CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
closed"To throw it away once the referendum is won would be a fraud on the people who voted for it as the blueprint for independence"
Except that as I says - "We will vote on the well known question, not on the white paper."
The WP is the SNP's position paper - manifesto even. And they are the Government. But there will be an election about the time 'negotiations are completed' - if the SNP can be believed/set the timetable (assuming a Yes).
The question can hardly be said to stand alone. The White Paper is the expression of what the question means - it sets out to describe what independence will be, with guarantees and everything. I would suggest that in popular consciousness the two are inseparable now.
"I would suggest that in popular consciousness the two are inseparable now"
That of course assumes there is a 'popular consciousness' - ie that people who intend to vote have some sort of 'clear idea' of the WP's proposals.
There are people (some on here) taking a close interest - some starting on 'one side or the other' and (mostly) having their own pre-determined decision 'confirmed'.
There are plenty of people previously (or still) undecided (aka DK) - some of whom have used the WP (or media reports of it) to make a decision.
There are also people (many living on or by Twitter and promoting public events/engagement) who are confirmed Yessers but have very little interest in the WP as they do not share some/many of the views/ambitions of the SNP.
They are making a fair bit of noise and may well have 'converted' a disproportionate number of DKs and believe (in the event of a Yes) that they will 'deserve' a say unrelated to any current strength/support at Holyrood - but who may (legitimately) be able to influence things via the 'civic process' set up to imagine a written constitution (etc).
Might it be illuminating to ask what would happen if the white paper didn't form the basis of the constitution of iScotland? As far as I can see, there would be no means of seeking redress. Conversely, I don't think anyone could argue for a mandate to implement a white paper, which is by definition no more than an initial proposal.
Doubtless the SNP would, post Yes, feel that they had 'won'. I would also feel that I had 'won'. Lots of people would feel the same. The resulting argument would be both difficult and great fun, even if the Scottish Government did attempt to set the boundaries of it. (I don't think they'd succeed if they tried.)
I don't see a Yes vote as solving anything in itself. It would just be the start of a series of long, hard conversations in which we would have a glimmer of a hope of being involved.
I'm trying to think what to say about the situation post-No, but I have to accept that the conversations following that event would not be my concern.
"but I have to accept that the conversations following that event would not be my concern"
I don't think you really mean that. If No, there will be fewer conversations - and probably mostly between politicians.
But any DevoFurther (or not) will affect everyone living here.
@chdot
I tried to pick my words with care. The medium being in large part the message, the No campaign has made it clear in their choice of medium (TV, print journalism and speeches delivered to invited audiences in secured rooms) that we are not invited to any conversations that may occur post-No.
I interpret their campaign as being one for a continuation of managerial politics run from London. The terms of the post-No settlement will, I'd have thought, be set by the 'winner' - David Cameron - who will make sure that the interests of the social classes he represents are protected if not further promoted.
We are not disagreeing.
If No, there will be 'official conversations' for the 'select few', but I suspect that significant numbers of those currently campaigning/hoping for Yes won't just 'go quiet/ly'...
Strange days indeed;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28404549
We are seeing new and startling political alliances. I wonder if a Labour/Conservative coalition is out of the question after the 2015 Westminster election?
They're all managerialists and can happily pause in their bickering about how UK capitalism should be organised when it comes to winning business from other countries.
It's the inherent managerialism of it is what makes me think that whatever the outcome, the leadership on each side, like the politicians and trade union leaders that came before them, will say "thanks folks" to their supporters and get back to business, with them managing.
definitely business of selling us to China? That is the market the SNP targets (and occasional Donald Trump).
Quite romantic to think there would be any change in the structure of Capital regardless of result.
Gap remains roughly same as it ever was so will still be a No. Strill No is such a boring story for the media.
No Thanks should start setting out what devo Max will look like. I don't think that is presumptious?
"No Thanks should start setting out what devo Max will look like."
They try.
But can't agree.
Or promise!
'Yes' can't "promise" either, but offers more 'possibilities' (which are all of course naively stupid due to the environmentally destructive capitalist world we live in - and the managerially competent SNP's keenness to continue it).
Better to stick to status quo stability.
So, what does the Edinburgh bicyclist hive-mind make of this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28440218
I'm all for free speech and the right to assemble, as we did for PoPs 1, 2 & 3. I'm also very intolerant of intolerance. And quite unfamiliar with the detail of what the Orange Order might be about or how they think and feel.
My instinct is that I'd like to see all of Edinburgh's citizens attend this parade and turn their backs on it, silently.
Youse?
My instinct is that I'd like to see all of Edinburgh's citizens attend this parade and turn their backs on it, silently.
I'm not sure in my mind if ignoring it by not turning up or ignoring it by turning up and turning away is more effective.
I accidentally stumbled out of Central Station and into an orange walk a few weeks back. While there was much triumphalism and banging of drums and waving of banners, there was a very thin crowd in attendance and most of that was following alongside the march. Like many such orders/organisations/religious bodies from yore, that is primarily pre-occupied with the preservation of yore, the LOL is one in a long, slow and possibly terminal decline, but which continues to dress the windows, stick its finders in its ears, pretend there's nothing wrong and go about its business as usual. Even if no-body is really turning up to watch.
A quick google of the BBC reporting suggests that in 2006, 18,000 bandmembers and walkers took part in the "Glorious 12th of July" in Glasgow. By 2009 that was 8,000 and this year it was 4,500 (and 4,000 spectators). I don't know the membership figures of the LOL (and I'm pretty sure that such a closed order keeps such things close to its chest), but they will have to pull out a lot of stops to get a parade of 20,000. (rumours abound on tinternets of bands being brought over from Northern Ireland).
They might all have to buy new outfits for their bands though if militaristic uniforms have been prohibited.
IWRATS - I'm also a strong supporter of free speech and the right to free assembly, so think the Council made the right decision.
However, last year I accidentally got caught up in an Orange Order march assembling in the Meadows while out with my pre-school son and baby daughter. Even though it was about 11am the place was full of marauding groups of drunks dressed in militaristic uniforms, plenty of moronic/bigoted "banter" going on. It was extremely unpleasant - effectively an anti-PoP.
I quite like your idea about turning your back to them - although I would probably prefer if everyone ignored them completely, including the media, and acted as if nothing was happening at all.
I like to think that everyone here, yes, no or don't know, stands against bigotry and intolerance.
if militaristic uniforms have been prohibited
As I understand it, it might be illegal for them to wear uniforms of any kind at a political event;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/section/1
I'm guessing that Police Scotland will not judge black suits, white shirts, black ties, bowler hats and orange sashes to constitute a uniform.
I don't want to demonise or patronise these people, but I'd like them to know (if this is indeed the case) that our city abhors their belief in the supremacy of one religious sect.
"I like to think that everyone here, yes, no or don't know, stands against bigotry and intolerance."
Perhaps that's just a byproduct of free speech!
'Say what you like - it doesn't have to make sense or be true.'
(Apart from drunks/violence) it's only a problem if it's intended to offend/incite.
Attitudes to things change. Some people are are no longer willing to put up with ('tolerate') things - eg sexism at work. Whereas others seem to be offended by things that others now regard as 'normal'!
Orange marches were once 'normal' - even in Edinburgh. One year there was a gathering on Leith Links. A young/new/junior reporter was sent along. He reported something 'normal' that was said by one of the speakers. If I remember correctly a few days later a senior councillor (Midlothian I think) resigned.
'We' don't like the normality where motor vehicles and the amount of road space they 'expect' is 'tolerated and hope that will change.
(No that's not a subtle way of saying that I think the OO is a persecuted minority!)
Even though it was about 11am the place was full of marauding groups of drunks
So apart from the uniforms it could easily be a football crowd.
The problem with the state deciding who gets to assemble and protest is that they could just as easily ban trades unionists and environmentalists as fascists and more likely the former than the latter.
Let them walk and bang their drums. They're irrelevant.
Let them walk and bang their drums. They're irrelevant.
If an Orangeman bangs his drums in the park, and there's nobody around to hear, does he make a noise?
I think organisations like the LOL are dying a slow, natural death; ever more irrelevant and less popular every year. Banning organisations often lends them a legitimacy they don't deserve ("we're official now we've been banned"), gets them unwarranted column inches, allows them to portray a facade of victimhood and pushes people towards, not away, from them.
@morningsider
effectively an anti-PoP
I only got this line as I cycled home on the canal last night, causing me to bark the word 'Ha!' at a bemused carp fisherman. Respec', bro.
So I had my first proper referendum contretemps at the weekend. We were canvassing in a prosperous part of town, so it was not unexpected that some people were being quite rude. One chap however actually began to foam at the mouth with rage after we enquired if he would care to discuss the referendum.
I'm quite mild mannered and I was paired with a chap who teaches English law in a university, so it's hard to imagine that any of our polite chat could really have justified his rabid, goggle-eyed rantings or his subsequent decision to call the police. His theory was that there ought to be equal numbers of campaigners for No and Yes. Once we were off his property we did try to explain how democracy works, but he didn't seem to comprehend. We continued canvassing and the police, oddly, didn't send the riot squad to round us up, or, as far as I know, Special Branch to spy on us.
It has been salutary to note the difference in manners between the ex-council houses where I live and the stone-built villas in the leafy streets.
"His theory was that there ought to be equal numbers of campaigners for No and Yes"
Aren't there??!
"It has been salutary to note the difference in manners between the ex-council houses where I live and the stone-built villas in the leafy streets."
Is that 'degrees of politeness' - irrespective of your and their voting intentions, or an indication of prevalence of supporting one 'side' or the other by property value??
People who agree with our point of view tend to be enthusiastic as well as polite. Those disagreeing have been faultlessly civil (though sometimes quite firm) while we have been in more 'popular' areas.
Crossing into the leafy stone-built neighbourhoods has allowed us access to people who seem to feel entitled to be dismissive, rude or even aggressive. This is quite amusing, given some of the doors I've knocked on. (Think strong herbal smells, big dogs and heavily-built, extensively tattooed gentlemen...all unfailingly polite.)
Round our way if you made a habit of rudeness somebody would probably punch you on the nose eventually. I guess the absence of this sanction amongst the bourgeoisie has led to a slump in courtesy in some households.
"the eight Scottish subcultures"
I considered stopping reading this "research" after seeing that. Only eight? I wonder which one I am pigeonholed into then?
When I saw they had been categorising survey respondents by their surnames then it really became an idiotic joke. I mean, are we really supposed to take this crap seriously?
Although this research is tosh, names are used sometimes. I used to do bits of work with a company, CACI who, as well as using census data to produce good neighbourhood classification systems (which still exists ACORN) produced a classification of people using their forenames. It was called MONICA, obviously, and was pretty good since there's a strong element of fashion, and socially stratified fashion, in forenames.
Also, years ago, when I designed a survey of minority ethnic communities in Scotland for the Scottish Executive, part of the sampling strategy, if they'd gone ahead with it, would have been to search electoral registers for surnames that had a high probability of being associated with ethnic groups. It's a pretty efficient way to find people when they are substantially less than 1% of the population.
"there's a strong element of fashion, and socially stratified fashion, in forenames/"
True, but surnames as a marker of Irish Catholicism is just a bit dodgy.
"It's a pretty efficient way to find people when they are substantially less than 1% of the population."
Very likely, but does not help us in our search for "the eight Scottish subcultures"...
There are two questions, I suppose. What is the probability that a particular surname shows a family connection to Irish Catholicism? I don't know the answer to that although from a quick Google it seems reasonably easy to work from surnames back to a connection with northern Irish Catholicism, especially if you include the way names have been changed.
The second question is to identify Irish Cathoicism as a distinct subculture, especially as you would be assuming that surnames have retained the Irish connection and that cultural connections have similar remained, even at several generations remove. But then Demos hasn't really explained what it means by a sub-culture beyond some basic geographical link.
So some time back I was spluttering over the panglossian language in Her Majesty's Government's booklet that they sent to us all;
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11722&page=49#post-157519
I FOI'd the claim that the UK is one of the most successful families of nations. I asked them to;
..disclose to me all of the analysis that led to you concluding that Scotland, together with '...England, Wales and Northern Ireland...has created one of the world's most successful families of nations.' In particular;
1. What was the scope of the analysis - which other 'families of nations' were considered as candidates?
2. What were the criteria for judging the 'success' of each 'family of nations'?
3. Was any legal advice sought on the term 'family of nations'? If not, what is its origin?
Their answer, as expected, is laughable. They sent a link to these documents;
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis#documents
none of which address the question, other than quoting...wait for it....a speech by David Cameron.
I have asked the Information Commissioner to take up the matter on my behalf. Surely HMG wouldn't just be making wild assertions without any thought or factual basis?
Ah, now though, if you add all the medals of England, Scotland and Wales together the family of nations easily beats the Australians ( we do not even need the contribution from Northern Ireland as they have only got two).
It is not always about winning but see also British Lions in rugby who might have a better record in Southern Hemisphere than individual nations.?
@gembo
Sadly, your answer makes a lot more sense than theirs. Though, taken to its logical extreme there would be a World XV with no opposition and rugby football would come to an end.
@Iw
"Surely HMG wouldn't just be making wild assertions without any thought or factual basis?"
So, which bit of 'politics' don't you understand...!
@G
So, "families of nations" only count if they are in the Commonwealth(?)
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts