The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

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...

c'mon now, don't be mean to the nice nats.

It's mean to give them facts to read, cos we both know they won't do it.

[LJS]

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.

Just slightly wrong in this one Neil

"Approximately half of the world's sovereign states are presently unicameral, including both the most populous (the People's Republic of China) and the least populous (the Vatican City)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism

However despite the fact that you are wildly wrong about Scotland being alone in not having a second chamber, I do agree (& have said before) that Scotland needs a better system for "holding the government to account" In fact the current system worked fine if, as intended, no party holds an overall majority because the committee system which scrutinises the government would never have a majority from the largest party. The unexpected SNP landslide of 2011 changed all that.

How much you blame the SNP for not volunteering themselves for greater scrutiny is debatable. It strikes me a s the sort of thing that politicians of any hue would be unwilling to do!

[LJS]

c'mon now, don't be mean to the nice nats.

It's mean to give them facts to read, cos we both know they won't do it.

I'm not sure a Right wing paper reporting a whinge from a Tory politician quite fits the dictionary definition of "facts"

[LJS]

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.

Really? I sometimes wonder if you listen? I've criticised the SNP for playing it safe in government, for having the wrong priorities, for crazily insisting on "the pound or nothing" & for a few more thnigs beside. These may not be the criticisms you want to hear but they are criticisms

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.

Yes of course I have noticed. it strikes me as a little bit odd that he is fighting a Westminster campaign on Holyrood issues. The 1000 nurses is a great example. How can he promise 1,000 nurses. Holyrood decides the number of nurses. What's he intending to do parachute 1,000 nurses into Scotland's hospitals. It's idiotic.

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?

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

...and you of course do because you know better than anyone else. Your opinion on what the SNP is about is as valid as anyone else's but it remains an opinion. My opinion is different. I'm fine with that. You seem to have an issue with it.

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.

of course

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

Even if that means "fuck off" to power! that would seem a bit like punching yourself in the face to me.

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).

Really, I don't have the right for my democratically elected representative to be "take notice of" Our so called democracy has just become even less democratic.

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.

all parties are loading debts onto my kids ( my youngest is 16) the only difference is how fast & how long they will be paying them off. Paying them off quicker is not without its risks & costs as you are smart enough to know.

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.

I agree.

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

No she didn't. Nor did she say anything remotely like that

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.

You keep assuming I'll vote SNP. I might then again I might not. Much as the reality of our current horrendous electoral system feeds the logic of all the vote sausage get banana nonsense that is going on and your argument which basically boils down to "there's no point in voting anything but Labour if you don't want a Tory government" has a certain grim logic to it, it also results in prolonging & strengthening the FPTP system. The truth is we should vote for anyone who can defeat either Labour or the Tories & then finally we may get change. And maybe if your beloved Labour party had campaigned for change in the AV referendum instead of hiding in a cupboard we might not be having these ridiculous discussions.

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.

Oh like cutting corporation tax .. labour never did that. or free personal care for the elderly - oops Labour introduced that. or presiding over a massive increase in inequality in the UK - oh dear that was labour too. Or supporting Tory benefit cuts ... I could go on

[kaosmark2]

The Snp are about establishing advantages for the Scottish middle class at the expense of dirty foreigners, aka the English. They are better than ukip and tories in that they're not trying to focus on benefits for the upper class, but they're pretty callous towards the poor and a significant number of them are clearly racist. Probably a fractionally smaller proportion than the tories' membership list, but a not irrelevant one.

Labour have a lot of faults, a lot, but they're the most left -wing they've been in 20 years and they couldn't get more left wing without becoming unelectable.

Unless you're in his specific seat, you're not voting for jim Murphy any more than I'd be voting for Ed miliband or Natalie Bennett. We have to take party politics into account under this shitty fptp system, but it isn't the only thing to consider.

Also, the current labour front bench were all pro-av. It's the new -labour old guard, most notably Prescott, who were vehemently against it - desperate to cling to their last hint of power while they thought they could. I thought ed was fantastic in the pro - av campaign, committing and articulating a positive vision, while letting Clegg take the flak for the compromise.

[LJS]

The Snp are about establishing advantages for the Scottish middle class at the expense of dirty foreigners, aka the English. They are better than ukip and tories in that they're not trying to focus on benefits for the upper class, but they're pretty callous towards the poor and a significant number of them are clearly racist. Probably a fractionally smaller proportion than the tories' membership list, but a not irrelevant one.

Sorry, I just don't see the racism, care to give me some examples (from the SNP - not from online nutters)

Labour have a lot of faults, a lot, but they're the most left -wing they've been in 20 years and they couldn't get more left wing without becoming unelectable.

This is the great myth - they have to be pseudo Tory in order to be electable. I don't believe it. but unfortunately, you Neil & many others have fallen for this, which apparently justifies the removal of principle from politics. and where is the evidence to support this view? It boils down to "Labour was a bit left wing once & they lost." I think that is a pretty unsophisticated view of British politics & explains precisely why I support Indy - UK politics is broken - at least in a new independent Scotland we would have a chance to do things differently. And yes, it is only a chance & we might mess it up but, its hard to imagine how we could mes it up worse than Westminster consistently has for years.

Unless you're in his specific seat, you're not voting for jim Murphy any more than I'd be voting for Ed miliband or Natalie Bennett. We have to take party politics into account under this shitty fptp system, but it isn't the only thing to consider.

That may be how you ( & me actually) think. Do you really think its how most folk think? I actually have this really old fashioned view where i listen to what the individual candidates have to say before I decide how I vote.

Also, the current labour front bench were all pro-av. It's the new -labour old guard, most notably Prescott, who were vehemently against it - desperate to cling to their last hint of power while they thought they could. I thought ed was fantastic in the pro - av campaign, committing and articulating a positive vision, while letting Clegg take the flak for the compromise.

I have to be honest here, I had a lot of "stuff" going on in my life at the time & paid minimal attention to the AV referendum (although I did vote yes) My question is if Scottish independence is an issue where the party declares its position & expects everyone to get behind it, why not AV?

Edited February 18, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

[eFestivals]

it also results in prolonging & strengthening the FPTP system.

and yet voting difference does nothing to undermine it.

The only way it'll change is via change from within those parties. If this is such a huge issue to Scots, they should have joined Labour and changed it rather than waste their time joining the powerless SNP.

The truth is we should vote for anyone who can defeat either Labour or the Tories

like the SSP, perhaps - the left party that no one if left leaning Scotland votes for?

& then finally we may get change. And maybe if your beloved Labour party had campaigned for change in the AV referendum instead of hiding in a cupboard we might not be having these ridiculous discussions.

It's Labour's fault that Scotland voted to retain FPTP?

Oh like cutting corporation tax .. labour never did that.

they did. And I praise them for that policy just as a little more than I praise the SNP for the same policy but to a more extreme extent.

(note for the daft: 'praise' is sarcasm)

Meanwhile, corp tax has to be at some level. The lower it goes the more the the rich run away with the money.

The SNP want the rich to run away with the money via low corp tax even more-so than the tories do.

But you just pretend that's not true, that the SNP are sometimes more tory than the tories.

or free personal care for the elderly - oops Labour introduced that. or presiding over a massive increase in inequality in the UK - oh dear that was labour too. Or supporting Tory benefit cuts ... I could go on

and the money for the bottomless pit of good things comes from....? LJS's kids, who he thinks should pay for their dad's good life.

And the tory line of "Labour caused the world recession" comes from LJS.

Meanwhile, the policy documents still go unread, just as Salmond's own statement within GERS on Scotland's poor economic position did.

Edited February 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Sorry, I just don't see the racism, care to give me some examples (from the SNP - not from online nutters)

The Uni fees policy for the English.

I'm sure you'll try claiming it's not racist, but if England had a "Scots pay more just because they're Scottish" policy, what would Scotland be saying?

Edited February 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is the great myth - they have to be pseudo Tory in order to be electable.

This is less true for Labour as it is for the SNP - which is why the SNP are shit scared of saying "tax the rich".

I don't believe it. but unfortunately, you Neil & many others have fallen for this, which apparently justifies the removal of principle from politics. and where is the evidence to support this view?

"tax the rich".

"less private operation of the railways"

"less cuts"

"more jobs"

"more training"

"more social housing"

Etc, etc, etc.

It's hardly a socialist revolution, but it is to the left of everything Labour since Blair became leader.

And yes, it is only a chance & we might mess it up but, its hard to imagine how we could mes it up worse than Westminster consistently has for years.

Westminster's perceived failures come via greater demands for spending than money in the pot.

Have you looked at GERS yet?

My question is if Scottish independence is an issue where the party declares its position & expects everyone to get behind it, why not AV?

Some things are done as "free votes" - I'm sure even the SNP go with that idea sometimes?

It tends to get done that way when there's a significant party divide on that particular issue.

With regard to AV, there'll be views that AV should happen, they'll be views to keep FPTP, and they'll be views that AV should be rejected to get PR.

These are all valid views, and each choice has it's good and bad parts, dependent on what part of the democratic system a person thinks should be most empowered.

While you (I presume) and me want PR, it's not the definitively "right" or "good" choice, it's merely our personal opinion. Even while wanting PR, the fact of party lists horrifies me.

Edited February 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I didn't hear Nicola say "tax the rich" last night, but perhaps I wasn't paying full attention...?

Just the normal SNP spiel of "we want to spend other people's money, we've no idea how they get that money".

[russycarps]

I felt a bit sorry for her really. She was ganged up on, and seemed to be massively out of her depth.

Even the members of the audience outwitted her.

As an aside, programs like that just reinforce my belief that probably 75% (at least) of this country are staunchly in favour of us having nukes.

[LJS]

I didn't hear Nicola say "tax the rich" last night, but perhaps I wasn't paying full attention...?

Just the normal SNP spiel of "we want to spend other people's money, we've no idea how they get that money".

I thought inverted commas were used to indicate that you were quoting what someone said. You clearly use them to indicate that this is something you have made up yourself.

Or are you making crazy old man Heseltine's mistake of thinking Nicola wants £180bn extra for Scotland.

[LJS]

I felt a bit sorry for her really. She was ganged up on, and seemed to be massively out of her depth.

Even the members of the audience outwitted her.

As an aside, programs like that just reinforce my belief that probably 75% (at least) of this country are staunchly in favour of us having nukes.

She pointed out that nuclear weapons are an obscene & useless waste of money. I didn't see her being outwitted.

I did see plenty of people being half-witted.

[russycarps]

She pointed out that nuclear weapons are an obscene & useless waste of money. I didn't see her being outwitted.

I did see plenty of people being half-witted.

She needs to be able to convince those half wits that not having nukes is the way to go. She utterly failed in that, because she's hopeless. All she did was sit there rolling her eyes and make exasperated facial expressions.

[gary1979666]

I thought inverted commas were used to indicate that you were quoting what someone said. You clearly use them to indicate that this is something you have made up yourself.

Looks like he is using to indicate what someone didn't say, clearly something he made it up, as she didn't say it. Is a perfectly fine use of that punctuation. If he's written that NS had said "don't tax the rich" then he'd be in the wrong, but he didn't, so that's fine.

[eFestivals]

I thought inverted commas were used to indicate that you were quoting what someone said.

If you care to read my words, you can clearly see the inverted commas are being used around what someone didn't say - in those exact words, or paraphrased.

Comfy thought she might have done. He was wrong.

Nothing of the left was on view from her, just the Thatcherist idea of "I want all the money for myself, me me me" - the same as she said in that London speech. The magic money tree must have come into bloom.

You clearly use them to indicate that this is something you have made up yourself.

Nope, it's those who laughably say that the SNP are to the left of Labour which is something they've made up themselves.

Nothing leftward was on view last night from the SNP.

Or are you making crazy old man Heseltine's mistake of thinking Nicola wants £180bn extra for Scotland.

I can't be bothered to check back, but didn't NS's speech in London in the last week or three ask that an extra £180Bn was spent by the UK?

It's of course stretching things to claim that "for Scotland", tho when it's only a Scottish party that's asking for it, it's not 100% inaccurate (tho of course he was trying to damage her by taking that line with it).

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

She pointed out that nuclear weapons are an obscene & useless waste of money. I didn't see her being outwitted.

I did see plenty of people being half-witted.

And yet we have, for the first time in 25 years, a distinct threat from another European country.

Like nukes or not, it would take someone pretty dim-witted to think the existence of them isn't impacting in a good way for the UK into what is being played out right now.

It's probably the case that in the minds of the British public, nukes are a more important part of British defences than they've been for a long long while.

And anyway, Scotland's share of the money spent on nukes is just a tiny share of the extra money Scotland gets via Barnet. There's no big bonus for Scotland from the abolishion of nukes, it's the exact opposite.

[russycarps]

And yet we have, for the first time in 25 years, a distinct threat from another European country.

Like nukes or not, it would take someone pretty dim-witted to think the existence of them isn't impacting in a good way for the UK into what is being played out right now.

It's probably the case that in the minds of the British public, nukes are a more important part of British defences than they've been for a long long while.

And anyway, Scotland's share of the money spent on nukes is just a tiny share of the extra money Scotland gets via Barnet. There's no big bonus for Scotland from the abolishion of nukes, it's the exact opposite.

That's her problem. She is too dim to realise that when russia is acting up in ukraine and the media are predicting armeggedon, it's time to keep her mouth shut about getting rid of the nukes unless she can put a very very good argument across, which she is clearly in capable of.

Instead of that she peddled out the same old crap. It was not the time nor the place.

[kaosmark2]

I didn't think ns came across that badly. None of them impressed, but I don't think she was notably worse than the others.

That idiot from dragons den saying you should always knock on doors though. 3/4 of the time I've done that and ended up being told to duck off online.

[LJS]

If you care to read my words, you can clearly see the inverted commas are being used around what someone didn't say - in those exact words, or paraphrased.

I Did you had two things in quotation marks. the one i referred to was the second ..." "we want to spend other people's money, we've no idea how they get that money".

that is clearly your invention not anything ever said.

Comfy thought she might have done. He was wrong.

Nothing of the left was on view from her, just the Thatcherist idea of "I want all the money for myself, me me me" - the same as she said in that London speech. The magic money tree must have come into bloom.

Oh look he's at it with the made up quotes again

Nope, it's those who laughably say that the SNP are to the left of Labour which is something they've made up themselves.

Nothing leftward was on view last night from the SNP.

I can't be bothered to check back, but didn't NS's speech in London in the last week or three ask that an extra £180Bn was spent by the UK?

Yes she did

It's of course stretching things to claim that "for Scotland", tho when it's only a Scottish party that's asking for it, it's not 100% inaccurate (tho of course he was trying to damage her by taking that line with it).

You are correct, it is correct that it is stretching things. I'd go further and say that, as the speech was clearly about the UK economy & UK expenditure, it is more than stretching it, it is lying to suggest this is her wanting money for Scotland.

[LJS]

I didn't think ns came across that badly. None of them impressed, but I don't think she was notably worse than the others.

That idiot from dragons den saying you should always knock on doors though. 3/4 of the time I've done that and ended up being told to duck off online.

I think Bannatyne & Heseltine both came across as being past their sell by date. For me, the two women were streets ahead of the men.

[LJS]

That's her problem. She is too dim to realise that when russia is acting up in ukraine and the media are predicting armeggedon, it's time to keep her mouth shut about getting rid of the nukes unless she can put a very very good argument across, which she is clearly in capable of.

Instead of that she peddled out the same old crap. It was not the time nor the place.

It is always the time & always the place to point out the futility of a UK independent nuclear deterrent.apart from being pointless & wasting £billions, it legitimizes other countries' nuclear ambitions.

You may disagree with her (although it surprises me that you do)...but surely you aren't denying her right to "peddle" her "crap"?

[russycarps]

It is always the time & always the place to point out the futility of a UK independent nuclear deterrent.apart from being pointless & wasting £billions, it legitimizes other countries' nuclear ambitions.

You may disagree with her (although it surprises me that you do)...but surely you aren't denying her right to "peddle" her "crap"?

I agree with her on the nukes issue entirely, but her performance last night did nothing but make the anti nuke side look dim and out of touch

[tolywoly]

I agree with her on the nukes issue entirely, but her performance last night did nothing but make the anti nuke side look dim and out of touch

Looking out of touch with public opinion is a risk. But being anti nuke (to an extent) is only differentiating liberal policy they have, so they're hitting it hard.