that he couldn't answer questions and that ordinary folk who tried to ask him questions or express their own doubts about independence were shouted down and insulted.

It's not about people being a bit angry at politicians, its the shouting down of people so that their opinions cannot be heard. People who voted no felt that they couldn't express their opinions without being told they were scaremongering, part of the of the British State, traitors, not Scottish etc.

I don't think it was all 'ordinary' yes people who just happened to see him giving speeches either. There were members of Siol nan Gaidheal and/or Settler Watch who were following him around the country to shout him down and intimidate ordinary people who came to hear him. Why shouldn't he go round the country speaking to people? Yes did that all the time, why shouldn't 'No' voices be heard too?

(part of the British State meaning the Establishment, just doing what they said etc.. )

Spiritedwolf, you are right but Murphy should have held private meetings in halls if he wanted a pat on the back and applause. If he goes into the street, then he should expect to have people argue with him and shout him down. That is democracy and free speech. He is just a representative of the people and the people have as much right to speak and disagree wth hm as he has to speak.

'Why shouldn't he go round the country speaking to people? Yes did that all the time, why shouldn't 'No' voices be heard too?'

But it would have been the right of No supporters to shout Salmond and all the rest down too if they are in the street.

The BBC interviewed Murphy and we had to suffer him telling us how he had never experienced anything like it in all his political campaigning etc. So he met some people who disagreed with him for once, not BBC interviewers.

When Farage went to Scotland, he had to seek cover after a crowd of revolutionary socialists turned up, but none of the media were bothered by that. And Farage wasn't even speaking in the street, he was there to speak in a room or hall. If he had spoken in the street, then people would have been entitled to shout him down.

Speaking in the street on Irn Bru crates seems like a bit of a stunt for Westminster MPs to be down with the people. They can't complain if some people turn up and shout them down instead of applauding them.

Westminster MPs

You mean Scottish MPs, representing Scottish constituencies of Scottish people at Westminster.

Politicians are damned if they do, damned if they don't when it comes to trying to speak to the public outside of controlled, organised environments.

I don't think anyone is entitled to shout anyone else down. Ask them pertinent questions, disagree with what they say, even heckle them a little. But not drown them out and deny them the right of reply. That's an ugly way to conduct 'debate'. You might be comfortable about it. But I'm not any more than with the spectacle that is PMQs.

I have no idea what those people who did that thought they achieved by shouting him down. All it made onlookers do was feel intimidated tp take part and made the 'yes' campaign words about positive campaigning look ridiculous. I doubt it made a single person want to vote yes, and may have turned those undecided to no.

Here is Monbiot and Murphy on the BBC. I agree with Monbiot that Murphy is being a "bit precious" about the shouting down that he got. They want us to feel sorry for Jim, but I don't think most of the public care if he is shouted at or not.

In fact listening to Jim on the BBC, he tells us that

"I knew what I was going to get ... I'm not worried by the heckling ... but there came a point when it was no longer safe for the public"

I find it hard to believe that message.

Another clip of Murphy giving the same type of violin spiel and Salmond's reaction to it

In 1945 after Labour won the tale was told of a Tory lady whose reaction was that "the country won't stand for it".

Rather similar, isn't it? If either side is Scotland it is the 55!

claig, protesting/disagreeing is one thing but shouting 'terrorist' and 'paedophile' is something else. Its not an argument for voting 'no', she should be shouting "what about....' etc. Watching the videos makes me feel very scared.

You are just like Eck - I'm right, everyone else is wrong.

Someone up thread said wealthy middle class yessers didn't consider people on disability benefits etc. That's certainly true of one yes family I know - they are wealthy and only cared that it would have no impact on them, so what about the rest of us?

not an argument for voting YES I mean

half asleep...

One if the newspaper columnists described jim murphy as wearing his egg stained shirt as if it was a 'sucking chest wound.'