The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Bullshit.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/moreno-national-identity-six-answer-options#line

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/agree-or-disagree-if-scotland-becomesindependent-i-will-never-think-of-the-engl

Yes, you can find polls there that show a greater "Scottishness", but the fact that the view is very muddled means it's nowhere near as clear cut as you've just claimed.

not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

79% think of themselves as at least as Scottish as they are British

only 9% think of themselves as British not scottish

But none of these results ask whether people consider

The same applies to the second set of figures - they do not in any shape manner or form indicate anything to do with their opinion of Scotland as a nation

This doesn't either ...

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/would-you-rather-describe-yourself-as-british-or-scottish

but it does show what happens if you give people a straight choice.

[LJS]

this...

made me smile

[tolywoly]

What does it matter if Scotland's a nation or not? From a UK general election perspective it's little more than a collection of constituencies. That point's been stressed numerous times.

So the people in those constituencies can either vote with everyone else to achieve the best result for the UK as a whole or they can continue to fixate on an irrelevant dividing line, and pretend they've no responsibility for the larger consequences of the actions they take behind that line.

There's been two refs recently. In one Scotland voted to stay in the UK. In the other the UK voted to retain the existing GE voting system. The people have spoken, whether we like it or not. We need to work with the system we've chosen.

Yesers will be quick enough to moan about the prospect of an in/out EU ref or the extra austerity another Tory led government would bring. Voting SNP increases the probability of that outcome. By all means vote how you want, but accept the consequences of your actions, direct or indirect.

Edited February 8, 2015 by tolywoly

[eFestivals]

this...

made me smile

it's a leader written by THE Sun staff to Salmond's mate Rupert, asking Rupert not to support UKIP (seriously, that's 100% what it is; you can find this said in other papers, where Sun staff told them why they'd run that leader).

Salmond asked Rupert if he'd support the SNP instead. Unfortunately for Salmond and despite the bribes on offer, Rupert said 'no' and Salmond lost.

[eFestivals]

Yesers will be quick enough to moan about the prospect of an in/out EU ref or the extra austerity another Tory led government would bring. Voting SNP increases the probability of that outcome.

which is precisely why SNP voters are supporting the tories. They're fooling no one but themselves.

SNP supporters want the tories to win, because that's the only possible way they can win an indyref (tho they still won't win, they just think they will). The SNP and their supporters *WANT* horrible things to happen to the people of Scotland.

And then if they do eventually win indy, the proper-horrible gets to start, as the SNP makes bigger cuts than the tories to make an iScotland viable. Tory policies are the only thing which can make a lot of those necessary indy-Scotland cuts seem like they're nothing to do with the SNP.

Edited February 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

which is precisely why SNP voters are supporting the tories. They're fooling no one but themselves.

SNP supporters want the tories to win, because that's the only possible way they can win an indyref (tho they still won't win, they just think they will). The SNP and their supporters *WANT* horrible things to happen to the people of Scotland.

And then if they do eventually win indy, the proper-horrible gets to start, as the SNP makes bigger cuts than the tories to make an iScotland viable. Tory policies are the only thing which can make a lot of those necessary indy-Scotland cuts seem like they're nothing to do with the SNP.

Yep and the whole thing is being orchestrated by the comfortably-off yesers who are shielded from any hardships the torys may bring by their own wealth.

Meanwhile they are leading the non-wealthy yes supporters to the slaughter by convincing people to vote snp thus getting the torys. Even in the (very very unlikely) event of a yes win, the same poor people would still be royally shafted when the economy implodes and public services are slashed.

The rich exploit the poor. It was ever thus.

I do wonder where people like LJS fit into this? Considering he has said on numerous occasions he accepts there will be hardship in scotland and says it is a price worth paying so long as independence is achieved, i think it is probably safe to assume he is well insulated from the massive public spending cuts a tory or snp win would bring. Remember, LJS himself all but admitted he was not being completely honest with people at the rallys he was organising when it came to fully outlining scotlands economic prospects.

Edited February 9, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

The rich exploit the poor. It was ever thus.

there's more going on than just this tho. There's mass delusion no different to what happens around UKIP.

In other places I read I'm still seeing endless posts of "oil is a bonus, the Scottish economy isn't dependent on it", and they always go unchallenged.

These people aren't even listening to the indy campaign which made damned clear oil wasn't simply a bonus but a necessity, and have simply run away with the idea that there are no bad consequences to any of their own thoughts. There's no talking to these people because they're not listening - and they're far from a small proportion.

Just as with UKIP, once they've got rid of the hated 'other' which is the cause of every problem you could imagine, a perfect world awaits. That's nationalists the world over.

Edited February 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

No, it's completely irrelevant. Scotland is a region of the UK, to select it as if Scotland is any more or less special than any other region suggests that there is something distinct. There isn't. The only unique thing about Scotland in terms of UK politics is that they have another party as a voting option, however there are areas where there aren't Green candidates, areas where there aren't MRLP candidates, areas where there aren't UKIP candidates.

By choosing to impart meaning to "what Scotland votes for" is to declare Scotland to be a special case that deserves a greater electoral influence than it has, which is wrong, each constituency should have equal influence.

How do you feel about Dumfries and Galloway? The Scots there vote blue consistently.

I'm still amazed that Comfy and LJS still expect the GE result for Scotland to count for something. Or if the voting system delivers a result for that 8% that is different to that off the remaining 92% then there's a major injustice. (Apart from the fact it leads to the voting of 9% of MP's). I agree with Mark's comment about the nation of scotland being as arbitrary the region of the north east or the county of Norfolk.

Strangely they are quiet on the 'injustice' of 16% of Scotland voting Tory, but there only being 1 MP, not the proportional amount of 10! It's just how the voting system works.

Also the talk of an effective veto on the EU referendum (should Tories win) where NS wants a win in each of the nations in order for an overall win to be declared. Seems a very disproportion way to work it. (Note - despite being a tory, I am dead against leaving the EU and the above might be a good thing, but an unprincipled good thing though!! ;o) )

[LJS]

Yep and the whole thing is being orchestrated by the comfortably-off yesers who are shielded from any hardships the torys may bring by their own wealth.

Meanwhile they are leading the non-wealthy yes supporters to the slaughter by convincing people to vote snp thus getting the torys. Even in the (very very unlikely) event of a yes win, the same poor people would still be royally shafted when the economy implodes and public services are slashed.

The rich exploit the poor. It was ever thus.

I do wonder where people like LJS fit into this? Considering he has said on numerous occasions he accepts there will be hardship in scotland and says it is a price worth paying so long as independence is achieved, i think it is probably safe to assume he is well insulated from the massive public spending cuts a tory or snp win would bring. Remember, LJS himself all but admitted he was not being completely honest with people at the rallys he was organising when it came to fully outlining scotlands economic prospects.

Not quite surer where to start with this.

1: I never "accepted there would be hardship" - I said in the short term Scotland might be a little worse off - but as the man from the institute of fiscal studies said when asked how he would vote if he had a vote said he wouldn't decide on the basis of Scotland being better or worse off as the difference would be small.

2: You imply that independence was the main goal for me and almost any price would be worth paying. I am pretty disappointed if that is what you took from my posts here. Independence is almost entirely a means to an end - the end being a fairer, more just society which I happen to believe is almost impossible to achieve within the UK under Westminster rule. Indeed I had only come to support Independence about a year to 18 months before the Indyref, having consistently opposed it all my life even in the years when the massive oil receipts would undoubtedly have made Scotland a wealthy country. I don't need independence to feel Scottish - I always have although certainly not in any sort of narrow Nationalistic way.

3: What is true is that I did not accept some of the more optimistic financial projections from the yes campaign. (although from where I saw it these played a much less significant role in the campaign than it clearly appeared to some of you guys) The only time in the whole campaign I had an argument that was in any way heated was with a fellow yes voter who was trotting out some of the more outlandishly optimistic projections. - He still doesn't speak to me

4: You are broadly correct to assume that our alleged public spending cuts wouldn't affect me personally because I work & claim no benefits - Although of course the other side of cuts is tax rises which clearly might affect me. [just for the record this is not me accepting the inevitability of these cuts - I'm just addressing your assumptions] However I have two children who will leave school in the next 18 months & probably go on to University (or bloody art school in one case) clearly the economic Armageddon you guys were predicting could well have impacted on the cost of that (& the ability of them to contribute to the cost by getting part time work - as they are expected to do). I am certainly not insulated from any of this through high earnings or personal wealth. In addition, under some of the scenarios outlined by Neil & others, my job could certainly have been under threat.

5: As for " LJS himself all but admitted he was not being completely honest with people at the rallys he was organising when it came to fully outlining Scotland's economic prospects." ( I capitalised "Scotland for you - it makes me feel better) Firstly, I have never organised a rally in my life (except on a tennis court - & that rarely lasted more than 4 shots) I did have many many conversations with people in which I certainly argued the case for independence. However, depending on the knowledge of the individuals concerned ,I made them aware of the other side of the argument and certainly never deliberately misled anyone. I also consistently told people that whatever they decided, they should use your vote. I'm not going to claim to be impartial but I always attempt to be truthful. I'm a pretty reasonable guy ( in my opinion) in the real world If I am occasionally a little less reasonable here - that is purely because of the company I am keeping.

I fully accept that most of the folk here think I was misguided - I don't agree with you, of course, but I can live with that.

Being portrayed as some demented Caledonian Pied Piper leading all the little Scots to their certain doom is something, I'm not so happy about.

[kaosmark2]

Strangely they are quiet on the 'injustice' of 16% of Scotland voting Tory, but there only being 1 MP, not the proportional amount of 10! It's just how the voting system works.

Hence why I referenced that constituency.

I just find the attitude barmy. Scotland isn't separate, it had its chance, and chose not to be, so to define it as distinct is denial at best.

[LJS]

I'm still amazed that Comfy and LJS still expect the GE result for Scotland to count for something. Or if the voting system delivers a result for that 8% that is different to that off the remaining 92% then there's a major injustice. (Apart from the fact it leads to the voting of 9% of MP's). I agree with Mark's comment about the nation of scotland being as arbitrary the region of the north east or the county of Norfolk.

You'd better tell Neil, he's been banging on for days about how significant the way we vote in Scotland will be, bringing Tory doom on your poor innocent heads.

Strangely they are quiet on the 'injustice' of 16% of Scotland voting Tory, but there only being 1 MP, not the proportional amount of 10! It's just how the voting system works.

I have previously commented that, ironically, Scottish Tories are better represented in Holyrood then in Westminster (because we have a half decent voting system). I also suggested during the Indy campaign, that a yes vote could lead to something of a resurgence in the Tories' fortunes. The SNP supported AV in the referendum. the Tories opposed it while labour hid in a cupboard.

Also the talk of an effective veto on the EU referendum (should Tories win) where NS wants a win in each of the nations in order for an overall win to be declared. Seems a very disproportion way to work it. (Note - despite being a tory, I am dead against leaving the EU and the above might be a good thing, but an unprincipled good thing though!! ;o) )

Well, it would be remiss of the leader of a Party formed to gain Independence for Scotland, not to try & gain some political advantage from this possibility. Of course if you elect enough Labour, & Green mp's. & we elect enough labour & SNP mp's the Tories will be unable to form a government and the situation won't arise.

[LJS]

Hence why I referenced that constituency.

I just find the attitude barmy. Scotland isn't separate, it had its chance, and chose not to be, so to define it as distinct is denial at best.

I deny that

[LJS]

So we're just a district? Well, Jim Murphy clearly thinks being Scottish is so important, he claims his Irn Bru on his parliamentary expenses.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/odd/jim-murphy-claimed-1-30-for-irn-bru-on-expenses-1-3684503

Edited February 10, 2015 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

Many people think being Cornish is important. many think being from Yorkshire is important. Lots of regions have a local identity that they value. Doesn't differentiate their position in NATIONAL elections.

[eFestivals]

1: I never "accepted there would be hardship" - I said in the short term Scotland might be a little worse off

and yet the white paper claims put against the reality of GERS said that it would be more than "a little".

- but as the man from the institute of fiscal studies said when asked how he would vote if he had a vote said he wouldn't decide on the basis of Scotland being better or worse off as the difference would be small.

And then the oil price crashed.

the end being a fairer, more just society which I happen to believe is almost impossible to achieve within the UK under Westminster rule.

all fair enough - but why no consideration of how "almost impossible" it will be to deliver the same from significantly less public expenditure?

That "fairer, more just society" comes at the price of a downgrade for all of society. The part that no nat ever dwells on.

3: What is true is that I did not accept some of the more optimistic financial projections from the yes campaign. (although from where I saw it these played a much less significant role in the campaign than it clearly appeared to some of you guys)

very true - tho when you pretend there's little or no downside, it's hardly surprising.

Around voting day, you said you were off elsewhere to try and convince some peeps to vote yes. I asked you if you were presenting them with all info, or just selected stuff, and back came only silence.

Being portrayed as some demented Caledonian Pied Piper leading all the little Scots to their certain doom is something, I'm not so happy about.

And yet when you concentrate on "4 of the last five years" and completely ignore "just seven out of 23 years", what are you doing?

[eFestivals]

So we're just a district?

Scotland itself decided in September that it is.

Get used to it.

[tolywoly]

2: You imply that independence was the main goal for me and almost any price would be worth paying. I am pretty disappointed if that is what you took from my posts here. Independence is almost entirely a means to an end - the end being a fairer, more just society which I happen to believe is almost impossible to achieve within the UK under Westminster rule. Indeed I had only come to support Independence about a year to 18 months before the Indyref, having consistently opposed it all my life even in the years when the massive oil receipts would undoubtedly have made Scotland a wealthy country. I don't need independence to feel Scottish - I always have although certainly not in any sort of narrow Nationalistic way.

That 'fairer and more just society argument', I've heard that before and obviously understand the appeal. But can you tell me how exactly independence brings that about?

More power centralised in one layer of government closer to home doesn't equal fairer and better. Particularly when it's the current Scottish Government, which hasn't exactly demonstrated it's commitment to a fairer and better society using the powers it currently has. It's a just a variation on the same policies that apply elsewhere - concessions to businesses at the expense of their customers, widening educational inequality, tax breaks that erode public services, courting pensioner votes at everyone else's expense.

Independence isn't a means to an end, it's a reactionary solution looking for a problem. The SNP position is 'we're in favour of independence, now lets find some reasons to convince everyone else'. And those reasons are constantly changing.

The previous model for glorious independence (be more like Ireland & Iceland/join the Euro/extreme banking deregulation) would have been an absolute disaster for Scotland. But that doesn't seem to be a hindrance to people accepting SNP arguments this time.

[eFestivals]

That 'fairer and more just society argument', I've heard that before

It's like mother's apple pie, or world peace - a lovely thing to have, but not arriving any time soon.

A fair and just society is created by its people. Is anyone able to say what exceptional qualities exist within Scots that don't exist within the people of any other country of the world, where everyone wants a fair and just society but no one is getting it?

Oh, sorry for forgetting, Scotland and the Scots are exceptional.

Just as its economy will suddenly be when in the control of the SNP, where it'll suddenly have growth like an emerging economy, and not the poor growth of all developed economies.

[eFestivals]

the radio news (6music) has just said that Sturgeon is "to call for an end to auterity as an economic policy".

That's the first time I've heard not balancing the books called "an economic policy", but it takes all sorts to make a world I guess.

[gary1979666]

the radio news (6music) has just said that Sturgeon is "to call for an end to auterity as an economic policy".

That's the first time I've heard not balancing the books called "an economic policy", but it takes all sorts to make a world I guess.

So she's saying 'let's spend even more money that we haven't got and eventually we can vote on having even less still'.

I paraphrase.

[eFestivals]

So she's saying 'let's spend even more money that we haven't got and eventually we can vote on having even less still'.

I paraphrase.

Nah, you've got it wrong.

Indy is all about causing the ruination of the UK including bringing horrors onto Scotland - because only after some SNP-caused extra Westminster horror for Scotland will a majority of people in Scotland actually find an indy Scotland a more attractive proposition.

Edited February 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

the radio news (6music) has just said that Sturgeon is "to call for an end to auterity as an economic policy".

That's the first time I've heard not balancing the books called "an economic policy", but it takes all sorts to make a world I guess.

So there is no alternative, Neil?

[eFestivals]

So there is no alternative, Neil?

there's no alternative to balancing the books.

Outside of that different policies are possible, but balancing the books is the part where 'austerity' comes in.

Abandoning austerity means spending money you don't have.

[gary1979666]

there's no alternative to balancing the books.

Outside of that different policies are possible, but balancing the books is the part where 'austerity' comes in.

Abandoning austerity means spending money you don't have.

Scotland could go independent and default - that's a great alternative. Or rUK could pay them a bit more than they already get. Plenty of alternatives!! Neil, your negativity has closed you mind to the utopian futures that Scotland could have!

[eFestivals]

To be fair to Sturgeon, she's not saying don't pay the bills, she's saying pay them more slowly.

Which means increase the UK's debt, one of the very things that the indy campaign spent pointing at for why they didn't wish to be part of the UK - and one of the things they threatened not to pay.

It also means gifting those banksters much more money, in both interest payments and bigger arrangement fees for new (bigger) loans.

What Sturgeon hasn't said at any point is that she wants is to tax the rich more - which puts her squarely to the right of Labour.

But will any nat admit to that? Not a chance.