The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

 

It's only about anti-austerity if you have the money. Where's the money?

 

 

At the risk of being pedantic - of course you can be anti - austerity without the money - what you mean is your anti austerity won't work. But then the SNP's recent anti - austerity was for the UK & as loads of economists have argues - austerity is self defeating - which is why the tories effectively abandoned it in the second half of the last parliament after nearly wrecking the economy. Austerity economics conveniently ignores the catastrophic effects of that austerity on the economy. At the very least, it is no way extreme or barmy to suggest there is another way.

 

 

 

 

It's only anti tory if you new state is banning political parties.

 

 

 

What? Have you totally taken leave of your senses. You can only be anti something by banning it!

 

Most of the time I am anti-you but I am perfectly happy to let you continue existing ... indeed I would campaign for your existence to be protected

 

 

 

It's only progressive when something progressive happens. Robbing the poor to benefit the better off is not progressive.

 

 

More double standards from Neil (shockeroony) you argued repeatedly that Ed's Labour were not to be judged on the record of Tony & Gord's Labour. 

[Comfy Bean]

NS spoke often about locking the tories out on her way to 56 seats. Did you support her, even on this one point?

[LJS]

you can search in this thread for the use of 'quisling'.

 

 

So can you - you made the claim- you do the search!

 

 

More difficult to find perhaps will be someone (perhaps even you, I forget who) attempting to deny Gordon Brown as Scottish.

Now, you can cook up whatever you want as why you see those words being used, but I see it for what it is.

 

The same sort of thing is much more prevalent in places of greater indy supporters, btw. I'm sure you're well aware of it.

 

 

 

more unsourced bollocks!!!

 

"more difficult to find" ...hmmm! I wonder why. Go on have a go. It's probably next to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. 

 

 

 

 

Even in your post just now, you said how indie is anti-tory - like there's none in Scotland (or will they be expelled?  ) but who must exist somewhere (I wonder where?), and they're the "hated other" that every nationalist movement needs to be able to sustain itself.

 

 

Neil, I think you would describe yourself as anti-Tory. Does that mean you want them deported, or imprisoned. No that is totally ridiculous...

 

Go figure

[eFestivals]

I have never ever said that Gordon Brown isn't Scottish or implied it in any way.

Utter garbage. Unspoken subtext lol

 

someone - a snipper - posted that in this thread.

 

If it's not you who said it it's your indy cohorts, and you certainly didn't condemn them for it.

[eFestivals]

Can you remind me who i could have voted for had I wished a referendum on Devo max?

 

that's right no one.

That's not Westminster's fault.

It's the fault of those who stand for election in your country. It's Scotland's fault. Or your fault, for not standing yourself if what you wanted wasn't on the ballot.

 

That's how representative democracy works, people represent ideas and no one in Scotland represented the idea that you claim all of Scotland wanted. Who's fault is that before Scotland's and the Scottish people.? FFS

Blame whoever you like, but the last in line for blame is Westminster.

Some might think that a place which shouts it does progressive politics and says it's ready to be independent should actually try being progressive and assert its independence instead of demanding that somewhere/someone else does everything for it.

 

So Scotland didn't get a Devo Max cos they didn't vote for that option that no one was offering.

 

No. Scotland didn't get a Devo Max vote cos Scotland didn't offer the Scottish a vote on that.

Cameron respected what you voted for.

If you're 100% accurate Scotland didn't respect Scotland.

 

For some bizarre reason you seem to be unwilling to accept that it was Dave's decision to rule this out.

PMSL.

 

Was it Chicken Dave that stopped Scotland putting up candidates who offered a Devo Max vote? Or was everything about that all to do with Scotland?

 

You want independence. Perhaps try to be independent?

 

 

I don't believe I have ever denied that the oil price was volatile - nor indeed has anyone on here.

 

utter crap - if it wasn't you who said it, other snippers here did. And you didn't tell them they were wrong. 

Your stance all the way thru the indyref was that there was nothing outlandish in the White Paper's economic claims, and everything about it was workable.

 

The equally real point is that the UK cannot self - finance at current levels and indeed hasn't self- financed for about 43 of the last 50 years.

 

There's a difference between running a small deficit that can be serviced and a massive deficit that can't.

Both Greece and the UK run deficits, but just one of those is deeply in the shit. All deficits are not equal.

Scotland can run the same small deficit as the UK typically runs and be successful - but what it can't have when doing that is public spending at anything like the current levels, with all of the impact of that onto the Scottish people.

 

Or it can run a huge deficit and punch itself in the face just as Greece has done.

 

They're your choices in the real world. Take your pick.

 

Astonishingly, you are again comapring apples with pears. Yesterday's vote which Labour didn't support was not against government resources being used in favour of yes - it was opposed to the long standing principle of "purdah" which has always applied in elections & referenda (as far as i am aware, I am sure you will correct me if I am mistaken) It's a reasonable rule which shouldn't be abandoned because doing so would favour the cause you & I support.

 

While it's a long standing principle, it's also one that means fuck all in all instances. The SG was using SG resources in the last on the of the indyref - and you (you personally) stated your support for that (when I was saying it was wrong).

 

Getting past your sudden about turn, this situation is a little different. No one in the UK is able to stop the standard processes of the EU, which is likely to mean the govt cannot avoid breaking 'purdah'.

 

And that reality has been clearly stated by the tories for why they feel such a rule isn't appropriate in this instance.

 

Whatever my own feeling about this, I'm able to recognise that reality.

 

As ever, the snippers deny reality.

 

Or more accurately, the snippers support the EU ref being lost, as that furthers the indy cause by one of the few avenues that might actually bring success.

 

It's fooling no one. It's not even fooling lots of people who voted SNP, as you'll be able to see for yourself if you look at the places where snippers say their piece.

 

 

Of course there are lots of other measures which could improve the chances of a yes vote which you do't seem to support (votes for 16 year olds, using euro election franchise, quadruple lock on result)

 

 the "quadruple lock" is what it is - anti-democratic self-serving bollocks, as demonstrated by the fact that the SNP would allow nothing similar for any Scottish indyref. That's one for the tiny minds amongst us.

 

As for the others, I've yet to see any meaningful justification for 16yo's voting (that doesn't also apply for 10yo's), and for a matter of sovereignty (which i how most people view it) it's right that it's a vote by 'citizens' and not 'residents'.

 

I realise that the existing franchise rules we have don't make it just 'citizens', but it's the closest we have to that in existing rules and making up new rules would be deliberate gerrymandering which would be the worse thing of all for giving the vote legitimacy.

 

And given how you don't accept the legitimacy of the indyref by changing the rules in your heads after the event, I'd prefer to not give UKIP that possibility if possible. I'd like them to be properly put in their place and realise they lost. A neverendum only gets to show anti-democrats at work.

Edited June 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Lies. I have never accepted Indy would make the poorest worse off - you are getting confusing you endlessly repeating it with me accepting it - these are different things

You've certainly flirted with the idea that it will do in your posts here.

But if it won't make people worse off, you'll have to show us the money. Can you show us the money, or do you only have baseless assertions?

 

Someone has denied Gordon brown is Scottish? I missed that.

my memory tells me it was you, but I accept I might be wrong with that.

(I'll attempt to find it in a moment)

 

Anyway as our Nationalism (being civic) does not depend on our Scottishness, it is a bit odd to use the Scottishness of Gordon Brown as a weapon against us - almost racist I'd say!

Oh FFS - it's Scottish racism against Scots we're talking about here.

The base idea of indy is that decisions made by people in Scotland for Scotland will be better decisions.

People have pointed out that decisions made by people in Scotland for Scotland get made already - such as when Gordon made those decisions - and the answer back from snippers is that Gordon wasn't Scottish he was 'north British'.

That's very civil of those snippers, isn't it? You know, civil, just like 'civic'. Which proves the 'civic' lie, at least for many snippers.

 

 

[eFestivals]

At the risk of being pedantic - of course you can be anti - austerity without the money - what you mean is your anti austerity won't work. But then the SNP's recent anti - austerity was for the UK & as loads of economists have argues - austerity is self defeating - which is why the tories effectively abandoned it in the second half of the last parliament after nearly wrecking the economy. Austerity economics conveniently ignores the catastrophic effects of that austerity on the economy. At the very least, it is no way extreme or barmy to suggest there is another way.

 

when they say "anti austerity is self defeating" that doesn't translate as "you can spend as much as you like and it doesn't matter".

Yes, spending within your means means you're spending less. Who knew?

But you still can't spend extra and makes the books balance. For every extra pound a govt spends it gets less than half of it back again.

 

What? Have you totally taken leave of your senses. You can only be anti something by banning it!

No, I'm pointing out that if indy is about being anti-tory, then indy is about being anti-Scottish because of the large/significant number of tories in Scotland.

But people like you say indy is definitely not about anti-Scottishness, it's about being as Scottish as you can get. Which means that those tories can't be Scottish.

Which places them where, exactly? Are tories Welsh? Or they Northern Irish? Or perhaps you associate them with just one part of the UK?

Some of us can join up the dots of your narrative and can see it for what it is. You're only fooling yourselves.

 

 

More double standards from Neil (shockeroony) you argued repeatedly that Ed's Labour were not to be judged on the record of Tony & Gord's Labour.

PMSL - I see you have no facts to make your claim of "progressive" stand up.

Mind you, when Swinney has publicly admitted that there's nothing progressive about the SNP policies, all you have is making it up.

[eFestivals]

NS spoke often about locking the tories out on her way to 56 seats. Did you support her, even on this one point?

She said lots of things, most of which are utter bollocks.

She said Scotland would be (if indy) one of the wealthiest countries in the world in 2016. Now she admits it couldn't have ever been.

Etc, etc, etc.

"locking the tories out" was what she said to mug you of your vote. Getting the tories in was always her plan and her want.

[eFestivals]

Neil, I think you would describe yourself as anti-Tory. Does that mean you want them deported, or imprisoned. No that is totally ridiculous...

 

Go figure

No, it means I accept their place in society - that they can rule it if they have the support to do so.

If indie is about being "anti tory", that's a statement that being indie brings the tories to an end in Scotland - which is only possible via indie if tories are denied a vote or the tories are not allowed to be voted for.

 

Being indy is nothing to do with tories or not, it's to do with where the lines are drawn for your nation state and fuck all else.

[LJS]

I've lost count of the number of times Neil has berated me for being in favour of loading my kids up with piles of debt.

I mean no responsible country would do that...

Would they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29844961

:)

[LondonTom]

I've lost count of the number of times Neil has berated me for being in favour of loading my kids up with piles of debt.

I mean no responsible country would do that...

Would they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29844961

:)

And do you not think its complete bollocks we are still paying for the mistakes of a hundred years ago?!

[viberunner]

No one at all in any democratic sense.

Which is the point.

 

 

You mean other than an landslide victory for a nationalist party and the explicit rejection of the status quo? (Even more so now).

 

The SNP won in Scotland, the Tories in London framed the question.

[eFestivals]

I've lost count of the number of times Neil has berated me for being in favour of loading my kids up with piles of debt.

I mean no responsible country would do that...

Would they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29844961

:)

there's loading your country up with debts it can afford to carry, and then there's Greece - which has already had about 40% of it's debts written off and still can't sevice the remaining debts.

All debts are not equal.

The UK can afford to carry its current debts.

(that's a different thing to what I might think about those debts, just so it's clear)

Scotland would seriously struggle to afford to carry its share of UK debts, so the SNP plan to have even greater borrowing is bordering on the insane.

I'm guessing you currently have a mortgage that you can afford to service. How well would you do at servicing a mortgage of twice the amount and what of your current spending would you have to give up as a consequence?

What are you confused about?

Edited June 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You mean other than an landslide victory for a nationalist party

still no devo-max option being supported by the population of Scotland, you mean?

If you want it, you have to vote in support of it.

And then you have to suffer the lesser lifestyle that your choice causes you.

When you get round to it, gloat then.

And when you get round to it, I'll say without gloating "told you so".

and the explicit rejection of the status quo? (Even more so now).

get back to me when that rejection is all about spending your own money and not other people's.

The SNP won in Scotland, the Tories in London framed the question.

What have the SNP won for Scotland?

They certainly haven't won a shrinking inequality. They've widened the gap even further than is happenig in England under the tories.

Get back to me when you're able to reference the reality of the impact of SNP policies.

[LJS]

still no devo-max option being supported by the population of Scotland, you mean?

If you want it, you have to vote in support of it.

This is an idiotic point even by your high standards. Are you suggesting governments can only enact policies contained in their manifestos?

Are you saying Cameron's reason for ruling out devo Max in the referendum was because we hadn't voted for it? He ruled it our because he judged it to be to his political advantage.

He was right (just) in the short term. Hard to tell how that decision will work out longer term.

[viberunner]

 

What have the SNP won for Scotland?

 

 

No tuition fees, no elderly care home costs, no NHS prescription fees.

 

What have the London parties won for the English?

[eFestivals]

This is an idiotic point even by your high standards. Are you suggesting governments can only enact policies contained in their manifestos?

No, I'm saying that govts are exceedingly unlikely to implement something that's of no personal interest to them if no one has voted in support of it.

If you don't vote for it, you're in a place to criticise others for not doing what you haven't voted for. Why do you think others should do for you what you won't do for yourselves?

If you're ready to be independent, perhaps be willing to act independently?

 

Are you saying Cameron's reason for ruling out devo Max in the referendum was because we hadn't voted for it? He ruled it our because he judged it to be to his political advantage.

I'm saying how does Cameron know it's what you want if you've shown no support at the ballot box for what you say you want?

Are you able to act independently, or do you always need England to be wiping your arse because you can't do it for yourselves?

 

He was right (just) in the short term. Hard to tell how that decision will work out longer term.

Whether or not it would have been wiser of Chicken Dave to include it anyway is a different argument.

You say you're ready to be independent, while complaining that horrible Westminster didn't come across all patronising to do for you what you couldn't do for yourself.

I take it the irony of that is lost on you?

 

[eFestivals]

No tuition fees, no elderly care home costs, no NHS prescription fees.

 

What have the London parties won for the English?

 

No tuition fees - paid for by Scotland's poorest to benefit Scotland's better off.

no elderly care home costs - paid for by Scotland's poorest to benefit Scotland's better off.

no NHS prescription fees - paid for by Scotland's poorest to benefit Scotland's better off.

 

Resulting in:

- a poorer Scottish poor,

- lesser access to education in Scotland

- less social mobility in Scotland

- doubled local debts in Scotland (that YOU'LL have to pay off on top of other growing UK debts).

 

Meanwhile, even the tories have outdone the SNP in effect on all those progressive things.

[eFestivals]

I just love the SNP, no one could make up this stuff...

 

Yet again, they say "if you say we're daft we'll prove that we are daft".

 

Nice one Nicola, you've proven beyond all doubt that your head is as full of shit as Salmond's.

[eFestivals]

and Nicola is so feckin' dumb she's still bigging up the view of Stiglitz, the man who said that Greece wouldn't need a bail-out at all.

Once a hero of the SNP always a hero of the SNP. Who needs to reference any facts?

[eFestivals]

It might sometimes seem that this is a discussion between a few of us, but I met a thread reader at Glasto (who, much to my surprise, didn't want to chin me ) who quite likes this thread.

So, I thought I'd pass that on as it takes all of us, and I continue to appreciate and value your input.

[kaosmark2]

2 or 3 days ago I got a wave of cybernats retweeting and rage-replying to a tweet I'd made back when the election results came in. Some of it was quite aggressive. I didn't bother replying to any of it, but it did highlight just how cultish some snippers can be.

[gary1979666]

2 or 3 days ago I got a wave of cybernats retweeting and rage-replying to a tweet I'd made back when the election results came in. Some of it was quite aggressive. I didn't bother replying to any of it, but it did highlight just how cultish some snippers can be.

 

Cultish?  Typo?

[kaosmark2]

Cultish?  Typo?

No I think l is more accurate than n in regards to motivations for ridiculous behaviour. Deluded worship rather than innate unpleasantness.

[gary1979666]

No I think l is more accurate than n in regards to motivations for ridiculous behaviour. Deluded worship rather than innate unpleasantness.

I dunno, deluded worship is one thing, but taking retaliatory action is stepping towards the n over the l.