The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

there's a few bits in there I'd not heard about, that have made me laugh.

I think the potential for more comedy is massive, if he's in Westminster but not leader of the party. I really can't see him agreeing to be Nicola's pawn - and that has the potential to rip the SNP apart.

What i'm wondering tho is when Scotland is going to wake up the fact that there's no one in British politics with such a bad record of making the wrong calls over major issues. He outdoes even Cameron on that score, tho perhaps only because Salmond has been around longer. Then again, anyone in UK politics with Salmond's record wouldn't be likely to have lasted as long as Salmond has.

Yeah, getting the price of oil wrong, writing a nice letter to Fred Edwards, & losing a bet is worse than (tories) engineeering & gloating over the destruction of British industry after coming to power on the "labour isn't working" slogan. or (tory & labour) presiding over a massive leap in inequality in the UK. or (labour) making stuff up to get us into an illegal war just to suck up to Bush.

Give me Salmond any day

[LJS]

It's a shame Thatcher pissed the money up the wall with tax cuts for the rich, but i'll remind you that Scotland helped vote her into the position that enabled her to do that and to set the scene for long beyond when enough of Scotland happily went along with it.

Just for clarity, how low a percentage vote for the Tories would it take for us not to be "helping vote them in."

it seems to be always Scotland's fault somehow, Labour were over 10% ahead & won double the number of seats of the Tories in Scotland in 1979. Even if every tory seat in Scotland had gone to Labour it would only have left the Tories 1 short of an overall majority. So, instead of "helping vote her in" we had a tory government impose on us by the English Electorate

[LJS]

from the Torygraph I'd take that as election-eering more than anything - them wanting the support for the SNP to continue to benefit the tories.

Having gone thru the close-thing of the indyref to create the divide the tories want in Scotland, they're not going to not want to play it for all its worth, are they?

As I've said more than once: those who have switched to the SNP in the last 5 years have been perfectly played by the tories.

Here's betting that you don't feel yourself to be a tories lackey tho. Am I right?

what a frankly bizarre analysis of recent sottish politics with even less basis in "fact" than most of your nonsense

[LJS]

Posted Today, 05:17 PM

comfortablynumb1910, on 15 Jan 2015 - 4:08 PM, said:

Oh and I disagree with you on the oil fund.

Oh c'mon, are you really so daft as to think that the SNP could ever admit that Westminster was doing the right thing for Scotland?

Answer the point. Comfy was speaking for himself ... not the SNP

But of course it's easier to attack the SNP than reasonable people like comfy

[LJS]

Oh c'mon, are you really so daft as to think that the SNP could ever admit that Westminster was doing the right thing for Scotland?

Whatever Westminster does, the SNP *HAVE TO* criticise it, otherwise there's no reason for the SNP's existence. How would their campaigns go if they were saying "Scotland needs to be indie to save Scotland from Westminster doing things perfectly"?

If there was a fund, the criticisms would be much as I suggested, I guarantee.

It certainly should have been invested rather than spunked up the wall, but invested doesn't necessarily mean an oil fund. It could be been invested in infrastructure, or invested in new businesses as replacements for the shut-down in the heavy industries, etc, etc. Each idea would need to be looked at to see the good and bad sides of each option.

Unlike Norway, the UK doesn't need a fund to protect other industries from the effects of new wealth; there's a more rational case for a fund for Norway, and for the mainly-(comparity) undeveloped places that most of the oil comes from. For the UK, with a much more diverse economy and the oil/gas money only a small part, there's not the same need of self-protection from the effects of that wealth.

Oh, the irony of a nat saying it's wrong to dismiss something because of its source. :lol:

There's fair analysis, and there's purposeful bollocks. The chances of purposeful bollocks increases the nearer we get to a vote. I thought you'd spotted that in Scotland recently?

The torygraph don't like Murphy, because he's Labour and they're tory. They don't want him to gain ground in Scotland, and they also want to use him to try and lose Labour votes in England by playing up the Scottish divide (that for torygraphers is about the same from either of Labour and the SNP). The article works for both of these.

Jim meanwhile is playing to the crowd, as all politicians do. He's tried to give a reason for the much-criticised 'Labour standing with the tories' that he hopes people might swallow so that criticism is then moved on from.

And actually, Jim is right (note: that's not me claiming he's genuine in applying it to himself). That 'social solidarity' idea is my own unionism, and nothing to do with that flag waving bollocks.

Me saying just that was about where LJS came into this thread. The earilest thing I remember posting back to him after him saying which way he'd vote whilst claiming to be from the left was "it's hardly social solidarity" (or something very similar).

What that social solidarity means in very real terms today is that I'm happy to see English money heading north to help you thru the impact of the oil price crisis that Scotland is currently experiencing. I shouldn't be so nasty to you by doing things like that, should I?

Hey, maybe some folk will vote SNP because they see them as the party that would best represent them. that would be a terrible distortion of democracy, wouldn't it.

Do you not think it's strange how all of these arguments work towards perpetuating a two party system which i would imagine most of us on here would like to see the end of.

It's funny, the argument used to be:" a vote for the liberals/snp/greens is a wasted vote because they can never win"

now it is "a vote for the greens/snp is a wasted vote because they might win & let the tories in"

Tories move the goal posts & you guys fall for it every time

Edited January 15, 2015 by LJS

[russycarps]

kind of makes up for the years Scotland's oil subsidised Thatcher's dismantling of the UK's industrial base

That's ancient history.

The modern day reality is Scotland in its current form would be doomed without the union. This reminder of the volatility of oil prices has been perfectly timed. Alex salmonds grasp on economics has been utterly discredited.

[eFestivals]

That dividing line somewhere between Carlisle and Gretna has little relevance in a UK general election.

spot on. There is nothing called 'Scotland' in a UK general election, there are only constituencies of the UK.

Whatever happened to 'it's not about the SNP' or 'getting rid of the Tories', I used to hear that so often? A lot of folk seem to have translated their Yes support directly in to support for the SNP, and having another Tory led government doesn't seem to be a problem either, if it means they get their revenge on Labour.

Careful. You're asking those people to think, and Scottish people have said that if the English ask something of them they'll do the opposite.

[eFestivals]

& you can't prove you are right either other than by quoting some guy from Slovenia & when asked for proof you supply a link to the Scot Gov gers figures which do not actually match the Slovenian version.

They ultimately do, but I know you find difficulties in anything which isn't straighforwards.

And talking of straightforwards, you can't even accept what those GERS figures say only for themselves, that for 17 years out of the last 24 years Scotland's deficit was greater than the whole-UK's.

Alex has given you the proof. What does it take for you to believe Alex's numbers?

(and that's before getting into how Alex is fiddling those numbers to make Scotland look better than is really the case!)

the interesting thing about GERS is that it was started by the Tories to show how dependent Scotland was on the rest of the UK. When they found out the figures proved otherwise, they gave up & the Scottish government took over.

And when Alex took over what did Alex do? He changed the methodology and revised the numbers for every year - to make the numbers I refer to above, which show that for the 17 of the last 24 years Scotland had a bigger deficit than the UK.

& of course when oil price is low it would not be good for an independent Scotland, but it is unlikely to stay low for ever is it?

True.

But that's ignoring the fact that Alex said it was impossible for the price to get as low as it has in the numbers he put on the white paper, which makes all of his oil assumptions wrong because he's already proven to have made them on wrong assumptions about how low the price might go.

Next up you'll no doubt point out that the UK govt got them wrong too (which they did, but not as wrong as Salmond). But that's not really a meaningful point, because the UK economy is not dependent on oil whilst an iScotland would have been.

The problem you have, is that neither Comfy of myself who have been the main pro indy posters on this thread have ever claimed Scotland would be rolling in wealth post-indy and indeed i have quite regularly stated that i believed the yes campaign was over optimistic on the short term financial benefits of independence even when the oil price was higher.

As I've pointed out to you many times, the discussion here is indy Scotland and not purely you.

But, to show how hollow that claim of your is, when you spent time trying to convince people to vote indy, did you at any time tell them that you thought an indie Scotland would have financial difficulties to cause it to make cuts beyond what the tories are imposing?

No? Why would that be, then? Might it have been to give them a false idea of what indiue would cost them?

And as for others, did no one in Scotland believe Alex's claim of £300k of wealth just for little old them, and so cause them to vote for him? If no one believed him, care to tell me why would they be voting for the guy they thought was a liar?

[eFestivals]

kind of makes up for the years Scotland's oil subsidised Thatcher's dismantling of the UK's industrial base

No worries - the number of years since 1980 now about balance out.

Will you stop saying now that the oil is only Scotland's? Or is the acceptance of mutual support you state above really just empty guff to be dropped next time it's convenient?

I reckon the likes of you will be banging on about "oor oil" for the next 50 years, and yet the SNP themselves have already shut about it, knowing that to make that claim shows them as a massive fuck up.

The SNP didn't even ask the Smith Commission for the oil revenues. They know it would expose their myths.

[eFestivals]

Give me Salmond any day

bankruptcy over a working economy is not going to be good for the Scottish people. Has your brain died?

Salmond has now expressed three different major policies, where each one just by itself would have bankrupted Scotland.

That's three Alex bankruptcies in less than 2 decades.

[eFestivals]

Just for clarity, how low a percentage vote for the Tories would it take for us not to be "helping vote them in."

It would take Scotland changing its voting to help them into power. You know, what you plan to do and which will help the tories into power.

There are only the tories or Labour that will have power. If you're not voting to support one option, you're helping the other.

Failure to understand how you vote impacts on the result risks a tory govt in Scotland.

What would you hate more? A tory govt or a Labour govt?

If you say tory but then vote SNP, you're punching yourself in the face.

If you say "they're equally as bad", that just proves you ignorant of the differences in policies.

Take your pick.

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

what a frankly bizarre analysis of recent sottish politics with even less basis in "fact" than most of your nonsense

yeah, cos the indyref hasn't politically polarised Scotland.

[eFestivals]

Hey, maybe some folk will vote SNP because they see them as the party that would best represent them. that would be a terrible distortion of democracy, wouldn't it.

People are perfectly entitled to vote for who they wish to.

The consequent result is the consequent result, and the consequences of that result are the consequences.

You can vote SNP and pretend it won't put the tories in power, but if it does you won't be able to pretend the tories aren't in power.

The impact of your vote has consequences. Understand what those consequences are.

You have the power to affect the outcome to be the outcome that Scotland wants. If you chose not to use that power effectively you'll have to live with the consequences of what you've helped to make.

Do you not think it's strange how all of these arguments work towards perpetuating a two party system which i would imagine most of us on here would like to see the end of.

voting SNP does not alter anything of the system we have that gives only a binary choice in outcome.

A better voting system will not be delivered via any party politics.

It's funny, the argument used to be:" a vote for the liberals/snp/greens is a wasted vote because they can never win"

now it is "a vote for the greens/snp is a wasted vote because they might win & let the tories in"

Tories move the goal posts & you guys fall for it every time

Some people are smart enough to recognise how the system we have works in its effect, and others are not.

Some people are smart enough to recognise how other people will use their free choice of vote and how they can effectively counter that, and others are not.

Pretending it's different to how it is is stupid. It's only a change in voting system that can change the effectiveness of any vote.

[eFestivals]

It's looking* like Labour will win the majority of English seats.

It's looking* neck and neck via the English and Welsh seats.

And it's looking* like Scotland's one tory MP and no Labour MPs will give the tories victory.

But Scotland can't make a tory govt, yeah?

(* i might have stretched things there a little, just to demonstrate the guff from Scotland).

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

I think we are being a little unfair on the Yesers, by suggesting they are stupid and dont realise a vote for the SNP is a vote for the tories.

It seems to me they are now so bitter I think a lot of them will happily take a Tory government, just so they have more to moan about how Westminster is hurting scotland.

Of course, the people that think this way are those who already have a comfortable existence that the Torys cant harm too much.

The extreme suffering of millions of poor Scots is a small price to pay if independence is achieved a decade down the line.

Edited January 16, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

It seems to me they are now so bitter I think a lot of them will happily take a Tory government, just so they have more to moan about how Westminster is hurting scotland.

And the SNP are praying to the Lord God Alex that that's what will happen.

Of course, the people that think this way are those who already have a comfortable existence that the Torys cant harm too much.

Nicely said ... tho those who won't actually suffer via the tories don't seem to have much concern for others in Scotland who will do, despite them saying they were voting indie to help the poor. It's laughable.

To these limited-thinking people, there's no difference between the tories and Labour, not even in the extra £5Bn-per-year of cuts that'll hit Scotland from the tories.

The extreme suffering of millions of poor Scots is a small price to pay if independence is achieved a decade down the line.

The extreme suffering of millions of poor Scots would have been a small price to pay if independence was achieved last September.

So say the SNP, and all those who voted in support of them.

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

I think we are being a little unfair on the Yesers, by suggesting they are stupid and dont realise a vote for the SNP is a vote for the tories.

It seems to me they are now so bitter I think a lot of them will happily take a Tory government, just so they have more to moan about how Westminster is hurting scotland.

Of course, the people that think this way are those who already have a comfortable existence that the Torys cant harm too much.

The extreme suffering of millions of poor Scots is a small price to pay if independence is achieved a decade down the line.

I see Neil regards your view on the possible impact of those with a "comfortable existence " as nicely said but.....how does it stand up against how the more affluent types voted when compared with what the majority of "working class" areas wanted. You know the folks who you are so concerned about.

Can you see there may be an alternative view to the one you put?

[russycarps]

I see Neil regards your view on the possible impact of those with a "comfortable existence " as nicely said but.....how does it stand up against how the more affluent types voted when compared with what the majority of "working class" areas wanted. You know the folks who you are so concerned about.

Can you see there may be an alternative view to the one you put?

Yes, I feel sorry for the way they have been manipulated in this whole charade by people who should know better.

[Comfy Bean]

Fair enough Russy. I take your point. Do you accept though that there are some of the folks you referred to earlier who voted yes as they genuinely thought scotland should be an independent country?

I'm sure you do and it follows that many still believe this could / will someday be the case. Some would say the more comfortably off denied them the opportunity? No point arguing over the stats but.....if this were true would that not concern you more?

[eFestivals]

I see Neil regards your view on the possible impact of those with a "comfortable existence " as nicely said but.....how does it stand up against how the more affluent types voted when compared with what the majority of "working class" areas wanted. You know the folks who you are so concerned about.

Can you see there may be an alternative view to the one you put?

there's certainly an alternative view. The relevant point is whether it's a well-founded view or not.

Godwin's Law alert, but it's worth noting that a large minority thought Hitler was a good idea. It's the idea that's important for whether it's a good idea or not, and not how 'the people' might view that idea.

[eFestivals]

And in this particular instance, the economic case for indie Scotland has been destroyed unless Scotland is happy to be voting itself poorer.

The very fact that the indie campaign didn't put forwards the idea of voting yourself poorer and instead promised new extra riches shows where Scottish thinking is. 'Poorer' isn't wanted.

And that poorer, it should be noted, is indefinite. Yes, iScotland might bloom into one of the world's richest countries, but that's a high ambition. Every other country is also trying to do that, and most of them are failing and there's no particular reason to think Scotland would do better.

[russycarps]

Fair enough Russy. I take your point. Do you accept though that there are some of the folks you referred to earlier who voted yes as they genuinely thought scotland should be an independent country?

I'm sure you do and it follows that many still believe this could / will someday be the case. Some would say the more comfortably off denied them the opportunity? No point arguing over the stats but.....if this were true would that not concern you more?

Yes I accept there are a handful of nutters who want independence at any cost. No matter what the devastating economic consequences.

The yes campaign was run along fraudulent lines though and based on at best wild speculation and at worst a pack of lies.

How many people would have voted Yes if Alex salmond had clearly stated "if oil prices are $130 we can afford X amount of services, if oil prices are $75 we can afford Y amount of services, if oil prices are $50 we can afford fuck all services"?

[MichaelsBeard]

There is a great irony in the 'Scotland rarely gets the government that it voted in' line that was toted around in the campaign. The people who said this are now choosing (wether deliberately or not) to purposely vote for the government Scotland won't get.

[eFestivals]

There is a great irony in the 'Scotland rarely gets the government that it voted in' line that was toted around in the campaign. The people who said this are now choosing (wether deliberately or not) to purposely vote for the government Scotland won't get.

Yep, it's called punching yourself in the face.

"Look at me, aren't I clever hating the tories so much that I've caused them to rule over me".

[Comfy Bean]

There is a great irony in the 'Scotland rarely gets the government that it voted in' line that was toted around in the campaign. The people who said this are now choosing (wether deliberately or not) to purposely vote for the government Scotland won't get.

Do you mean if Scotland votes Labour and we end up with the Tories?

wouldn't be the first time. Could see it happening again.