The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you seen to forgetting stuff like the public murders broadcast on TV.

In all of these countries? None were predominantly peaceful?

[eFestivals]

23 hours ago, LJS said:

The poll is a bit of fun.

It's also a clear demonstration of what people are thinking.

 

23 hours ago, LJS said:

Having opinions on what makes you Scottish does not translate to having opinions that being Scottish is better than being anywhere else is. 

I didn't say it was, or anything like that.

 

23 hours ago, LJS said:

Interestingly, if you study the tables, yes voters tend to be slightly more open-minded about the definition of scottishness. So if you wanted to draw any conclusion from a pretty meaningless poll. It would be that those who favour maintaining the union are more into blood & soil than us nasty nats.

Really? How?

Nothing of political affiliation is demonstrated within that poll, only a view towards nationality. So you must be making it up out of nothing at all.

I've already mentioned the violence that came from the victory of political nationalism from the small grouping in that poll, and yet you're trying to insist there can be nothing similar from the larger more-dominant grouping after a victory for that side.

 

23 hours ago, LJS said:

Me?  I wouldn't draw any conclusions at all from it other than that a majority of Scots see themselves as predominantly Scottish which presumably means we believe Scotland is a real country.

The fact that you refuse to recognise human nature towards nationalism as it's played out in all places in history is your own intellectual failing.

You can breath fresh air if you take your head from your arse.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

23 hours ago, LJS said:

In all of these countries? None were predominantly peaceful?

Brexit has been predominantly peaceful.

But it hasn't stopped an upturn in nationalist violence, has it?

FFS.

 

[LJS]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's also a clear demonstration of what people are thinking.

Maybe it is, but it is not a clear indication of the existence of or prevalence of bloody & soiled nationalism.

Quote

 

 

 

Really? How?

Nothing of political affiliation is demonstrated within that poll, only a view towards nationality. So you must be making it up out of nothing at all.

Like most of these polls it breaks the figures down by age, how you voted in last election & (where my point comes from) how you voted in the Indy ref.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Maybe it is, but it is not a clear indication of the existence of or prevalence of bloody & soiled nationalism.

When people state their nationality as based on - literally - "blood" and "soil" it's the very definition of blood and soil nationalism. FFS. :lol:

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Maybe it is, but it is not a clear indication of the existence of or prevalence of bloody & soiled nationalism.

Like most of these polls it breaks the figures down by age, how you voted in last election & (where my point comes from) how you voted in the Indy ref.

Does it?

Then you'll have to show me that part, because it's certainly not any part of the page i linked to.

Here's that link again:-
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/07/what-makes-person-scottish/

Are you making it up? Or do you have the extra info you're claiming?

Edited September 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

When people state their nationality as based on - literally - "blood" and "soil" it's the very definition of blood and soil nationalism. FFS.

 

Does it?

Then you'll have to show me that part, because it's certainly not any part of the page i linked to.

Here's that link again:-
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/07/what-makes-person-scottish/

Are you making it up? Or do you have the extra info you're claiming?

Maybe try clicking the bit that says "full results here" ?

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Maybe try clicking the bit that says "full results here" ?

which shows a slight difference from the average, certainly nothing large enough for Scotland to be wholely unaffected from a nationalist effect as you're trying to claim.

My claim - remember - is simply that there will be an effect, no different to the effect of a victory for nationalism anywhere else.

You're presenting nothing to refute my claim, you're simply dismissing it on the basis of nothing at all.

[eFestivals]

PS: SNP voters are the ones most attached to the idea that being born in Scotland makes someone Scottish.

In case the relevance of that is passing you by, that's a view that nationality isn't changeable, which logically-conflicts strongly with some of the other answers, making those answers doubtful.

On the basis that the data is presented in the same order as the questions are asked, I'm happy to concede that if the questions were asked in a different order the results may be different, but I think that very first question demonstrates the strongest at where the thinking really is, and the conflicts in the following questions come about because people suddenly realise that things will have greater nuances via those questions so they need to be giving the politically-correct answer rather than a true answer. it's speculative of course, but speculation that better-matches what the data says than your simple take that nats are all wonderful fault-free people.

[LJS]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: SNP voters are the ones most attached to the idea that being born in Scotland makes someone Scottish.

by a whopping 4% more than labour voters (91% to 87% well within margin of error when dealing with sub-samples & certainly not significant.)

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In case the relevance of that is passing you by, that's a view that nationality isn't changeable, which logically-conflicts strongly with some of the other answers, making those answers doubtful.

I think you are over thinking this. If someone asked me that question and forced me to answer yes or no, I would answer "yes" If you gave me a paragraph to give a more in depth answer, the answer woudl be much more nuanced. Of course the answers in this poll conflict with each other because for for most of the questions "sometimes" is a much better answer than either yes or no.

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

On the basis that the data is presented in the same order as the questions are asked, I'm happy to concede that if the questions were asked in a different order the results may be different, but I think that very first question demonstrates the strongest at where the thinking really is, and the conflicts in the following questions come about because people suddenly realise that things will have greater nuances via those questions so they need to be giving the politically-correct answer rather than a true answer. it's speculative of course, but speculation that better-matches what the data says than your simple take that nats are all wonderful fault-free people.

I think you are attaching a ridiculous amount of significance to a few people clicking yes or no to some fairly silly questions. 

This is a poll after all where 1% of people think Alex Ferguson & Nicola Sturgeon are English.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I think you are over thinking this.

If I am, it's no different to you under-thinking it.

The general point I'm trying to make is that a victory for political nationalism sees an increase in nationalist violence, and Scotland will be no different.

However, the extent of any violence is also likely to vary via the other pressures that exist on society, and as iScotland will be facing extreme financial pressures via that missing £10bn which is likely to see a demand for more benefit towards Scots and less towards 'foreigners', that added pressure is also IMO more likely to cause a greater amount of violence than would otherwise be the case.

The basis of what i'm saying is the provable-factual (that violence happens in those circumstances) combined with a very reasonable assumption (of increased pressures causing an extra bit to it).

I'm certainly not suggesting that I think it will be huge - I certainly don't consider the brexit uplift in violence 'huge' (tho I do think it hugely shameful), because although the proportional increase is big, it's starting from a pretty low level.

I'm merely saying it'll be there, and you can bury your head in the sand and pretend there's nothing to worry about, or you can take the brexit consequences into your thinking and consider now how similar in Scotland might be acted against in advance of an indy victory.

Edited September 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Writing that reminded me of a couple of very different things.....

Remember Salmond's lauded panel of 'expert' economists? I forget their formal name, but the I'm meaning the geezers whose word was used as justification for some of the white paper's fiscal/economic stances? Amongst others, it included Joseph Stiglitz 

Well, I see that Joseph Stiglitz has recently come out against the position given in that white paper, that he's no longer sure what he recommended was a good suggestion.

But the astounding one is from economics Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet of St Andrews, who is so pig-thick with his understanding of the Scottish economy and govt revenues that he wrote this AND put his academic credentials to it....

Quote

Sir, With reference to your editorial “Scottish independence and the Brexit paradox” (August 25), the latest national accounts for Scotland show that North Sea revenues have fallen 99 per cent from 2014 to 2016. A quick check shows the oil price itself fell roughly 54 per cent over the same period. What, you may reasonably ask, happened to the missing 45 per cent? Especially since output actually rose 15-20 per cent at the same time, independently of projections into the further future, all according to UK government figures.

Several stories can explain this discrepancy: transfer pricing or tax reductions for example. But one thing is certain — these accounts do not conform to the United Nations Convention on National Accounting or the European System of National Accounts. My (US) university adopted the same accounting techniques four years ago, treating all revenues earned by my institute as their income, but the spending needed to generate those revenues as our costs. These “extra” revenues were then rapidly converted into a building programme, while the ensuing deficit at the institute nearly closed it down. The result: Greek-style debt at the university level. The moral: beware of statisticians bearing excess deficits.

 

It's been a godsend to similarly thick-as-shit indy supporters, who have found a new myth to indulge their stupidity with.

I'll save myself some writing and allow Kev at chokkablog who's already put the work in to lay it out better than I would....

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/response-to-prof-hughes-hallett-letter.html

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

If I am, it's no different to you under-thinking it.

The general point I'm trying to make is that a victory for political nationalism sees an increase in nationalist violence, and Scotland will be no different.

This is only likely if we are dealing with an ethnic type nationalism which sees itself as a superior "race" and demonises "foreigners" as Ukip & UK far right parties do. And I guess this is where your views diverge from mine  & comfy's.

Your sort of Nationalism doesn't generally wait fro victory before it resorts to violence. Our sort of nationalism has seen no violence (apart from an egg) 

You also ignore the fact that "Scottish Nationalism" has had a number of big victories recently & to the best of my knowledge, there has been no resulting increase in violence.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

However, the extent of any violence is also likely to vary via the other pressures that exist on society, and as iScotland will be facing extreme financial pressures via that missing £10bn which is likely to see a demand for more benefit towards Scots and less towards 'foreigners', that added pressure is also IMO more likely to cause a greater amount of violence than would otherwise be the case.

Ah, the old £10Bn rears its inevitable head. Even if we start £10Bn down, do you really think the new ScotGov is going to start business with £10Bn worth of cuts?I have demonstrated with the help of GERS & you mate Chokka that we can steadily reduce the deficit without slashing spending, so the "problem" need never arise.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The basis of what i'm saying is the provable-factual (that violence happens in those circumstances) combined with a very reasonable assumption (of increased pressures causing an extra bit to it).

Did the Balkan states not manage to gain their independence without an orgy of violence to celebrate?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'm certainly not suggesting that I think it will be huge - I certainly don't consider the brexit uplift in violence 'huge' (tho I do think it hugely shameful), because although the proportional increase is big, it's starting from a pretty low level.

I'm merely saying it'll be there, and you can bury your head in the sand and pretend there's nothing to worry about, or you can take the brexit consequences into your thinking and consider now how similar in Scotland might be acted against in advance of an indy victory.

We're in the land of conjecture here. Assuming the nature of the campaign is similar to last time, I would genuinely be surprised if your prediction is correct but hey, neither of us really know do we? That's the thing about the future. It hasn't happened yet. 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Writing that reminded me of a couple of very different things.....

Remember Salmond's lauded panel of 'expert' economists? I forget their formal name, but the I'm meaning the geezers whose word was used as justification for some of the white paper's fiscal/economic stances? Amongst others, it included Joseph Stiglitz 

Well, I see that Joseph Stiglitz has recently come out against the position given in that white paper, that he's no longer sure what he recommended was a good suggestion.

But the astounding one is from economics Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet of St Andrews, who is so pig-thick with his understanding of the Scottish economy and govt revenues that he wrote this AND put his academic credentials to it....

 

It's been a godsend to similarly thick-as-shit indy supporters, who have found a new myth to indulge their stupidity with.

I'll save myself some writing and allow Kev at chokkablog who's already put the work in to lay it out better than I would....

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/response-to-prof-hughes-hallett-letter.html

 

You're a bit slow on the uptake, Neil. 

Anyway to sum up, economist gets something wrong. Shock!

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

This is only likely if we are dealing with an ethnic type nationalism which sees itself as a superior "race" and demonises "foreigners" as Ukip & UK far right parties do. And I guess this is where your views diverge from mine  & comfy's.

The whole of the definitely-not-ethnic-oh-no campaign you support is based on a natural superiority of Scotland. You use a statement to that effect yourself.

Cos you're the one that believes that decisions made in Scotland are intrinsically better, not me.

FFS.

 

18 hours ago, LJS said:

Your sort of Nationalism doesn't generally wait fro victory before it resorts to violence. Our sort of nationalism has seen no violence (apart from an egg) 

"Your sort". PMSL.

(as weak and as laughable as it gets. Perhaps stop acting like you're brain-dead? Or isn't it an act?)

But anyway, if what you say there is true, the recent upsurge in racist violence hasn't been caused by brexit, so you'll have to tell me what caused it instead.

And you'll also have to explain the (larger than UK average) hate crimes that already exist in Scotland too.... Oh, you've done that already, haven't you? That *all* comes form the 'yoons', and the 'native Scots' - definitely not blood and soil - are perfection personified.

(and you definitely can't see that racist stupidity all over WoS, definitely not )

 

18 hours ago, LJS said:

You also ignore the fact that "Scottish Nationalism" has had a number of big victories recently & to the best of my knowledge, there has been no resulting increase in violence.

There's no victory until victory.

 

18 hours ago, LJS said:

Ah, the old £10Bn rears its inevitable head. Even if we start £10Bn down, do you really think the new ScotGov is going to start business with £10Bn worth of cuts?I have demonstrated with the help of GERS & you mate Chokka that we can steadily reduce the deficit without slashing spending, so the "problem" need never arise.

If it's not going to cut, how will the bills be paid?

You know, pensions, wage bills, etc? Magic, still?

Meanwhile, what you've demonstrated is that it will take 70 years to make up the difference if the 2015-16 improvement was constantly maintained.

Still, it's better than Salmond's 120 years.

 

18 hours ago, LJS said:

Did the Balkan states not manage to gain their independence without an orgy of violence to celebrate?

Fuck me LJS, did the nationalist wars with mass murders pass you by?

If you care to remember, the UK felt the need to send troops to try and lessen the killings, and also felt the need to bomb belgrade.

Still, that demonstrates just how much fantasy inhabits your brain.

(But as you like the balkans so much, fancy taking a look at what happened to their already-shattered economies when they had to establish their own currencies?)

 

18 hours ago, LJS said:

We're in the land of conjecture here. Assuming the nature of the campaign is similar to last time, I would genuinely be surprised if your prediction is correct but hey, neither of us really know do we? That's the thing about the future. It hasn't happened yet. 

Then we're back to superior Scotland again, the only place in the world where nationalism causes no nationalist violence.

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

You're a bit slow on the uptake, Neil. 

Anyway to sum up, economist gets something wrong. Shock!

yep, I'm a few weeks late in realising just how brain-dead those esteemed advisors are.

When a Scottish professor of economics doesn't understand the very basics of what he's endorsed and you brush it off as a meaningless nothing, there's massive problems with Scottish education.

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The whole of the definitely-not-ethnic-oh-no campaign you support is based on a natural superiority of Scotland. You use a statement to that effect yourself.

Do I? Where.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Cos you're the one that believes that decisions made in Scotland are intrinsically better, not me.

Only cos they're local not because of the nationality of those making then.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

FFS.

 

"Your sort". PMSL.

Meaning the sort described by you.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(as weak and as laughable as it gets. Perhaps stop acting like you're brain-dead? Or isn't it an act?)

But anyway, if what you say there is true, the recent upsurge in racist violence hasn't been caused by brexit, so you'll have to tell me what caused it instead.

I thi k the racist undertones of the brexit campaign made some folk think their actions were OK.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And you'll also have to explain the (larger than UK average) hate crimes that already exist in Scotland too.... Oh, you've done that already, haven't you? That *all* comes form the 'yoons', and the 'native Scots' - definitely not blood and soil - are perfection personified.

Sectarianism is a problem. But not one caused by either side in the Indy debate.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(and you definitely can't see that racist stupidity all over WoS, definitely not )

If you mean btl, you're right . I don't go there.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

There's no victory until victory.

A win is a win.

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

If it's not going to cut, how will the bills be paid?

You know, pensions, wage bills, etc? Magic, still?

Meanwhile, what you've demonstrated is that it will take 70 years to make up the difference if the 2015-16 improvement was constantly maintained.

Still, it's better than Salmond's 120 years.

We'll do better than that 

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Fuck me LJS, did the nationalist wars with mass murders pass you by?

If you care to remember, the UK felt the need to send troops to try and lessen the killings, and also felt the need to bomb belgrade.

Still, that demonstrates just how much fantasy inhabits your brain.

(But as you like the balkans so much, fancy taking a look at what happened to their already-shattered economies when they had to establish their own currencies?)

Apologies I mean Baltic, not Balkan.,

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Then we're back to superior Scotland again, the only place in the world where nationalism causes no nationalist violence.

Can you show some nationalist violence in  Scotland. (Without eggs)

[LJS]

 

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, I'm a few weeks late in realising just how brain-dead those esteemed advisors are.

When a Scottish professor of economics doesn't understand the very basics of what he's endorsed and you brush it off as a meaningless nothing, there's massive problems with Scottish education.

Stieglitz is American & as far as I know there is only one of him.

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

I thi k the racist undertones of the brexit campaign made some folk think their actions were OK.

because there's no racist overtones to Scotland for the Scottish...?

 

 

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, LJS said:

Stieglitz is American & as far as I know there is only one of him.

Stirgitz recently wrote that he told Salmond a crock of shit, but you liked it when others pointed out the flaws that Joe has now wised up to. Nevermind.

But you seem to have missed an important part of what i posted, about the Scottish economics professor at a Scottish Uni - St Andrews, no less - who gives economic advace to Scotland but doesn't have the first idea of what he's talking about.

You know, when he believes that every penny of the oil extracted around Scotland can be counted as Scottish govt revenues.

Not only is he that stupid, he wants he world to know by writing to the FT to expose his stupidity.

And the NationalDundeeCake loves him for it, because they're as thick-as-pigshit just like him.

Read back, and wise yerself up. These are the sorts of expert morons you've attached yourself to.

Edited September 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

because there's no racist overtones to Scotland for the Scottish...?

 

 

The necessity of this hilarious & devastatingly clever video, merely serves to highlight the lack of any actual evidence to back up your point.

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, LJS said:

The necessity of this hilarious & devastatingly clever video, merely serves to highlight the lack of any actual evidence to back up your point.

I have plenty of evidence, both within Scotland and out of it. You're simply ignoring it's relevance by pretending Scotland is special and different,

Which rather brings back to the start.

Edited September 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Stirgitz recently wrote that he told Salmond a crock of shit,

Not his exact words.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but you liked it when others pointed out the flaws that Joe has now wised up to. Nevermind.

I take it you are talking about currency - if you recall I had my doubts about Salmond's unwavering determination that we woudl share the pound come what may.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But you seem to have missed an important part of what i posted, about the Scottish economics professor at a Scottish Uni - St Andrews, no less - who gives economic advace to Scotland but doesn't have the first idea of what he's talking about.

 I don't think he's actually Scottish but if he wants to call himself Scottish that's fine by 72% of me.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You know, when he believes that every penny of the oil extracted around Scotland can be counted as Scottish govt revenues.

Not only is he that stupid, he wants he world to know by writing to the FT to expose his stupidity.

Economist makes error - shock!

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And the NationalDundeeCake loves him for it, because they're as thick-as-pigshit just like him.

Of course they are, Neil. I mean you never make mistakes do you?

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Read back, and wise yerself up. These are the sorts of expert morons you've attached yourself to.

I have not attached myself to anyone and would suggest that a quick glance at Jo the Stig's cv woudl suggest calling him a moron is a wee bit harsh. 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Economist makes error - shock!

It's not 'an error'. It's not like he mis-spelt a word.

It's about as big a failing as a man of his (now laughable) academic standing and supposed speciality could make, particularly given his role as one of Salmond's lauded economic genius's.

Because i'm a kind soul, I could forgive him that ignorance if he wasn't a Salmond sidekick because not everyone knows everything even about what they're expert in, but what is unforgivable about it is his haste to write a letter in protest without checking the most simple facts - and particularly when there was a huge signpost saying he might have got it wrong with the very thing he was querying.

It shows that he's no less ready to reject good and proper evidence as any other snipper, because along the way he managed to 'prove' that UK govt and therefore GERS too isn't worth the paper it's written on.

All because he's terminally infected by indy stupidity.

Edited September 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Of course they are, Neil. I mean you never make mistakes do you?

I'm led by the evidence.

It's something outside of your comprehension.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 , I could forgive him that ignorance if he wasn't a Salmond sidekick  

says it all