The Dirty Independence Question

[gary1979666]

Have you worked out that the SNP will not be able to form the next government?

The most they can hope for is to have some influence on a Labour government, so we still get Labour taxes hopefully with a bit less austerity. Sounds like the Best of both Worlds to me.

Hmmm, so as the SNP won't be in power as such, they don't have to outline their major policies? Have you been speaking to Farage?

I suppose you're right, if SNP don;t outline any tax raising policies, it can be one of the concession they 'give' to Labour for their support. Bargaining at its finest!

[eFestivals]

I suppose you're right, if SNP don;t outline any tax raising policies, it can be one of the concession they 'give' to Labour for their support. Bargaining at its finest!

do you think Labour will have to give the SNP something for the SNP's support?

The SNP are standing on the basis that they'll support a Labour govt. If they don't support a Labour govt, they'll either be directly supporting, or causing, a tory govt.

The SNP have the choice of supporting Labour or being labelled as tories and seeing their support evaporate.

And the SNP cannot modify the policies that Labour will pursue, because what the SNP won't support the tories will and so they'll happen anyway.

The SNP's supporters think the SNP are playing it smart, but at the end of the day the only plan the SNP have is condemn everything that happens at Westminster to backup their claim they'll run a utopian Scotland. If Westminster created a utopian Scotland the SNP would have to condemn it as a matter of principle.

Edited February 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Neil, I see your favourite reverend has just raised £50k in about 6 hours.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/let-s-carry-on-for-a-bit

We may not all love him. But he's sure doing something right!

[eFestivals]

Neil, I see your favourite reverend has just raised £50k in about 6 hours.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/let-s-carry-on-for-a-bit

We may not all love him. But he's sure doing something right!

Maybe the thing he's doing right is living in Bath, England...?

[LJS]

Maybe the thing he's doing right is living in Bath, England...?

[Comfy Bean]

Here we go. Gloves off.

[Comfy Bean]

Not so long ago we were better together according to Nige. Like the Tories, they have nothing to lose up here ( vote wise ) so concentrating on pushing their right wing banter down South.

" Ukip would cut billions from Scottish budget to fund English tax cuts "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-would-cut-billions-from-scottish-budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

Edited February 28, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

Not so long ago we were better together

I'm wondering if Scotland has been starved of dot to dot puzzles, or something.

Better off together is the idea, that CANNOT be achieved via the splitters.

FFS, what IS so hard to understand about that?

Edited March 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Not so long ago we were better together according to Nige. Like the Tories, they have nothing to lose up here ( vote wise ) so concentrating on pushing their right wing banter down South.

" Ukip would cut billions from Scottish budget to fund English tax cuts "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-would-cut-billions-from-scottish-budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

while I disagree with almost everything UKIP - and I disagree with this plan of theirs - can you lay out a simple argument which can justify some people getting extra within what is supposedly equality? The current set-up sounds a bit too much like 'Animal Farm' for the hard of thinking people who might support UKIP.

Meanwhile, those who are quite happy to drop the "I thought we were better together" line into any comment regard any examination of that Scottish privilege to perhaps change it for the better (better for all, just not Scotland) as outside of what is acceptable.

Do you think it's only kippers who can get sucked up their own arsehole into the shit?

[kipper64]

Their plan is silly as spending per head is also not level across all of Scotland and all of England, some Regions in England get more than others and some more than Scotland as a whole in some years. By UKIP's logic you'd surely have to have exactly the same funding to every region of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for equality meaning some places might be over funded and some underfunded. Theres absolutely no sense in it. Public Spending per head is higher because of spread of population as a whole which means its more expensive to provide services to all. I imagine that's more an effect of the highlands and islands and such, but the very same argument could be thrown at parts of England that get more spending per head than others, could it not?

[LJS]

Their plan is silly as spending per head is also not level across all of Scotland and all of England, some Regions in England get more than others and some more than Scotland as a whole in some years. By UKIP's logic you'd surely have to have exactly the same funding to every region of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for equality meaning some places might be over funded and some underfunded. Theres absolutely no sense in it. Public Spending per head is higher because of spread of population as a whole which means its more expensive to provide services to all. I imagine that's more an effect of the highlands and islands and such, but the very same argument could be thrown at parts of England that get more spending per head than others, could it not?

I thought you got more spending if you live in a marginal Tory constituency?

[Comfy Bean]

Not so long ago we were better together according to Nige. Like the Tories, they have nothing to lose up here ( vote wise ) so concentrating on pushing their right wing banter down South.

" Ukip would cut billions from Scottish budget to fund English tax cuts "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-would-cut-billions-from-scottish-budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

while I disagree with almost everything UKIP - and I disagree with this plan of theirs - can you lay out a simple argument which can justify some people getting extra within what is supposedly equality? The current set-up sounds a bit too much like 'Animal Farm' for the hard of thinking people who might support UKIP.

Meanwhile, those who are quite happy to drop the "I thought we were better together" line into any comment regard any examination of that Scottish privilege to perhaps change it for the better (better for all, just not Scotland) as outside of what is acceptable.

Do you think it's only kippers who can get sucked up their own arsehole into the shit?

Thought it might be worth re-visiting my point as I reckon you missed it Neil.

A few months back Nigel was up my way with his unionist mates from the orange order telling us how Scotland would be better within the Union.

Here we are months later and he is now saying he will cut billions from the Scotttish budget to fund english tax cuts. I made the point ( above ) that he is now chasing votes that he thinks he can win ie not up here. His vile agenda ( in my opinion ) has appealed to some but according to the polls UKIP are on the slide. Unfortunately his vile agenda has allowed the tories to move right into a space they are quite comfortable in and they now appear to be taking votes back off ukip which is not good for Nige. In my view, the minor rise of UKIP ( now on the decline ) has also seen Labour worry about losing votes and we have seen them talking about immigration etc.

Nigel is now trying to fight back for the votes he is losing with this verbal attack on Scotland. I would not have expected this latest tactic to work and hopefully him and his vile party will win no seats although a few look likely.

Kipper has done a better job of explaining the pish Nigel came up with than I can but Nigel will be pleased that he is stirring up ill feeling. To be honest I am surprise Neil that following my post quoting Nigel`s latest outburst we have your good self talking about " people getting extra " " Animal Farm " " Scottish priviledges " .

As I said, I think Kipper`s post after yours does a good job of explaining the reality of the Barnett situation. I know you are no fan of UKIP but don`t you think Nigel will be quietly pleased at the issues you are now raising in your post ?

[LJS]

Union jack to be displayed on publicly-funded projects

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683970

The Internet up here in Scotland is having loads of fun with this nonsense.

e.g

Edited March 1, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Not quite sure what you mean about getting sucked up my own arsehole ? I`ll guess that you mean Barnett but might be wrong ? Strange choice of words.

If you remember, I thought that Scotland should be an Independent Country.....and still do. At the moment, our countries receipts head over the border down to Westminster where our upstanding and honest political establishment carry out a few calculations ( remember the fancy trainsets ) before deciding on a figure and then sending that figure of theirs back over the border to where it originated. This figure should be trusted without question as these guys are as honest as the day is long.

The Yes side of the debate ( on here ) were the ones who said that we should take our fair share of the debt and believed that as a country, Scotland were capable of managing our own affairs. You seem to be wanting to re-invent history here. If Scotland had been responsible for itself instead of being politically ruled by a separate and considerably larger country ( with different political views ) then Barnett would have been defunct surely !

Were you not the one that thought we were better together, Barnett and all ?

I had a wee chuckle to myself when Heseltine said on QT the other week about us getting " Englands money " the old fox paused before correcting himself and saying " UK money ". It was a cheap and perhaps effective shot. The crowd cheered. People down South seem to be falling for what the likes of Heseltine and Nigel are saying.

How long before someone on here calls me or LJS a " subsidy junkie " I predict it will happen before May.

[Comfy Bean]

Union jack to be displayed on publicly-funded projects

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683970

The Internet up here in Scotland is having loads of fun with this nonsense.

e.g

Saw this earlier mate. They are getting Danny Alexander to officially announce it tomorrow. Somehow I thought he would be the right man for this job. Nonsense as you say.

[eFestivals]

Thought it might be worth re-visiting my point as I reckon you missed it Neil.

A few months back Nigel was up my way with his unionist mates from the orange order telling us how Scotland would be better within the Union.

Here we are months later and he is now saying he will cut billions from the Scotttish budget

It seems to have passed you by that money spent per-person and "better in the union" are not the same thing.

Using St Alex's white paper as the basis - stripped of its grand hopes and instead using reality - UKIP could introduce that policy and Scotland would still be better off than it would be independent.

Is that a bit too truthful for you?

(Just to make it clear, I don't support any of that; I'm merely recognising the economics).

to fund english tax cuts.

just for the English?

Obsessed by 'the English', much?

I made the point ( above ) that he is now chasing votes that he thinks he can win ie not up here. His vile agenda ( in my opinion ) has appealed to some but according to the polls UKIP are on the slide. Unfortunately his vile agenda has allowed the tories to move right into a space they are quite comfortable in and they now appear to be taking votes back off ukip which is not good for Nige. In my view, the minor rise of UKIP ( now on the decline ) has also seen Labour worry about losing votes and we have seen them talking about immigration etc.

Nigel is now trying to fight back for the votes he is losing with this verbal attack on Scotland. I would not have expected this latest tactic to work and hopefully him and his vile party will win no seats although a few look likely.

Kipper has done a better job of explaining the pish Nigel came up with than I can but Nigel will be pleased that he is stirring up ill feeling. To be honest I am surprise Neil that following my post quoting Nigel`s latest outburst we have your good self talking about " people getting extra " " Animal Farm " " Scottish priviledges " .

The tories haven't "moved to the right". Everything they're saying is standard stuff you could hear from tories in any year for the last 30 years; they've adjusted their narrative a little, that's all.

Likewise with Labour. They've said nothing specifically "anti immigrant", tho they have made some noises that immigrant haters might like.

Meanwhile, Scotland is very clearly anti-immigrant too, as every recent poll has shown. And if it had the same levels of proportional immigration as the South East has - or even England as a whole - that scottish view would be being heard no less than UKIP I guarantee.

Farage is using Scotland, I agree. But Scotland has made that very easy for him by telling him to fuck off, so he's nothing to lose by that and everything to gain. Like it or not, there's plenty of w*nkers this sort of stuff appeals to.

As I said, I think Kipper`s post after yours does a good job of explaining the reality of the Barnett situation. I know you are no fan of UKIP but don`t you think Nigel will be quietly pleased at the issues you are now raising in your post ?

I'm merely recognising there's an angle there for him to exploit, that Scottish attitudes helps him exploit. You know, exactly as nats use tory attitudes to increase SNP support.

I know the SNP and their supporters think that special rules should apply to protect the SNP from the honest views of others, but unsurprisingly it's all politics and they're all playing the same political game by th3e same rules. Only when the SNP and their supporters accept this will they be mature enough to stand a chance of properly winning over the 55% of the Scottish people who rejected their indy plans.

[eFestivals]

Not quite sure what you mean about getting sucked up my own arsehole ? I`ll guess that you mean Barnett but might be wrong ? Strange choice of words.

I'm saying that Barnett should be open to criticism and scrutiny, no differently to any other political idea, and that the only basis for it to continue is created via a justification given within that scrutiny process.

The Scottish fear of it ever being discussed gives the likes of Farage his ammo - which hits home (if only with some) because no defence to that attack is ever made.

If you remember, I thought that Scotland should be an Independent Country.....and still do. At the moment, our countries receipts head over the border down to Westminster where our upstanding and honest political establishment carry out a few calculations ( remember the fancy trainsets ) before deciding on a figure and then sending that figure of theirs back over the border to where it originated. This figure should be trusted without question as these guys are as honest as the day is long.

But Alex has thrown away all of that,m and come up with his own methods and formula, that's called GERS.

Why won't you even accept your own leader's statement on Scottish finances?

Why do you instead invent a version backed up by no factual basis whatsoever?

The Yes side of the debate ( on here ) were the ones who said that we should take our fair share of the debt and believed that as a country, Scotland were capable of managing our own affairs. You seem to be wanting to re-invent history here. If Scotland had been responsible for itself instead of being politically ruled by a separate and considerably larger country ( with different political views ) then Barnett would have been defunct surely !

no just the yes side.

I made the same statement countless times.

(relevant, of course, only if there had been a yes vote).

Were you not the one that thought we were better together, Barnett and all ?

Yep, the economics proves that to be the case.

Unless you're going to show me where the magic money tree is, that can transform the reality stated within GERS into the fantasy that was the white paper?

I had a wee chuckle to myself when Heseltine said on QT the other week about us getting " Englands money " the old fox paused before correcting himself and saying " UK money ". It was a cheap and perhaps effective shot. The crowd cheered. People down South seem to be falling for what the likes of Heseltine and Nigel are saying.

How long before someone on here calls me or LJS a " subsidy junkie " I predict it will happen before May.

as the regional accounts get to prove, it is money generated in England that is sent to Scotland to top-up Scottish public spending beyond the revenue raised within Scotland.

Even St Alex confirms that as the case, within GERS.

You don't have to like the truth; you can even reject that truth. What you couldn't have rejected as untrue are the cuts that would have hit iScotland - hard!

[LJS]

Meanwhile, Scotland is very clearly anti-immigrant too, as every recent poll has shown. And if it had the same levels of proportional immigration as the South East has - or even England as a whole - that scottish view would be being heard no less than UKIP I guarantee.

Although overall, Scotland may have had lower immigration in the last 50 years or so, there are areas where the proportion of immigrants has been very high, including the area of Glasgow where I grew up. When I was at primary school in the 1960's, around 25% of my schoolmates were of Asian origin (mainly from what we now know as Bangladesh) By the time my son went to school in the 1990 it was about 50/50 in his school & about 90% of Asian origin in the other school in the area. The main shopping street is now predominantly serving the needs/run by the (now 2nd & 3rd generation) immigrant community. Despite this no anti immigration party has ever received anything approaching significant support & whilst there have, of course, been racist incidents, the communities generally get along very well indeed.

How does that match up with the high levels of opposition reported in opinion polls? well, my guess is that although people in Scotland may report the same level of opposition to racism as the rest of the UK, It is probably not as important as issue for them.

As a footnote, in my experience, some of the most racist people I have come across, live in areas with little or no immigration - i put this down to ignorance.

[eFestivals]

Although overall, Scotland may have had lower immigration in the last 50 years or so, there are areas where the proportion of immigrants has been very high, including the area of Glasgow where I grew up. When I was at primary school in the 1960's, around 25% of my schoolmates were of Asian origin (mainly from what we now know as Bangladesh) By the time my son went to school in the 1990 it was about 50/50 in his school & about 90% of Asian origin in the other school in the area. The main shopping street is now predominantly serving the needs/run by the (now 2nd & 3rd generation) immigrant community. Despite this no anti immigration party has ever received anything approaching significant support & whilst there have, of course, been racist incidents, the communities generally get along very well indeed.

You do know that a significant chunk of London boroughs (not merely local neighbourhoods of a few streets that attend a school) have over 50% immigrants, don't you? You're comparing chalk with cheese here.

And while UK parties (including within Scotland) come and go and attract support around the 10% mark, race riots aren't breaking out. I might hate UKIP, and I know they attract the ex-BNP vote, etc, but they are not as vile as the BNP - and for that I'm thankful.

How does that match up with the high levels of opposition reported in opinion polls? well, my guess is that although people in Scotland may report the same level of opposition to racism as the rest of the UK, It is probably not as important as issue for them.

and it's not as important to them because....? The levels of immigration are massively lower in Scotland.

I have no doubts that similar feeling would exist within Scotland if it had similar levels of immigration.

As a footnote, in my experience, some of the most racist people I have come across, live in areas with little or no immigration - i put this down to ignorance.

It's the same all over. UKIP has its two seats in two of the places with the least immigration (less than 2%) within the South East.

And opinion polls continually pick up that people say "immigration is a problem", but when they're asked where it's a problem the answer is almost always "somewhere else, not here". In nearly all of the places with high levels of immigration, immigration is not seen as a big issue at all.

[Comfy Bean]

just for the English?

Obsessed by 'the English', much?

Not at all sir. Not my words. I was quoting Nigel. I even used quotation marks `n everything !

[LJS]

It's the same all over. UKIP has its two seats in two of the places with the least immigration (less than 2%) within the South East.

And opinion polls continually pick up that people say "immigration is a problem", but when they're asked where it's a problem the answer is almost always "somewhere else, not here". In nearly all of the places with high levels of immigration, immigration is not seen as a big issue at all.

So by your logic its perfectly plausible that Scotland's high anti immigration polling figures are as a result of our lower immigration levels & if we had similar levels of immigration to England these figures light be lower.

[Comfy Bean]

Likewise with Labour. They've said nothing specifically "anti immigrant"..........

Sadly.....I`m not sure I agree with you here.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/28/labour-ukip-anti-immigrant-vote-ed-miliband-election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-trying-to-outkip-ukip-says-mp-david-lammy-over-inflammatory-immigration-leaflet-10007575.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-attacks-labours-stance-on-immigration-8867407.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11198105/Tony-Blair-Labour-should-take-fight-to-Ukip-rather-than-chasing-after-anti-immigration-policies.html

[eFestivals]

So by your logic its perfectly plausible that Scotland's high anti immigration polling figures are as a result of our lower immigration levels & if we had similar levels of immigration to England these figures light be lower.

Nope. When immigration rises, the perception that immigration is a problem rises with it. Far fewer people perceive immigration as being a problem when there's low immigration.

My logic is constant, as is your logic which tries to find a "Scotland is better" angle to anything that's said.

The difference is: mine matches what has been observed, whilst yours is merely hope.

[eFestivals]

Sadly.....I`m not sure I agree with you here.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/28/labour-ukip-anti-immigrant-vote-ed-miliband-election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-trying-to-outkip-ukip-says-mp-david-lammy-over-inflammatory-immigration-leaflet-10007575.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-attacks-labours-stance-on-immigration-8867407.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11198105/Tony-Blair-Labour-should-take-fight-to-Ukip-rather-than-chasing-after-anti-immigration-policies.html

The first says "Labour shouldn't try and imitate UKIP", and not what you've claimed.

The 2nd talks about benefit entitlement, and not what you've claimed.

The third is complaining that Labour haven't been more vocal in condemning tory anti-immigrant stuff, and not what you've claimed.

And the 4th talks about supposedly "anti immigrant" laws from Labour, but specifies nothing of what they might be.

Why do you think these are anything more than soothing words for those who dislike immigration at some level (which is a massive majority in both England and Scotland [and probably other parts of the UK too])?

What "anti immigrant" policies are you thinking that Labour actually has?

I'll point out that the UK's benefit system is a system that is designed for those who have (or will) pay into it, and not a free money system for anyone in the world.

And I'll remind you that the UK already has a set of immigration rules for everyone non-EU, which have to be complied with.

[LJS]

Nope. When immigration rises, the perception that immigration is a problem rises with it. Far fewer people perceive immigration as being a problem when there's low immigration.

My logic is constant, as is your logic which tries to find a "Scotland is better" angle to anything that's said.

The difference is: mine matches what has been observed, whilst yours is merely hope.

Scotland has better mountains than England. We are also better at curling.

Other than these, I don't think you will find I have ever claimed Scotland to be better than England (or anywhere else for that matter)