The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

seriously, that's no exaggeration. I've been reading it 50+ times every day for 9+ months (50 a day would equate to 13,500).

Perhaps if you took a *real* interest instead of mindlessly following the snippers script you'd have seen it too.

So you`ve " heard it called lie " 50 times a day, every day & for 9 months. Really, is it the same 50 folk, saying the same thing, every day & for 9 months and you keep reading it....Sadly I almost believe you

Perhaps you could not read it tomorrow and then maybe try not reading it for a couple of days a week. Are you scared these " others " will stop writing it day after day if you don`t read it ?

If it helps, I could maybe recommend a good book to read instead

13,500 times

[Comfy Bean]

This makes me laugh, every time. I've read possibly millions of comments around indy, and never once have I seen anyone claim that Scotland couldn't run their own affairs

Millions now ? Atleast you`ve had a few laughs then...........there`s always that.

[Comfy Bean]

Hmmm, this is getting incredibly petty. We're talking less that 800 votes to take them over the half way mark.

Let them claim half, it really doesn't matter. It make typing a lot easier and if this percentage is so anally debated, then do all figures quoted on here need to be to 4dp?!

It's far less of a mathematical stretch than people who give 110%, who should, quite frankly, lose a finger each time they say it.

Yeah but who gets the bigger half. That is the question.

[Comfy Bean]

.........just like their fellow nationalist Ian Paisley.

Is this a first mention for Ian Paisley ?

[Comfy Bean]

This from the Telegraph....aye, The Telegraph. Interesting graph at the bottom of the link :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11638541/Why-are-SNP-MPs-strutting-around-Westminster-like-they-own-the-place-Because-they-do.html

There’s been lots of who-the-hellery going on at Westmister over the past couple of weeks. Who the hell do these SNP MPs think they are, standing at the dispatch box, snapping their selfies? Who the hell do they think they are taking over the bars? Who the hell do they think they areclapping – clapping – during debates? Who the hell do they think they are sitting in Dennis Skinner’s seat?

Well, what about this for an answer. Perhaps, just perhaps, these Scottish oiks have got the idea into their heads they’re democratically elected Members of Parliament. And maybe the think the bars, and seats, and conventions of the House are theirs as much as anyone else’s. Or, to put it another way, perhaps they do actually own the place.

I don’t, as a rule, like nationalism. Which means I don’t, as a rule, tend to warm to nationalists. Of any description.

But that’s tough. The people of Scotland have warmed to them. Which is why they have chosen to send nationalist MPs, on mass, to represent them at the UK parliament. Their parliament.

OK, some behaviour by the SNP cohort may have bordered on the boorish. Clapping in the chamber is going to become very tedious, very quickly. But it’s also worth remembering that back in March, immediately after he’d survived the government’s attempt to oust him from the speaker’s chair, John Bercow took a much more relaxed view of this breach of parliamentary convention. And as Alex Salmond correctly pointed out, it is simply a convention. There is no rule in sanding orders which says “no applause”.

he same goes for The Battle Of Skinner’s Chair. Amid all the outrage at this assault on the privileges of the member for Bolsover, one thing has been conveniently overlooked. It isn’t actually Dennis Skinner’s chair. No one in the Commons has their own chair. That’s not just a convention, it’s a rule, and a very clear one. There are no reserved seats for backbenchers.

What’s also been overlooked is Dennis Skinner – lovable old rogue that he now is – has become a lovable old rogue precisely by earning and burnishing a reputation for defying the conventions of parliament. Indeed, he’s been suspended 10 times for defying them.

Many people may not like the way the SNP are leaving their early, irreverent mark. But I suspect those people don’t include their constituents. This is precisely why they voted SNP. So they would come down and tweak the noses of the British – or in their eyes English – establishment.

And those constituents will not have missed the hypocrisy and cant that currently attends a lot of the criticism aimed at their representatives. For years they have been told about the “childish”, “infantile”, behaviour of MPs in the commons chamber. But then as soon as their own MPs turn up they’re suddenly dragging down the tone.

For years they saw Nigel Farage being lauded for his pledge to “shake up Westminster”. Then as soon as Alex Salmond actually does it there are howls of anguish.

Some of the complaints that have been directed towards the SNP have been childish, such as reports they have driven out Labour MPs from their favoured “Sports and Social” bar. That bar is actually favoured by commons staff and parliamentary researchers, and the SNP and their own staffers have been a welcome addition. Other jibes have been more sinister. Suggestions that the SNP should be denied its place on the Intelligence and Security committee because of its stance on Trident was a shameful slur.

But in truth, none of this has anything to do with the SNP’s nationalistic stance. SNP MPs are merely experiencing the same ritualistic backlash that all newcomers to the House of Commons experience. Ask any of the first black MPs or female MPs, and they’ll tell you the same story. Of the subtle ways in which their presence was deemed to be conflicting with the “traditions and conventions of the House”.

But eventually those conventions and traditions will adapt. That’s the beauty of parliament. It does have the capacity – sometimes a little too slowly for everyone’s tastes – to evolve. And it will evolve again, and embrace the fact the SNP are now the third party of British politics.

In the meantime it wouldn’t hurt the SNP to show a little patience. They’ve made their mark, and their point. It’s a thin line between self-assertiveness and arrogance, but one they’ve managed to tread with care. Up till now.

But everyone else is going to have to just get used to it. The SNP are here, and they’re probably here to stay. The green benches are now their green benches. The conventions are now their conventions. The secrets of the state are now their secrets.

So yes, Alex Salmond and his colleagues are walking round like they own the place. Because they do.

Edited May 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[viberunner]

On the other hand though numb chips & cola cubes for lunch is hardly fitting for a young lady MP to be eating in the commons is it?

It should be sautéd larks tongues washed down with the tears of the disenfranchised.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFBups_WMAAIAqy.png

[Comfy Bean]

On the other hand though numb chips & cola cubes for lunch is hardly fitting for a young lady MP to be eating in the commons is it?

It should be sautéd larks tongues washed down with the tears of the disenfranchised.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFBups_WMAAIAqy.png

I loved cola cubes mate. Nice in vodka but maybe not with chips. You going to Kelburn again this year ? Just bought tickets for the Garden party weekender thing

[kaosmark2]

Each to their own mate. As I said, no offence was meant and I certainly have never grouped you personally with any tory or racists ideals. I know that is not your bag. Sadly I have directy been called a Tory on here loads of times but thats the internet for you

I have never referred to myself as British or European but not in a " bad " way. I`ve always " felt " Scottish but not in a flag waving sort of way. I just think Scotland would be a fairer place if we were allowed to run things for ourselves but you know that.

It`s not me highlighting the differences thats the problem. In my opinion, the differences are huge and England is just much bigger as well as " different ". As you have highlighted Tory vote share up here is only 15%.

It is my view that the end of the UK as we know it would bring the benefits of political reform to us all. The fact that Scotland would have been very unlikely to elect a Tory government in my lifetime was an added bonus of course. I accept that any other country that wishes to elect the Tories is perfectly entitled to think they are doing the right thing.

What I object to is the implication of Scottish and English being distinctly different. I was born in rural Scotland, I've spent most of my life in urban England. I genuinely believe that the main difference between Scotland and England is who those living in rural regions are racist against. In Scotland they're anti-English, in England they're anti-Europe/anti-Muslim/etc.

In the cities, I don't think there is any more of a difference between Scottish and English cities than there is between different English cities. All of them have their own identity and feel to them.

By comparison, I feel you believe in the differences, in the divisions, in treating the English as "other". I don't like that, in any situation. Emphasising a definition of yourself as being part of a group alienates those outside, even unintentionally. I'm English, and I'm Scottish, and I'm British, and I'm European, and I'm human. The last one is the most important of them, and to believe that anyone is substantially different, because they don't share a specific group with me, leads to differential treatment.

I keep emphasising divide and rule. The differences aren't innate, there isn't some alien DNA that gets inserted whenever you travel across the border. They're not even cultural, as for centuries the union has homogenised our cultures so they're incredibly similar (note not identical). The differences are a product of politics and politicians. 10 years ago this wasn't an issue, or something anyone gave any serious consideration to, which means that a frenzy has been whipped up to create this division. So fuck the divide, fuck the idea that we're irredeemably different, and fuck separatism.

The ruling class can bang on about how it's the English, Welsh, Scottish, Labour, Tories, whoever to blame, but I'm not buying it. I don't like how Scotland voted. I don't like how rural England voted. But I'm not going to start screaming for the English/British cities to form their own cluster and abandon the rural folks (note, if this happened it would very definitely result in financial benefit for urban areas), or for Bristol independence (which has more infrastructure ready to implement). No, I'm going to try and emphasise shared ideals, shared beliefs, and convince people to look for a better future, together.

[LJS]

What I object to is the implication of Scottish and English being distinctly different. I was born in rural Scotland, I've spent most of my life in urban England. I genuinely believe that the main difference between Scotland and England is who those living in rural regions are racist against. In Scotland they're anti-English, in England they're anti-Europe/anti-Muslim/etc.

In the cities, I don't think there is any more of a difference between Scottish and English cities than there is between different English cities. All of them have their own identity and feel to them.

By comparison, I feel you believe in the differences, in the divisions, in treating the English as "other". I don't like that, in any situation. Emphasising a definition of yourself as being part of a group alienates those outside, even unintentionally. I'm English, and I'm Scottish, and I'm British, and I'm European, and I'm human. The last one is the most important of them, and to believe that anyone is substantially different, because they don't share a specific group with me, leads to differential treatment.

I keep emphasising divide and rule. The differences aren't innate, there isn't some alien DNA that gets inserted whenever you travel across the border. They're not even cultural, as for centuries the union has homogenised our cultures so they're incredibly similar (note not identical). The differences are a product of politics and politicians. 10 years ago this wasn't an issue, or something anyone gave any serious consideration to, which means that a frenzy has been whipped up to create this division. So fuck the divide, fuck the idea that we're irredeemably different, and fuck separatism.

The ruling class can bang on about how it's the English, Welsh, Scottish, Labour, Tories, whoever to blame, but I'm not buying it. I don't like how Scotland voted. I don't like how rural England voted. But I'm not going to start screaming for the English/British cities to form their own cluster and abandon the rural folks (note, if this happened it would very definitely result in financial benefit for urban areas), or for Bristol independence (which has more infrastructure ready to implement). No, I'm going to try and emphasise shared ideals, shared beliefs, and convince people to look for a better future, together.

As ever, I agree with a great deal of what you say, Kaos. Indeed, I have spent the vast majority of my 57 years saying exactly what you are now saying.

the problem is that the conservative views of rural England have determined the government of the UK for most of my adult life & I see no prospect of this changing in the foreseeable future.

So, for me, support for independence has nothing to do with Scots being "different" or "better." It is simply my belief that it's the only way to achieve some semblance of fair & just government in my little corner of the UK.

It is simply good fortune that that most folk in my part of the UK share a delusion that we are a nation and hence can campaign to run our own affairs

[viberunner]

No, I'm going to try and emphasise shared ideals, shared beliefs, and convince people to look for a better future, together.

Okay, but that seems to be One Nation under Cameron & Farage.

[eFestivals]

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" You constantly call people out for inaccuracy, misrepresentation, distorting figures etc etc. , so you really have precisely 0.00% right to complain when you are called out for doing exactly the same thing. You consistently report the SNP vote as 49%. Now you could report it accurately as 49.97% (I'm going from memory here so I may be wrong by a few hundredths of a %) But you have chosen to quote it as a whole % (would that be because anyone looking at that figure would say - hey that's 50%!?) and if you do that and say that the figure is 49%, that is factually, mathematically & statistically inaccurate. It's also pathetic & childish.

Frankly, it makes precisely 0.2% of a difference to me whether the SNP got 49.9% or 50.1% of the vote. Neither figure proves a majority in favour of independence. both figures show unprecedented support for a political party in the UK in recent times.

The one statistic that needs no rounding is that you have made 100% of a dick of yourself over this.

that is correct. it is also correct to say 50% voted SNP. It is also wrong to say 49% voted SNP.

I correctly state that they got less than half the vote, while snippers incorrectly state that they got half the vote.

As you can see from the responses here, snippers including you don't like to be told the true fact.

Oh dear.

[eFestivals]

Whilst I'm sure they're glad to have you speak for them do you have some examples?

If you need references for you to be convinced that not every Scot loves the SNP then there's no point conversing with you.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for the explanation. It was something of a waste of your precious time as I well understood that context is everything.EVEL is simply a weapon in your righteous crusade against the infidel hand-clapping, seat-stealing SNP, oppose it when it is opportune to do so, support it when it gives advantage to your campaign.

I will remind you that I have been consistent. I am perfectly happy to have EVEL - I have only practical objections to it - not moral or political. I have raised these on several occasions - they remain unaddressed.

My personal preference is EVEL Max (or more accurately rUKMAX)

Oh FFS.

Scotland is influencing laws in England. Even you've said it shouldn't. I guess that makes you an SNP-hater too?

Once the practical reasons for why Scotland feels it's right to vote as things stand now have been removed (the funding issues) then EVEL is a workable practical solution.

Go on then smart guy, tell me why me being able to recognise a problem fixed is SNP-hatred?

[eFestivals]

I voted in support of a whole lot more than that. Clearly I`m not expecting increased suffering when Indy comes.

Clearly you're as daft as a brush.

Why are you calling Nicola wrong? I thought she was faultless in your eyes?

If you're right and Nicola is wrong, where are you finding the £8Bn that she accepts isn't there?

Edited June 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As ever, I agree with a great deal of what you say, Kaos. Indeed, I have spent the vast majority of my 57 years saying exactly what you are now saying.

the problem is that the conservative views of rural England have determined the government of the UK for most of my adult life & I see no prospect of this changing in the foreseeable future.

So, for me, support for independence has nothing to do with Scots being "different" or "better." It is simply my belief that it's the only way to achieve some semblance of fair & just government in my little corner of the UK.

It is simply good fortune that that most folk in my part of the UK share a delusion that we are a nation and hence can campaign to run our own affairs

All that's fine, but your view can't have you objecting to nasty tory cuts when what you want would cause worse.

When you advocate indy and rant against cuts, you're showing your views aren't joined up into a coherent whole. Your views are a fantasy.

Edited June 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

I correctly state that they got less than half the vote, while snippers incorrectly state that they got half the vote.

No.

Depending on the precision involved (whole figure or 1 decimal place vs 2 decimal places or more) then on a strictly mathematical sense we're both right.

No doubt about it 50.0 is half, but 49.97 technically isn't. But both those figures are the same depending on the rounding mechanism.

And, let's face it, rounding to two decimal places is something that you've only started to bother with for the SNP. Everyone else gets more rounding than that.

But don't fret about it... the whole world is aware of the mendacity of "Perfidious Albion".

[gary1979666]

Right - this is getting tedious.

For the purposes of the board can we not agree that :

Correct:

SNP received less than half the vote

SNP received half the vote (Neil, all intents and purposes this is correct. Any further wrangling over this is just taking away from the other points you have to make)

Incorrect:

SNP received more than half the vote

We all appreciate the exact maths of it and it is just less than half (even Comfy, LJS and Vibe agree here), but for a pragmatic view which saves a lot of typing (and arguing over other figures that aren't exact), can we agree on a half. This data is nearly a month old, so to worry about the 800 people that this distinction is talking about, is probably a moot point now anyway.

[eFestivals]

Right - this is getting tedious.

For the purposes of the board can we not agree that :

Correct:

SNP received less than half the vote

SNP received half the vote (Neil, all intents and purposes this is correct. Any further wrangling over this is just taking away from the other points you have to make)

Incorrect:

SNP received more than half the vote

We all appreciate the exact maths of it and it is just less than half (even Comfy, LJS and Vibe agree here), but for a pragmatic view which saves a lot of typing (and arguing over other figures that aren't exact), can we agree on a half. This data is nearly a month old, so to worry about the 800 people that this distinction is talking about, is probably a moot point now anyway.

I thought it was only the snippers who had problems with facts?

You cannot accurately say they received half the vote when they didn't. You might as well be claiming the won the indyref too.

[eFestivals]

But don't fret about it... the whole world is aware of the mendacity of "Perfidious Albion".

You keep out-doing yourself. Very well done.

[gary1979666]

I thought it was only the snippers who had problems with facts?

You cannot accurately say they received half the vote when they didn't. You might as well be claiming the won the indyref too.

I've acknowledged it's not half exactly. But from a materiality point of view it is. And more importantly a practical point of view, let's just say it is. We could write about half, or just shy of half, but really does it matter? I'm merely saying, lets move on.

You're getting incredibly anal, and I've coming from a similar side of the arguement to you. For such a tiny difference you are opening yourself up to an incredibly high standard of accuracy in future posts.

[viberunner]

You cannot accurately say they received half the vote when they didn't. You might as well be claiming the won the indyref too.

Yes you can because it depends on how much precision is reasonably expected.

If I ask you to cut half a pie, to use scale to half a bag of weed, etc., you would not refuse on the grounds that - at the furthest reaches of precision - it was impossible at the molecular level.

Not unless you'd just sat on on three feet of broom handle or something.

[gary1979666]

Clearly you're as daft as a brush.

Why are you calling Nicola wrong? I thought she was faultless in your eyes?

If you're right and Nicola is wrong, where are you finding the £8Bn that she accepts isn't there?

£8billion. Maybe she's accepts £7.98billion and rejects the figure of £8billion because she would rather deal in facts?

See what I did there?

[eFestivals]

£8billion. Maybe she's accepts £7.98billion and rejects the figure of £8billion because she would rather deal in facts?

See what I did there?

You made Sturgeon look more credible than she is...?

She would far rather deal in irrelevances, as proven by saying the amount is "not relevant".

[Comfy Bean]

Yes, I'm serious.

It's something I said here and discussed (with LJS, if not you) before Scotland voted against indie.

I'm not 100% convinced Salmond wanted to lose, but neither am I 100% convinced he wanted to win. I think the way support grew probably had him in a dilemma over it.

The idea behind the indyref wasn't to get indy, it was drive the wedge in further to try and gain more support for indie.

I 100% disagree with you here mate. I would agree that at the start, he didn`t think he could or would win but as momentum gathered over the years and especially the closing weeks and months I think Salmond and the SNP 100% wanted it and more than you will ever accept. As he says, the dream will never die. Instead of starting a campaign on somewhere around 20% support I expect they will be sitting around 60% before " we " go again. As we`ve all spoke about before, the momentum and direction of travel is with YES and the Indy supporting parties. As Gary rightly pointed out the other day the momentum could change direction but in my opinion that is unlikely with the current UK Govt and the EU ref coming up. These are unlikely to make Scots feel more " United " or dare I say better together.

[Comfy Bean]

just out of interest, what effect do you think higher minimum wage to England will have on the Scottish economy, where 80% of Scottish exports go to rUK?

Might some of those businesses up-sticks and head south to the land of their customers where costs are lower?

What effect will that have on Scottish GDP? Will it increase it and so make indy more (at current living standards) viable? Or will it reduce it and take indy further away?

Might such a policy work for or against Nicola's stated claim of being able to have the fastest growing mature economy in the world (so that indy can happen with current living standards) if only she was given the powers to achieve it?

And so you see, what you hail as a good thing is a bad thing towards indy, and won't be something that really happens.

Nicola will say - in proper do-nothing-nationalist tradition - "we'd love to do it, but with the powers we currently have it will be a disaster. We need more powers".

Just you wait and see.

So are you against increasing the minimum wage ? I`m not sure if that is what you are implying in your first sentence here.

You seem to be concerned for big business upping sticks. I remember this was the line you used last year in support of Tesco etc and we know how that turned out.

One of the effects could be to reduce the tax credit bill to the tax payer and move the cost on to big business ( like Tesco ) as an increase in staff salaries would result in many people being lifted out of tax credit dependency.

I don`t need to wait and see what Nicola would do ( as you suggest ). Can I suggest you google " Scottish Govt staff living wage for all "