The Dirty Independence Question

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fair point Russy. I think you are right and would totally agree that as people move up through the ages their opinions on this seem to change. The polls back up your point ( unfortunately ).

It`s a difficult one for NS. Both her and her party are seeing incredible support. It won`t last for ever but she cannot possibly call another vote for tomorrow as some on here have suggested !

I think they have been 8 years in " power " up here so you would expect support to be on the slide not the opposite. If they can continue to hang on to a good % of their huge support with the current under 34`s as they grow older and then can gain the support of the next generation then Indy will be a shoe in.

Just realised that these " next generation " of voters will only have ever known a Tory Govt 

Can I ask you a question just for fun. If you were in your 20`s ( apologies if you are ) and you lived in Scotland, would you have voted YES for Independence last year ?

If I was 20 I doubt I'd have voted at all, but if I did I i would have voted yes just to be contrary probably. 

At that age I wanted nothing at all to do with the 'establishment' and would have considered voting in something like the referendum as conforming to society or something w*nky like that.

Yes, I was a twat.

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by russycarps

[kaosmark2]

16 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yes, I was a twat.

 

Is the past tense really necessary? 

[kaosmark2]

54 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fair enough mate. Canny mind if you got a vote, moved away etc? 

Think the majority your age voted yes so the game is to hold onto as many as them as possible. 

Could you ever see yourself voting yes? 

If you don't mind me asking, who would you vote for next year if you have / had a vote? 

Polls show most folk think the snp 56 have made a decent fist of being an opposition to the tories and standing against the tax credit cuts etc. 

Expect they will again get the big numbers our parliament was designed to prevent.

 

Depends on the candidate. I've voted for Labour, Lib Dem, independent and green candidates so far. I can't imagine voting for a nationalist party though. 

[kaosmark2]

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

he didn't ask if you were Scottish - he asked if you lived in Scotland. 

 

I don't expect the answer will be different but it's always better to answer the question as it is asked. 

Well in a hypothetical I don't know what else has changed, but if I were to move to Scotland tomorrow and gain voting rights I wouldn't change my views on independence or the SNP.

Edited November 19, 2015 by kaosmark2

[russycarps]

32 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Is the past tense really necessary? 

Why I oughta...

[Comfy Bean]

37 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Depends on the candidate. I've voted for Labour, Lib Dem, independent and green candidates so far. I can't imagine voting for a nationalist party though. 

The libs are pretty dead up here. Started with their shafting the students with their vow that never was now we've got their one and only MP in a right shambles.

The greens will do well I hope.  Patrick harvie is a real asset for Scotland imo.

Feeling on the ground is that the snp run a pretty efficient set up up here. See the polls.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

If I was 20 I doubt I'd have voted at all, but if I did I i would have voted yes just to be contrary probably. 

At that age I wanted nothing at all to do with the 'establishment' and would have considered voting in something like the referendum as conforming to society or something w*nky like that.

Yes, I was a twat.

 

Unfortunately I can't speak for our 20 year olds but I think many of them voted for indy because they didn't want anything to do with the establishment either. 

I would much rather have ns running an indy Scotland than the current set up with dave, Gideon, Boris etc. Like we have just now.

[russycarps]

7 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Unfortunately I can't speak for our 20 year olds but I think many of them voted for indy because they didn't want anything to do with the establishment either. 

 

No doubt, it's the youthful stance to take.

But now I'm older I realise that's an utterly selfish view to have. The financial reality of the situation means voting for independence means the poor of Scotland would be absolutely fucked.

Now I'm older I realise reality is more important than teenage ideology. They'll grow up and realise the same thing. It was ever thus.

It doesn't matter who runs an independent scotland, no-one who has ever lived can create the kind of growth iScotland needs just to stay at its current level of public spending.

I see Goldman Sachs now predict oil prices could drop to $20. Reality cannot be ignored

You can't seriously want a country run based on young kids ideology?

Edited November 20, 2015 by russycarps

[lost]

Nobody has any really concept of money and finance when they are young because that's how the world has worked for you so far. Just substitute your parents for the state, they go to work, you get accommodation, food and probably a bit of pocket money. You then go to work and sacrifice time for money, at some point in your life unless your very lucky your probably spending some of that time being unhappy due to shit bosses or stress and realize how much time has been spent in that state just to pay bills and taxes. That time also probably seems much more valuable when you look in the mirror and see your body is starting to fall apart

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

This discussion is going nowhere if your only going to answer a question with a question 

Remember you used to pretend the figure was £15Bn 

It's going to be £15Bn very soon.

Meanwhile you've not found the first £10Bn, get back to me when you have.

I've just been reading again about how the word of Westminster politicians is a solemn vow but the word of SNP politicians and the Scottish Govt is merely opinion.

And how Westminster are liars for not delivering 'the vow', but the lies exposed in the White Paper are a meaningless nothing.

How odd that Scottish Nationalists have greater regard for Westminster than they do Scotland ... unless there's a bit of deception here, just perhaps?

Here's that 'vow', again. Please do tell me what's not being delivered.

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You must have missed it but I`ve been suggesting for quite sometime that Scotland should have a go at paying tax solely for our benefit etc.

I also supported the SNP when they said give us control of everything please thank you and we will go our own way.

so where's the missing money coming from for you to pay your own way?

Without that bit covered you're merely saying you're happy to be bankrupt and Scottish public services destroyed.

So unless you can show us the money, care to say how a poorer Scotland is a better Scotland?

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Rubbish - he has categorically said he won't.

Nope, you've made that bit up.

Meanwhile the SNP have categorically said they won't ask. Which makes their manifesto a lie.

But let's just ignore that bit shall we, and pretend it's all Westminster's fault?

 

[LJS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33146586

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33146586

Perhaps you should pay attention, and actually know what that "FFA amendment" actually said?

It's not full fiscal autonomy when you say "we'll only do it when we say so".

It's not full fiscal autonomy when you say "keep sending the money from England".

All you've done here is proven that you buy into the most simplistic bullshit, that wouldn't fool most children.

And again pretended that Scotland is not in the financial shit - which that FFA amendment proved the SNP fully accepts.

"Economic suicide" it was called by one of the glorious 56. That doesn't sound like "Scotland can fund itself", does it?

Here's the words of economist George Kerevan, who was elected as an SNP MP.....

"“Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula... We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit.

For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide.

However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross-subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish home rule.”

Now, tell me again that the SNP want FFA....?

 

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Nothing about how 'the vow' isn't being delivered, LJS?

You want to be careful going off-message like that. The Myth Factory will put you in chains.

[LJS]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, you've made that bit up.

Meanwhile the SNP have categorically said they won't ask. Which makes their manifesto a lie.

But let's just ignore that bit shall we, and pretend it's all Westminster's fault?

 

Quote

 

DAVID Cameron has emphatically ruled out a deal with the SNP to deliver the Nationalists' demand for full fiscal autonomy.

The Prime Minister said the plan, which would see the Scottish Government assume responsibility for almost all tax and spending decisions north of the Border, would end a key feature of the UK, the "fiscal union" which allows taxes to be shared and resources transferred between nations.

He launched a passionate defence of the Union after he was accused of preparing a "grubby deal" with the SNP.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13210086.Cameron_rules_out_deal_with_SNP_on_full_fiscal_autonomy/

 

 

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps you should pay attention, and actually know what that "FFA amendment" actually said?

It's not full fiscal autonomy when you say "we'll only do it when we say so".

It's not full fiscal autonomy when you say "keep sending the money from England".

All you've done here is proven that you buy into the most simplistic bullshit, that wouldn't fool most children.

And again pretended that Scotland is not in the financial shit - which that FFA amendment proved the SNP fully accepts.

"Economic suicide" it was called by one of the glorious 56. That doesn't sound like "Scotland can fund itself", does it?

Here's the words of economist George Kerevan, who was elected as an SNP MP.....

"“Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula... We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit.

For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide.

However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross-subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish home rule.”

Now, tell me again that the SNP want FFA....?

 

 

Bollocks watch

 

1: you said the snp didn't want FFA - you didn't specify a timscale

2: there were 2 amendments - one of which was for immediate FFA  - the SNP voted for both

 

Perhaps you should pay attention...

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nothing about how 'the vow' isn't being delivered, LJS?

You want to be careful going off-message like that. The Myth Factory will put you in chains.

The vow deliberately said nothing so that is clearly being delivered.

 

What is not being delivered is all the nonsense Gordon Brown spouted as the public face of better together about "home rule" & "federalism" 

 

Not one mainstream journalist offered any serious challenge to the BT bullshit. They were too busy pretending Alex Salmond wasn't answering questions

[Comfy Bean]

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's going to be £15Bn very soon.

Meanwhile you've not found the first £10Bn, get back to me when you have.

I've just been reading again about how the word of Westminster politicians is a solemn vow but the word of SNP politicians and the Scottish Govt is merely opinion.

And how Westminster are liars for not delivering 'the vow', but the lies exposed in the White Paper are a meaningless nothing.

How odd that Scottish Nationalists have greater regard for Westminster than they do Scotland ... unless there's a bit of deception here, just perhaps?

Here's that 'vow', again. Please do tell me what's not being delivered.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 28/05/2015 22:45:04, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 In reality, I think we all agreed that the vow was written in such a way ( by politicians ) that it meant very little could be argued with. In fact, I recall we all agreed that the Smith Commision had pretty much followed through on what was ( almost ) promised. Not sure it was what Brown spoke about but that is different from the " vow ".

I do think one person is trying to whip up a contrived grievance.....it`s you mate

Nice try mate but no cigar. You tried this before a while back ( may) with the vow.

Edited November 20, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Bollocks watch

1: you said the snp didn't want FFA - you didn't specify a timscale

2: there were 2 amendments - one of which was for immediate FFA  - the SNP voted for both

Perhaps you should pay attention...

 

Saying that you'd like FFA at an unspecified future point but in the meantime keep on sending Scotland money is not wanting FFA.

But don't let the technical details get in the way of your grand false claims, will you?

Get back to me when the SNP have said "we want FFA and we want it now".

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

The vow deliberately said nothing so that is clearly being delivered.

 The snippers will be sending round the firing squad as punishment for you going off message.

Next up, the Smith Commission. Care to tell us what isn't being delivered? Everything is being delivered, and the SNP agreed at Smith those things were right and proper to be delivered. ... but the SNP now say SNP-baaaad about the SNP's wants.

The SNP says SNP-baaad about the SNP not wanting the oil money.

The SNP say SNP-baaad about the SNP not wanting fiscal responsibility.

The SNP say SNP-baaad about the SNP not wanting FFA.

Why don't you go and ask them why they're calling their own demands baaad? You might learn something.

Edited November 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

What is not being delivered is all the nonsense Gordon Brown spouted as the public face of better together about "home rule" & "federalism"

who's Gordon Brown in September 2014? Why, he's an MP with the same standing as any backbencher.

Are Scots really so stupid as to think backbenchers dictate govt policy? It seems like you've just said you are.

Meanwhile no one can find a soul who's vote was changed by anything Broon said.

Might you be stoking up false grievance because you don't have a real one?

 

[LJS]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

who's Gordon Brown in September 2014? Why, he's an MP with the same standing as any backbencher.

Are Scots really so stupid as to think backbenchers dictate govt policy? It seems like you've just said you are.

Meanwhile no one can find a soul who's vote was changed by anything Broon said.

Might you be stoking up false grievance because you don't have a real one?

 

I was well aware of who GB was in September 2014. 

 

The media & particularly the BBC covered his utterances as if he were someone of great power & importance. He was the snake-oil salesman for the vow. Sent out to polish the turd that had been offered to the Scots in a desperate last-ditch attempt to stave off defeat.

 

I didn't fall for it as you will find if you go back to my posts at the time. I have no doubt that many did helped by the total lack of any journalistic challenge to the empty promise that was the vow.

 

In the words of Lord Forsyth, it was a bus timetable with all the times but no destinations.

 

& good morning 

Edited November 21, 2015 by LJS
Speling

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, LJS said:

I didn't fall for it

then why are you uttering total irrelevances as tho they're meaningful?

Might it be to stoke up false grievance, just perhaps?

After all, without grievance there is no Scottish independence movement.

And people like you have difficulties finding real ones, so you resort to redrawing lines as tho they mean something different depending on which side, and mentioning false grievances as you just have.

Just like you mentioned FFA as tho it had been denied by Westminster, when the fact is the SNP would deny you it if Westminster had gone along with their pathetic deceptive wording (good enough deception to fool you, cos you've just said the SNP want FFA ).

Edited November 21, 2015 by eFestivals