The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Yeah, you might think that

But ... quoting from the famous vow ..."And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament."

kind of implies we won't lose out doesn't it?

Maybe if they hadn't cooked it up in a blind panic, they might have done better!!!

Cake and eating it.

If people in Scotland aren't able to decypher the bollocks that all politicians speak - no less from the SNP - then an indie Scotland is going to be deep in shit creek!

Talk about contradictory. iScotland will be better because it's politicians do not lie? :lol:

[eFestivals]

Neil, of course how I vote has consequences. But the consequence that concerns me if I & millions of Scots vote Labour is that we are telling ed & co that they can continue to take their core support for granted whilst drifting further & further to the right in pursuit of the votes of folk in middle England.

Ultimately, it's absolving yourselves of political consequences, which is madness.

And it's also handing all power to politicians.

Any party is made up of people. 50,000 people could have joined the Labour party in Scotland an changed it, but instead they've chosen to associate themselves with a party who has no power to change anything.

These are clearly the reasons why you and the other yes-ers had no concerns about giving all power to politicians forever.

You're permitted to do that if you wish, but the fact that you also swallowed the "In Scotland the people are sovereign" bollocks gets to show how vacuous the whole thing is.

Edited October 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

Neil, of course how I vote has consequences. But the consequence that concerns me if I & millions of Scots vote Labour is that we are telling ed & co that they can continue to take their core support for granted whilst drifting further & further to the right in pursuit of the votes of folk in middle England.

A reason I agree with for not voting Labour. I might do the same, I might not. I'm undecided as to how I'll vote next year. Well partially undecided, I won't vote for the c**ts I voted for last time, I won't vote for the c**ts who the c**ts I've voted for last time have been enabling, and I won't vote for any racist c**ts.

[eFestivals]

A reason I agree with for not voting Labour. I might do the same, I might not. I'm undecided as to how I'll vote next year. Well partially undecided, I won't vote for the c**ts I voted for last time, I won't vote for the c**ts who the c**ts I've voted for last time have been enabling, and I won't vote for any racist c**ts.

That's the thing I'm getting at with LJS and him suggesting he'll vote SNP - at the end of the day, it's likely to help put the tories in power, which i think we all agree would be the worst result possible.

[eFestivals]

... to the right in pursuit of the votes of folk in middle England.

During the indyref, often-heard words were that people in England didn't understand what was going on in Scotland.

Likewise, the same applies with your words there.

I *want* the tories to swerve hard to the right. It will guarantee their destruction. There is not widespread support for policies further to the right, but the exact opposite.

It's the middle ground you don't want them to go for, because then they do stand a chance of picking up more votes - mostly on the basis that those people who will be swayed don't have a lot of confidence in Labour to manage the economy well.

But either way, it's looking tough for the tories to win next May, because of the effect that UKIP is likely to have on their already-weakened support.

As Dave Moron said yesterday: "vote UKIP and get Miliband".

It's much the same scenario for Scotland, tho in reverse. Vote SNP and get the tories.

If that's what happens, you can't complain that you haven't been warned.

Edited October 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: the LibDems might have propped up the tories, but that's still a far better scenario than what would have been the alternative in 2010 - a majority tory govt.

While Clegg has been a weak dickhead in much he's done, he's still stopped the tories from doing their worst.

[LJS]

But what i'm trying to flag up to you is that the effects of FPTP go further than just which representatives Scotland might return. Power comes not only via your representatives, by via the whole of the representatives.

If Scotland returns SNP MPs, that makes the likelihood of a tory govt greater, no matter which way the SNP might lean politically and which party they might line-up behind for a coalition in Westminster (and don't be so foolish as to think they would never stand behind the tories!).

Scotland is part of the union - and (I can now say this) by it's own sovereign choice. Voting in a way that pretends there is no union is daft, *particularly* when the risk of that choice can be so easily identified.

Even you must admit blaming us for a Tory government when we will in all probability return between zero & two Tory MP's is not quite telling the whole story.

[Comfy Bean]

Even you must admit blaming us for a Tory government when we will in all probability return between zero & two Tory MP's is not quite telling the whole story.

I said the other day, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, that Neil`s attempts to blame us was perhaps due to some form of shame or embarrassment at how HIS fellow countrymen will / might vote. It`s an odd way of looking at things for sure. Atleast we can say for sure that Scotland will NOT vote in numbers for the Tories or UKIP. We had hoped for a fairer society but " our " choice to return power to Westminster will now see us better together with a freeze on benefits and a tax cut cheered at conference for middle englanders earners. As you know, I think the Tories will win the next GE mostly due to the incompetence of Labour when the real scrap/campaign starts. Milliband had to get Brown to bail him out the other week ffs and look how thats turning out. Anywayz, I think Neil may be getting his excuses in early for the election and in keeping with his views on everything else for the last while he will blame Salmond if the Tories sneak it.

[Comfy Bean]

Guys... Its over... You lost

Back in your boxes for another 30 years

Hey Bazza. You`ve lost focus mate or not been paying attention. The dream will never die and it`s less than 20 years

Edited October 2, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

It's much the same scenario for Scotland, tho in reverse. Vote SNP and get the tories.

......................Was that the sound of a penny dropping ?

[Comfy Bean]

Oh c'mon .... if any other party had had a confidential document leaked that explicitly stated what that leaked document said, you wouldn't accept a politicians denial as a true fact that proved the leak wrong.

You didn`t read the article did you. The " leak " turned out to be comments made " a few Chief Execs ".. of Boards, and was NOT government policy.

Exposing the bollocks that all politicians speak requires a consistent approach to the words of all politicians. Giving any party - even one you support in principle - a free pass over their claims as you're doing here only gives them licence to fuck you over.

I agree. But.....It`s of no relevance to the leak though ( not politicians ) and the point I made about how it was reported on the eve of the vote.

And there was no CU from indie, there was no EU from indie, there was no never-ending oil from indie, there was no richer Scotland from indie, there was no Scottish exceptionalism from indie, there is a massive deficit to be dealt with by indie (and even by no-indie), and there was no sustained civic nationalism from indie. Any more for any more?

For almost all of this you are guessing or have that crystal ball out ( again ). On reflection, there is still a massive and current deficit as you say which as we know was racked up even wilth the oil !

We can argue over which of those may or may not be true, but anyone with half a brain should be realising that all politicians lie to try and buy your vote.

Agreed. Even with half a brain.

You get the win by negotiating your own way thru the claims and forming a view for yourself.

Did you consider what was put in front of you by BOTH sides before forming your view ? Or...did you make a snap decision within seconds and then circle the wagons ? Hope versus Fear

But by default, anyone sucking up all the claims from just one direction is the biggest fool.

Agreed - See above.

I've little real idea - Agreed. if I agree with any plans of Miliband and Balls, but what I do agree with is that there is a deficit that has to be dealt with and cannot be ignored.

That is one reality from which no party can escape, no matter where that party places its arses and no matter what boundaries that party might work to.

The party pretending differently is the liar.

There's some food for thought there.

I see you've been influenced by a glance through the front pages.

While you might have read that, you clearly stopped reading before getting to the detail. It's no policy I support, but the policy is not quite what you state.

The idea of paying people on a benefits card is a pilot so apart from how it won`t affect pensioners it is difficult to say at this stage, even from a glance at the front pages ! I like the way that you know the eventual detail even before the pilot though.

Some Scottish Councils already use a version of this for payments through the Welfare Fund. These are mostly for white goods though but I think we all know the " direction of travel " with this from the Tories. Dictating what people spend their ( frozen ) benefits on and where they can spend it is a step to far. I wonder if any of the big retailers will have an influence on how this could play out. Perhaps some of those invited for tea in the rose garden days before the referendum....... every little helps

[eFestivals]

Even you must admit blaming us for a Tory government when we will in all probability return between zero & two Tory MP's is not quite telling the whole story.

I'm 'blaming' you only for the effects you might well cause.

(which is rightfully-placed blame. Choices and actions have consequences)

You can choose to recognise the facts for the country, or you can pretend they're nothing to do with you.

That pretence doesn't work tho - because you get the govt that the whole country decides. That's the bleeding point!

---------------

Again, i'm seeing so so much similarity between what LJS and many yes-ers said, and what UKIP supporters say.

Basically, they all say they can no longer bring themselves to vote for the traditional parties, and so have looked for an alternative and teamed up with the biggest alternative. They then spout the policies they can reconcile themselves with as A Good Thing whilst doing their best to ignore the policies or deny the effects that will come from the policies that don't sit so easily with them.

The only difference of course is the policies, but nothing of that much matters. It more about giving it to the other parties by deserting them than it is about the supporting the party they're choosing as an alternative.

Edited October 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I said the other day, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, that Neil`s attempts to blame us was perhaps due to some form of shame or embarrassment at how HIS fellow countrymen will / might vote.

No, it's about reality.

You spent the whole of the indyref denying reality, and you're just not going to give it up, are you?

If you cannot see how the SNP winning more seats risks a tory govt, there's no cure for your gross ignorance.

Edited October 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The dream will never die and it`s less than 20 years

Will you stop and look back in 20 years time, and ask yourself where the Scottish economy has gone?

[eFestivals]

I agree. But.....It`s of no relevance to the leak though ( not politicians ) and the point I made about how it was reported on the eve of the vote.

It is tho. Your glorious SNP has been doing the exact thing they've falsely blamed others for - cutting NHS funding.

Don't go changing tho, will you?

On reflection, there is still a massive and current deficit as you say which as we know was racked up even wilth the oil !

Perhaps run and tell Alex that? He said that the oil made jam rain from the sky.

Did you consider what was put in front of you by BOTH sides before forming your view ? Or...did you make a snap decision within seconds and then circle the wagons ? Hope versus Fear

ahh yes, the wonderful yes-ers narrative that people only voted no cos they were shit scared.

Like it or not, people decided on their own critieria. I have to accept your own stated criteria of believing things on the basis of nothing at all, yet you won't believe that others decided on facts.

You know, facts like it being certain that the banks would head south, that people like you believed was impossible.

And the facts keep coming. It's certain that your economy is still heading south, because you fail to recognise the very real effects of that vapid viewpoint.

The idea of paying people on a benefits card is a pilot so apart from how it won`t affect pensioners it is difficult to say at this stage, even from a glance at the front pages ! I like the way that you know the eventual detail even before the pilot though.

It's a newly floated idea, but it's also an idea that is specific in saying not all claimants would have that card.

But whatever, it's a fucking stupid idea that simply won't work. That's tories for you.

The same tories that you're prepared to help into power by your choice of vote. Apparently, Labour are tories too - tho tories without this policy that you're protesting about.

So they're not the same after all, and you can stop pretending to yourself that they are.

Will you?

Edited October 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Good article: labour wont lose that many seats to the snp...

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/10/labour-worried/

[eFestivals]

Good article: labour wont lose that many seats to the snp...

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/10/labour-worried/

Thanks, an interesting read.

Given what those few polls had said (which i'd already seen), it was pretty clear that the LibDems might be in trouble, because much of their support has gone to the SNP.

But for both the LibDems and Labour, whether increased support for the SNP translates into seats for the SNP depends mostly on what previous voting patterns had been - something I'm not aware of cos they're not seats that mean anything to me personally.

So it's good to see that the gaps appear to be greater than the SNP are likely to bridge in many cases - and particularly with the Labour seats.

Cos the thing right now that seems most likely to cause Labour to not be the biggest party would be the loss to Labour of those Scottish seats - and if Labour are not the biggest party, the tories will be.

[tolywoly]

Good article: labour wont lose that many seats to the snp...

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/10/labour-worried/

Interesting read. It's a great site.

I suppose an unknown factor is how many of those new SNP recruits will become activists and what impact those extra numbers will have in May. Though as the article says, in most constituencies the necessary swing from Labour would seem to be too great.

The SNP may talk up mobilising those 'missing millions', but turnout won't be as high as in the referendum. And even there Yes didn't manage to mobilise the non voter numbers it needed.

It's also possible that the SNP will have alienated a fair number of their usual Tartan Tory support, thought most of them probably won't go directly to Labour.

Yeah, the Lib Dems will likely take a pounding. They did in 2011, and that went a long way to giving the SNP their majority.

I haven't seen any polls of Scottish Westminster intentions conducted since the referendum. They'll make interesting reading when they are published...

[eFestivals]

Yeah, the Lib Dems will likely take a pounding. They did in 2011, and that went a long way to giving the SNP their majority.

while I'm sure that was in the mix, I'm not entirely sure there's much point taking too much notice of the differences in voting patterns between Westminster elections and Scottish govt elections.

The voting systems are very different, and the make-up of the electorates are very different - so while a vote for any party is worthwhile for the SG because of PR, the same doesn't really apply for Westminster and people already know that very well thru experience.

It's probably more likely that it's the SG voting patterns which will jump about all over the place (more-so, anyway) rather than Westminster voting - because the SG is still comparatively new, and it takes a while for people to wise-up for how to 'game' the system to get the best possible personal results from that system.

Having said that, it's a different ball game around the LibDems for Westminster, because so many who voted for them last time feel betrayed. Tho I still think their vote will hold up much better than expected in many of the seats they currently hold, because in many places they'll still be seen as better than the alternative victors in those seats.

[tolywoly]

Yeah, you shouldn't look for trends by trying to compare Westminster and Holyrood outcomes. But what is significant about the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections is that they were post 2010 UK General Election. The Lib Dems saw a drop in support in both the constituency and list vote from 2007, and I'd expect to see a drop in their share of the 2010 popular vote next year. Possibly enough to cost them a few Scottish seats. My instinct is Lib Dem support is softer than Labour's.

It's true that people are still getting a hang of the list system. The bedding in hasn't been help by holding the 2007 local elections on the same day as the Holyrood ones - 3 votes, 3 different systems. The 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' trick, and party activists misleading people as to how the system works. Though the make up of the Scottish Parliament has changed over the years - e.g. there's no Scottish Socialists now.

[eFestivals]

The Lib Dems saw a drop in support in both the constituency and list vote from 2007, and I'd expect to see a drop in their share of the 2010 popular vote next year. Possibly enough to cost them a few Scottish seats.

yep, that's my take on things too - tho it'll be related to how far out in front they might have been last time in most cases (perhaps not with Danny A tho), which i'm not familiar with for those Scottish seats.

The LibDems support has fallen off a cliff in all parts of the UK, not just in Scotland. Scotland is a big thing for them tho, because a high proportion of LibDem seats are there.

My instinct is Lib Dem support is softer than Labour's.

I don't think 'soft' is the right way of looking at it for the LibDems. It's not that their supporters are being tempted away by another offering, it's that they've alienated those supporters by teaming up with the tories.

[eFestivals]

I just logged into the efests twitter (which I rarely do), and someone had DM'd a link to the article below, I'm guessing cos they've been reading this thread.

https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/beth-kahn/looking-through-distorted-window-english-reflections-on-scottish-referendum

I've just read it, and frankly I found it exceedingly patronising. It presumes that all i've read is what Westminster-friendly media has dished up, when the reality is that I've read a hell of a lot more in all directions than many of the big advocates of indy have read. And it presumes that I've formed my conclusions via some sort of brainwashing and not calm analysis.

What is not fully grasped down south is that what is possible politically is fundamentally different north of the border.

Of course I've grasped that.

But what I've also grasped is that everything is politically possible when the funding is guaranteed. No policies have bad consequences.

Those things do not remain the same post-indy, when difficult political choices would have to be made off the back of the success or failure of other polices, which brings about an accountability which doesn't exist currently, and adds constraints which do not exist currently.

It's not a zero sum game either. Increased taxes for increased public services is all very well, but when people have an easy choice of moving a couple of hundred miles within familiar cultures and keeping more of their money, not everyone will stay and happily pay it.

At the end of the day everything is limited by the financial realities - and Scotland's financial realities don't allow it to live up to the dreams.

There's some that's good in the Scottish political set-up that i'd like to see extended to Westminster at least (especially PR) and perhaps to a devolved England, tho I'm slowing coming to the conclusion that devolution for any part of mainland UK is probably a bad mistake for the long term.

I think instead that a PR-elected Westminster parliament that was less anally obsessed with the sort of central control that Thatcher loved would work more satisfactory overall, than having parts of the UK competing with each other in a race to the bottom from which only the rich gain.

Edited October 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I just logged into the efests twitter (which I rarely do), and someone had DM'd a link to the article below, I'm guessing cos they've been reading this thread.

https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/beth-kahn/looking-through-distorted-window-english-reflections-on-scottish-referendum

I've just read it, and frankly I found it exceedingly patronising. It presumes that all i've read is what Westminster-friendly media has dished up, when the reality is that I've read a hell of a lot more in all directions than many of the big advocates of indy have read. And it presumes that I've formed my conclusions via some sort of brainwashing and not calm analysis.

Really, Neil? you found it patronising? - when someone who actually has experience on both sides of the border shares his view - You say " It presumes that all i've read is..." yeah the guy was writing just for you!!! And what exactly is the sum of your experience other than the mainstream media? It would appear to be largely the comments on newspapers/websites -yeah that gives you a real balanced insight!!! The guy is basically saying what I said all the way through - you guys did not understand the essence of the campaign & although I may have appeared to frame that as a criticism of you, in fairness - you couldn't get it because you weren't here.

But what I've also grasped is that everything is politically possible when the funding is guaranteed. No policies have bad consequences.

Those things do not remain the same post-indy, when difficult political choices would have to be made off the back of the success or failure of other polices, which brings about an accountability which doesn't exist currently, and adds constraints which do not exist currently.

While there is an element of truth in what you say, the fact remains that the Scottish government has made choices about what to do with the money at its disposal in exactly the same way that the Westminster government has and it has made different choices. As you are well aware, I do't always think they have made the best choices but I am damn sure in general they have made better choices than Westminster.

It's not a zero sum game either. Increased taxes for increased public services is all very well, but when people have an easy choice of moving a couple of hundred miles within familiar cultures and keeping more of their money, not everyone will stay and happily pay it.

At the end of the day everything is limited by the financial realities - and Scotland's financial realities don't allow it to live up to the dreams.

So you say & you present this constantly as a FACT. it is not a fact - you now even say that I accepted Scotland would have been worse off under independence (putting words in my mouth yet again) in fact I accepted the possibility that we may be worse off financially for a while but I have never accepted it as a certainty. You are the one with the crystal ball who knew with increasing certainty as the debate went on that Scotland would be billions worse off as a result of independence. Your continued presentation of projections & predictions as Facts was just one of your tiresome debating techniques.

There's some that's good in the Scottish political set-up that i'd like to see extended to Westminster at least (especially PR) and perhaps to a devolved England, tho I'm slowing coming to the conclusion that devolution for any part of mainland UK is probably a bad mistake for the long term.

I think instead that a PR-elected Westminster parliament that was less anally obsessed with the sort of central control that Thatcher loved would work more satisfactory overall, than having parts of the UK competing with each other in a race to the bottom from which only the rich gain.

anyway thanks for linking to this article, I had seen it but not bothered reading it - I thought it was pretty good & an accurate representation for the most part - a bit rose tinted about the snp in places but I'm glad I read it!

[LJS]

[eFestivals]

Really, Neil? you found it patronising? - when someone who actually has experience on both sides of the border shares his view - You say " It presumes that all i've read is..." yeah the guy was writing just for you!!! And what exactly is the sum of your experience other than the mainstream media? It would appear to be largely the comments on newspapers/websites -yeah that gives you a real balanced insight!!! The guy is basically saying what I said all the way through - you guys did not understand the essence of the campaign & although I may have appeared to frame that as a criticism of you, in fairness - you couldn't get it because you weren't here.

Like any opinion, I'm free to agree with it or reject it.

What I find patronising is the assumption that anyone not agreeing with yes doesn't understand things in Scotland. That's the angle the article is written from, and it's of a long running theme in writings from yes sympathisers.

Yes, there are people of that mindset, but it's not all of them. It's much like the idea that everyone who voted no did so out of fear cooked up by the mainstream media.

The article is as bad as everything it's trying to protest against.

While there is an element of truth in what you say, the fact remains that the Scottish government has made choices about what to do with the money at its disposal in exactly the same way that the Westminster government has and it has made different choices. As you are well aware, I do't always think they have made the best choices but I am damn sure in general they have made better choices than Westminster.

Just think how much better the choices in Westminster would be if there was 10% more money to make the choices around. Just think: 10% extra unemployment benefit, 10% extra to pensioners, 10% extra in tax credit payments, 10% extra for the NHS, 10% extra to spend within our towns. Westminster would be the UK's hero!

This is the context your making your judgement within, but you're ignoring that. And it's not a context that could ever remain post-indy.

Meanwhile, the extra spending in Scotland is being spent to benefit the middle classes and not the poor - and the Scottish population love it. That gets brushed over too.

So you say & you present this constantly as a FACT.

The only numbers to go on for this are the Scottish Govts own numbers. They make it that fact, as you'd know if you'd spend the few minutes to understand them.

you now even say that I accepted Scotland would have been worse off under independence (putting words in my mouth yet again) in fact I accepted the possibility that we may be worse off financially for a while but I have never accepted it as a certainty.

I apologise for having taken that as a pretty firm belief of yours. You certainly expressed it as something you thought would happen.

You are the one with the crystal ball who knew with increasing certainty as the debate went on that Scotland would be billions worse off as a result of independence. Your continued presentation of projections & predictions as Facts was just one of your tiresome debating techniques.

I listen.

Yes-ers everywhere were spending the Trident money on whatever they could think of, without having studied the white paper enough to realise there were was no trident money to be spent. It had already been spent by your govt within that white paper, just to make an iScotland viable.

Yes-ers everywhere were spending the oil money four times over. It would pay down the deficit; it would pay for greater services; it would pay for tax cuts; and it would create a oil fund.

An iScotland was perfectly viable, but it would not be flooded with money.

My certainty extended to the banks heading south, yours did not. How did that work out for you, and for Alex's version of an independent Scotland where each of his out-there predictions would have to all fall into place to get anywhere close to that utopian dream?

Some people were happy to cross their fingers and jump off a cliff. I decided to actually study some things and try and work out an informed view on things for myself.