The Dirty Independence Question

[russycarps]

21 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Morning russy. So you think NS is scared of independence? 

She appears to me to have been campaigning for it all her life.....

A bit like the removal of the nukes. I believe her and support her principles in these and other areas. I'll bet she won't back down or roll over when it comes to nukes or indy. Many can't say the same. 

To be clear,  I don't mean you. You're just mad cause you lost your bet ;-)

She wants independence in a perfect world. Scotland is currently so far from being in a perfect world that only the deranged would want independence at the moment.

And this scheming, power hungry, ruthless woman is not deranged.

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

hey comfy, did you think I'd forgotten that you skipped quickly past me mentuoning the rant you had about how Murf had made money on his London property, but that you have nothing to say about all the same from SNP MPs?

 

No I hadn't. You said Jim and I asked for clarification on who you were talking about which you have now given. I'm afraid we've all pretty much forgotten about your hero. I'm on my phone just now so don't know how to check back on all I said about him. I'll get round to it though and we can reflect on who was right about jimbo and his legacy as scottish labour leader. One of us probably warned against his appointment and the dangers for the party but I won't speculate until I can provide quotes etc.

I did read your telegraph link the other day so in the interests of balance I will also have a search on that later on. Trust me on this, it wasn't on the news up here and your link is the only thing I've seen on it. As I say though I'll have a look and if there is fraud then I'd hope there will be money paid back and further action taken.

Apologies for not taking as gospel what's written in the telegraph about the snp :-)

Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen and I was surprised it wasn't on the beeb news.

For old times sake, could someone post the jim Murphy saviour of the union video.

Some day I'll learn how to do that kinda stuff from my phone. 

[Comfy Bean]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

She wants independence in a perfect world. Scotland is currently so far from being in a perfect world that only the deranged would want independence at the moment.

And this scheming, power hungry, ruthless woman is not deranged.

I think we are all clever enough to realise that none of us will ever live in a perfect world. 

Do you think the previous deputy prime minister is a rabid scottish nationalist? 

He seemed to suggest that the tories don't give a shit about investing in Scotland or the people who live up here. A view shared by many in the north of England,  Wales etc. 

I quoted what nick clegg said a couple of pages back.

I don't recognise your description of ns and going by her UK wide ratings I'm not alone. 

Do you agree with her on the nukes or do you just disagree with everything she says? 

[Comfy Bean]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because the opposite of Thatcher's doing's is by-default indy? Oh... no ... it's not.

If you like, Sturgeon's inspiration there is precisely why she doesn't want indy or self-funding, because the consequences onto Scotland that will cause will be worse than anything Thatcher did.

What don't you get?

So she doesn't want indy, in your view.  

Thanks for clearing that up.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

No I hadn't. You said Jim and I asked for clarification on who you were talking about which you have now given. I'm afraid we've all pretty much forgotten about your hero. I'm on my phone just now so don't know how to check back on all I said about him. I'll get round to it though and we can reflect on who was right about jimbo and his legacy as scottish labour leader. One of us probably warned against his appointment and the dangers for the party but I won't speculate until I can provide quotes etc.

I did read your telegraph link the other day so in the interests of balance I will also have a search on that later on. Trust me on this, it wasn't on the news up here and your link is the only thing I've seen on it. As I say though I'll have a look and if there is fraud then I'd hope there will be money paid back and further action taken.

Apologies for not taking as gospel what's written in the telegraph about the snp :-)

Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen and I was surprised it wasn't on the beeb news.

For old times sake, could someone post the jim Murphy saviour of the union video.

Some day I'll learn how to do that kinda stuff from my phone. 

both made money on London houses via the tax payer.

Murphy: condemned, because you hate him for other reasons.

SNP MPs: a free pass, because they can do no wrong.

There's no double standards here, oh no.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So she doesn't want indy, in your view.  

Thanks for clearing that up.

she's the very first SNP leader to stand for election on a platform of NOT making Scotland independent. Did you miss that bit? Do you think it's meaningless?

And if she believes that Scotland should self-fund - she stood for election on it - why didn't she follow thru on that with the amendment wording? Why was that amendment wording "we want England to keep sending us the money until we say otherwise"?

That's someone who knows something that's beyond your comprehension, very clearly.

As the SNP say about themselves, their ideas are economic suicide for Scotland.

[Comfy Bean]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

both made money on London houses via the tax payer.

Murphy: condemned, because you hate him for other reasons.

SNP MPs: a free pass, because they can do no wrong.

There's no double standards here, oh no.

Why did you bother quoting my post with the above reply? 

You clearly didn't read it.

I don't hate Murphy but I feared what could happen to labour up here if he became leader. I vaguely remember you accused me of mud slinging, without a hint of irony, but as I said earlier.....Let me check what was said and I'll get back to you.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why did you bother quoting my post with the above reply? 

You clearly didn't read it.

I don't hate Murphy but I feared what could happen to labour up here if he became leader. I vaguely remember you accused me of mud slinging, without a hint of irony, but as I said earlier.....Let me check what was said and I'll get back to you.

whatever else you think about Murphy is fuck all to do with this.

You (essentially) called Murphy a crook because he made money on a London house. That part of things was totally separate to everything else about him.

It's yet another case of free passes for the SNP and idiot vitriol for anyone that isn't, just like your thing a few weeks back where only brit nats would avoid Scottish taxes.

But anyway, would you like to make your current stance clear, just so you can be called out on it next time you change it? Are Scottish politicians allowed to own houses in London while taking expenses for London accommodation costs and profit from them because London houses prices are going up? Or not?

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

whatever else you think about Murphy is fuck all to do with this.

You (essentially) called Murphy a crook because he made money on a London house. That part of things was totally separate to everything else about him.

It's yet another case of free passes for the SNP and idiot vitriol for anyone that isn't, just like your thing a few weeks back where only brit nats would avoid Scottish taxes.

But anyway, would you like to make your current stance clear, just so you can be called out on it next time you change it? Are Scottish politicians allowed to own houses in London while taking expenses for London accommodation costs and profit from them because London houses prices are going up? Or not?

 

Just to return to facts for a moment. Everyone is allowed to own as many homes in London as they want. This includes MP's. If they qualified for expenses for a second home in London they used to be able to claim the mortgage interest on their London home as an expense. Because of the bonkers London housing market this resulted in them making lots of money ostensibly at our expense. In order to stop this, they were no longer allowed to claim - instead they were only permitted to claim rent or hotel costs. 

The unintended consequence of this was that, in most cases, the taxpayer was forking out more money than they were before  whilst the MP's (of all parties) rented out their homes & probably made even more money than they had before. 

You are correct to point out that this applies equally to Murphy & the SNP MP's in question. The only difference (& it is a small one) is that the SNP went public & said " Hoots mon, this is crazy  - yooz huv changed the rules to stop MP's coining it in in sic a way that we still coin it in & it costs the taxpayer more money."

Jim just smiled sweetly & pocketed the cash.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

You are correct to point out that this applies equally to Murphy & the SNP MP's in question. The only difference (& it is a small one) is that the SNP went public & said " Hoots mon, this is crazy  - yooz huv changed the rules to stop MP's coining it in in sic a way that we still coin it in & it costs the taxpayer more money."

Jim just smiled sweetly & pocketed the cash.

Or maybe you just weren't listening properly, or making up your own narrative....?

But as you've stated that, you'll need ( ) to show me proof of your claim, that Murf never said a word and that every single one of the SNP MPs publicly and individually condemned it.

PS: mind you, your defence of comfy is fuck all of a defence of comfy, because nothing of that were his criticisms back at the time that Jim was the devil.

So all we have here is further (attempts at) free passes in defence of the previous free passes. It's rather amusing.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Or maybe you just weren't listening properly, or making up your own narrative....?

But as you've stated that, you'll need ( ) to show me proof of your claim, that Murf never said a word and that every single one of the SNP MPs publicly and individually condemned it.

PS: mind you, your defence of comfy is fuck all of a defence of comfy, because nothing of that were his criticisms back at the time that Jim was the devil.

So all we have here is further (attempts at) free passes in defence of the previous free passes. It's rather amusing.

Look here is Jim murphy saying nothing...

 

Quote

 

There, that proves it.

Sometimes you really are a prat, Neil.

 

If you were interested to check back, I made the point the last time we discussed this that I did not see this in the way Comfy did. MP's are perfectly entitled to be reimbursed for their necessary living expenses whilst conducting their job on our behalf. 

I have no interest in proving or disproving whether every single SNP made a fuss about the rule change - neither do I know whether all 6 of them (hard to imagine, I know) owned property in London. All I do know is some of them made a fuss about it & pointed out the unintended consequences of the change. I don't recall Smurpho doing the same. As I said previously - it's no big deal as far as the individual MP's are concerned. The issue for me is that we have replaced one iffy expenses regime with another that is equally iffy & probably costs us more. 

 

Meanwhile, I am enjoying your tour of the SNP Baadlands as ever, Neil.

Let me get this right. 

1:The SNP are BAAD because the first article in their constitution demands independence, hence they see everything else through this prism.

2: The SNP are BAAD because they are not pursuing independence & concentrating on governing. 

3: When the SNP do pursue Independence, they are bad because they are ignoring the settled will of the Scottish people and they "vowed" it would be once in a millenium, or a generation or a lifetime or something

4: The SNP are BAAD when they hold the UK government to the Vow that they made after the referendum.

I could but that's your speciality.

 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

hey comfy, did you think I'd forgotten that you skipped quickly past me mentuoning the rant you had about how Murf had made money on his London property, but that you have nothing to say about all the same from SNP MPs?

 

Have had a look back and I can confirm that I have actually already said that I don`t hate Murphy more than once. I have never said I hate him because I don`t and I have never called him the devil as that would be silly. I think he is the worst sort of Blairite and he appears to like a bit of a gravy train. He appears to like some war action and is keen on the nukes. As I suspected way back he oversaw a historical swing for Labour in Scotland. I took the piss out him at the time when he gave this interview ( attached ). I have not heard anything from him in a while which doesn`t surprise me in the slightest. I suspect he probably still drinks alot of Irn Bru. 

Following on from this interview the SNP took 56 of the 59 seats up or grabs. At the previous election ( pre-The Murph ) they took 6 ( six ).

Jim Murphy has been “astonished” by how easy he’s found it to take on the SNP since he was elected leader of the Scottish Labour party, he told BuzzFeed News.

In an interview on how he’s organising the fightback against the SNP in the run-up to May’s general election, Murphy, who was elected Scottish Labour leader in December, said he’s found his opponents to be “sluggish, lethargic, and off the pace”, and much less formidable than he was warned before he became leader.

“I’ve been so surprised by their lack of energy, and genuinely taken aback by the degree to which they’re just a normal government,” said Murphy. “I’m surprised by their lack of response, or belated response, to a lot of the things we’ve been doing, and we’ve only just begun.

“There’s definitely a passion about their politics, but they’re empty in the tank when it comes to policy, and I’m surprised. They’ve had two terms. I’m just astonished by how quickly they’ve run out of ideas.”

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

On 11/3/2014 at 9:43 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

I sense that the first step on a long road would be to avoid electing Jim Murphy. I`m not sure if a guy who has always been more intereted in Westminster and is regarded as being to the right of the party is what is needed in Scotland at the moment. He is certainly well known and does talk a pretty good game but he carries alot of expenses baggage ( don`t they all ) and rightly or wrongly will be seen by many as a guy who has his eye more on a future in Westminster. Looks like the Unions will be backing Neil Findlay. I think Kezia Dugdale is a good choice for deputy. Saw her on a few programmes in the run up to the vote and she always came across pretty well.

This appears to be my first post on the saviour. Not exactly dripping with hatred and I`ve doubled checked and no reference of him being the devil.

Early nod to Kez from me too 

[Comfy Bean]

51 minutes ago, LJS said:

Look here is Jim murphy saying nothing...

 

There, that proves it.

Here he is again saying nothing...

Mr Murphy did not respond to a request for comment.

 

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/mps-expenses-46-claim-in-london-despite-owning-a-property

[Comfy Bean]

Looks like it`s a wee bit too early to condemn the SNP guys Neil and the Telegraph highlighted this week. Happy to re-visit of course and they should have the book thrown at them if they have been at it. Quotes and links with the current state of play. Investigation ongoing.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC she had seen no evidence of any breach of parliamentary expenses rules. .....................................

In response, the SNP said: "The expenses were approved by the Commons authorities in line with the rules on MP's London accommodation, and none of them involved any additional cost to the public purse beyond that.

"This is the height of hypocrisy from the Tories, given the extent of flagrant abuse of expenses by their MPs which has been exposed in recent years - they simply don't have a leg to stand on when it come to this issue."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36320955

 

Mr MacNeil said: "My accommodation in London is claimed under normal expenses, as is the case for all MPs, and the cost of this is compliant with the rules of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).

"I don't like to comment on my personal life or related tabloid stories, but my marriage sadly ended for very different reasons to what has been suggested in lurid newspaper stories this week.

"For the record, as if I even need to say, I have never had so much as a crossed word with my colleague Stewart Hosie MP."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snp-mps-love-triangle-affairs-scandal-expenses-serena-cowdy-stewart-hosie-angus-macneil-a7039481.html

[Comfy Bean]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, would you like to make your current stance clear, just so you can be called out on it next time you change it? Are Scottish politicians allowed to own houses in London while taking expenses for London accommodation costs and profit from them because London houses prices are going up? Or not?

 

 

Can I just quote what LJS said ( below )as he puts it better than I could. I will add that if anyone ( not just Scottish politicians ) is guilty of fraud they should face the courts.

Do I need to add that I include SNP MP`s in this. 

3 hours ago, LJS said:

Just to return to facts for a moment. Everyone is allowed to own as many homes in London as they want. This includes MP's. If they qualified for expenses for a second home in London they used to be able to claim the mortgage interest on their London home as an expense. Because of the bonkers London housing market this resulted in them making lots of money ostensibly at our expense. In order to stop this, they were no longer allowed to claim - instead they were only permitted to claim rent or hotel costs. 

The unintended consequence of this was that, in most cases, the taxpayer was forking out more money than they were before  whilst the MP's (of all parties) rented out their homes & probably made even more money than they had before. 

You are correct to point out that this applies equally to Murphy & the SNP MP's in question. The only difference (& it is a small one) is that the SNP went public & said " Hoots mon, this is crazy  - yooz huv changed the rules to stop MP's coining it in in sic a way that we still coin it in & it costs the taxpayer more money."

Jim just smiled sweetly & pocketed the cash.

 

[Comfy Bean]

Whatever view you took on Indy there are some laughs on here.

 

Using the famous artworks of the period , Bonnie Prince Bob recounts the legendary tale of James Francis Murphy , Saviour of The British Union during the epic battle for Scottish Independence in the year 2014.

 

 

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

Look here is Jim murphy saying nothing...

 

There, that proves it.

Sometimes you really are a prat, Neil.

I merely gave you your own line, which makes you the prat.

 

Quote

If you were interested to check back, I made the point the last time we discussed this that I did not see this in the way Comfy did. MP's are perfectly entitled to be reimbursed for their necessary living expenses whilst conducting their job on our behalf. 

If you care to notice, it's what comfy has said in the past I was drawing attention to, to point out his double standards.

Are they double-standards? Yes they are.

 

Quote

I have no interest in proving or disproving whether every single SNP made a fuss about the rule change

But you did have an interest in making a claim of fact which you're now unwilling to prove.

That made me the devil the other day, but it now appears you're everything you say is wrong.

 

Quote

Meanwhile, I am enjoying your tour of the SNP Baadlands as ever, Neil.

Let me get this right. 

1:The SNP are BAAD because the first article in their constitution demands independence, hence they see everything else through this prism.

2: The SNP are BAAD because they are not pursuing independence & concentrating on governing. 

3: When the SNP do pursue Independence, they are bad because they are ignoring the settled will of the Scottish people and they "vowed" it would be once in a millenium, or a generation or a lifetime or something

4: The SNP are BAAD when they hold the UK government to the Vow that they made after the referendum.

I could but that's your speciality.

1. yep, tho you missed out the part where the welfare of the people of Scotland is secondary to their wish for indy. In their constitution, anyway.

Sturgeon has very obviously rejected that constitution, but you get offended with me pointing that out. Because you don't want to accept as true what your own First Minister is well aware of - that Scotland will absolutely hate the poverty of independence, and independence in a Scotland where the vast majority have (too late) realised they've fallen for a lie cannot ever be a better Scotland.

2. Nope, actually the SNP are trying to get their heads down and govern in their conservative manner, and kick indy down the road and out of sight. Didn't you noticed that they've *deliberately* timed their "let's take a look at what went wrong" (snigger) process until *after* the EUref, as a ready excuse for why the promised 2nd indyref if the UK votes out can't happen? It's the likes of you that won't let go, because you won't face the facts the SNP have accepted.

3. They didn't 'vow'. They made a clear and unequivocal statement in the White Paper, that *YOU* want to lie about and claim was something never said.

4.. The SNP are selfish and self-centred for Scotland, and not believers in social justice apart from for Scotland (so at the expense of others, which is never social justice). What did you miss about your own demands?

From the point of view of a socialist living in England, the SNP are just as bad as the tories - taking money from the poorest to give to their chums.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

17 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In response, the SNP said: "The expenses were approved by the Commons authorities in line with the rules on MP's London accommodation, and none of them involved any additional cost to the public purse beyond that.

except of course you've missed the bit where some of the expenses they've tried claiming were thrown out as unacceptable.

Are they evil personified? Nope, they're just more of the pigs with their noses in the trough.

[eFestivals]

Moving on from the failed indy push - as we all will eventually - I keep on reading suggestions from Scots for a federal UK of various shapes and forms.

Yet one part of every comment is constant: that the rest of the UK has to split itself into Scotland-sized blocks. I'm just wondering: why?

Why would any federal settlement be designed to suit Scotland, without regard for what the rest of the UK thought reasonable?

Why shouldn't (say) the idea of the UK broken into 4 equal-ish population-sized blocks be the solution, with a new 'British North' encompassing Scotland and more (say Northern Ireland plus some of the English north)?

(alternatively, maybe the UK should be cut up into Wales-sized chunks, and Scotland should be divided )

Now, I'm sure that idea horrifies you, yet it doesn't take a genius to realise that putting federal borders between London (about Scotland sized) and its surrounds (around twice London's population) would be the most idiotically-stupid idea when they're all so inter-dependent - so they'd be 25M or so people in the SE who are unlikely to think the specific ideas of federalism that come from Scotland rate very highly.

Given there's that 'London & surrounds' problem, why wouldn't an idea such as the one I give above be the one that wins out? The best solution is the best solution, which isn't necessarily the one that might happen to suit the prejudices in one particular region.

I just wondered what the thoughts were. I'm guessing that any solution where Scotland wasn't able to be the same geographic unit as it is today would be unacceptable...?

[LJS]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Moving on from the failed indy push - as we all will eventually - I keep on reading suggestions from Scots for a federal UK of various shapes and forms.

Yet one part of every comment is constant: that the rest of the UK has to split itself into Scotland-sized blocks. I'm just wondering: why?

Why would any federal settlement be designed to suit Scotland, without regard for what the rest of the UK thought reasonable?

Why shouldn't (say) the idea of the UK broken into 4 equal-ish population-sized blocks be the solution, with a new 'British North' encompassing Scotland and more (say Northern Ireland plus some of the English north)?

(alternatively, maybe the UK should be cut up into Wales-sized chunks, and Scotland should be divided )

Now, I'm sure that idea horrifies you, yet it doesn't take a genius to realise that putting federal borders between London (about Scotland sized) and its surrounds (around twice London's population) would be the most idiotically-stupid idea when they're all so inter-dependent - so they'd be 25M or so people in the SE who are unlikely to think the specific ideas of federalism that come from Scotland rate very highly.

Given there's that 'London & surrounds' problem, why wouldn't an idea such as the one I give above be the one that wins out? The best solution is the best solution, which isn't necessarily the one that might happen to suit the prejudices in one particular region.

I just wondered what the thoughts were. I'm guessing that any solution where Scotland wasn't able to be the same geographic unit as it is today would be unacceptable...?

Interesting idea, Neil. 

Of course the reason why those proposing a federal UK, suggest breaking England up into pieces is because a federation where 85% of the population lives in one state isn't really practical. Your solution seems logical  - at least mathematically. 

Is hard to see it working in practice though for a number of reasons. 

The first of which is Northern Ireland. Who wants Northern Ireland  - I certainly would not welcome a amalgamation of Scotland & N.I.  - we have enough issues with Sectarianism & Flegs already thanks very much (as events at the weekend have illustrated) And, I'm guessing large parts of the republican movement would be less than enamoured with closer union with (at least part of) the UK.

There would undoubtedly be emotional opposition from many in Scotland & Wales who, for whatever reasons, identify these as their nations, & I would imagine some concerns from the bits of England being transplanted onto their Celtic neighbours. Would the four home nations even still exist? Sport may be trivial but I can see real problems if sports fans see their national teams disappear or become bastardised into some sort of cross breed teams.

And in practice, lets say you bolt Cumbria & Northumbria onto Scotland to form Norscum or whatever, do they adopt Scots law & Scots education? What about the role of the Church? 

Sorry if I appear to be down on this  - I didn't actually start off with quite such a negative view - its just that as I went along I could see more & more problems. I'm guessing its one reason why federalism has never really been taken seriously in this country.

 

Just as well your first line was rubbish, then!

 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Interesting idea, Neil. 

Of course the reason why those proposing a federal UK, suggest breaking England up into pieces is because a federation where 85% of the population lives in one state isn't really practical. Your solution seems logical  - at least mathematically. 

Is hard to see it working in practice though for a number of reasons. 

The first of which is Northern Ireland. Who wants Northern Ireland  - I certainly would not welcome a amalgamation of Scotland & N.I.  - we have enough issues with Sectarianism & Flegs already thanks very much (as events at the weekend have illustrated) And, I'm guessing large parts of the republican movement would be less than enamoured with closer union with (at least part of) the UK.

There would undoubtedly be emotional opposition from many in Scotland & Wales who, for whatever reasons, identify these as their nations, & I would imagine some concerns from the bits of England being transplanted onto their Celtic neighbours. Would the four home nations even still exist? Sport may be trivial but I can see real problems if sports fans see their national teams disappear or become bastardised into some sort of cross breed teams.

And in practice, lets say you bolt Cumbria & Northumbria onto Scotland to form Norscum or whatever, do they adopt Scots law & Scots education? What about the role of the Church? 

Sorry if I appear to be down on this  - I didn't actually start off with quite such a negative view - its just that as I went along I could see more & more problems. I'm guessing its one reason why federalism has never really been taken seriously in this country.

Yep, NI and Wales have the same 'right' to exist as Scotland - yet they're very different in population size to Scotland, so if you accept that 'right' it's impossible for Scotland to stay as an unbroken/unenlarged Scotland... after all, if there's a democratic deficit (which is what federalism would supposedly sort out) when Scotland can be 'over-ruled' by those outside of Scotland, the same applies elsewhere too.

Which really only gets to make clear how much Scotland has sucked itself up its own arse, believing itself different and special and unalterable - while not accepting the same for other places.

I have little problem with the federal idea as an idea, but the practicalities of it make it just about impossible - because Scotland would refuse to be broken up or enlarged to account for the problems that NI & Wales put in the mix, while the heavily-populated South East isn't a region that is practical to split (it would be a bit like divorcing Glasgow city centre from its suburbs).

Adding to the problems, for any solution, are the new Scottish myths, of "a govt in another country in this union of equals", when there is no other country (its all one country, as determined by the people of Scotland), and the "union of equals" was never the countries but the people in those countries. Myths designed to lock the daft into a particular line of thinking rather than trusting those people to be able to think for themselves, and designed to make them think selfishly.

----

(And another angle: "Scotland has the right to independence via the UN's rules of self-determination" ... which is only ever said by people who've never read those rules of self-determination, which make 100% clear that Scotland has no inalienable right to secede)

---

Anyway, thanks .... it looks like indy, devolution, or the end of devolution entirely are the only workable options - tho I'm pretty sure that devolution will become less accepted as workable as the years go by rather than more accepted as workable, as the issues it causes become ever-more stark.

Edited May 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, NI and Wales have the same 'right' to exist as Scotland - yet they're very different in population size to Scotland, so if you accept that 'right' it's impossible for Scotland to stay as an unbroken/unenlarged Scotland... after all, if there's a democratic deficit (which is what federalism would supposedly sort out) when Scotland can be 'over-ruled' by those outside of Scotland, the same applies elsewhere too.

Which really only gets to make clear how much Scotland has sucked itself up its own arse, believing itself different and special and unalterable - while not accepting the same for other places.

I have little problem with the federal idea as an idea, but the practicalities of it make it just about impossible - because Scotland would refuse to be broken up or enlarged to account for the problems that NI & Wales put in the mix, while the heavily-populated South East isn't a region that is practical to split (it would be a bit like divorcing Glasgow city centre from its suburbst).

Adding to the problems, for any solution, are the new Scottish myths, of "a govt in another country in this union of equals", when there is no other country (its all one country, as determined by the people of Scotland), and the "union of equals" was never the countries but the people in those countries. Myths designed to lock the daft into a particular line of thinking rather than trusting those people to be able to think for themselves, and designed to make them think selfishly.

----

(And another angle: "Scotland has the right to independence via the UN's rules of self-determination" ... which is only ever said by people who've never read those rules of self-determination, which make 100% clear that Scotland has no inalienable right to secede)

---

Anyway, thanks .... it looks like indy, devolution, or the end of devolution entirely are the only workable options - tho I'm pretty sure that devolution will become less accepted as workable as the years go by rather than more accepted as workable, as the issues it causes become ever-more stark.

Not really sure what you are on about with most of this but, it would appear that we are agreed that, for all its attractions, federalism is a non-starter.

Whatever the UN says, the UK government has clearly accepted the principle that Scotland can decide for itself whether it goes its own  way or not. I guess the UN wouldn't overrule that!

 

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

Whatever the UN says, the UK government has clearly accepted the principle that Scotland can decide for itself whether it goes its own  way or not. I guess the UN wouldn't overrule that!

I'm not suggesting the UN would, and of course the UK has a right to decide.

I'm pointing out that the claims of some (surely you've heard them?) that the UN Charter gives Scotland a right of self-determination is bollocks, as it clear and beyond all doubt in what the UN actually say about it (not specifically about Scotland, but for all places).

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

Not really sure what you are on about with most of this

You don't understand that everywhere else has no fewer 'rights' than Scotland, and therefore Scotland has no rights at all?

Blimey, selfishness is off the scale in Scotland.

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

for all its attractions, federalism is a non-starter.

I know something else with that same non-starter problem.

That only changes when the SNP stops trying to sell indy on a lie.

[Comfy Bean]

Not sure what the etiquette is for updating on SNP bad Telegraph links but looks like Neil forgot to update his post with his latest Telegraph link. If someone from the Unionist / Brit Nat side raises an SNP bad " story " is it ok for someone from the rabid / nutty snipper side to flag up the nothing to see here link ?

Apologies Neil if you were just about to post this 

Media cover up in my opinion. SNP still bad 

 

Westminster's parliamentary standards commissioner will not investigate the expenses of two SNP MPs.

Commissioner Kathryn Hudson was asked to investigate Angus MacNeill and Stewart Hosie by the Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw.

It was reported the MPs had claimed for accommodation in London on the public purse while conducting separate affairs with a political journalist.

 

The commissioner has judged there is no significant evidence the rules were broken by the pair.

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1355537-westminster-standards-watchdog-will-not-investigate-snp-mps/