The Dirty Independence Question

[gary1979666]

'I' pursue 'my' heart-felt objectives to the max, no compromise. 'I've' got them on the run, and 'I' want to keep them running.

Which is all so blindingly obvious. It's a no-brainer for the SNP, I've never suggested it isn't.

I've merely pointed out that for those not who are not the indy-faithful, or who are not in Scotland, it's all something very different, that's not wanted and not acceptable.

Maybe you could serupiciously (?!) try to get a government in Westminister that would further your cause? Now, none of the the parties would create a pull factor for indy, if only there was one that would push the Scots towards it more! *wistful sigh*

[LJS]

where spending millions on a referendum but not the poor is cheered?

where spending more on a dead language than the poor is cheered?

where centralisation and not devolution is cheered?

Etc, etc, etc. It's all about their primary purpose.

so you don't get what spin is, which probably explains a lot.

and that's best achieved via creating divisions with rUK, as a way of demonstrating that rUK can't offer what the SNP can.

Which is exactly what the SNP have been doing for 30 years, with a huge step-up in that mode of operation since 2011.

it'll achieve it when perfect govt from Westminster definitely won't.

As soon as you wise up to the fact that perfect Westminster govt works against the SNP's aims, you have to accept that perfect govt at Westminster is never something they'll be trying to achieve.

For a start, when the SNP say (as they have) that they have to approve Labour's plans - so the tail is wagging the dog - it's clear that perfect govt is not what they're about. Why do YOU think a party with 3.5% of the vote should have a veto over the nation's govt?

The SNP's stance is stance they know Labour cannot accept, and that the population of the UK will not accept. The SNP has that stance for that very purpose - to hammer home the divisions, and make them greater.

None of this is any concern to you, I get it. But nperhaps you should be smart enough to realise that not everyone is part of the new beyond-all-criticism SNP religion which gets a free pass comfy-style from its often brain-dead comfy-style supporters.

I don't intend to spend long on this - we clearly have different views - & neither of us entertain any realistic hope of making the other budge. But I do want to make a couple of brief points before moving on.

1: Gaelic is a dead Language. It is still spoken although not by massive numbers. It also has a rich culture of music & literature and I for one am happy to see it being supported. I haven't researched the figures but is certainly received Government funding when Labour ran Holyrood. indeed... "Brian Wilson, the former Labour MP and minister in the UK government for Scottish education and Gaelic, accused the SNP of lacking commitment to the cause"

https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6447727

,so its not a party issue.

2: I'm sure you were very proud of your ...

where spending millions on a referendum but not the poor is cheered?

where spending more on a dead language than the poor is cheered?

where centralisation and not devolution is cheered?

you do realise you could find 3 policies for any government and do the same. Unless of course you are suggesting that every single policy enacted by a Labour government will help the poor. Your words are empty & meaningless.

Edited April 2, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

As far as crimes of the century go, against the expenses rules it's no crime at all, and even with moral rules it can't really be considered a certain breech. Landlordim is not a crime.

This seems more reasonable than your last post. I agree about Lanlordism not being a crime but we disagree about the morals on some of the stuff around Murphy. As I said earlier on, I have just checked and I have raised almost all those issues before going back to before Christmas ( i just checked ). You have chose to ignore the stuff on Murphy on each occasion I posted it over many months.

At the time, I agreed with part of your point but ( and there is no need for you to take this personally ) I still do not agree that they are both on a par as " greedy w*nkers " for the reasons I gave yesterday ( the whole truth on both their backgrounds ). One of them has appealed over getting too much from the taxpayer - I won`t bother with the quotes again and the other was apologising for his expenses scam while setting out on Plan B.

I read this afternoon that the SNP guy was the fella who first made the complaint in the cash for honours row. He may also be a twat but he is nowhere near Murphy with his background. I noticed in the article about cash for honours ( attached ) a certain John McTernan was questioned under caution. I mentioned a while back that he is Murphys right hand man nowadays. He used to work for Blair and Murdoch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4828286.stm

Not a problem sir. I agreed with Neil at the time he posted it that being a landlord was not an offence ( or words to that effect ). After me agreeing with him he claimed I was too stupid to understand ( or words to that effect ) and then it went down hill from there

What Neil doesn`t seem to want to admit is that all of us don`t think Murphy (or Mcternan ) is fit to be near the Labour Party. Never mind it`s leader up here. Apologies Neil if you do think they are the men take Labour forward ? It`s all about opinions

utter bullshit.

You condemned Murphy for doing exactly the same as the SNP who you gave a free pass to.

Oh, I understand that's your view perfectly well.

I realise that this is getting very tedious but just wanted to make the point again that I do agree with you sometimes Whether you think it`s utter bull or not.

Deep down I`ve convinced myself that you agree with me and many other Labour voters on Murphy the person although you are supporting his party which is fair enough. I may be wrong but that`s my own crazy opinion

I also accept that I have dragged up the various issues I have with Murphys past across both threads often enough now so unless he loses his seat ( surely he wont ) then he is probably not relevant to this discussion.

[LJS]

Maybe you could serupiciously (?!) try to get a government in Westminister that would further your cause? Now, none of the the parties would create a pull factor for indy, if only there was one that would push the Scots towards it more! *wistful sigh*

Your point that another Tory government when Scotland elects between zero & two Tories is tactically good for those favouring Independence is absolutely undeniable.

Where Neil & I appear to disagree is the extent to which the SNP are actively trying to bring this about. I cannot see how either of us can prove we are right. Although will no doubt have a go with some of his special "facts".

[eFestivals]

I don't intend to spend long on this - we clearly have different views - & neither of us entertain any realistic hope of making the other budge. But I do want to make a couple of brief points before moving on.

1: Gaelic is a dead Language. It is still spoken although not by massive numbers. It also has a rich culture of music & literature and I for one am happy to see it being supported. I haven't researched the figures but is certainly received Government funding when Labour ran Holyrood. indeed... "Brian Wilson, the former Labour MP and minister in the UK government for Scottish education and Gaelic, accused the SNP of lacking commitment to the cause"

https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6447727

,so its not a party issue.

I'm well aware I was over-stating it with 'dead'.

I was more making the point, about how snippers bang on constantly that Westminster spends money on what is considered unnecessary rather than the poor - but that the SNP get a 100% free pass for doing so.

2: I'm sure you were very proud of your ...

you do realise you could find 3 policies for any government and do the same. Unless of course you are suggesting that every single policy enacted by a Labour government will help the poor. Your words are empty & meaningless.

I'm glad you're able to recognise that what those words of mine were back at are empty and meaningless - your constant condemnation of how Westminster shits on the poor, while you're quite happy for the SNP to shit on the poor in no different a way. A party decides its priorities and does them, and we can all find things about particular places money gets spent we can object to. It doesn't mean the objection is from a well-balanced intellectual/political position.

Westminster is (in theory) working its policies for the best of everyone within the UK and not just Scotland, which gets to mean that sometimes those policies are not the perfect policies for Scotland. It's the simple fact of the bigger nation than just Scot6land, the nation your countrymen voted to remain part of - while you keep fighting the indie battle, refusing to accept that democratic choice.

[eFestivals]

I realise that this is getting very tedious but just wanted to make the point again that I do agree with you sometimes Whether you think it`s utter bull or not.

Deep down I`ve convinced myself that you agree with me and many other Labour voters on Murphy the person although you are supporting his party which is fair enough. I may be wrong but that`s my own crazy opinion

I also accept that I have dragged up the various issues I have with Murphys past across both threads often enough now so unless he loses his seat ( surely he wont ) then he is probably not relevant to this discussion.

What part of your latest condemnation of Murphy are you having difficulties understanding, comfy?

The bit where Murphy is a c**t for renting out his London property, or the part where you bow down at the feet of the SNP when they rent out a London property?

All the rest is merely the bullshit you're spouting to try and hide how you've exposed yourself as not working anything rational or intelligent in your take on things, and that it's driven by biased-ness and spite.

Get back to me after you've spent a few hours with your brain on charge.

[LJS]

I'm well aware I was over-stating it with 'dead'.

I was more making the point, about how snippers bang on constantly that Westminster spends money on what is considered unnecessary rather than the poor - but that the SNP get a 100% free pass for doing so.

I'm glad you're able to recognise that what those words of mine were back at are empty and meaningless - your constant condemnation of how Westminster shits on the poor, while you're quite happy for the SNP to shit on the poor in no different a way. A party decides its priorities and does them, and we can all find things about particular places money gets spent we can object to. It doesn't mean the objection is from a well-balanced intellectual/political position.

Westminster is (in theory) working its policies for the best of everyone within the UK and not just Scotland, which gets to mean that sometimes those policies are not the perfect policies for Scotland. It's the simple fact of the bigger nation than just Scot6land, the nation your countrymen voted to remain part of - while you keep fighting the indie battle, refusing to accept that democratic choice.

I absolutely accept that democratic choice which is why I believe the SNP should play a constructive role at Westminster.

Of course accepting that choice does not prevent me disagreeing with the outcome.

[eFestivals]

Where Neil & I appear to disagree is the extent to which the SNP are actively trying to bring this about. I cannot see how either of us can prove we are right. Although will no doubt have a go with some of his special "facts".

Well, who is right for many claims will get proven by the facts along the way.

The easiest one is the point the SNP bring down the Labour govt. You say never, and I say "definitely before the fixed term is up".

But then, I know, you'll claim they they brought down the govt for a different reason, and not anything to do with them shoring up a position of being 'different' to Labour. And yet you laugh at the lackies called the LibDems.

It's impossible to get anywhere when you rarely access the facts in any full light - see GERS, ad infinitum - and where ypou refuse to accept that the SNP only has the one principle.

After all, left wing parties do not have leaders who espouse more-than-tory neoliberalism over decades as certain policy, and without even a whimper of complaint from their religiously-driven followers.

[eFestivals]

I absolutely accept that democratic choice which is why I believe the SNP should play a constructive role at Westminster.

Of course accepting that choice does not prevent me disagreeing with the outcome.

so, would you care to name those "constructive" things, specifically the things for Scotland?

After all, how constructive they are is shown a UK-wide light, and not only if they're good for Scotland.

-----

Meanwhile, i've yet to see any snipper explain how SNP and PC can be in partnership when PC want to steal some of "Scotland's money" which the SNP have said is an absolute red line.

Can you tell me how any part of that fact can be stood up as sensible, LJS?

[LJS]

Well, who is right for many claims will get proven by the facts along the way.

The easiest one is the point the SNP bring down the Labour govt. You say never, and I say "definitely before the fixed term is up".

But then, I know, you'll claim they they brought down the govt for a different reason, and not anything to do with them shoring up a position of being 'different' to Labour. And yet you laugh at the lackies called the LibDems.

It's impossible to get anywhere when you rarely access the facts in any full light - see GERS, ad infinitum - and where ypou refuse to accept that the SNP only has the one principle.

After all, left wing parties do not have leaders who espouse more-than-tory neoliberalism over decades as certain policy, and without even a whimper of complaint from their religiously-driven followers.

Like Tony Blair?

[eFestivals]

Like Tony Blair?

care to tell me were he was - even once - more to the right than the tories?

He never was. Salmond has been.

[LJS]

so, would you care to name those "constructive" things, specifically the things for Scotland?

After all, how constructive they are is shown a UK-wide light, and not only if they're good for Scotland.

-----

Meanwhile, i've yet to see any snipper explain how SNP and PC can be in partnership when PC want to steal some of "Scotland's money" which the SNP have said is an absolute red line.

Can you tell me how any part of that fact can be stood up as sensible, LJS?

Are parties required to be in unanimous agreement on everything to work together.

I sometimes wonder if you really support PR? You certainly appear to be terribly worried about the sorts of governments we would get under such a system.

I support PR even although FPTP is working massively in favour of the SNP at the moment & it's introduction would blow the "we don't elect Tories" line out of the water.

Edited April 2, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Are parties required to be in unanimous agreement on everything to work together.

according to the SNP within the last week, Labour are only allowed to implement policies approved by the SNP.

So in Scotland at least, it looks like they are, yes.

I sometimes wonder if you really support PR? You certainly appear to be terribly worried about the sorts of governments we would get under such a system.

That would be a PR parliament where the SNP could not get more than 25 seats.

What are you missing about my complaint about the possibility of the SNP wielding unwarranted influence, while you present it as exactly the same as the LibDems and tories teaming up?

The tories and LibDems had 55%+ (I forget what it is exactly) of the vote, and where that vote came from all corners of the UK (excepting the weirdos in NI who play their own parochial games).

I support PR even although FPTP is working massively in favour of the SNP at the moment & it's introduction would blow the "we don't elect Tories" line out of the water.

I support PR as well, which might have something to do with me regularly referencing other views in the country, and how the other views give a right wing majority. Just perhaps.

If you support PR, you should never be using that "we don't elect tories" line in the first place.

-----

Meanwhile, I see you decided to ignore the questions I posed, where I asked you to make your claims stand up. Is that because you can't make your claims stand up?

Edited April 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

according to the SNP within the last week, Labour are only allowed to implement policies approved by the SNP.

So in Scotland at least, it looks like they are, yes.

That would be a PR parliament where the SNP could not get more than 25 seats.

What are you missing about my complaint about the possibility of the SNP wielding unwarranted influence, while you present it as exactly the same as the LibDems and tories teaming up?

The tories and LibDems had 55%+ (I forget what it is exactly) of the vote, and where that vote came from all corners of the UK (excepting the weirdos in NI who play their own parochial games).

I support PR as well, which might have something to do with me regularly referencing other views in the country, and how the other views give a right wing majority. Just perhaps.

If you support PR, you should never be using that "we don't elect tories" line in the first place.

-----

Meanwhile, I see you decided to ignore the questions I posed, where I asked you to make your claims stand up. Is that because you can't make your claims stand up?

No it's coz I'm about to start work. Meanwhile, in a shock move, Neil is reduced to banging on about Salmond again.

You need help.

[LJS]

& yes PR would reduce the number of Snp mp's this year but would have increased them in every other recent election.

It would mean about 100 Ukip mp's which, I guess is just the price we'd have to pay.

My point, I support PR because it is right, not because it will necessarily produce a better outcome every time.

[eFestivals]

Meanwhile, in a shock move, Neil is reduced to banging on about Salmond again.

yeah, the man the party revolves around and who was leader just 6 months ago says nothing of what that party is about.

You need help.

Says the man who wants to help Scotland's poor by making them poorer.

[eFestivals]

& yes PR would reduce the number of Snp mp's this year but would have increased them in every other recent election.

It would mean about 100 Ukip mp's which, I guess is just the price we'd have to pay.

My point, I support PR because it is right, not because it will necessarily produce a better outcome every time.

I'm with you on that last bit.

Which is why it would be utterly wrong for SNP to over-play their hand. They'll have around 3.5% of the vote, and should weild influence of around that level only.

Let's see if the SNP live up to our principles, or do something more dirty and duplicitous. I know which way it's gonna go, and i'm sad for you that you don't.

[LJS]

so, would you care to name those "constructive" things, specifically the things for Scotland?

After all, how constructive they are is shown a UK-wide light, and not only if they're good for Scotland.

-----

Meanwhile, i've yet to see any snipper explain how SNP and PC can be in partnership when PC want to steal some of "Scotland's money" which the SNP have said is an absolute red line.

Can you tell me how any part of that fact can be stood up as sensible, LJS?

The "constructive things" for the UK are ensuring Labour delivers on its pledges and perhaps persuading them to drop their idiotic plan to stick to Tory cuts in their first year.

Whist scrapping trident will probably be unachievable, their presence will at least make it more likely that we will have a proper debate about it.

Hopefully, some move towards PR. Depending how badly Labour do in Scotland, PR may seem more attractive to Labour.

As for Scotland, they will ensure that the "vow" actually happens and would hope to win some further powers for Holyrood.

As for your stuff about PC wanting Scotland's money, their recent pronouncements seem to be more about getting the same deal as Scotland, not taking anything from Scotland. As their two leaders are apparently good friends, there is no issue with them cooperating.

[eFestivals]

The "constructive things" for the UK are ensuring Labour delivers on its pledges and perhaps persuading them to drop their idiotic plan to stick to Tory cuts in their first year.

freebies for Scotland, and at a bigger rate than England gets, with no reason given for why our kids must pay our bills, and with the right to revoke the debt they've demanded is created. Can you see how that might be a problem for some...?

Not only that, pissing £100Bn up the wall on Trident is a bad thing, but pissing twice as much up the wall six times as quickly is a brilliant thing...?

As for your stuff about PC wanting Scotland's money, their recent pronouncements seem to be more about getting the same deal as Scotland, not taking anything from Scotland.

the Barnet formula means some of what goes to Wales would come from Scotland's current 'block grant'.

I loved how Nicola missed out last night the bit where Scotland has a bigger deficit, btw. It's almost like she was deliberately misleading p;eople, but she wouldn't have done that. She's perfect and principled is Nicola.

[LJS]

freebies for Scotland, and at a bigger rate than England gets, with no reason given for why our kids must pay our bills, and with the right to revoke the debt they've demanded is created. Can you see how that might be a problem for some...?

Absolutely, but since you've made it all up, it's not really relevant is it?

Not only that, pissing £100Bn up the wall on Trident is a bad thing, but pissing twice as much up the wall six times as quickly is a brilliant thing...?

No, it's a terrible thing, thank god no one is proposing it.

the Barnet formula means some of what goes to Wales would come from Scotland's current 'block grant'.

Yeah,it would be completely impossible to give Wales more money without taking it away from Scotland!!!

I loved how Nicola missed out last night the bit where Scotland has a bigger deficit, btw. It's almost like she was deliberately misleading p;eople, but she wouldn't have done that. She's perfect and principled is Nicola.

The size of Scotland's deficit is a relevant issue in any discussion around independence. It was not relevant in last night's debate.

[LJS]

Have we all seen Nick Griffen's lovely contribution?

Apparently it's not worked out quite as he intended...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nick-griffins-racist-black-men-in-kilts-antisnp-advert-has-the-opposite-of-the-desired-effect-on-scottish-followers-10154140.html

[gary1979666]

I dont think any of Labour/SNP will be keen on pushing PR while Tory+Ukip polling is getting close to 50%!

[eFestivals]

I didn't watch last night, tho I heard St Nicola got booed, and the debate was won by a fake moustache.

[LJS]

It was a bit of a mess. All sides are of course claiming victory.

Nicola did get a few boos when she failed to rule out another referendum. But she also got the loudest cheers of the night.

This was Murphy's chance to give her a tough time on the SNP's Holyrood record. Don't think he succeeded.

[eFestivals]

This was Murphy's chance to give her a tough time on the SNP's Holyrood record. Don't think he succeeded.

given that a huge chunk of Scotland is making everything up for themselves - much as comfy got to show last week - that's hardly a surprise really.

From the comments I've read, Murphy has got more than a few people realising they've been going along with the national myths too much, but also that that plenty of Scots liked what the tory had to say.

So while I doubt it's changed how people will vote very much, it's probably true to say that the loser last night was Sturgeon - tho perhaps more because her vote potential had already maxed out than for any other reason.

Edited April 8, 2015 by eFestivals