The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Congratulations on being able to admit that you're unable to knock down the truths I've just laid out in front of you.

Instead, you believe your Labour hatred is all that's needed to knock it down.

Applying yourself to policies? Nah, that's so old hat. Vote hatred to make the world a nice place.

You should be well aware that I do not hate Labour. I am getting rather tired of reminding you of this.

I'll try & find a few minutes to address your ridiculous claims & assertions in a wee while.

[eFestivals]

You should be well aware that I do not hate Labour.

and yet your response to the facts of policies was to express your hatred of Labour. Strange, eh?

If your motivations was policies you'd have addressed the policies. And yet you know that it's impossible to knock down truth so you revert to hatred.

I'll try & find a few minutes to address your ridiculous claims & assertions in a wee while.

It's not a ridiculous claim but in fact truth to say:-

1. that the SNP are against a 50p tax rate for the rich, while Labour are not.

2. that the SNP are for a cut in taxes for the rich while Labour are not.

3. that the SNP plan to put Scotland in competition with England - you know, capitalism at it's finest - where the only winners are the capitalists.

4. the SNP failed to vote against the bedroom tax at Westminster.

5. Salmond courted Murdoch - so much so that he resorted to lyi9ng to the Scottish electorate about their meetings.

6. the SNP were to the right of the tories on the (lack of) financial regulation which caused the financial shit we're in.

These are all true, and put the SNP firmly to the right of Labour on all of these things.

The one policy of the SNP that is to the "left" of Labour is the end of austerity - but they've yet to explain how the bills get paid and where their magic money tree is.

Back in the real world real politicians deal with reality. Pretence doesn't make reality go away.

[LJS]

and yet your response to the facts of policies was to express your hatred of Labour. Strange, eh?

If I have ever expressed hatred of Labour, I have forgotten it. I'm getting on a bit so that is clearly possible. I dislike their double standards and much of what they have come to stand for but I do not hate the Labour Party.

If your motivations was policies you'd have addressed the policies. And yet you know that it's impossible to knock down truth so you revert to hatred.

I have explained why Labour policies have disappointed me on many occasions & generally, I don't do hatred. I don't even really hate the Tories. I do feel a bit guilty about this because I feel I should hate them but I have a terrible affliction of being able to see both sides of most arguments - it really makes life complicated. Sometimes I can even see where you are coming from.

It's not a ridiculous claim but in fact truth to say:-

1. that the SNP are against a 50p tax rate for the rich, while Labour are not.

I can't find that. I can find this.

And of course in practice the SNP government has had no power to vary the top rate of income tax in Scotland.

2. that the SNP are for a cut in taxes for the rich while Labour are not.

Ah, this'll be corporation tax which as I have already explained to you is not directly a tax cut for the rich, but you just ignored that fact and continued with your over-simplistic definitions - however if you are right, then Labour are guilty of giving the rich tax cuts in the past as they cut corporation tax when last in power

3. that the SNP plan to put Scotland in competition with England - you know, capitalism at it's finest - where the only winners are the capitalists.

In as much as all independent countries compete with each other this is simply stating the Bleedin' obvious . Quite how much of a big deal competition from Scotland would pose to iEngland is debatable - we are not Germany or China (see I can state the Bleedin' obvious too) & I think you will find the world is full of neighbouring countries with differing tax rates & they have not all raced to zero. I think your friend from Bath did a statistical analysis on Corpy tax rates of neighbouring countries which effectively blew the race to the bottom argument out of the water. But, as you know, I do not generally quote from pro indy sources & anyway i can't be bothered looking for it - No doubt your contacts in Slovenia will have an answer.

4. the SNP failed to vote against the bedroom tax at Westminster.

Once. But it has actually effectively abolished it in Scotland, more than Labour achieved. Also you will find labour's record on opposing the tax is not exactly perfect ... Oh & this is interesting isn't it?

5. Salmond courted Murdoch - so much so that he resorted to lying to the Scottish electorate about their meetings.

Yeah, so what? what UK party leader hasn't sucked up to Murdoch? Why are you bringing this up? - have I at any stage endorsed the SNP or Alex Salmond?

6. the SNP were to the right of the tories on the (lack of) financial regulation which caused the financial shit we're in.

I have challenged you on a number of occasions to give me a list of significant & influential figures who warned against the disastrous effects of deregulation & the general encouragement of spivs to play computer games with our money. They all fucked up. It probably starts with Thatcher & her monetarist loadsa money philosophy, but perhaps we might have harboured hopes that a Socialist party who believed in wealth distribution ( ) would be the very folk to see this madness - but no they didn't: However, ... I don't blame the Labour Party for this - like I said, few foresaw it: & they did make a reasonable fist of keeping the whole banking industry from going tits up & taking the rest of us with it. However to single out Salmond for special blame, mainly on the basis of a letter egging on Fred the Shred when, in reality he had no power or influence whatsoever in the regulation of the UK banks is frankly bizarre.

These are all true, and put the SNP firmly to the right of Labour on all of these things.

Well, the thing is Neil, its just not as simple as that - if you study political history you will find that Labour in opposition are pretty much always more left wing than Labour in government. [there is probable a whole other thread in that] but even if we take what they are saying now ... here are a few examples of where I have problems with where they are now.

The one policy of the SNP that is to the "left" of Labour is the end of austerity - but they've yet to explain how the bills get paid and where their magic money tree is.

Back in the real world real politicians deal with reality. Pretence doesn't make reality go away.

I actually agree with you here, A convincing case has yet to be made for any real alternative for the current government's policies. The labour party certainly hasn't done it but the SNP haven't either.

Your position, which is perfectly reasonable, unlike many of your arguments supporting it, is that we should all use our vote to ensure that we do not have another Tory government; so even if we don't much like much of what labour stands for we should vote for them if they are likely to win.

Funnily enough, Neil will be happy to vote Green as long as that won't result in a Tory MP, but I can't vote green or SNP even though there is more chance of Gary Glitter headlining Glastonbury than my constituency returning a Tory. On which subject, I was amazed to read that, on current polling figures the SNP would win my constituency. (remember 45% Lab 10% SNP) because apparently the swing from Lab to SNP is greater in the labour heartlands.

Oh & a wee footnote, i am amused to hear you decrying on-line polls after your stout defence of Kellner & YouGov during the Indy campaign.

& on Trident (if you remove the don't knows) that was about as big a margin as the referendum which we are being constantly reminded was a resounding victory.

& a parting thought - here's a wee counter to your constant claims that us scots are as right wing as the rest of the uk

Hope you have all had a great yesmass (sorry couldn't resist)

I am back to work tomorrow after 9 days off AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

Edited December 28, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11314336/England-must-be-resolute-and-save-the-Scots-from-self-destruction.html

There are no guillotines or concentration camps in Scotland. But even though most Nats have never heard of Rousseau, they are his disciples, behaving as if anyone who does not share their version of Scottishness is not a proper Scot. During the campaign, there was a great deal of physical intimidation. The moral intimidation continues, and so far, we have seen little in the way of counter-attack. The Scottish Unionists have been pathetically wet.

Hey Neil, you writing for the telegraph as well as working for the Labour party now?

Seriously, I am, pretty hard to offend but lines like this...

Today, it seems as if the only political argument in Scotland is the struggle between the Nats and Labour for voters in the Central Belt, many of whom live on benefits, most of whom used to be unthinking Labour supporters. Enterprise Scotland, aspirational Scotland, hard-working Scotland: all are being ignored in a competition for the support of those who, if offered a job, would run a mile.

(my emphasis)

... test my patience

Read on & the real point of this complete & utter tosh becomes clear

It would also be a Scotland in which one of the world’s great wild places would be under threat from class warfare. The Scottish Highlands are a symphony of sea and loch and river, of moor and rock and mountain. It is as if a divine alchemist had transmuted grandeur into landscape – a landscape which nourishes splendid human beings. Stalkers, ghillies, keepers: the Highlands creates men who harmonise humour, toughness and moral depth, and make bloody good soldiers.

Ahh, we have threatened to put an end to the Elite owning large swathes of Scotland & of course as soon as that happens the Highlands will cease to be " a symphony of sea and loch and river, of moor and rock and mountain" no doubt to be replaced by smack head benefit junkies.

God give me strength

I read no further, by the way .... do let me know if I missed anything important!

[eFestivals]

1. so on this issue, Labour have a policy that is definitely to the left of the SNP.

2. care to tell me how many poor peopole are shareholders? PMSL. On this issue, Labour have a policy that is definitely to the left of the SNP.

3. it might be stating the obvious, but the effects are obvious too - that you've somehow missed. Effects that put the SNP to the right of Labour.

4. Oh, so there's a free pass if you're nasty just once? PMSL. There's certainly a free pass for the SNP, allowing them top be more right wing, but never criticised for it.

5. Miliband.... it's the right wingers and the corrupt - like the SNP - who court Murdoch.

6. they might have all fucked up, but the SNP fucked up worse than the tories (and much much worse than Labour) with regard to policies around banking regulation. You know, the SNP being to the right of Labour AND the tories.

I gave you a factual list of where the SNP are to the right of Labour, and you couldn't admit to a single one of them.

But you don't support the SNP and you don't hate Labour, yeah? PMSL.

[eFestivals]

Ahh, we have threatened to put an end to the Elite owning large swathes of Scotland

The SNP have threatened it for over a decade, but done fuck all.

Funny that, eh? All guff and nothing doing.

Apart from robbing the poor to give middle class privileges - proper left wing, that is.

[eFestivals]

& on Trident (if you remove the don't knows) that was about as big a margin as the referendum which we are being constantly reminded was a resounding victory.

and the poll that said Scots are happy to have Trident as long as the Scots aren't paying for it? Doesn't that poll count for anything?

PS: Scotland already benefits economically from Trident, with greater money spent in Scotland around Trident than Scotland's contribution towards Trident.

PPS: join up the dots.

[LJS]

1. so on this issue, Labour have a policy that is definitely to the left of the SNP.

2. care to tell me how many poor peopole are shareholders? PMSL. On this issue, Labour have a policy that is definitely to the left of the SNP.

3. it might be stating the obvious, but the effects are obvious too - that you've somehow missed. Effects that put the SNP to the right of Labour.

4. Oh, so there's a free pass if you're nasty just once? PMSL. There's certainly a free pass for the SNP, allowing them top be more right wing, but never criticised for it.

5. Miliband.... it's the right wingers and the corrupt - like the SNP - who court Murdoch.

6. they might have all fucked up, but the SNP fucked up worse than the tories (and much much worse than Labour) with regard to policies around banking regulation. You know, the SNP being to the right of Labour AND the tories.

I gave you a factual list of where the SNP are to the right of Labour, and you couldn't admit to a single one of them.

But you don't support the SNP and you don't hate Labour, yeah? PMSL.

Well done Neil

Your final sentence is correct.

[eFestivals]

Labour: We'll ....

.... not be pretending there's a magic money tree?

It's all very well not liking these things - I don't like them either - but it's a simple fact that the books have to be balanced.

The SNP typical supporter's view is laughable. You yourself have criticised the ever-growing UK debt, and then you say that making it much bigger and doing nothing about it is a good thing.

The debt exists because more has been spent than has been raised.

Fixing that requires greater taxation - where SNP policy is to cut taxes (but only for the rich, the poor have to keep paying at the same rate) - or to cut spending - where SNP policy is to increase spending.

(or the third way, of raising taxes AND cutting spending - both contrary to SNP policy)

The SNP policy might sound fantastic, but it's an impossibility.

SHOW ME THE SNP's MAGIC MONEY TREE, or be intelligent enough to know they're talking bollocks.

Edited December 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Well done Neil

Your final sentence is correct.

And still you can't actually face up to the facts.

Are Labour to the left of the SNP on these things, or not? It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Are the SNP to the left of Labour about anything at all? Do bear in mind that a policy is not a policy unless it's been costed.

[kaosmark2]

have I at any stage endorsed the SNP or Alex Salmond?

Yes.

Firstly, by voting yes for an ill-thought out version of Scottish independence which was a direct endorsement of Salmond's vision.

But most of what you've said in the thread has come across as very heavily pro-SNP.

[eFestivals]

But most of what you've said in the thread has come across as very heavily pro-SNP.

he'll only get to prove he's not an SNP supporter when he gets around to criticising them.

I've given him a factual list of things where the SNP are to the right of Labour. If he's a left supporter as he claims, and not biased against Labour, and not giving the SNP a free pass, he should be able to clearly state that he thinks these SNP right wing policies are right wing, and are a bad thing.

But instead I only ever get avoidance as his response.

The SNP are clearly too perfect to be sullied by rational consideration of their policies.

Show me the SNP's magic money tree, or have the intelligence to admit they're talking bollocks.

Edited December 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

The SNP are as left-wing as the Lib Dems. They're a party riding on disillusionment and the protest vote who are and would be perfectly prepared to prop up the Tories in government if it could get them what they want:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-block-craig-murray-general-election-candidacy-1-3645014

[eFestivals]

for LJS...

The SNP's most recent statement about a 50pence tax rate for the rich is Sturgeon saying she'd be "minded" to support it.

This is distinctly different to Salmond, who'd stated it would not happen.

Presumably, Nicola is only "minded" to support it because she's yet to ask St Alex's permission to change from his policies.

But whatever, Labour have it as a definite policy and the SNP do not.

Which puts Labour to the left of the SNP on this issue.

Edited December 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The SNP are as left-wing as the Lib Dems. They're a party riding on disillusionment and the protest vote who are and would be perfectly prepared to prop up the Tories in government if it could get them what they want:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-block-craig-murray-general-election-candidacy-1-3645014

almost right, but not quite - because the LibDems are soooo 2010.

Nowadays, the parties picking up the votes "riding on disillusionment and the protest vote" are UKIP in England and SNP in Scotland. They're two sides of the same coin.

If it was about policies, their supporters would be prepared to talk policies. LJS gets to demonstrate one version of how they won't talk policies, while comfy gives another version (where he'll talk policies, but where what he "believes" trumps the real facts which he won't indulge in).

I reckon that opinion polls continually show that around 20% to 25% of voters have disillusionment as the primary driving factor of their voting choice.

[kaosmark2]

almost right, but not quite - because the LibDems are soooo 2010.

Nowadays, the parties picking up the votes "riding on disillusionment and the protest vote" are UKIP in England and SNP in Scotland. They're two sides of the same coin.

Absolutely, but the SNP or UKIP post-election if they get enough seats to influence government will become just like the Lib Dems of now. I used the Lib Dems as a comparison because they're proven traitors while with other parties I would "just be speculating".

Relying on such attitudes will only help a party until they get a modicum of success. Once they do and their policies and genuine attitude get scrutinised their support collapses.

[eFestivals]

Yes.

Firstly, by voting yes for an ill-thought out version of Scottish independence which was a direct endorsement of Salmond's vision.

He'll probably claim he was supporting indy but not Salmond, as that's the normal response.

That totally ignores that Salmond's indy plans would be fully implemented as a direct result of supporting indy.

[kaosmark2]

He'll probably claim he was supporting indy but not Salmond, as that's the normal response.

That totally ignores that Salmond's indy plans would be fully implemented as a direct result of supporting indy.

Hence why I tried to phrase it in emphasis that "independence" is defined by its negotiator. The vote in September was on Salmond's vision. Any future vote would be on the vision of whatever equivalent of the white paper is produced in preparation.

[eFestivals]

Absolutely, but the SNP or UKIP post-election if they get enough seats to influence government will become just like the Lib Dems of now. I used the Lib Dems as a comparison because they're proven traitors while with other parties I would "just be speculating".

Relying on such attitudes will only help a party until they get a modicum of success. Once they do and their policies and genuine attitude get scrutinised their support collapses.

But what Scots tend to miss is that no UK govt will do the SNP's bidding. It would be political death to do so.

The SNP, via their anti-UK policy platform, do not have the UK's best interests at heart and therefore cannot (sensibly) be any part of the make-up of UK govt.

The best that the SNP can manage is to make the UK ungovernable - which the SNP would consider to be a big win, whilst those who suffer as a result are just collateral damage who they don't give a shit about.

Meanwhile, no one on the indy side is speaking publicly about Scotland's growing deficit and what would be required by an iScotland to address it. Cuts, cuts and more cuts - cuts to make the tories look like a spending spree.

[eFestivals]

Any future vote would be on the vision of whatever equivalent of the white paper is produced in preparation.

That's not necessarily so.

The SNP are control freaks (just look at how much has been centralised within their direct control!) so they were never going to give the Scottish people a democratic choice, but it doesn't have to be like that.

It's perfectly possible to have an indy vote that is followed by an election BEFORE the implementation of indy, so that the people have a democratic choice about their indy future.

But that idea is only really workable in a country that overwhelmingly supports indy.

And the problem that will forever knobble the SNP is that Scots do not and never will* overwhelmingly support indy.

(* unless there's some unforeseen political earthquake).

[kaosmark2]

But what Scots tend to miss is that no UK govt will do the SNP's bidding. It would be political death to do so.

The SNP, via their anti-UK policy platform, do not have the UK's best interests at heart and therefore cannot (sensibly) be any part of the make-up of UK govt.

The best that the SNP can manage is to make the UK ungovernable - which the SNP would consider to be a big win, whilst those who suffer as a result are just collateral damage who they don't give a shit about.

Meanwhile, no one on the indy side is speaking publicly about Scotland's growing deficit and what would be required by an iScotland to address it. Cuts, cuts and more cuts - cuts to make the tories look like a spending spree.

It's before my time, but isn't their history of governments ceding demands to nationalist parties of the smaller nations and getting quickly rejected by the populace?

I think the SNP try and convince people that they would be considered for a coalition partner, when in fact noone would be that stupid.

[kaosmark2]

That's not necessarily so.

The SNP are control freaks (just look at how much has been centralised within their direct control!) so they were never going to give the Scottish people a democratic choice, but it doesn't have to be like that.

It's perfectly possible to have an indy vote that is followed by an election BEFORE the implementation of indy, so that the people have a democratic choice about their indy future.

But that idea is only really workable in a country that overwhelmingly supports indy.

And the problem that will forever knobble the SNP is that Scots do not and never will* overwhelmingly support indy.

(* unless there's some unforeseen political earthquake).

OK, true enough. I was talking assuming there isn't any major political shift.

[Comfy Bean]

The SNP are as left-wing as the Lib Dems. They're a party riding on disillusionment and the protest vote who are and would be perfectly prepared to prop up the Tories in government if it could get them what they want:

Simply not true. " The SNP will never put the Tories into Government "

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/299706-nicola-sturgeon-the-snp-will-never-put-the-tories-into-government/

[Comfy Bean]

He'll probably claim he was supporting indy but not Salmond, as that's the normal response.

That totally ignores that Salmond's indy plans would be fully implemented as a direct result of supporting indy.

I realise that it all comes back to Salmond for you. Fair enough.

In my view, the " Indy plans " would have been negotiated by " Team Scotland " ( shite name I know ) that would have included Scottish MP`s from across the board. I dare say that Dave and the boys would also have had a major say on the plan and the timetable. I agree that Salmond would have played a major role but you don`t honestly think one man would have it all his own way ?..............or do you ?

You might also want to have a re-think on your earlier comments on the SNP not voting on the Bedroom Tax. One missed a plane and 3 didn`t vote.

Not sure why you continually try and point score with the SNP`s record on the Bedroom Tax. It`s been spelled out to you on here often enough

Edited December 29, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[LJS]

It's before my time, but isn't their history of governments ceding demands to nationalist parties of the smaller nations and getting quickly rejected by the populace?

I think the SNP try and convince people that they would be considered for a coalition partner, when in fact noone would be that stupid.

um - Labour "conceded powers" to Scotland & Wales in 1997 & were quickly rejected 13 years later in 2010. I think there were other factors involved in that rejection.

In contrast Labour failed to "concede powers" to Scotland in 1979 & were immediately rejected by the electorate ( i am not actually suggesting there is a direct link here as the government was pretty much fucked & Thatcher was all but inevitably going to win) Neil will no doubt be along shortly that the rise of thatcher was all down to the SNP & the Thatcherite Scots.

Whether the SNP would be considered as a coalition partner is certainly unlikely - but what about some looser arrangement - where they agree to support a number of core pieces of legislation - why would that be unthinkable?

Of course. the logical, common sense coalition would be between Labour & the Tories as they are the two parties closest in policies & philosphy