“exactly – that argument is a non-sequitur.”

Indeed, it is a non-sequitur to suggest that a Scottish Prime Minister will deliver more for Scotland, but that was exactly your argument.

That point aside, whether or not England and Scotland both get a raw deal doesn’t mean that Scotland shouldn’t try to get a better deal through independence. There is no shame in trying to improve your lot, after all!

Peter,
you are shifting your argument. Firstly you professed to desire impact, after I highlighted how such negativity is meaningless posturing you attempt to appropriate my counterargument.

Do you think Danes pat themselves on the back for exercising a veto? Or do you think they’d prefer to have found a solution which benefits them more?

What you are arguing for is political expediency at the expense of positive solutions – so stop confusing real and relative terms if you don’t want to look like an overly partisan fool.

Personally I don’t think Scotland should get a better deal that states of comparable sizes, only an equal deal. Nor do I think you can show how Scotland wouldn’t have less influence as a result of secession.

Keep conjecturing and you’ll keep exposing your inferiority complex.

” the irony is that this argument currently applies more to the English while under a Scottish mafia of Labour MPs than the reverse”

I beg to differ. The so-called Scottish Mafia does not sit around the big EU table thinking about how to increase Scottish fishing quotas, or securing EU money for renewables in the Western Isles. No, the Scottish Mafia is interested primarily in their own re-election, something which sits on the ballots of middle England. Now, that’s not to say that Brown et al always (or ever) do what’s best for England, rather it is to say that England is their first thought, and always will be (this is true for any government, as long as England is c.a. 90% of the UK).

A Scottish cabal at the wheel at Westminster doesn’t automatically mean Scotland gets a better shout than England, anymore than an English cabal would mean the opposite.

I said assertion because you have patently failed to give a single example of how Scotland has faired better because of the potential influence it has through the UK, while I gave examples of countries the size of Scotland which have wielded influence.

Indeed it was Hans Vanden Broc who famously said at the time of Maastricht;

“What matters in Europe isn’t power it’s influence”.

Can you in any way show how Scotland has got a better deal from the EU than any of the EU members of our size.

Peter.

firstly, you need to mug up on what an ‘assertion’ is – if Scotland chooses to waste the potential influence it can wield through the UK then that is not a structural fault, and it is also not something which can be regained once lost or thrown away.

Secondly, illustration by comparison does not a counterargument make – impact is not the same thing as influence.

Thirdly, I was portraying the current popularity of the SNP as symptomatic in favour of the climate of cynicism and hypocrisy which exists at the moment, rather than crediting the party with any backbone.

Fourthly, how you make your assesment is entirely determined by your terms of reference.

Do you count among the idealist ideologues, by any small chance? Independence at any cost?

“do you mean to say the SNP would take its oppositionalism to the extreme and use every opportunity to bring forth a referendum as a means to hold the community to ransom?”

No….

I responded directly to your assertion that Scotland has more influence in the EU as part of the UK than as a full member state by giving two illustrations of how small states have had great impact and how another small state has more say in an area of importance to Scotland than Scotland does.

That pretty clearly and succinctly countered your argument and no amount of trying to change the subject to portray the SNP as potential wreckers in Europe will change that.

As to Switzerland I wouldn’t take it as a model any more than any other European country, but it does seem to have done rather well for itself.

Peter.

The Efta argument may appeal to some, who don’t like the feeling of exclusion in ‘another room, down the hall’, if only because they are in another building in another country where such a sensation is minimised. Still, the irony is that this argument currently applies more to the English while under a Scottish mafia of Labour MPs than the reverse. I wonder what the welsh have to say?

Peter,
do you mean to say the SNP would take its oppositionalism to the extreme and use every opportunity to bring forth a referendum as a means to hold the community to ransom?

Surely the public will tire of this and the tactic will come unstuck as demand for political leadership grows. What’s the point of voting for the SNP if you absolve yourself of the representative responsibility to take decisions every time a serious issue arises?

Do you really mean to imply that you take Switzerland as a model for scottish development?

Christian,
no need to apologise, all tactics are employable if relevant and appropriate.

I understand the problem of relative attention, but that is an ongoing challenge which cannot be easily avoided – which itself is an argument in favour of subsidiary government, separation of responsibility to appropriately mandated levels and greater devolution of powers (something which would satisfy the SNPs demands while balancing the unionists concerns).

-

Salmond is facing the crunch as the culmination of his career approaches and he must weigh the decision for a referendum.

This Glasgow East by-election has already highlighted a division between the realism of his leadership and the idealism of the SNP candidate, John Mason, so there is a real question about the legacy he will leave and the state the party will find itself without him.

Hopefully this is the correct page :-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/01/23145439/5

No evidence there of rabid Europhilia North of The Border.