The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

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.

An interesting spin you are putting on these articles which, despite your claims, reflect concerns that the Labour party is pandering to the perceived racism of many of its supporters. I'd be surprised if you didn't share these concerns.

[eFestivals]

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)

you did just try to find a "Scotland is better than England about immigration" angle.

And failed.

But you don't do that, so there's nothing to see here.

[eFestivals]

An interesting spin you are putting on these articles which, despite your claims, reflect concerns that the Labour party is pandering to the perceived racism of many of its supporters. I'd be surprised if you didn't share these concerns.

The Labour party is pandering to the racism that a huge majority of this country has to some degree, yup. But they'#re pandering to it with nothings, and not somethings - unless you can show me the 'something' that none of those four articles could.

Why do you think that the massive majority views of the electorate don't have to be pandered to? Are all Scottish indy supporters fully behind a tax giveaway to the rich, as the SNP planned to do?

How do you think the SNP would do if they clearly stated (aqnd then stated again, and again, and again) that they wanted massively greater immgration into Scotland, so that over 10% of the Scottish population was born outside of the UK? Do you think they wouldn't lose a noticeable percentage of their current support?

Political parties have to get support by doing what people want, or they're not a political party they're an irrelevance.

[Comfy Bean]

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 ?

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.

So we agree then that Labour are talking about immigration as I pointed out. " anti immigration " note the quotation marks, were words introduced by your good self.

If you`ve read the links where Labour are talking immigration, do you have a view on the leaflet that Labour produced.......................

Labour is trying to win back supporters who may vote for Ukip by trumpeting a hard line on immigration in a direct mail campaign about the NHS.

But the targeting of white working-class voters has provoked protests by some Labour politicians, who say it risks alienating the party’s black supporters.

The controversy has been sparked by a four-page leaflet headed “Building an NHS with time to care”. Although it is mostly about health, one section is headed: “Labour’s tough new approach to immigration.” It says: “People who rely on public services have a right to expect that staff, like nurses and care workers, can speak English. That is why Labour will make sure that all frontline public sector staff can speak English.”

David Lammy, who is running to be Labour’s candidate in next year’s election for London Mayor, has received complaints from around the country from party supporters offended by the leaflet. “It has gone down like a lead balloon,” he said. “We are a pro-immigration party and we should stay that way, engaging in the debate on immigration but not on Ukip’s terms. We should be taking on Ukip by challenging the myths it is peddling about immigration, and by arguing against the kind of divided, intolerant and isolated nation that it wants to turn Britain into.

“Forty per cent of London’s nurses are immigrants – many of them are my constituents – and they tell me there is no way they would pass their three-year qualification if they didn’t speak good English. These people are the lifeblood of our NHS and we should not forget that. I have never been a fan of any approach that seeks to divide society into different groups and target them independently.”

[LJS]

The Labour party is pandering to the racism that a huge majority of this country has to some degree, yup. But they'#re pandering to it with nothings, and not somethings - unless you can show me the 'something' that none of those four articles could.

Why do you think that the massive majority views of the electorate don't have to be pandered to? Are all Scottish indy supporters fully behind a tax giveaway to the rich, as the SNP planned to do?

How do you think the SNP would do if they clearly stated (aqnd then stated again, and again, and again) that they wanted massively greater immgration into Scotland, so that over 10% of the Scottish population was born outside of the UK? Do you think they wouldn't lose a noticeable percentage of their current support?

Political parties have to get support by doing what people want, or they're not a political party they're an irrelevance.

I know you think its really clever to phrase questions as if some much disputed item of debate has been won by you e.g. "tax giveaway to the rich." You also do it all the time with your claims of financial Armageddon for iScotland. It's somewhat tiresome as it means I have to waste my time challenging old oft covered points: if I don't, you will no doubt come back with..."so you accept the SNP are pro-rich or similar nonsense.

As to how Scottish public opinion would have dealt with increased immigration, I suspect the answer depends far more on the economic success of iScotland than the % of immigrants.

[eFestivals]

So we agree then that Labour are talking about immigration as I pointed out. " anti immigration " note the quotation marks, were words introduced by your good self.

If you`ve read the links where Labour are talking immigration, do you have a view on the leaflet that Labour produced.......................

Oh c'mon, FFS .... they've said something should happen which happens anyway. No one is talking Urdu (or whatever) at all NHS 'customers'.

All they're doing is recognising that a huge part of the electorate is thick as pigshit, and trying to keep a necessary part of the electorate on side. It's no different to what any party does.

Or was Salmond's refusal to say "we won't use the pound because we can't" because he he had a super-secret-special-clever plan for currency, that no one but him would have been able to understand? YOU knew it meant "no pound" (at least i hope you did, else I'll worry for you). Plenty of other yes voting Scots did not, and instead chose to swallow the lie of "ooor pound".

[eFestivals]

I know you think its really clever to phrase questions as if some much disputed item of debate has been won by you e.g. "tax giveaway to the rich." You also do it all the time with your claims of financial Armageddon for iScotland. It's somewhat tiresome as it means I have to waste my time challenging old oft covered points: if I don't, you will no doubt come back with..."so you accept the SNP are pro-rich or similar nonsense.

Did Salmond promise a tax give away to the rich? Yes he did.

Does GERS (compiled by Alex) say Scotland is in an economically worse position than whole-UK? Yes it does.

When you won't even accept the word of the guy who you voted in support of, what truths and facts will you accept? FFS.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As to how Scottish public opinion would have dealt with increased immigration, I suspect the answer depends far more on the economic success of iScotland than the % of immigrants.

So, economic success matters for immigrants in indy Scotland, but not for indy Scotland itself?

Scotland will approach it no differently to any other country. No matter what the economics, if the change is too fast, a significant chunk of the population will not happily accept that fast change. They will feel marginalised by that change.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Oh c'mon, FFS .... they've said something should happen which happens anyway. No one is talking Urdu (or whatever) at all NHS 'customers'.

All they're doing is recognising that a huge part of the electorate is thick as pigshit, and trying to keep a necessary part of the electorate on side. It's no different to what any party does.

Or was Salmond's refusal to say "we won't use the pound because we can't" because he he had a super-secret-special-clever plan for currency, that no one but him would have been able to understand? YOU knew it meant "no pound" (at least i hope you did, else I'll worry for you). Plenty of other yes voting Scots did not, and instead chose to swallow the lie of "ooor pound".

Plenty of people within the Labour Party are critical of what Labour are saying around immigration ( see the 4 links and the article on this leaflet ). I`ve no idea why you are not agreeing with them. It would appear to me ( and the latest polls ) that they are not doing a great job of keeping any part of the electorate on side, especially in Scotland.

These are not the words we should be expecting from a Labour leaflet.....

“People who rely on public services have a right to expect that staff, like nurses and care workers, can speak English. That is why Labour will make sure that all frontline public sector staff can speak English.”

[eFestivals]

Plenty of people within the Labour Party are critical of what Labour are saying around immigration ( see the 4 links and the article on this leaflet ). I`ve no idea why you are not agreeing with them. It would appear to me ( and the latest polls ) that they are not doing a great job of keeping any part of the electorate on side, especially in Scotland.

These are not the words we should be expecting from a Labour leaflet.....

“People who rely on public services have a right to expect that staff, like nurses and care workers, can speak English. That is why Labour will make sure that all frontline public sector staff can speak English.”

What part of "Labour are saying nothing of substance around immigration" are you not getting?

Yes, it might have upset some of their activists to pander to the non-activists which they need to vote for them, but it's nothing meaningful.

Are you having a problem with non-English speakers when you use an NHS service? Is anyone at all having that problem? It's a non-issue!!!

(the only issue that really exists is that some whities don't like non-whities, but there's a perception of a bigger problem that isn;'t actually there, just as there is around immigration in general).

Either show me speech after speech where Salmond laid out the much greater immigration for Scotland that was stated within the white paper to happen, or admit to yourself that politics is about playing to the audience with what is most receptive to that audience.

You can't show me any Labour plans against immigrants, you're only able to show me some minor and empty rhetoric. Would you like a few spadeful's of Salmond's empty rhetoric in return?

[Comfy Bean]

Anywayz, to move us away from Neil defending Labour`s depressing immigration banter, I came across the attached open letter to Salmond while reading about the current situation in Greece. Apologies if it has been posted already.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/03/10/open-letter-to-mr-alex-salmond/

[eFestivals]

Anywayz, to move us away from Neil defending Labour`s depressing immigration banter,

I tell you what, why don't you show me Labour's stated anti-immigrant policies? Then you can prove me wrong and you'll be a happy bunny.

</and then came only silence>

So today, we've had a nat say that Labour have anti-immigrant policies when they don't, and a nat saying the SNP didn't plan to give money to the rich when they did.

How many times do I have to say "read the feckin' policies instead of making it up in head" before you read the policies rather than make it up in your head?

[Comfy Bean]

What part of "Labour are saying nothing of substance around immigration" are you not getting?

I think you`ve made your point. Fair enough. Lets agree to disagree. You dismissed the 4 links and I am now in the flogging a dead horse zone

What Labour are saying is in an official leaflet as well you know. It`s not in anyones head mate. I don`t agree with either the words contained within the leaflet or the tone.

A Labour election campaign leaflet promising a "tough new approach" to immigration has been attacked by a Labour MP as a "race to the bottom" to compete with Ukip.

David Lammy, the member for Tottenham and a London mayoral hopeful, tweeted: “Surprised this is a Labour flyer. We're a pro-immigration party: let's not race to the bottom trying to out-kip UKIP.”

The leaflet promised "Labour will stop people claiming benefit until they have lived here for at least two years" and "Labour will make sure all frontline public sector staff can speak English".

[eFestivals]

I came across the attached open letter to Salmond while reading about the current situation in Greece. Apologies if it has been posted already.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/03/10/open-letter-to-mr-alex-salmond/

He's pretty much nailed the problems iScotland would have in a sterling-zone. Lots of people told Salmond a Scottish currency was the best answer for iScotland - in fact, it's the *only* answer, as who has the right to use Sterling in a CU is the sovereign decision of the UK govt, and who has the right to use the Euro is the sovereign decision of the EU (and iScotland falls hugely-short of meeting the treatied criteria).

Yanis has fucked up with his assumption of bank continuation tho. Those note-issuing banks would still have headed south, because a currency gets its worth from the people's belief in its worth - and the people of Scotland very clearly do not have that faith in themselves. If they did, Salmond would have been advocating a iScottish currency, and the indyref would have been won.

I also disagree with his idea that Sterling is *forever* the puppy of the City of London. It used to be much less that than it is today, and it can be again - tho that of course does require govts with different priorities, which we don't get via a continuation of neoliberalism (and the continuation of neoliberalism was 100% the Salmond plan too, don't forget).

[LJS]

Did Salmond promise a tax give away to the rich? Yes he did.

Does GERS (compiled by Alex) say Scotland is in an economically worse position than whole-UK? Yes it does.

When you won't even accept the word of the guy who you voted in support of, what truths and facts will you accept? FFS.

Bollocks

[eFestivals]

Bollocks

so what is a cut in corp tax if it's not a tax cut for the rich, LJS? Do you know many poor holders of capital wealth?

And I see you still haven't grasped the significance of those GERS numbers, and not even the fact that the few recent better-than-the-normal-poor years were due to the tax hike on the oil industry that the SNP condemn.

Still, perhaps you'll change your mind later this month when the new GERS are released for 2013-14?

[LJS]

so what is a cut in corp tax if it's not a tax cut for the rich, LJS? Do you know many poor holders of capital wealth?

And I see you still haven't grasped the significance of those GERS numbers, and not even the fact that the few recent better-than-the-normal-poor years were due to the tax hike on the oil industry that the SNP condemn.

Still, perhaps you'll change your mind later this month when the new GERS are released for 2013-14?

You know it is simplistic to describe a cut in corpy tax in those terms. I have absolutely no desire to repeat our long discussion on the subject. My objection is that you continue ad nauseam to slip your opinions in as if they are undisputed facts.

Equally, your claims for Scotland'a financial viability vary depending on what years you pick. You acknowledged this yourself last summer on the day you posted page after page from the Slovenian Highland Information Team. One poster gleefully announced he would be using these stats to persuade his Yes friends of the folly of their ways. You cautioned him to be careful what years he chose...

But again presented as undisputed fact.

[Comfy Bean]

Latest worrying news....

Labour MP says " don't rule out a grand coalition with the Tories ". Following on from our blether about Labour and immigration earlier and our previous chats about Labour backing the Tory austerity plans would anyone really be surprised ? I thought the message was vote SNP get Tory ?

[kaosmark2]

I think the response to Labour and Tories forming a coalition would be the Guy Fawkes reaction.

[gary1979666]

It's a nice idea in principle - all working together for the greater good of the UK, but you can imagine the reality. It'd make the last 6 months of the coalition look like a the most effective government ever!

[eFestivals]

You know it is simplistic to describe a cut in corpy tax in those terms.

what is simple is to deny it as a tax cut for the rich.

If it was something other than a tax cut for the rich, there would have been other tax policies also announced to give it some balance. There were no other tax changes/adjustments announced.

I have absolutely no desire to repeat our long discussion on the subject. My objection is that you continue ad nauseam to slip your opinions in as if they are undisputed facts.

PMSL.

And what about your constant denial of clear facts? Perhaps that's why I keep saying the facts that you deny?

Equally, your claims for Scotland'a financial viability vary depending on what years you pick. You acknowledged this yourself last summer on the day you posted page after page from the Slovenian Highland Information Team. One poster gleefully announced he would be using these stats to persuade his Yes friends of the folly of their ways. You cautioned him to be careful what years he chose...

yes, it varied on which year you pick, as does any economy, even your household economy.

But within the variations there is also a steady theme, and the steady theme in Scotland is that it spends more than it earns, and by more than whole-UK does. The GERS numbers compiled vai a method approved by Alex makes that abundantly clear.

But again presented as undisputed fact.

Because they're facts.

Meanwhile, any discussion about Barnet is sacrosanct, as demanded by the same people who demand "full fiscal autonomy" with a straight face.

[russycarps]

Anywayz, to move us away from Neil defending Labour`s depressing immigration banter, I came across the attached open letter to Salmond while reading about the current situation in Greece. Apologies if it has been posted already.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/03/10/open-letter-to-mr-alex-salmond/

So varoufakis is smarter than salmond, who would have guessed!

Though to be fair, if salmond had run the campaign based on scrapping the pound (and not taking the euro) yes would have lost by 70%+. The (correct) scare stories would have seen to that.

[eFestivals]

Latest worrying news....

Labour MP says " don't rule out a grand coalition with the Tories ". Following on from our blether about Labour and immigration earlier and our previous chats about Labour backing the Tory austerity plans would anyone really be surprised ? I thought the message was vote SNP get Tory ?

that would be like the SNP's four year grand coalition with the tories then, for which the SNP are given a free pass by their supporters.

Oh, that was acceptable, wasn't it, because the Scottish govt needed to get things done. Down there in nasty England/Eton/Westminster tho, they don't need to get things done.

[LJS]

that would be like the SNP's four year grand coalition with the tories then, for which the SNP are given a free pass by their supporters.

Oh, that was acceptable, wasn't it, because the Scottish govt needed to get things done. Down there in nasty England/Eton/Westminster tho, they don't need to get things done.

One of the great myths. Have you all the things the Tories voted against in these 4 years?

[LJS]

Corporation tax cut pledge dropped by Scottish government

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31700448

Do you think Neil will cease banging on about this now?

Now the only party that has to defend its corporation tax cuts is Labour.

Edited March 3, 2015 by LJS