The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Why do a lot of yes supporters believe 'the vow' wasn't carried out because they weren't given full home rule? At no point in the vow did it ever mention giving Scotland that. It merely said we'd be given new powers on a set timescale. So far it's being followed through word for word.

I agree Michael. From memory,we all agreed on here that it was written in such a way that anyone reading it now would be wrong to find fault in how this has played out. I think it`s fair to say Gordon Brown hinted at a bit more in his speech but what was written in the vow is being followed through on as you say.

I agree with the view that Dave gave the job to Darling with opinion showing around 30/70 NO. It should have been a " tap in ". With 5/6 days to go Dave shat it and the vow was born.

[eFestivals]

I don't think Neil's phrase is really that far from the common expression of 'cutting your nose to spite your face'.

yup, that's much the same thing.

Doing something that works against the result you say you want.

[eFestivals]

Or come May, vote SNP, but please don't come out with 'look, another tory government that we didn't vote for'

but we know that they will.

The SNP will be cheering the stupidity of their own voters, who will have done the SNP a favour but not themselves.

If you don't want a tory govt, you have to *positively* vote to stop their being a tory govt.

The SNP supporters say "there's blue tories and red tories, they're both the same" - but that's them displaying their political ignorance, cos they won't think an extra £5bn of cuts for Scotland is the same thing.

[Comfy Bean]

so anyway .... is anyone here that says they'll be voting SNP able to tell me what the SNP want?

As they're supporting that party, surely they know what they're supporting?

I sense a trap

The SNP want to be Independent from Westminster and rUK. They believe in a different path away from austerity and renewing trident at around 1 billion gazillion trillion.

I would imagine they would have negotiated a phased fiscal withdrawal from the union bonds which would have been in the interests of both parties. This would be a sensible approach. A bit like how the Govt are now having a sneaky peak at whether Wales could " host " Trident. You`ve got to plan ahead and take a phased approach when big decisions are involved.

NS talks about the full " leavers of power " but I can`t imagine anyone would think it would be sensible for this to happen like flicking a switch. For sure Barnett would need to be binned but that would be at the end of the process in my view. At the moment we are " better together ". Negotiations must be in the interests of both parties and most of all the punters in ALL countries involved. Including Wales.

[eFestivals]

I`ve mentioned a couple of times that I understand the maths around Neils arguement. I thought Scotland could / should be an Independent Country but 55% disagreed with me. I am pleased that we had the vote and onwards and upwards I hope ( the dream will never die ). I have never once accused all these people who disagreed with me of " punching themselves in the face ".

it's not the same thing at all.

Yes voters wanted yes and voted yes. No voters wanted no and voted no. They've both gone for what they want, and (as far as possible [one side had to lose]) got what they want.

The GE in May is completely different.

The result will be a tory govt or a Labour govt. It will not be an SNP govt.

So voting SNP doesn't get anyone what they want, unless they want an SNP MP more than they don't want a tory govt.

I'm quite happy for people to vote SNP if they're happy with *all* consequences of the result they help to create - so that's including a tory govt as a consequence.

If most important to you is to not get a tory govt, then don't vote in the way that makes a tory govt more likely.

The people who say they don't want a tory govt but then use their vote to make a tory govt more likely are punching themselves in the face.

Put it another way. I have never heard you saying that anyone voting for Labour in Scotland is punching themselves in the face.

and that's because...?

If you vote Labour because you want Labour, your vote for Labour makes Labour more likely.

if you vote SNP and want a Labour govt (the only alternative to a tory govt), your vote for thew SNP makes a tory govt more likely.

They are very different things. One is an action towards what you want, the other is an action against what you want.

[Comfy Bean]

Or come May, vote SNP, but please don't come out with 'look, another tory government that we didn't vote for'

Woops. Forgot that bit. Like the maths side of Neils arguement, this is factually correct. As I`m sure you know, Scotland will return a majority of either Labour or SNP MP`s. We will not have voted for the Tory Govt.....if we get one.

[Comfy Bean]

are you referring to the polls which say only 30% of Scottish people want more than Smith will give them. Those polls?

No I wasnt. I was quite clearly referring to the Polls that show the SNP on 40+ seats. I went on to say that I find these polls hard to believe.

Anyway, since you deflected this onto Smith. As I said earlier on I`m not in that 30%.

[eFestivals]

I think it`s fair to say Gordon Brown hinted at a bit more in his speech but what was written in the vow is being followed through on as you say.

I agree that Brown's words suggested that Scotland would get more than Scotland is going to get from this process.

BUT ... what was *REALLY* on offer had been clearly laid out long before, so any Scot who went solely on Brown's words only has themselves to blame for not following the debate. It's not fair or right to blame others for their self-chosen ignorance of a very important process.

I take an identical view over Salmond's words (or often, lack of them). The plan was fully laid out in the white paper, and that's what you'd have got.

Salmond played to people's ignorance just the same as Brown did, tho Salmond did it with silence and not extra words.

Salmond allowed the likes of WoS to put forwards a bullshit version of the plan for independence that was sucked up by so many, that allowed the real version to be not properly scrutinised.

[gary1979666]

Morning G.

Fair enough on not understanding my hypothetical. I was struggling a bit with it myself mate. I`ll try again in a minute.

I totally disagree with your point around " cutting your nose off to spite your face ". In the scenario I gave /made up, we were in a neck and neck constituency where either the Greens or Labour would win. I asked if a voter who had the environment as their key, number 1 issue and who was also faced with someone going to " frack the feck out of a field behind their home " would also be accused of punching themselves in the face by Neil. He replied " Yep ".

In what way would this green party voter be cutting their nose off ?

I`ve mentioned a couple of times that I understand the maths around Neils arguement. I thought Scotland could / should be an Independent Country but 55% disagreed with me. I am pleased that we had the vote and onwards and upwards I hope ( the dream will never die ). I have never once accused all these people who disagreed with me of " punching themselves in the face ". At this time, they didn`t think it was a good idea as they are entitled to think. My point with Neils form of words is that it could be seen as he is right beyond doubt and that anyone who disagrees with him ( and his opinion ) is punching themselves in the face. Unless he actually is always right, then there is no sense ( as I see it ) in anyone having that view of people who disagree with them. This was why I was attempting to bring in the sceario of how we should view this if Neil ( or anyone of course ) decide they want to change their views on something.....which is allowed.

Put it another way. I have never heard you saying that anyone voting for Labour in Scotland is punching themselves in the face.

To look at that scenario, what is likely to have the most positive effect on their fracking situation - a tory govt / green MP combo OR a labour govt / lab MP combo. Probably the latter. So although the language he uses might not be the most eloquent, Neil's right.

I think a lot of people who have argued with Neil on multiple issues over the years, myself included, would say he's a bit abrasive and can result in pages of he said / she said / you're a tw@t type arguements (look at the last couple of days in the General News thread). But with the debates on here, you have to put the different styles to one side, and not rise to the bait.

But I just want to know if you can understand how a vote for the SNP helps the Tories. It's a quirk of our voting system. Much like 1 in six people voting Tory, but only returning 1 MP out of 59.

[eFestivals]

I sense a trap

You sense correctly for once.

Tho I'm being 100% honest when I say I don't know whether the "full fiscal independence" that the SNP have said they'll demand is actually "full fiscal independence", or whether it's really "full fiscal independence plus financial support from the rest of the UK".

So could you please clarify if you know?

The 'trap' here is not a big one. I'm sure you can do the maths, using the Scottish Govts own numbers on Scotland's economy for that maths.

The SNP want to be Independent from Westminster and rUK.

I see you're still not listening to what the SNP actually say, just as you made it up for the indyref.

The SNP have categorically stated that indy is on the back-burner for the moment, and that they'll be participating in the next UK Parliament on the basis of wanting "full fiscal automony" (and not indy) for Scotland.

NS talks about the full " leavers of power " but I can`t imagine anyone would think it would be sensible for this to happen like flicking a switch.

Hmmm, Alex wanted to flip that switch to indy. Now you're saying that wouldn't have been sensible.

But anyway ....

It's not how instant full fiscal autonomy might be that should concern you, it's the effect that full fiscal autonomy would have on Scottish public spending that should concern you.

For sure Barnett would need to be binned

The Scottish govt says....

In 2012-13, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.6 billion (14.0% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.1 billion (13.3% of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £12.1 billion (8.3% of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2012-13, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £114.8 billion (or 7.3% of GDP).

So what public services are first for the more-than-tory-cuts under Nicola's plan?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Edited January 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Woops. Forgot that bit. Like the maths side of Neils arguement, this is factually correct. As I`m sure you know, Scotland will return a majority of either Labour or SNP MP`s. We will not have voted for the Tory Govt.....if we get one.

But one increases the chance of another. It's having your cake and eating it. In fact, it's having your cake, eating it and then complaining you're fat.

[eFestivals]

I think a lot of people who have argued with Neil on multiple issues over the years, myself included, would say he's a bit abrasive and can result in pages of he said / she said / you're a tw@t type arguements (look at the last couple of days in the General News thread).

I can be that, yup ...

But in that particular instance it's me that's 'the injured party', where others have taken abrasive attitude towards some exceedingly mild worlds of mine which merely expressed (direct quote) "surprise and disappointment" at a person's words.

I've only got hostile at the lies that have then been posted back at me.

[kaosmark2]

I'm going to be voting Green in Bristol West in the GE. It's currently polling to be a 3-way marginal between Green, Labour and Lib Dem, with the first two being favourites.

I am very aware that a consequence of this could be the Tories form the next government. I think it unlikely, and I'm willing to take that risk because I believe having another Green MP, and having one in my constituency, is better for the future of the country and its politics than having Labour in would be.

In 12 months time, I may regret this decision. I want Labour to form the next government, but I also want an end to 2-party politics with single-party majorities. I want a credible centre-left alternative, etc. If I don't support minor parties in the next election or two, I feel we could end up returning to the 2-party system.

If comfy feels the prospect of a SNP MP and a Tory government is preferable to a Labour MP and Labour government, that's his choice, but there won't be any party with a comfortable majority, and the SNP will not form part of any coalition. They may have an agreement in principle to support a Labour minority, but it's trusting in other areas of the country to vote as you want. I'm gambling on it, and I'd be hypocritical to say comfy shouldn't, but it's vital to be aware that every seat Labour could win and doesn't, increases the chances of the Tories remaining in power.

[Comfy Bean]

well, I guess the first Scotsman admitting he prefers the tories is at least a start with Scottish clarity.

This was your response to my post trying to get my head round the punching yourself in the face arguement. In my post, I refered to your good self 10+ times in a ( failed ) attempt to make it clear I was talking about you. I even wrote it like " you " hoping that would make it clear I was not talking about me.......but you know that of course In that post I also stated I have never in any election ever voted for the Tories. I can add to this now ( no offence Gary ) that I cannot see any circumstances in my lifetime that I will ever vote for the Tory party.

So.....your response to my post ( above ) is doing nobody any good *

As I`ve said many times. I CAN see myself voting for Labour or the SNP. I believe that a Scottish Labour party not involved in becoming electable in England would be more likely to return to their roots / values. You will remember the Branch Office story.

Scottish Labour should go back to representing Scottish Voters. We see a different path on austerity and social justice not to mention Trident. IF they returned to some of these values and appeared to be representing the wishes of their constituents then you could have relied on the usual massive majority of Scottish Labour MP`s. In years gone byofcourse this hasn`tactuall made any difference.

Even just for a second, think through the possibilty that the clusterfuck Labour have become up here " may" be to blame for voters deserting them in their droves. Just for a second don`t just take the easy route of balming the SNP. The Labour party left the door open for them to drive a bus through.

I agree with you that there is a core vote who will never vote for Labour again due to Indy. They are probs the 30% you mentioned earlier. I am not one of these 30% just like I am not a Scotsaman who prefers the tories.

For clarity, I don`think that come May Labour will be wiped out as the polls are showing. As i`ve said before though, I believe this could happen next year and I don`t think Murphy is the right man to stop this happening. Labour won the Indy vote remember. They cannot have expected to be so far behind at this stage after appointing Murphy.

* mostly you

[eFestivals]

Anyway, since you deflected this onto Smith. As I said earlier on I`m not in that 30%.

soi you think that what Smith is giving is about the right amount of devolution for Scotland?

Cos it's only 30% of Scots who think it doesn't go far enough.

[kaosmark2]

I can be that, yup ...

I'd say you're like that about 2/3rds of the time a discussion goes beyond 2 pages. Whether your original point is right or not (and IMO it is the majority of the time), your debating style is almost always confrontational, aggressive and patronising. At times its warranted (Barry at his most ignorant), but I feel a lot of the time it hinders more constructive analysis and discussion, and pulls it into a personal argument. Hell I've called you out on it earlier in this thread and I think over 90% of what you've said re. Scottish Independence, the SNP, Salmond, and the political balance has been right.

[Comfy Bean]

But I just want to know if you can understand how a vote for the SNP helps the Tories. It's a quirk of our voting system. Much like 1 in six people voting Tory, but only returning 1 MP out of 59.

G. I`ve said umpteen times that I understand the basic maths. Yes.

People voting SNP will not however add to the total of 300+ seats that the Tories hope to win. Scotland will return maybe 2 or 3 towards that total.

[eFestivals]

the maths side of Neils arguement, this is factually correct.

I'm glad to see that acknowledged.

So, the next question is: would most Scots prefer an SNP MP and a tory govt, or a Labour MP and a Labour govt?

Cos that's the pertinent question.

The result will be the result that Scotland chooses to make*.

(* the one thing that makes me question whether the extrapolations made from poll data are correct is Labour having 33%-35% of the vote when much less of that will be from Scotland compared to normal - it suggests that Labour will do better in England than those extrapolations are maybe taking into account).

[Comfy Bean]

soi you think that what Smith is giving is about the right amount of devolution for Scotland?

Cos it's only 30% of Scots who think it doesn't go far enough.

FFS

I think Smith delivered on what was in the vow and he delivered it on time.

[eFestivals]

I'm going to be voting Green in Bristol West in the GE. It's currently polling to be a 3-way marginal between Green, Labour and Lib Dem, with the first two being favourites.

where's that data from? I saw something the other day on one of the polling sites which said it was a sure LibDem win.

That surprised me because it's been suggested that the Greens are in with a decent chance, but now what you've said is putting the LibDem in 3rd.

[kaosmark2]

not to mention Trident.

Most people I talk to who aren't ignorant, racist, fascist jingoists don't agree with renewing Trident. However it's only considered a primary issue in Scotland, where Salmond has successfully turned it into a myth of "The English want to put dangerous nukes on Scottish territory to risk causing harm to Scots but not themselves". Nowhere else thinks Trident is in the top 10 current issues. While the money spent on it is significant, if it were scrapped at least 80% of that money would still go back into the military. Why does Salmond's rhetoric on this issue trump the facts and figures?

[eFestivals]

FFS

I think Smith delivered on what was in the vow and he delivered it on time.

I've taken your comments about Smith as you ridiculing it. Was I wrong doing that?

[Comfy Bean]

I'm glad to see that acknowledged.

You are just winding me up. You must be. Do you read any of my posts ?

[kaosmark2]

where's that data from? I saw something the other day on one of the polling sites which said it was a sure LibDem win.

That surprised me because it's been suggested that the Greens are in with a decent chance, but now what you've said is putting the LibDem in 3rd.

It's what the Greens are saying, so they're probably selecting the most favourable poll. https://www.fundsurfer.com/project/a-green-mp-for-bristol-west

That said, ones the Labour candidate has linked to put Labour first, Greens 2nd, Lib Dems 3rd. Of the last dozen polls I've seen Lib Dems have been a close 3rd in all of them.

[eFestivals]

Most people I talk to who aren't ignorant, racist, fascist jingoists don't agree with renewing Trident. However it's only considered a primary issue in Scotland, where Salmond has successfully turned it into a myth of "The English want to put dangerous nukes on Scottish territory to risk causing harm to Scots but not themselves". Nowhere else thinks Trident is in the top 10 current issues. While the money spent on it is significant, if it were scrapped at least 80% of that money would still go back into the military. Why does Salmond's rhetoric on this issue trump the facts and figures?

to be fair to Salmond, i think that's more done by over-enthusiastic nats than him personally.

The white paper clearly stated that 85% of the current defence spend by Scotland (which includes its share of Trident) would be spent on the new iScottish defence forces - so there'd be no "Trident bonus".

(that 85% is very laughable, because it also says it doesn't cover all Scottish defence needs. The extra bits Salmond said rUK would provide to iScotland for free - which is ridiculous).