Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Unionists 'censored' in debate on constitution

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 May 2009
By Tom Peterkin
ALEX Salmond's official consultation on the merits of independence has been accused of censoring unionists.
Salmond's National Conversation, a key part of SNP's drive towards an independence referendum, has become embroiled in controversy after it emerged pro-Union contributions are not being included in an online debate on the constitution.

The SNP wa
s accused of "manipulating" the constitutional debate by Labour MSP Lord Foulkes, after one frustrated contributor made an official complaint.

Foulkes says he will write to the Scottish Information Commissioner to bring the case to his attention.

One of the rejected submissions, from an unnamed pensioner, spoke of the view he once held that it was a good idea to exaggerate the differences between "being British and Scottish" at the least opportunity.

But he added: "Since then I have had to reconsider my position and have found my sentiments becoming more aligned to being a member of the United Kingdom living in Scotland."

Another of his arguments denied entry on to the website questioned how an independent Scotland would fund itself through taxation.

Foulkes said: "I think he is probably one of quite a few people who have experienced similar problems.

"This shows the way the SNP is trying to manipulate the debate. Alex Salmond knows the vast majority of people in Scotland favour devolution – which gives us the best of both worlds – but are against splitting up the United Kingdom."

A spokesman for the First Minister claimed the National Conversation was more inclusive than the Calman Commission, the body set up to look at the constitution by Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

He said: "The National Conversation is open to everyone – including Lord George Foulkes. (It] includes comments in favour of and against independence."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 May 2009 7:10 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

The Online Scot,

Scotland 09/05/2009 23:30:40
"The SNP was accused ..."
Yep, we're at that level again with this paper.

Let's leave aside the fact that the Calman Ommission completely ignores the views of indepenence supporters for a while.

There is no evidence to siggest that comments are being censored, not least due to the fact that Unionists are constantly telling us that no-one posts there.

Those advocating independence for Scotland have nothing to fear from Unionist arguments. However, Unionists have much to fear from the very positive arguments in favour of independence - otherwise why ban EVERY ONE !! from Calman.
2

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 10/05/2009 00:28:47
Lord Haw Haw must have been down in his publicly funded house in London, which he owns outright, at the time when The Herald stopped all comments on any article about Scottish Politics.

"Unionists 'censored' in debate on constitution" unbelievable gall for any Scottish rag to come up with this headline.
3

Iainbroch,

10/05/2009 00:41:02
To quote Investors Mag share tips on Johnstone Press - sell sell sell and no wonder. A thorough;y disgraceful anti Scottish rag.
4

Edward,

10/05/2009 01:00:59
Lord Haw Haw at it again
Will expect more of this kind of stuff from George Foulkes, as if we havent had enough already.
As Labour start clutching at straws.
Labour are heading for a complete wipe out...not my words, but reported accross the Sunday press
5

Edward,

10/05/2009 01:11:13
While we are talking about the noble baron Foulkes
Trust that George has been behaving himself
Its not only MP's that are under the spotlight, but members of the House of Lords are as well
So far Baroness Uddin, a Labour peer living in London, claimed about £100,000 by saying an empty and unfurnished flat in Maidstone was her main residence.
Then there is Baroness Thornton, a Labour minister in the whips’ office, has lived and worked in London for more than 30 years and has a £1m family house near Hampstead Heath,has claimed about £130,000 since 2002 by designating her mother’s current bungalow and, before 2005, her mother’s previous home as her main residence.
No doubt more troughing Labour peers will rise to the surface, smelly brown stuff usually does
6

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 10/05/2009 01:20:29
Calman decided that the independence view which almost 40% of the voting public had returned as its Scottish Government should not be represented. In doing this Calman became a non-decision-making process. It's purpose is not to listen to public opinion but to shape public opinion and George Foulkes has always been on that side of the political debate. Rather than seek the public view, he would rather tell the public what their view should be in accordance with the unionist mantra. Calman is all about creating the illusion of democracy. But it may now be no more than a process which takes power from the Scottish Parliament and hands it to David Cameron's Tories. It hinges upon the choice between acting or having the illusion of action through others.
7

hoblar,

10/05/2009 01:24:37
The un-named pensioner with not a clue (could easily be a metaphor for Foulkes himself) should look for the bit in the 'Calman Commision' that mentions Independence for Scotland, and he will look in vain.

Unionists certainly get a say in the National Conversation; they just don't have anything to say, because 'stronger together than apart' means naffall, as a cursory glance at the uk economy will testify to rather easily.

Calman said we weren't interested in Independence, and therefore it would not be discussed, and he was still presented as 'impartial', and yet, as that farce continues, we all know better.

Get your pensioner plant to repost his comment Foulkes, there are far more stupid comments from unionists than those of his, they are nearly all truly pathetic, it must be a glitch if it was removed! lol


8

Am Fògarrach,

10/05/2009 01:36:23
"The National Conversation is open to everyone – including Lord George Foulkes. (It] includes comments in favour of and against independence."

So there must be some other reason the complainers couldn't get access. Maybe they were were banned for reasons similar to those the Scotsman/SoS uses to ban posters.
9

Iainbroch,

10/05/2009 01:48:28
Just why should the party of Independence accept any contributions from Unionists - that would be a pointless waste of time - No???

Well do they actualy have anything constructive or remotely honest to say on the topic of Independence. In reality - No??

The Calman Commission was nothing more than a Unionist whitewash and contributed next to nothing positive or constructive for Scotlands future.
10

famous 15,

Edinburgh 10/05/2009 01:53:26
For the sake of His Lordship FFFFoulkes might I just say as a common wee working chap that I think he is a Tory spy. The SNP are annoying him because they are talking common sense. I wish Scotland could have remained independent but since they did not I wish they could have followed my decision in the early sixties to regain independence!
11

Jimmy Le Pie,

10/05/2009 02:13:59
Someone should tell His Lardship, Lard Foolkes to bu6ger off and no come back.

Senile old fool!!
12

Fro,

Edinburgh 10/05/2009 02:49:25
If there's one way to absolutely add no credence to a debate, it's to have Fatty Foulkes say a few words. Every day I read the Scotsman website is another day where I see this paper become an even greater laughing stock. If the editors of this rag had even the slightest shred of nous, it would understand that only the most deluded of Labour apologists believe the raft of unionist propaganda that spews forth daily. It's an utterly pathetic rag that I wouldn't even use to wipe s**t off my shoe.

Alba go bragh!
13

yockel,

10/05/2009 03:49:15
When is this paper going to run the story about the voters in Clapham who don't intend voting SNP?
14

cummontator,

10/05/2009 04:14:05
hey mad accusation by fatty foulkes

hey presto a story

silly paper
15

smokey joe 1,

10/05/2009 06:02:21
Foulkes says he will write to the Scottish Information Commissioner to bring the case to his attention.
The info commissioner should throw fookes garbage in the bin.
Overpaid under worked lardy has a big gob for a wee no mark.
16

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 10/05/2009 06:24:29
I imagine that the site moderators declined to publish the contribution from one of Lard George’s wee band of cyber trolls as they immediately recognised it as the fraudulent plant it undoubtedly is.

The main problem facing this odious wee band is that none of them are actually very bright, hence we get contributions from the likes of “Linda from Shettland (sic)”and various other risible individuals whose knowledge of Scotland appears to have been gained from the lid of a shortbread tin.

17

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 10/05/2009 06:55:26
Who is responsible for the censoring of comments on the “Tories will co-operate with the SNP” story?
18

W Smith,

Middle East 10/05/2009 08:04:43
Salmond's "National Conversation" is just another excuse to have more meetings - FOLLOWED BY LOTS OF FOOD!
19

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 10/05/2009 08:09:44
Ha ha ha - the Hootsmon is heading down the pan with Liebore & the bankrupted union!!!
20

Stan Butler,

10/05/2009 08:38:31


Two questions for the cyber gnats.

1. Did the events referred to in the article take place?

2. If the events did take place was it right to censor the views of people who had contributed?


21

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/05/2009 08:44:15
From Sunday Herald in April last year.
A SENIOR Labour peer has been criticised after he claimed nearly £45,000 in overnight expenses to stay in a property he inherited from his late mother.
George Foulkes, who is also an MSP, billed the public to stay in a London flat registered as his company's address.
His claims were made over a two-year period in which he bought almost £600,000 of property without a mortgage and made £400,000 on another home.
The SNP branded Foulkes, who uncovered details of first minister Alex Salmond's expenses, a "prize hypocrite" and urged him to explain his bill.
Lord Foulkes, a former Labour MP, divides his time between the House of Lords and Holyrood, where he is a Lothians MSP. He was ennobled in 2005.Figures show he claimed £18,623 in "overnight subsistence" in his first year in the Lords and £26,105 in the last financial year. Peers can claim £165.50 tax-free for every night they spend in London on Lords' business.
The Sunday Herald can reveal Foulkes racked up nearly £45,000 in overnight costs for staying in a London flat he inherited from his late mother.
22

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 10/05/2009 09:00:18
George FoulkWit states:-

"This shows the way the SNP is trying to manipulate the debate"

The only people manipulating the debate are George FoulkWIt and his gang of trough feeders.

The CALMAN Commission on Scottish Devolution:-

Sir Kenneth Calman chairman of commission, chancellor of Glasgow University.

Colin Boyd, former Lord Advocate, LABOUR PEER.

Rani Dhir, director of Drumchapel Housing Co-operative.

James Douglas Hamilton, former Scottish Office Minister, and CONSERVATIVE PEER.

Professor Sir David Edward, retired Judge of the European Court.

Lord Elder, LABOUR PEER.

Audrey Findlay, former Leader of Aberdeenshire Council, now convener of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Jamie Lindsay, former Scottish Office Minister, chairman of Scottish Agricultural College and CONSERVATIVE PEER.

John Loughton, president of the Scottish Youth Parliament (serving in a personal capacity).

Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive, Telegraph Media Group.

Shonaig Macpherson, chairwoman of the National Trust for Scotland and Scottish Council Development and Industry.

Iain McMillan, director, CBI Scotland.

Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic Studies, Glasgow University.

Matt Smith, Scottish Secretary, Unison.

Jim Wallace, former Deputy First Minister as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, now a LIBDEM PEER.


The list includes 2 Sirs, 5 peers and someone from "big brother"
23

Curley Bill,

10/05/2009 09:06:26
5 Wardog
It's likely that the pensioner is Jack C******* of Cumnock, a well-known delusionist who still believs Labour are some-how akin to Keir Hardie's ideals.
If you listen to the awful Graham Stewart phone-in on EBC Radio Dumbdown you'll frequently hear his comocal anti-SNP rants.
Foulkes and he were bosom buds when the Baron ruled East Ayrshire.
24

willyam7,

crossford 10/05/2009 09:32:36
not worth commenting on.
25

LEAL,

10/05/2009 10:05:11
Hopefully this headline will encourage even more people,unionist and nationalist and undecided,to go to the National Conversation website and take part in the debate on Scotlands future.Of course the Scotsman is entitled to be biased in favour of the union.But the levels to which it is now stooping make it difficult to take this newspaper seriously.I find it very sad that the current ownership/editorship are allowing their own political beliefs to destroy this "grand old institution.
26

The Tin Man,

10/05/2009 10:41:36
#33 LEAL

Why bother? You can post on the Hootsmon and get your comment up instantly. The Natcomn is exectly the same as a Hootsmon comments thread - same people, same arguments, same nonsense, but your comment comest up the next day. Like having a 'conversation' via the Royal Mail.

It is a waste of tax money, spent on a badly put-together gimmick that serves no purpose apart from some political party being able to say that it fulfilled some comitment in some way.

However, at least I was not consored, before I lost all interest. The Tenant's Services Authority National Conversation site puts it to shame.
27

Stan Butler,

10/05/2009 10:54:47
Two questions for the cyber gnats.

1. Did the events referred to in the article take place?

2. If the events did take place was it right to censor the views of people who had contributed?
28

The Tin Man,

10/05/2009 10:58:10
#35 Stan

I'm reporting you to the moderator.
29

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 10/05/2009 11:02:08
I quote - "It has been insufficiently remarked upon that the rise of the SNP has not exactly coincided with an exaltation of the quality of political debate. Those who see the SNP as a vehicle for genuine change in our society should think very hard about this."

Russell Johnston MP Perth 19th June 1976

In the intervening years has anything much changed? No.

The SNP are a pressure group with only their mantra of so-called independence as their life line. The sooner people use their heads when voting rather than their hearts the better we will all be.
30

The Tin Man,

10/05/2009 11:12:04
#37 Liberal

"The sooner people use their heads when voting rather than their hearts the better we will all be."

Ethno-patriotic-front parties are, by definition, matters of the heart, rather than the head, so I guess we are stuck with it for the forseeable future. Consequently, the level of debate drops to 'the mud-slinging of the heart'.
31

Desmo,

Lumphinnans 10/05/2009 11:26:06
This "article", like the avaricious guttersnipe from whom it originated is beneath contempt.
32

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 10/05/2009 12:29:56
Liberal for life,Dunblane 10/05/2009 11:02:08


From the BBC Scotland :-

"Between 1889 and 1914 Scottish home rule was debated 15 times in Parliament, including the introduction of four bills. In 1913 a Home Rule Bill passed its second reading. World War I then intervened and the idea was dropped"


From The "Independent on Sunday" (29 July 2008) :-

"In 1966 (Russell Johnston) introduced a Home Rule Bill to the Commons, solidly opposed by both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition."

History proves the self defeating conclusion of your argument and Russell Johnston's statement.

Namely:-

Russel Johnston failed with his Home Rule Bill as did previous attempts at Home Rule since 1707.

Support for the Scottish National Party forced the British into the "The Scotland Act 1978" and the successful "Scotland Act 1998"

Absolutely nothing to do with the Liberals and their failures.

Greater support for the SNP Guarantees greater attention for Scotland.

To use your own words (Mr. Liberal for life)

"The sooner people use their heads when voting rather than their hearts the better we will all be."
33

alanh,

ek 10/05/2009 12:40:24
#26 + #35 Stan.

Foulkes CLAIMS it is true but this mysterious pensioner is unnamed and we only have the word of Foulkes for what was actually said, or claimed to have been said, in this rejected submission.

Did the unnamed pensioner keep the rejected submission to prove what was actually said, and can we all get to see what was actually written. Or has he contacted Foulkes and claimed to have posted something with no evidence to back it up. It would be good if some "journalist" from this "news"paper could maybe ask to speak with the mysterious unnamed pensioner and see a copy of his rejected submission rather than taking Foulkes' word as evidence that it must be rather than the spin it may be
34

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 10/05/2009 13:12:04
#40 - your contribution as usual is beyond compare that I suspect even Miss Piggy would find hard to better.

#42 - in 1997 we saw the culmination of the efforts of the likes of Russell Johnston and delivered the referendum that led to the setting up of the new Scottish Parliament. I believe devolution works and that the majority of Scots will never vote for so-called independence that the seperatist SNP proclaim would be the "cure all"!

In other words, mark Russell Johnstons words as they explain better than most why the SNP are only an empty drum.
35

Don Roberto,

10/05/2009 13:36:18
#38 Tinman

"Ethno-patriotic-front parties"

Care to elaborate on whom you are referring to?
36

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 10/05/2009 14:59:04
Liberal for life,Dunblane 10/05/2009 13:12:04

"in 1997 we saw the culmination of the efforts of the likes of Russell Johnston and delivered the referendum"

In other words Russell Johnston caught the next passing bandwagon and got on it along with you other pathetic liberal unionists.
37

,

10/05/2009 14:59:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 10/05/2009 15:00:48
i see on the front of the sunday post,that RBS will not be funding the pandas,if edinburgh zoo is to get them
well i wonder if herr broon has had some in england demanding ,edinburgh do not get them,as it will take away tourists from england
or is a case of we own RBS so therefore they do as herr broon says ok
39

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 10/05/2009 15:05:04
foulkes should know as hes an expert on lies,cash fiddling and duffing up pensioners aka blazing saddles
have you ever seen such cruelty?,yes foulkes devouring pies faster than baillie ,lord haw haw foulkes has spoken,the great and all powerful foulkes,bow and quake ye lowly commoners as his great lardship has spoken
oh yeah well heres another blazing saddles comment "oh george go blow it out yer er-se "
40

,

10/05/2009 15:51:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

10/05/2009 15:54:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

hoblar,

10/05/2009 16:13:14

A desperate unionist said:" It is a waste of tax money, spent on a badly put-together gimmick that serves no purpose apart from some political party being able to say that it fulfilled some comitment in some way."

That must be the Calman Commision.

43

hoblar,

10/05/2009 16:20:38
"Between 1889 and 1914 Scottish home rule was debated 15 times in Parliament, including the introduction of four bills. In 1913 a Home Rule Bill passed its second reading. World War I then intervened and the idea was dropped."

Dropped. Very true. And it was going to go through westminster to boot.

Guess who spearheaded the White Paper on Home Rule that was dropped so that he could go to the Admiralty as the Great War conspired to render the bill to the scrapheap?

That great Brit: "WINSTON CHURCHILL". (during his liberal phase)

Isn't it sad that hardly any Scots learn that Home Rule and a Scottish Parliament were fiercely debated issues from 1889 to 1913 (and also before 1889 and post 1913 for that matter) ?




44

The Tin Man,

10/05/2009 18:39:26
#56 Col

Is it the remarkable similarity in political style between St Salmond and Laird Foulkes that gets everyone's goats up? At least Foulkes has a sense of humour (indeed, he needs one, and he has an admirable intrest in balmy islands in the Caribean), and appears to be a lot more internet-savvy than whoever put together the natcon.
45

Eve,

Scotland 10/05/2009 19:27:27
Did this unnamed pensioner, give the exact quotation of what they posted?

Loads of other websites that allow comment remove or prevent comment that have offensive material or swear words.

I've seen questions similar to that ask on the National Conversation, normally they are highlighted by the number of replies they get.

To me it appears like one of these stories that the Labour party have found them self doing something like providing Independence being discussed on their wee commission, so they think that they'll flip and revers what they are doing to make the Scot Nats look bad.

BUT in all reality it look very much like a flip revers thing.
46

Eve,

Scotland 10/05/2009 19:31:02
#54 hoblar: Aye, sounds like it.
47

The Tin Man,

10/05/2009 20:18:28
#54 Eve

Interesting. I wonder why the SNP have been ignoring the democratic will of the Scottish parliament so long? Do you know? Now, Eve, when was that parliamentary vote on setting-up the 'Nat Con' held, again? Please remind us.....
48

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 10/05/2009 20:41:12
~47 - you sound like a fascist - are you one?
49

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 10/05/2009 21:34:54
Liberal for life,Dunblane 10/05/2009 20:41:12

My words are:-

"In other words Russell Johnston caught the next passing bandwagon and got on it along with you other pathetic liberal unionists."

What, that has to do with fascism, is anyone's guess.

Perhaps anyone who has a go at Liberals is deemed to be a fascist.

You really should purchase a dictionary.
50

tommy M,

Scotland 10/05/2009 23:41:41
Foulkes said: "I think he is probably one of quite a few people who have experienced similar problems.

And on what solid evidence are you basing your "thought" Mr Foulkes? Who might these "QUITE A FEW" people be? More "UNNAMED PENSIONERS"?

This great "Scottish" newspaper, so dedicated to unbiased, uncensored reporting should investigate this story immediately.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.