The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

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.

Mark you make your point well and I hear what you are saying in the rest of your post. On the question "Should Scotland be an independent Country " I know we agree to disagree

Just wanted to comment on your first paragraph ( above ). We hear alot on here - and I don`t mean from you - on this anti-english stuff. I know that Neil often speaks of hate and we`ve had the right wing press speaking about rivers running with blood but I strongly disagree. I`m not saying there isn`t " hate " on both sides but surely you would agree that the vast majority of YES voters don`t " hate " England...or Spain, Greece, Finland....for that matter. We have people talking about hate on here I know and have had things about greed, selfish, hanging people from lamposts but this kind of talk hasn`t come from YES supporters has it ?

Where are you getting this " anti - English " idea ? We can argue all day over GERS numbers etc but I don`t know why you think it`s about being anti - english. I`ve been following this on here for a while and fair enough if you can post anything against what I`m saying but it`s not the impression I`ve ever got from LJS`s posts and I`m sure Vibe said he was English !!!

I know we are all humans at the end of the day but politically we obviously are " different ". Viberunner posted the % of folk down your way who voted Tory / Ukip. Life would be boring if we were all the same. Scotland ( and England ) are different from loads of countries on the planet. I don`t see independence as being about hating any of them

[kaosmark2]

Mark you make your point well and I hear what you are saying in the rest of your post. On the question "Should Scotland be an independent Country " I know we agree to disagree

Just wanted to comment on your first paragraph ( above ). We hear alot on here - and I don`t mean from you - on this anti-english stuff. I know that Neil often speaks of hate and we`ve had the right wing press speaking about rivers running with blood but I strongly disagree. I`m not saying there isn`t " hate " on both sides but surely you would agree that the vast majority of YES voters don`t " hate " England...or Spain, Greece, Finland....for that matter. We have people talking about hate on here I know and have had things about greed, selfish, hanging people from lamposts but this kind of talk hasn`t come from YES supporters has it ?

Where are you getting this " anti - English " idea ? We can argue all day over GERS numbers etc but I don`t know why you think it`s about being anti - english. I`ve been following this on here for a while and fair enough if you can post anything against what I`m saying but it`s not the impression I`ve ever got from LJS`s posts and I`m sure Vibe said he was English !!!

I know we are all humans at the end of the day but politically we obviously are " different ". Viberunner posted the % of folk down your way who voted Tory / Ukip. Life would be boring if we were all the same. Scotland ( and England ) are different from loads of countries on the planet. I don`t see independence as being about hating any of them

When visiting family I've received abuse in Scotland based on my English accent. I'm not saying they're the majority, in the same way as most English people aren't racist. My guess is that there's as much anti-English hate in Scotland as there is genuine hate for foreigners in England.

Viberunner's spouted a lot of bollocks including English-hating stuff on this forum - if not this thread.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily about hate. I think it's about buying into media myths and fear. The SNP have played a masterstroke at blaming Westminster/English for problems in Scotland. The right-wing press in England has been great at creating distrust of foreigners/immigrants/muslims/EU/east-Europeans. Just as I don't think every UKIP voter is racist but has been misled to believe a group of foreign "others" is to blame for what's wrong, I don't think every SNP voter hates the English. I do however, think the fear and manipulation of that fear is comparable.

I don't see independence as being a product of hate, I see it about being a product of emphasising differences and creating us vs them mentalities. Alienating each other.

[Comfy Bean]

When visiting family I've received abuse in Scotland based on my English accent.

They sound like a right shower. No wonder you moved away mate

Being serious,that`s terrible that you would get abuse based on your accent but my point was that for the vast majority I believe that Indy was about fairness and progressive politics and absolutely zilch to do with being anti-english. Anti - Westminster / establishment maybe but that`s of course totally different. I`ve said many times that an end to our Union, where one part is massively bigger than the rest, could in time see reform that would be a good thing for us all. Think what the Tories could do if it wasn`t for us subsidy junkies

On reflection, I think there is alot more " hate " in Scotland around religion these days than in any " hatred " of the good folks who live in England but then I live in the West and it`s still a real problem here

[kaosmark2]

They sound like a right shower. No wonder you moved away mate

Being serious,that`s terrible that you would get abuse based on your accent but my point was that for the vast majority I believe that Indy was about fairness and progressive politics and absolutely zilch to do with being anti-english. Anti - Westminster / establishment maybe but that`s of course totally different. I`ve said many times that an end to our Union, where one part is massively bigger than the rest, could in time see reform that would be a good thing for us all. Think what the Tories could do if it wasn`t for us subsidy junkies

On reflection, I think there is alot more " hate " in Scotland around religion these days than in any " hatred " of the good folks who live in England but then I live in the West and it`s still a real problem here

The SNP as a party - dating back - has been about independence from the English, nothing to do with Westminster, or progressive politics. It's only in the last few years it's been associated with progressive politics, and I believe that is the SNP seeking to woo support, rather than pure belief.

[Comfy Bean]

What we can agree on is that they are way more popular than ever and ns stood on an anti austerity anti tory platform. A platform labour used to occupy but some in labour think they should move, right, away from.

Just spotted panorama tonight on BBC is about sturgeon. The name of the programme made me smile ☺

[LJS]

The SNP as a party - dating back - has been about independence from the English, nothing to do with Westminster, or progressive politics. It's only in the last few years it's been associated with progressive politics, and I believe that is the SNP seeking to woo support, rather than pure belief.

And I remember when the Labour party used to be associated with progressive politics, now in an attempt to woo support...

[kaosmark2]

And I remember when the Labour party used to be associated with progressive politics, now in an attempt to woo support...

I still think Ed was genuine re. the progressive politics. I don't think I've defended New Labour much.

[eFestivals]

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.

I don't disaree that for him "the dream will never die", but that doesn't get to mean he wanted to win last Sept.

When the campaign was starting there wasn't a hope of winning. It's hugely unlikely that that didn't effect the line Salmond chose to take over it all.

After all, if you're not going to win you can say or do anything, knowing that none of it will come back on you.

So, for example, he could promise the pound - knowing that rUK would never go for it (the attitudes towards a shared currency with the Euro makes that clear) but that he'd never be found out for it.

Likewise, with the EU. Firstly Salmond lied about having had advice, then he used taxpayers money to try and hide his lie. Then he 'forgot' to mention the various official letters from the EU. And then finally, he promised EU membership on terms that was against many of the EU's documented principles and rules.

It would have been a HUGE deal if Scotland had voted yes against those promises, because Salmond would have been shown up as the charlatan he is. But none of it matters because he lost, and you're able to throw off those criticisms because he lost too, and so to the small mind they remain unproven at worst and promises that would be fulfilled to bthe ever-faithful.

And yet ... if you get another indyref, I guarantee it won't have those two same promises in the same form.

Which puts the next vote up the shit, because people will be less willing with big uncertainties about currency and EU status. Only a real plan will ever win you indy. Snippers might be overly trusting, but utterly stupid they're not.

[eFestivals]

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

As ever, the snipper's response is "if you're not as stupid as us you must be evil".

I'm merely pointing out that there's unwanted consequences from any policy, and increasing the minimum wage in Scotland will have unwanted effects.

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.

PMSL ... how fucking stupid are you?

How it turned out was that you lost. What did you miss?

And Tesco never promised to leave Scotland, but don't let that stop you making it up.

It was pointed out (and I think Tesco disagreed, didn't they?) that the higher food distribution costs in Scotland are naturally subsidised via the sharing of those costs across the UK.

Whatever Tesco might have said at the time (to protect the spend in their shops that week and onwards), given that Tesco would have a Scottish operating company (you want Tesco's corp tax, don't you?), it's hugely likely that Tesco's in Scotland would be 100% self-supporting and so those extra costs would be borne by Scotland and not whole-UK.

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.

1. the savings are not as big as the extra cost to a company.

2. the savings are not a company's.

3. a company has extra costs that have to be carried by that company and so that company's customers - you!

4. many companies could avoid those extra costs and so the lost business by relocating to rUK to the expense of the Scottish economy.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that raising the minimum wage doesn't have all of the good things come with it that Nicola claims for it.

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 "

if that policy doesn't increase the already-too-large Scottish deficit (which is cannot do, as the SG only has the block grant), the money has to be robbed from another Scottish govt programme.

Who's getting robbed? Is it the very poorest again, as that's what the SNP normally like to do (see other SNP policies to benefit the less poor at the expense of the very poorest).

Also, there's no added "customer cost" as a result when it's only happening in govt positions where there's no product or service being 'sold' (only 'delivered') - so it's effect onto other things is near-zero. That's not the case if businesses are forced to pay higher wages.

As ever, you're claiming things for Nicola which just aren't true until she does them.

Get back to me if she ever does, and I can explain to you the simple facts of economics which show that Nicola is fucking up her bigger aim via the pursuit of a higher minimum wage in Scotland compared to rUK .... which is precisely why she will not introduce a higher minimum wage in Scotland compared to rUK if she's given the powers to do so. She will say (as Salmond has trained her to) that she doesn't have enough powers to make a higher minimum wage work.

[eFestivals]

Where are you getting this " anti - English " idea ? We can argue all day over GERS numbers etc but I don`t know why you think it`s about being anti - english.

Just as one - very common - example.

GERS are "the Scottish accounts".

They're produced by the Scottish Govt (and not the Scottish Office).

They're produced to a methodology and formulae that is defined and approved by the Scottish Govt - or more correctly, the SNP.

The 'historical GERS' - going back 35+ years - have been adjusted to the SNP-approved method since 2011.

That gets to mean they exclude everything that the SNP decides is not a Scottish expense - such as the Olympics, HS2, Crossrail, etc - are excluded from GERS, with the effect of making Scotland look economically better than it otherwise would do if those things were included*.

(* that's not for an argument over whether those things should be included or not, it's merely to say they show Scotland in the best possible light via that SNP method)

Meanwhile, the snippers script says....

GERS is a Westminster conspiracy, done by the Scottish Office, to make Scotland look economically bad, that it's an anti-indie lie. (© WoS)

No word of "the English" is included, but does it need to be?

If you can't understand what that (lying!) snippers subtext is really about, the problem is all yours.

[eFestivals]

They sound like a right shower. No wonder you moved away mate

Brush it off with a big grin all you like, but it's far more common than you wish to believe.

My own brief visits to Scotland had me abused for being English (and a punch thrown for the same reason!). I can't remember all the details now (it's over a decade ago), but it was certainly something I experienced in more than half of my visits.

Now, I'm not thinking that's how all Scots do it, but it's enough for that abuse to be one of my major memories of Scotland as it happened on multiple occasions, and it's worth pointing out that other Scots who heard the abuse didn't blink at hearing it.

Meanwhile, your fellow snippers call your countrymen "quislings" for daring to hold a different opinion to them.

If you can't see the hate within indie, you need to take a step back and do some observations of your own.

Edited June 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Sad news about Charlie.

One of the few honest politicians, and you booted him out.

[DomDom1984]

eFestivals, on 02 Jun 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

Sad news about Charlie.

Indeed. One who stuck fairly steadfastly to his beliefs. His last TV performance on QT was pretty sad to see, and he had all sorts to deal with during that campaign.

Came across as a good guy, and by all accounts very much was one.

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure if you saw*, but some (moron-like, but that's another thing) Labour hopeful for London major has just gone all Scottish-indie, taking up the SNP's line ... but you're not going to like it.

(* it was an article in the Guardian a few days ago

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/30/london-should-be-treated-as-city-state-says-labour-mayoral-hopeful)

So the SNP's logic goes, any region should keep the money from that region. So that's what this geezer is proposing.

Guess who loses out by the SNP's own ideas?

What a great world, where fucking over others for your own advantage is claimed as "progressive". FFS!! Morons.

Edited June 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

Sad news about Charlie. One of the few honest politicians, and you booted him out.

He certainly gave HIGNFY some comedy moments with his drunk-at-work antics, but we've replaced him with someone of equal integrity and better ability so the constituents are fine. Certainly a lot better off than those of Clegg's Sheffield.

But he didn't even see his party's actions would see them kicked out of office:

Despite recent setbacks, the Lib Dems are a much more resilient bunch than we are usually given credit for. We wouldn’t have survived otherwise. this calendar year is going to be a tough one, but the real fortunes of the party will hinge on the economic prognosis in the third and fourth years of this parliament.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/charles-kennedy-ive-learned-to-love-the-coalition-23862.html

Well, the economy turned around a bit, at least by some measures, so how did that work out for Lib Dem party fortunes?

Basically he was in the wrong party. He was left-of-centre and his party spent 5 years in office being hard right wing.

Edited June 2, 2015 by viberunner

[LondonTom]

I'm not sure if you saw*, but some (moron-like, but that's another thing) Labour hopeful for London major has just gone all Scottish-indie, taking up the SNP's line ... but you're not going to like it.

(* it was an article in the Guardian a few days ago

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/30/london-should-be-treated-as-city-state-says-labour-mayoral-hopeful)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/30/london-should-be-treated-as-city-state-says-labour-mayoral-hopeful

Fixed the link if anyone wants to read, there has been couple of mentions of this sort of thing by Boris to.

What an utter bellend! But I guess it was an inevitable opinion for some with Scotland and ideas floating around to give other regions more powers. Sad really, all any extra powers will do for London, is to drive the poor further out .

Reading the comments, he does seem to have a poor point though. Not many seem to realise London isn't made up of solely of Bankers on mega money.

Edited June 2, 2015 by LondonTom

[viberunner]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/30/london-should-be-treated-as-city-state-says-labour-mayoral-hopeful

What an utter bellend! But I guess it was an inevitable opinion for some with Scotland and ideas floating around to give other regions more powers. Sad really, all any extra powers will do for London, is to drive the poor further out Reading the comments, he does seem to have a poor point though. Not many seem to realise London isn't made up of solely of Bankers on mega money.

HIs points - taken at face value - aren't really as represented by the headlines/commentary:

I believe we should look at London having greater control over income tax. We need the powers over our wealth to deal with the tragedy of our poverty. That includes more power over our NHS, our schools and skills and employment training. London is the most expensive place to live in the UK and the worst place to move around in. The quality of life of Londoners suffers because of that. The lived experiences of working Londoners I believe is worse than that of any other city dwellers in the country. As mayor, I want the powers to change that.

If (and admittedly it is a big if) that means raising extra income tax to deal with poverty, then what's wrong with that? If the Mayor's office gets powers over London transport, again is that a problem? What does Whitehall know more about London's NHS than a dedicated London body?

Greater London has over 8 million people. By comparison Scotland has something over 5 million people.

I don't think London - being so uniquely affluent - should get additional state support a-la a Barnett style solution for it (as the candidate suggested) but a London assembly being able to raise substantially more money from the wealthiest of Londoners to spend on the common weal seems like an eminently sensible suggestion.

I lived and worked in London for a while... an experience so dizzyingly depressing I up-stakes and moved to Edinburgh on "never-been-that-far-north-before" gamble. All that wealth side-by-side with such endemic poverty, and nobody seeming to do the least thing about it it. And with so many people to manage (let alone via Westminster) there seemed no end in sight and from what I can gather things haven't improved dramatically since I left. (Other than the fact I left *boom* *boom*).

Of course standard fears and disclaimers about taking a politician at face value, etc. etc.

[eFestivals]

If (and admittedly it is a big if) that means raising extra income tax to deal with poverty, then what's wrong with that?

from the point of view of those Londoners, quite a lot.

Why should they pay more in taxes, when the taxes they pay towards aren't being spent on them?

They want a bit of the same me-me-me that Scotland wants. if it's right for Scotland to be me-me-me it can't be wrong for London to be that too.

But when London goes 'me me me' that means less-less-less for you, by your own arguments. So you've no rational reason to complain.

Suck it up. It's what you said is right.

Edited June 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

from the point of view of those Londoners, quite a lot.

Why should they pay more in taxes, when the taxes they pay towards aren't being spent on them?

They want a bit of the same me-me-me that Scotland wants. if it's right for Scotland to be me-me-me it can't be wrong for London to be that too.

But when London goes 'me me me' that means less-less-less for you, by your own arguments. So you've no rational reason to complain.

Suck it up. It's what you said is right.

Would that still work if they had to pay for all their own infrastructure projects, e.g. crossrail etc?

genuine question to which I genuinely don't know the answer.

[viberunner]

from the point of view of those Londoners, quite a lot. Why should they pay more in taxes, when the taxes they pay towards aren't being spent on them?

But when London goes 'me me me' that means less-less-less for you, by your own arguments.

The first argument is something the Scots had to "suck up" when the City of London was the principal beneficiary of Scottish mineral resources.

It might be one day Scots pay more in tax than the English. It might mean we pay less. A candidate in London is arguing for the same power in London. I don't personally have an issue with it but not being part of the constituency I can't get that worked-up about it either.

I certainly don't care enough to start a thread about it and post several hundred Very Very Angry posts, therein lies madness.

[eFestivals]

Would that still work if they had to pay for all their own infrastructure projects, e.g. crossrail etc?

genuine question to which I genuinely don't know the answer.

Yep. It's one of the two parts of the UK that's subsidising all the other parts.

[eFestivals]

The first argument is something the Scots had to "suck up" when the City of London was the principal beneficiary of Scottish mineral resources.

It might be one day Scots pay more in tax than the English. It might mean we pay less. A candidate in London is arguing for the same power in London. I don't personally have an issue with it but not being part of the constituency I can't get that worked-up about it either.

I certainly don't care enough to start a thread about it and post several hundred Very Very Angry posts, therein lies madness.

I'm glad we've got that straight, and that social justice is nothing of what you're after.

Maggie loves her children.

Edited June 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Yep. It's one of the two parts of the UK that's subsidising all the other parts.

That doesn't really address the question. Unless I am mistaken the costs of major London infrastructure projects comes out of UK wide budgets, no doubts under whatever version of pfi we currently use. In other words, we will all be paying for them for decades to come. Edited June 2, 2015 by LJS

[viberunner]

I'm glad we've got that straight, and that social justice is nothing of what you're after.

Maggie loves her children.

She'd love you more than I. You said the Scots can't have socialism because it's affordable, a Thatcherite position.

I post how I'd be okay with very wealthy Londoners paying more tax to pay for the London poor and that's a Thatcherite position?

It's not the Thatcher I remember and if it were she might not be as widely hated as we all pretended she was.

[gary1979666]

That doesn't really address the question. Unless I am mistaken the costs of major London infrastructure projects comes out of UK wide budgets, no doubts under whatever version of pfi we currently use. In other words, we will all be paying for them for decades to come.

But the way maths works is that if a region is in deficit ( eg Scotland, north east, etc) then your not actually contributing to infrastructure projects, as there isn't the money to pay for it. In fact that means the areas in surplus are the ones paying for it.