The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

I like your use of " mid-term " there KM As you know, I also thought that breaking up the vile and corrupt Westminster set up would have been of some benefit to the good folks in ruk. As would have the return of a " real " Labour party in Scotland taking a different path *. I know it`s easy for me to say but I have been saying it since I first started posting in this thread. Scottish Independence could have been a good thing for us all......long term.

* by different path I mean not chasing the middle englander vote while continuing to veer to the right. Scottish Labour should not/would not be doing this.

In any actual democracy, even under a retarded system like FPTP, the longer a party is in power the more likely people are to shift to vote elsewhere even ignoring traditional allegiances. I'd say Scotland going independent would enforce a Tory government for the next 3 terms (which would impact heavily on Scotland as well), but how politics would change after that would be incredibly hard to predict.

[eFestivals]

I also thought that breaking up the vile and corrupt Westminster set up would have been of some benefit to the good folks in ruk.

This angle is the most laughable line that any nat has ever taken.

"I'm voting for Scottish indy because it'll be good for another country". PMSL.

Just as the people of Scotland decided they don't want indy, the people of the UK have decided they don't want anything vaguely socialist.

That doesn't make me happy, but that *IS* the reality.

As would have the return of a " real " Labour party in Scotland taking a different path *.

Nothing is stopping Scotland from creating one.

Oh, it already has, and almost no one votes for it.

Perhaps that has a bearing on why the Labour party takes the stance it does, just perhaps?

I know it`s easy for me to say but I have been saying it since I first started posting in this thread. Scottish Independence could have been a good thing for us all......long term.

Not when rUK would have picked up the costs of your voting fuck-up, as your fellow countrymen headed south in ever-greater numbers.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[tolywoly]

I like your use of " mid-term " there KM As you know, I also thought that breaking up the vile and corrupt Westminster set up would have been of some benefit to the good folks in ruk. As would have the return of a " real " Labour party in Scotland taking a different path *. I know it`s easy for me to say but I have been saying it since I first started posting in this thread. Scottish Independence could have been a good thing for us all......long term.

* by different path I mean not chasing the middle englander vote while continuing to veer to the right. Scottish Labour should not/would not be doing this.

Labour nationally are to the left of where they were in 2010. That doesn't seem to have done them any favours in Scotland. The amount of people planning on voting for the (less real Labour than current Labour) SNP would seem to suggest Scotland wouldn't be that in to 'real' Labour.

Just out of interest, on the subject of 'vile and corrupt' administrations - what's the running total for how much Scottish taxpayers money Alex Salmond has spent in court fighting freedom of information requests?

[eFestivals]

In any actual democracy, even under a retarded system like FPTP, the longer a party is in power the more likely people are to shift to vote elsewhere even ignoring traditional allegiances. I'd say Scotland going independent would enforce a Tory government for the next 3 terms (which would impact heavily on Scotland as well), but how politics would change after that would be incredibly hard to predict.

I agree that an indy Scotland would see tory rUK govts for a couple of terms, as minimum.

But that would merely be a time of re-adjustment, in much the same way as votes for the Scottish Parliament have been all over the place as it comes to terms with itself and the population comes to terms with its existence.

After that period of readjustment, rUK would settle into the norm of all Western democracies - of yo-yo-ing between centre-left and centre-right parties.

And that'll be exactly the same within iScotland too. Contrary to the raving-nats claims, an indy Scotland won't see the death of the right in Scotland, but the very opposite - a new empowerment for it. And it'll happen all the sooner if the terms of indy are anything like Salmond's white paper which will quickly take Scotland to the brink of disaster.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I agree that an indy Scotland would see tory rUK govts for a couple of terms, as minimum.

But that would merely be a time of re-adjustment, in much the same way as votes for the Scottish Parliament have been all over the place as it comes to terms with itself and the population comes to terms with its existence.

After that period of readjustment, rUK would settle into the norm of all Western democracies - of yo-yo-ing between centre-left and centre-right parties.

And that'll be exactly the same within iScotland too. Contrary to the raving-nats claims, an indy Scotland won't see the death of the right in Scotland, but the very opposite - a new empowerment for it. And it'll happen all the sooner of the terms of indy are anything like Salmond's white paper which will quickly take Scotland to the brink of disaster.

Absolutely. No western democracy will stick with the same government for too many terms in a row. That said, I still think after that period of readjustment politics would be different. Of course, it's changing atm anyway, so *shrug*.

[eFestivals]

Does anyone remember Salmond's "sovereign will of the Scottish people" line that he claimed gave iScotland a right to another country's currency?

Has anyone been paying attention to Greece? They've been using the same line, claiming that the other countries of the EU are obliged to do what Greece says on the basis of the Greek election result (a result that is naff all to do with those other countries, and places no obligations on them).

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, even tho the similarity pretty much ends with what I say above, and gets less and less similar as you get into the detail. Anything short of a full win for Greece shows that Salmond wouldn't have a hope.

[eFestivals]

That said, I still think after that period of readjustment politics would be different.

well of course it would be, because it would be playing to a changed audience, just because a big chunk of the previous audience was no longer there.

[russycarps]

The difference between Greece and scotland is the greeks are suffering genuine hardship and have been royally shafted by the european elite. For this reason, this new bunch have my full support and I hope they achieve at least some of their aims.

Whereas the snp are a greedy, spiteful, selfish bunch who are trying to convince a (largely) very fortunate and prosperous electorate that they are in fact being oppressed by the nasty english and deserve more more MORE.

It's laughable.

The other difference is that Greece is actually a country, of course.

Edited February 17, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

The difference between Greece and scotland is the greeks are suffering genuine hardship and have been royally shafted by the european elite.

while I don't disagree that they're suffering genuine hardship, have they really been shafted? I'm less sure.

The debts Greece has are debts that the Greek govt ran up all by themselves. The Greek govt kept getting re-elected because of their grand promises of huge giveaways of one kind or another to the Greek population.

That Greek govt knew it was spending money it didn't have, even going so far as colluding with Goldman Sachs to fiddle the Greek finances so it could get into the Euro.

And all the while the Greek govt made little effort to collect the taxes that were due, and the Greek population loved that part of it. Even now, Greek tax collection is one of the least efficient in Europe, and the only effective taxing - a property tax introduced by the last Greek govt - has been abolished by the new govt.

I have sympathy for the population who haven't helped vote themselves into that mess, but that's a small part of that population.

If the UK royally fucked up its economics via the govt it voted for (a scenario that might come true sooner than some think), would the population be off the hook for that fuck up? Not in my head; if the country is so stupid to keep voting ruinous tory, it's that country's fault when the tories ruin us.

The one part where they might have been shafted is around the original bailout - but the Greeks had got themselves into the position all by themselves where they needed that bailout.

I'm also uncomfortable with the Greek attempts to revise history around German reparations - where the Greeks signed a formal final settlement over 50 years ago.

Meanwhile, the new Syriza govt makes a big show of flying 'economy', but are less keen for people to know which hotels they've been staying in on their European tour.

For this reason, this new bunch have my full support and I hope they achieve at least some of their aims.

i'd like to see them achieve some of their aims as well, because some of what's going on is too harsh.

But the Syriza govt seem to have an all-or-nothing approach, saying they have no electoral mandate to make any compromises, whilst forgetting that another part of their duty is to get the best outcome for the Greek people.

I've read a lot of stuff which suggests that Syriza know they're going nowhere, and stuff like "the Germans are Nazis", the leather jackets, the no ties, the badly-tucked-in-shirts, the disrespectful one-hand-in-pocket when shaking hands, etc, is part of a plan for failure - where they can claim they tried to get a deal, but where they appear to the Greek people as tough and not bending to the EU's will - so they're not thrown out of office when t5hey do fail and things get significantly worse.

However it pans out, I'd say it's going to define Europe for the next 20+ years - and I just can't see how an EU cave-in can fit with that. A Grexit might be catastrophic, it might destroy the Euro, and perhaps even the whole EU .... but an EU cave-in will have things much worse because other countries will do the same and cause an even greater amount of damage.

Like it or not, people who are owned money want to see that money back, and they'll do their damnest to get it. You don't get it by saying you'll give away even more than the Greeks want to have.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

The other difference is that Greece is actually a country, of course.

Quite an important one.

[russycarps]

while I don't disagree that they're suffering genuine hardship, have they really been shafted? I'm less sure.

The debts Greece has are debts that the Greek govt ran up all by themselves. The Greek govt kept getting re-elected because of their grand promises of huge giveaways of one kind or another to the Greek population.

That Greek govt knew it was spending money it didn't have, even going so far as colluding with Goldman Sachs to fiddle the Greek finances so it could get into the Euro.

And all the while the Greek govt made little effort to collect the taxes that were due, and the Greek population loved that part of it. Even now, Greek tax collection is one of the least efficient in Europe, and the only effective taxing - a property tax introduced by the last Greek govt - has been abolished by the new govt.

I have sympathy for the population who haven't helped vote themselves into that mess, but that's a small part of that population.

If the UK royally fucked up its economics via the govt it voted for (a scenario that might come true sooner than some think), would the population be off the hook for that fuck up? Not in my head; if the country is so stupid to keep voting ruinous tory, it's that country's fault when the tories ruin us.

The one part where they might have been shafted is around the original bailout - but the Greeks had got themselves into the position all by themselves where they needed that bailout.

I'm also uncomfortable with the Greek attempts to revise history around German reparations - where the Greeks signed a formal final settlement over 50 years ago.

Meanwhile, the new Syriza govt makes a big show of flying 'economy', but are less keen for people to know which hotels they've been staying in on their European tour.

i'd like to see them achieve some of their aims as well, because some of what's going on is too harsh.

But the Syriza govt seem to have an all-or-nothing approach, saying they have no electoral mandate to make any compromises, whilst forgetting that another part of their duty is to get the best outcome for the Greek people.

I've read a lot of stuff which suggests that Syriza know they're going nowhere, and stuff like "the Germans are Nazis", the leather jackets, the no ties, the badly-tucked-in-shirts, the disrespectful one-hand-in-pocket when shaking hands, etc, is part of a plan for failure - where they can claim they tried to get a deal, but where they appear to the Greek people as tough and not bending to the EU's will - so they're not thrown out of office when t5hey do fail and things get significantly worse.

However it pans out, I'd say it's going to define Europe for the next 20+ years - and I just can't see how an EU cave-in can fit with that. A Grexit might be catastrophic, it might destroy the Euro, and perhaps even the whole EU .... but an EU cave-in will have things much worse because other countries will do the same and cause an even greater amount of damage.

Like it or not, people who are owned money want to see that money back, and they'll do their damnest to get it. You don't get it by saying you'll give away even more than the Greeks want to have.

Yep it's a basket case for sure. And I cant disagree with any of what you have written about how they got there.

But the people are absolutely shagged. People are literally dying now. These people dont deserve it. I'm sure the vast majority of them are ignorant as to the reasons why they are now in this dire mess. It's impossible for me not to be rooting for this varoufakis.

My suspicion is that greece will get an extension, but dress it up as a bridging loan, thereby claiming a symbolic victory back home. The country will be fucked for decades to come.

Ontario is another one that is absolutely shagged. Scottish nats would do well to study what is going on over there.

[eFestivals]

I've disliked it when the nat-supporters here have tried to label me as a unionist. It's as shallow as the rejection of Labour on the basis that they were anti-indy.

I'm a 'unionist' that would like to see a union of the island of Ireland and the island of Cypress. So I also want a union of Great Britain, on the same practical basis.

And i also want a European union, and ultimately a world union.

So yes, I'm a unionist, but less tory than the Scottish average. If I'm a (used as an insult) "unionist", then SNP voters should be labelled as the 'me me me' Thatcherites that they really are.

[eFestivals]

Ontario is another one that is absolutely shagged. Scottish nats would do well to study what is going on over there.

did you really mean Quebec, or did you actually mean Ontario?

[russycarps]

did you really mean Quebec, or did you actually mean Ontario?

no I meant ontario. I was talking to a canadian about it the other day. He was really fretting about it. It's interesting. $30bn deficit, $200bn debt

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/20/ontario-is-worse-than-california-province-must-address-soaring-public-sector-wages-to-slay-deficit-new-study-says/

quebec is also fucked too like!

[eFestivals]

no I meant ontario. I was talking to a canadian about it the other day. He was really fretting about it. It's interesting. $30bn deficit, $200bn debt

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/20/ontario-is-worse-than-california-province-must-address-soaring-public-sector-wages-to-slay-deficit-new-study-says/

quebec is also fucked too like!

I'm quite surprised to hear that about Ontario (not that i'm aware of much that happens in Canada), as it's been getting a good economic bonus as a result of the Quebec indyrefs - where the Quebec businesses have legged it ove3r the border into Ontario to escape the mad nats (who are at least as mad as the Scottish variety, from what i've read).

Let's hope that any change of the UK settlement to allow Scottish govt borrowing is handled well. The last thing the UK needs to happen is for the SG to be running up its own debts without that being a transfer of UK debt. While I want to see decent public spending, that's never going to happen on the ground for all the while we're chucking bankers huge sums of money for nothing.

[LJS]

I've disliked it when the nat-supporters here have tried to label me as a unionist. It's as shallow as the rejection of Labour on the basis that they were anti-indy.

I'm a 'unionist' that would like to see a union of the island of Ireland and the island of Cypress. So I also want a union of Great Britain, on the same practical basis.

And i also want a European union, and ultimately a world union.

So yes, I'm a unionist, but less tory than the Scottish average. If I'm a (used as an insult) "unionist", then SNP voters should be labelled as the 'me me me' Thatcherites that they really are.

Come on Neil, that is hardly a fair comparison! The label Unionist has been applied to you by myself & comfy in response to some of your more extreme definitions of our supposed Nationalism. The problem is both words are "tainted" and you are well aware of that when you tar all "nationalists" with the same brush. You continue to bang on relentlessly about "me,me,me" despite it being abundantly clear to anyone with half a braincell that neither comfy not me are motivated by any form of greed or "Scottish exceptionalism" another of your favourite phrases. Nor i my experience (gained from talking to real people, not dredging the comments sections of newspapers or pro indy websites) were the vast majority of yes voters. But that is not convenient for your argument. You also conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of the Yes movement was passionately pro-Europe and indeed far more Internationalist in its outlook than much of UK politics.

If you don't want to be stereotyped as a Unionist, maybe you should stop stereotyping those who hold a different view to you?

Just a suggestion!

[LJS]

mad nats (who are at least as mad as the Scottish variety, from what i've read).

pathetic!!!

[LJS]

Labour nationally are to the left of where they were in 2010. That doesn't seem to have done them any favours in Scotland. The amount of people planning on voting for the (less real Labour than current Labour) SNP would seem to suggest Scotland wouldn't be that in to 'real' Labour.

Neil & perhaps others will be surprised to learn that I actually sort of agree with this. Ed Miliband is starting to show a little bit of backbone & principle and does appear to be nudging Labour marginally to the left.

Unfortunately for him, Labour in Scotland are reaping the results of years of taking their core support for granted, riding roughshod over the significant minority of Labour members & supporters who favoured a yes vote & "cosying up" with the Tories more than was prudent or necessary during the indyref campaign. With a new leader & an election looming, you might expect their vote to recover, but there are precious few signs that this is happening.

I know Neil thinks it is crazy, but it looks increasingly likely that, if he wants to wield power, Ed will have to talk to Nicola. My sense is that she understands that this requires the SNP to be prepared to play a constructive role in the UK. I don't agree with Neil that the only game in town for the SNP is in undermining & destabilising Westminster. And anyway you guys begged us to stay & told us how important we were to the Union. The price of that is that you have to deal with the MP's we democratically elect ... or were you just kidding?

The SNP may not be particularly left wing but I have no doubt they are capable of exerting a positive influence on a future Labour government. Sturgeon's recent speech to UCL, despite Neil's totally invented claims for it, offered a reasoned & rational (but not too radical) alternative to the Tory & Labour versions of "austerity"

Neil's arguments are increasingly being undermined by his seeming inability to give the SNP credit for anything at all.

[eFestivals]

Come on Neil, that is hardly a fair comparison! The label Unionist has been applied to you by myself & comfy in response to some of your more extreme definitions of our supposed Nationalism.

you've applied it to mean 'tory' tho, just as to you the Labour party are tories for disagreeing with your indy view.

It's as shallow as it gets. It's you falling for your own propganda.

Meanwhile, you cannot see what the indy campaign was: Thatcherism, writ large. "Me me me and fuck everyone else".

The problem is both words are "tainted" and you are well aware of that when you tar all "nationalists" with the same brush. You continue to bang on relentlessly about "me,me,me" despite it being abundantly clear to anyone with half a braincell that neither comfy not me are motivated by any form of greed or "Scottish exceptionalism" another of your favourite phrases.

But it is about Scotland getting what it wants without regard for anything else. "Me me me".

And you've claimed that the decisions will be better when made by Scots in Scotland, without any reference to what the decisions might actually be. That's the Scottish exceptionalism* you're advocating, where the place a decision is made somehow guarantees a good decision, if that place is Scotland (rather than Westminster).

(*tho Salmond advocated a whole lot more)

Nor i my experience (gained from talking to real people, not dredging the comments sections of newspapers or pro indy websites) were the vast majority of yes voters. But that is not convenient for your argument.

erm .... see my comment above, and tell me that's not a claim of Scottish exceptionalism, and a purely self-regarding - Thatcherist - choice you're making (after all, you've seen the GERS numbers; you feel safe from them clearly because they've not scared you shitless, so who in Scotland is going to get the consequences?).

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of the Yes movement was passionately pro-Europe and indeed far more Internationalist in its outlook than much of UK politics.

And? It's less pro EU and internationalist than I am.

If you call me (via another word) 'tory' for being less tory than the SNP, what should the SNP be called? Mussolini's pals?

If you don't want to be stereotyped as a Unionist, maybe you should stop stereotyping those who hold a different view to you?

Just a suggestion!

I've always done you the courtesy of differentiating your views from the raving nats; it's not my fault that on some occasions you've chosen to take a general statement I've made about some aspect as personally aimed at you. When something has been applied to you personally, it's not been about the extreme.

You've very deliberately chosen to label me a tory via 'unionists', and yet not once have I advocated anything tory. Spot the difference?

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

pathetic!!!

There's no mad nats in Scotland?

In the post just above that one of yours, you even admit that there are. FFS!!!

I put "mad nats" to differentiate the mad kind from the common and garden nats.

(Or are you thinking that all nats are mad yourself? )

It's the mad ones that scare the horses the most, or hadn't you realised? You know, the kind that have scared tens of billions of dollars worth of business out of Quebec and into Ontario, which was the context that 'mad nats' was used within, and where I acknowledged the Scottish version of mad nat as less extreme.

So touchy you stop thinking?

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil & perhaps others will be surprised to learn that I actually sort of agree with this. Ed Miliband is starting to show a little bit of backbone & principle and does appear to be nudging Labour marginally to the left.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know there was no "starting" applicable here. he's doing nothing different to what he's done all the way thru.

Unfortunately for him, Labour in Scotland are reaping the results of years of taking their core support for granted, riding roughshod over the significant minority of Labour members & supporters who favoured a yes vote & "cosying up" with the Tories more than was prudent or necessary during the indyref campaign.

says the man who says he was supporting indy but not the SNP, but who still has to utter his first ever criticism of anything SNP.

With a new leader & an election looming, you might expect their vote to recover, but there are precious few signs that this is happening.

Have you noticed that Jim hasn't made a single policy comment for Westminster, and that everything he's said has been devolved issues? I'm guessing that you're like 99.99% of Scots, and have noticed none of that.

Which only gets to show how little attention is actually given to within and without Scotland, to go with the made up versions instead.

I know Neil thinks it is crazy, but it looks increasingly likely that, if he wants to wield power, Ed will have to talk to Nicola.

the polls say that's less and less likely.

Might it be that the line spun in England by the tories of "vote Labour get SNP" is having the desired effect? And might that effect be caused by what the SNP have been seen to do, that those vote-changers want no part of?

My sense is that she understands that this requires the SNP to be prepared to play a constructive role in the UK.

PMSL. You don't get what the SNP are about.

I don't agree with Neil that the only game in town for the SNP is in undermining & destabilising Westminster.

you don't have to agree with me, but you will have to take the consequences of what your vote causes. You can't hide from that one.

And anyway you guys begged us to stay & told us how important we were to the Union. The price of that is that you have to deal with the MP's we democratically elect ... or were you just kidding?

Dealing with them can include "fuck off, we're having no part of anything you want". Just in case that's passed you by.

You have the right to vote for your representatives. You don't have right for your representatives to be taken notice of. That's simply how any political process works (even in Holyrood).

The SNP may not be particularly left wing but I have no doubt they are capable of exerting a positive influence on a future Labour government. Sturgeon's recent speech to UCL, despite Neil's totally invented claims for it, offered a reasoned & rational (but not too radical) alternative to the Tory & Labour versions of "austerity"

says the man who is happy to load his debts onto his kids, whilst calling that "fair". Cos that's what Nicola said it would be if your kids paid your debts.

Now, if along with all of that she'd said "tax the rich", I'd have far less room to criticise here, but she didn't.

She said the poor should keep on paying to benefit the rich, but that the poor should be chucked an extra crumb.

I dunno about you, but I want better - and there's better on offer, things which are better by your own stated criteria..... but you're going to vote for worse, for the rich to keep running away with the money and for the poor to keep suffering because of it as advocated by NS - much like the most hailed SNP policies where they've robbed the poor to give the middle classes extra privileges.

These are the facts. You'll vote in support of a tory world.

Neil's arguments are increasingly being undermined by his seeming inability to give the SNP credit for anything at all.

When they say "tax the rich" there's something to credit them for.

Until then, they're MUCH more tory than Labour. The proof is in the policies.

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Labour nationally are to the left of where they were in 2010. That doesn't seem to have done them any favours in Scotland. The amount of people planning on voting for the (less real Labour than current Labour) SNP would seem to suggest Scotland wouldn't be that in to 'real' Labour.

Just out of interest, on the subject of 'vile and corrupt' administrations - what's the running total for how much Scottish taxpayers money Alex Salmond has spent in court fighting freedom of information requests?

I`ll look into the Salmond foir thing in a sec. I`ve no idea mate. I`m sure Salmond has claimed he will donate any Wm salary to charity as I think he is already on a pensioin but that might be the wrong way round.

I do believe that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt and it is certainly more efficient ( in the time it takes to get things done ). Do you disagree ? I would add that by the very nature of being " newer " it is less likely to be corrupt.

Anywayz, we had been discussing Murphy and I`m not sure if he is to the left of much in Labour ? I think they missed an opportunity when they elected him as leader. The Unions agree. We discussed some of Jims views and beliefs a while back on here and I remember being accused of mud slinging. Alot of that same stuff appeared again this week in this open letter to him ( attached ). You can make your own mind up on whether you think he is " to the left of where they were in 2010 ". In my view, he`s not.

http://www.commentisntfree.com/you-meant-it-then/

[Comfy Bean]

In any actual democracy, even under a retarded system like FPTP, the longer a party is in power the more likely people are to shift to vote elsewhere even ignoring traditional allegiances. I'd say Scotland going independent would enforce a Tory government for the next 3 terms (which would impact heavily on Scotland as well), but how politics would change after that would be incredibly hard to predict.

Pretty much agree with you here but would add that according to the Polls the SNP continue to go from strength to strength in the Scottish Parliament. I have put some of the blame for this on Labour but all I hear back is vote snp get tory.

If Scotland had went Indy and the Tories had won the next 3 terms down your way, would you have "blamed" the people voting for the Tories or Scotland for taking charge of its own affairs

[Comfy Bean]

You've very deliberately chosen to label me a tory via 'unionists', and yet not once have I advocated anything tory. Spot the difference?

Are you sure about this Neil ? I don`t remember anyone calling you a unionist or a Tory ? I remember you calling me a separatist a few times and even though I have specifically said ( more than once ) that I have never voted Tory in any election in my life, you have called me a Tory loads !

In reply to your separatist banter and once mentioning the nazis in this thread I may have thought you were being a bit silly but will be surprised if you have been called a Tory by me or LJS. Post it up and I`ll apologise. The only person I remember callinga Tory on here is Gary and he deserves it !

I`ve been around here long enough to know your views on the Tories and also westminster. I actually remember taking a few digs at you way back as I thought that deep down you were a YES supporter

I realise you would never have voted for Indy under Salmond - fair enough. He`s gone now......let it go

Plenty of my mates voted NO. I have never thought they were Tories either.

[eFestivals]

I`ll look into the Salmond foir thing in a sec. I`ve no idea mate. I`m sure Salmond has claimed he will donate any Wm salary to charity as I think he is already on a pensioin but that might be the wrong way round.

while giving away excess wages is a good thing, a much better thing would be for people to not be paid to excess in the first place, freeing up that money to give others a better wage.

There's a similar issue in Bristol at the mo. Our elected major (the one in the famous red trousers at the 'big cities' meet in Glasgow a week or two back; you did catch it, right? It has big impacts onto Scotland, indy or not) already gives £1k a month of his £66k wage to charity, and they're trying to force another £9k of wages onto him - which he clearly states he doesn't want. But it'll happen away, because this is about lining up the greedy-take for the future holders of that role.

I do believe that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt and it is certainly more efficient ( in the time it takes to get things done ).

One of the reasons it's quicker is because there's minimal democratic oversight of what the politicians do.

It was probably set up that way because its was little more than a local council at inception. If you think what you've got now is suitable for it to take on bigger roles, I'd say you need to think again.

Anywayz, we had been discussing Murphy and I`m not sure if he is to the left of much in Labour ?

for Westminster elections it matters not a jot. He only has a role for setting policies for devolved issues.

Mind you, I was laughing yesterday at the SNHS stats cock-up, which the nats immediately claimed as a conspiracy to screw the SNP ... when the real cause is the SNP's refusal to be as transparent as Westminster.

Yes, Westminster does some things better. MUCH better.