The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

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

Irrelevant question.

We're all in the UK together. If Scotland wants a Labour govt the best way to get it is to vote for it. Anything else is punching yourself in the face.

If you don't want a Labour govt, you want the tories.

[eFestivals]

Are you sure about this Neil ? I don`t remember anyone calling you a unionist or a Tory ?

LJS certainly called me a "unionist", and it didn't take a genius to know from its context he meant 'tory'.

As I've said, it's as shallow as the much-loved-in-Scotland "red tories", where those Scots refuse to look at policies.

I remember you calling me a separatist a few times

because you wish to separate Scotland from the UK. It's 100% factually accurate and no slur is implied or meant by it.

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 !

Have I? Where?

I have said that the separation campaign is Thatcherism at work in Scotland. Because it is: it's all about what you want, and fuck the poor (Alex's Uni policy; free prescriptions; free elderly care - all free for the poor anyway, and now the poor pay for freebies for the better off).

[Comfy Bean]

Irrelevant question.

We're all in the UK together. If Scotland wants a Labour govt the best way to get it is to vote for it. Anything else is punching yourself in the face.

If you don't want a Labour govt, you want the tories.

I sense we have been here before but does this not leave us with a 2 party system. Put it another way, are you saying that people should dump what they believe in and vote tactically ? I`m assuming this is where vote snp get tory comes in ?

I said yesterday that I expect more from the leader of Scottish Labour than this one card repeated again and again for 6 months. I suggested yesterday that I want to see him challenge the SNP, make them work, I said something about giving us a Scottish Labour policy or two as part of his challenge to the SNP. As you know, he did mention fracking once on the BBC one Sunday morning but 2 days later he abstained on the vote !

Anyway, saw this from Patrick Harvie my Indy man of the match. As usual, I find myself agreeing with him.

It`s only a short comment article and he is critical of all the parties including the SNP.

" In a system as unfair and unrepresentative as a Westminster election there will, sadly, always be an element of tactical voting.

But it should never be promoted above the principles and ideas a political party stands for.

When that happens, it suggests to me that the party in question has forgotten what those principles and ideas were in the first place.

As the Green MP Caroline Lucas has shown, even a small party can make the breakthrough when it is clear, committed and hardworking.

And as Caroline's track record has proved, the only wasted vote is a vote for something you don't really believe in. "

Full article here :

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/opinion/columnists/patrick-harvie-193613n.115558273

Edited February 18, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I sense we have been here before but does this not leave us with a 2 party system. Put it another way, are you saying that people should dump what they believe in and vote tactically ?

You've got as bit ahead of yourself there.

What is it that the SNP can get you that you believe in from their Westminster participation, that isn't better-covered by Labour?

If you truly believe in the SNP, vote for them. But so very few Scots do, if they're telling the truth when they say they're left leaning - because it's without doubt that Labour are more to the left than the SNP.

Read the feckin' policies!!

I`m assuming this is where vote snp get tory comes in ?

No, that comes into things because the fewer seats Labour has - which voting SNP causes - then the less likely they are to be the govt... and so you get tory because of how YOU've voted.

I said yesterday that I expect more from the leader of Scottish Labour than this one card repeated again and again for 6 months.

but empty rhetoric from the SNP you lap up.

We can all see it from down here, even if you can't see what's in front of your own face.

I suggested yesterday that I want to see him challenge the SNP, make them work, I said something about giving us a Scottish Labour policy or two as part of his challenge to the SNP.

he has.

He's offered the Scottish NHS 1,000 new nurses - and has challenged the SNP to accept them rather than rip off that money to give to the well-off in the normal SNP way (as they've been doing with SNHS money for 5+ years).

Read the feckin' policies.

It`s only a short comment article and he is critical of all the parties including the SNP.

but not his own Green party saying "burn all the oil".

Any self-respecting Green couldn't vote for the Scottish Green Party.

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

The only person I remember callinga Tory on here is Gary and he deserves it !

HEY!!!!....no, wait a minute.....fair do's.

[tolywoly]

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/

I can easily see how Holyrood decision making might be faster than Westminster given the SNP has a majority, and doesn't have to worry about the democratic checks and balances that a second chamber would enforce. Is that better?

Any basis for your belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt? Other than they've had less time to get up to stuff?

The national Labour Party that Scotland backed in 2010 is definitely to the left of where it was then. The only thing that's changed is Labour agreeing with the majority of it's supporters in rejecting independence. Not surprising for a party that believes in collectivism, big government and protecting public services. Any argument about Labour not being Labour enough for Scotland falls down at the part where everyone switches to the SNP.

Salmond must be pensioned up to the eyeballs. He's got his Westminster one, a Hollyrood one, plus whatever he's racked up in any of his other jobs. He eventually gave up his First Minster's pension. After 2 years of pressure to do so. Also, two years after Cameron and Brown had given up theirs. Plus, he cashed in his Westminster parachute payment last time round despite going directly to the Scottish Parliament.

Those freedom of information fights must have cost the Scottish tax payer at least 0.25M by now. Cause there was the one where he tried to prevent us from finding out he'd lied about the evidence relating to an independent Scotland's place in Europe. And there's the current one where he's trying to prevent the Scottish people from finding out what a local income tax would have cost them. Any more I've missed? Did the FoI battle to avoid disclosing how much Alex had spent on overseas trips make it as far as the courts?

Edited February 18, 2015 by tolywoly

[eFestivals]

Any basis for your belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt?

Salmond has been making SNP policy to suit the SNP's biggest donor. How's that not corrupt?

Any argument about Labour not being Labour enough for Scotland falls down at the part where everyone switches to the SNP.

Spot on!!!

Salmond must be pensioned up to the eyeballs. He's got his Westminster one, a Hollyrood one, plus whatever he's racked up in any of his other jobs.

you've missed his wife's one.

Those freedom of information fights must have cost the Scottish tax payer at least 0.25M by now. Cause there was the one where he tried to prevent us from finding out he'd lied about the evidence relating to an independent Scotland's place in Europe. And there's the current one where he's trying to prevent the Scottish people from finding out what a local income tax would have cost them. Any more I've missed? Did the FoI battle to avoid disclosing how much Alex had spent on overseas trips make it as far as the courts?

didn't he also fight thru the courts to stop the details of his secret meetings with Murdoch being revealed? He definitely tried to hide them.

Yeah yeah, Murdoch is a big Scottish employer, but very strangely Salmond didn't have much interest in meeting other employers of the same size.

Is the teachers thing heading to the courts too? It looked to be a few days ago. Where the SNP are trying to stop decisions being made in Scotland by Scottish people, to instead have decisions made only by the SNP.

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

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?

Those freedom of information fights must have cost the Scottish tax payer at least 0.25M by now.

I`m pretty comfortable in my belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt than Westminster and I accept you may disagree. Fair enough. I would also add that it is more transparent.

Yip I`m against the unelected second chamber. There are other ways to have balances and checks done and stuff signed off without all that wasteful unelected house of lords shit.........again in my view

If Scotland ever becomes an Independent Country I`m pretty sure we would manage without creating a house of lords. I`m certain in fact.

[eFestivals]

I`m pretty comfortable in my belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt than Westminster and I accept you may disagree. Fair enough. I would also add that it is more transparent.

That's utter bull.

Westminster releases stacks of data around its policies (supposedly more than any other govt in the world). Holyrood does nothing remotely similar.

It's for this very reason that the (S)Labour Party fucked up in the last day or two with their claim that something (I forget what. A&E, perhaps) was 4 times worse than the English NHS - because Holyrood doesn't release much data and doesn't much clarify what it is exactly, which caused the (S)Labour Party to work on it on the same criteria.

Anyone might think that the Scottish Govt is paranoid about people in Scotland being able to compare how the Scottish Govt is doing against what Westminster is doing. Oh, hang on....

Yip I`m against the unelected second chamber.

aren't we all (except the tories)?

There are other ways to have balances and checks done and stuff signed off without all that wasteful unelected house of lords shit.........again in my view

the HoL is only "shit" because it's unelected. The process of checks and balances it has are about as an important a function as anything can get in a democracy.

The checks and balances its existence has is 100% standard for all modern 'Western' democracies ... except in Scotland.

If Scotland ever becomes an Independent Country I`m pretty sure we would manage without creating a house of lords. I`m certain in fact.

What about a 2nd chamber tho, to carry out the same function?

Does Scotland have such exceptional politicians that they're the only ones in the western world who don't need to be checked up on?

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

That's utter bull.

Speaker's parting shot: 'Holyrood style' transparency for Westminster

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/speaker-s-parting-shot-holyrood-style-transparency-for-westminster-1-1038968

Edited February 18, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

you go on about how Holyrood isn't corrupt and is transparent, and in defence of that you quote a corrupt man who stopped Westminster transparency....?

Unbelievable.

[Comfy Bean]

What about a 2nd chamber tho, to carry out the same function?

Does Scotland have such exceptional politicians that they're the only ones in the western world who don't need to be checked up on?

My point remains that a wasteful, unelected house of lords type set-up would be unneccessary. I already said we would require checks and balances........within the last 10 minutes !

[Comfy Bean]

you go on about how Holyrood isn't corrupt and is transparent, and in defence of that you quote a corrupt man who stopped Westminster transparency....?

Unbelievable.

In defence of myself, I never said " Holyrood isn`t corrupt and is transparent ". Carry on making it up though

" I`m pretty comfortable in my belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt than Westminster and I accept you may disagree. Fair enough. I would also add that it is more transparent. "

[eFestivals]

And we're talking about the whole process of govt, and not merely the expenses of members - where the Westminster system has about matched the Holyrood system for the last 5+ years anyway.

But it's blindingly obvious that any new 'institution' is exceedingly likely to take its rules from current best practice, whilst any established 'institution' is likely to have rules formed around practices of the past (so out of date).

It's no great claim for Holyrood. It's merely stating the obvious that Westminster has long been ripe for reform - something that some of us have been pushing for for the last 35 years (all my adult life), whilst the SNP don't have even the smallest thing to say about it.

If you want reform at Westminster you'll need to be supporting a party that supports Westmninster reform, and not the SNP.

[eFestivals]

In defence of myself, I never said " Holyrood isn`t corrupt and is transparent ". Carry on making it up though

" I`m pretty comfortable in my belief that Holyrood is less vile and corrupt than Westminster and I accept you may disagree. Fair enough. I would also add that it is more transparent. "

The facts prove it's not more transparent.

Holyrood is anti-transparent, which is why they won't release weekly A&E stats as England and Wales do, for example.

[Comfy Bean]

I looked up that Hospital stuff from yesterday that you have mentioned a couple of times from yesterday Neil. Not sure if you have seen todays updates. Murphy has been asked to apologise to Hospital staff and he has now removed his Youtube video shot outside the Hospital and he has deleted his tweet thing.

Murphy

[eFestivals]

My point remains that a wasteful, unelected house of lords type set-up would be unneccessary. I already said we would require checks and balances........within the last 10 minutes !

We're all in agreement that every 'Lord' should be lined up and shot. That's not really saying anything about good govt.

Good govt requires checks and balances, which is why everywhere but Scotland has a 2nd Chamber.

[Comfy Bean]

The facts prove it's not more transparent.

Holyrood is anti-transparent, which is why they won't release weekly A&E stats as England and Wales do, for example.

The fact is you may want to double check that last bit

[Comfy Bean]

But it's blindingly obvious that any new 'institution' is exceedingly likely to take its rules from current best practice, whilst any established 'institution' is likely to have rules formed around practices of the past (so out of date).

Aye. Agreed, I said as much earlier on.

Edited February 18, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I looked up that Hospital stuff from yesterday that you have mentioned a couple of times from yesterday Neil. Not sure if you have seen todays updates. Murphy has been asked to apologise to Hospital staff and he has now removed his Youtube video shot outside the Hospital and he has deleted his tweet thing.

Murphy

the youtube and tweet had been removed early yesterday when I first read about it. They weren't up for long, and were removed as soon as the fuck up became clear.

If Holyrood was transparent as you've laughably and falsely claimed, none of that would have happened. It's Holyrood trying to keep the facts of the Scottish NHS hidden from you which has caused this fuck up.

But the people involved at the Labour end are clearly morons, all the same. Coming out with figure that suggested 4 times worse should have had anyone with more than a few brain cells doubting the result, when the wider stats that are commonly available say SNHS is worse but nothing like to that extent.

[eFestivals]

The fact is you may want to double check that last bit

Was it the very first release of weekly stats that Murphy used and fucked up with then? There certainly weren't weekly SNHS stats being published less than just a month ago.

I did read something in a user comment (not a news report) that did suggest weekly stats were now available, so I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland has finally caught up ... tho Jim's error proves them as not-the-same stats as England produces, clearly done by the SG so that direct comparisons are impossible (which is as anti-transparent as it gets; it's the same trick the phone and utility companies do to avoid transparency).

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

the youtube and tweet had been removed early yesterday when I first read about it. They weren't up for long, and were removed as soon as the fuck up became clear.

If Holyrood was transparent as you've laughably and falsely claimed, none of that would have happened. It's Holyrood trying to keep the facts of the Scottish NHS hidden from you which has caused this fuck up.

But the people involved at the Labour end are clearly morons, all the same. Coming out with figure that suggested 4 times worse should have had anyone with more than a few brain cells doubting the result, when the wider stats that are commonly available say SNHS is worse but nothing like to that extent.

Your at it again mate but carry on, I won`t mention it again.

[eFestivals]

Your at it again mate but carry on, I won`t mention it again.

so if it's more transparent, how come it's been releasing less data about the effects of govt policy than Westminster does?

There's lots that's wrong about Westminster, but it's data transparency is defo one of the good bits.

[eFestivals]

Oh look, a report on the BBC website of just yesterday, announcing that SNHS is to start - from the 3rd of March (so not yet) - publishing weekly stats .... having been brow-beaten into doing it, because the plan was for only monthly stats (and less than a month ago, it was going to stay as 3 monthly stats).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31508892

What are they trying to hide from the Scottish public with their policy of being transparent?

Edited February 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[tolywoly]

Here's an interesting contribution to the transparency debate. The current Scottish Government isn't very good at Freedom of Information. It's the worst offender of any public body in Scotland, and things have gotten at lot worse since 2010/11.

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/tories-blast-snp-over-secret-scotland-1.143659

The article's from 2013. Can't find any more recent info than that. The FoI reports on the SG website stop at 2013. Make take a freedom of information request to find out the stats beyond that. If so good luck...

Edited February 18, 2015 by tolywoly