The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Okay, suppose there were no borders. What then ? Where would power be located ? Centrally, regionally or locally ?

It depends how big a person is able to think for what the right answer to that question is.

But using purely logic and no prejudices, then equality for all can only emanate from a single structure - because as soon as you start to allow 'special interests' to warp the structures to their advantage, that is to the detriment of other interests.

The desirability of power to govern being located at its most appropriate level has been mentioned before here. For instance, should Westminster be in charge of cutting the grass in my local park ? No, of course not. That can dealt with at a much more local level.

Small thinking gives you the small answers.

If the resources of the UK are being allocated to cutting grass in your local park while people require foodbanks to get by, then the govt of the UK should say that no grass should be cut until that's addressed no matter what the people who live next door to the park might say.

So , if powers are geographically stratified, then it means that locations have to be defined. Now, what is a good way to define a location ? Tough one, that.

Why Scotland and not Pictland? Because you've picked yourself a prejudice and stuck to it.

At the end of the day the sea border means nothing different to a line drawn on the ground, but all the same it does create a natural border rather than one created by man for the power interests of a few individuals.

You know, those Lairds and their lands that the SG could have reformed with it's present powers but has chosen not to, preferring instead to continue with the poverty that McKenna talked of addressing in his column.

It's all very well being idealistic (as I am far too often), but at some point you have to recognise the difference of the real world.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I've been getting involved with the debate on social media a lot and constantly find myself getting personal abuse from a lot of Yes voters. I've been down the pub recently, the referendum has come up in conversation and I've had people shouting in my face telling me how my country is ashamed of me and so forth.

Why is the yes campaign so afraid of reasoned debate?

Haven't you realised...?

The "only true Scotsman" is today only the ones that will mindlessly vote for independence.

Brown and Darling and Robertson and Alexander (take your pick of those called Alexander, including the ones who also have surnames ) are not Scotsmen. They've been proven as traitors by their involvement in Westminster.

Scotland is a nation, remember? X% of people in Scotland believe that it is, so it must be. But let's pretend to forget that only 4% less people in England define themselves as purely English on the basis of the same question [source 2011 census), because that would be a bit inconvenient for the 'yes' narrative that says that Scotland is special and has unique views.

Just think what UKIP could do with the same 30 years of the same propaganda of everything bad being the result of "the establishment" and those outside of the borders.

[eFestivals]

Whatever the result in September we will all have to live together to make the best of whatever future we wake up to.

Spot on.

Which is why i'm so very much against the lies, and against those like you who will not pull up other yes-ers over those lies.

Instead, the result is more important, because you'll then be able to force those lied-to people to suffer the consequences of those lies for eternity.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Welcome aboard.

Poor Neil has been flying the Union flag on his own much of the time. It will be good to have another voice.

such tiny minds.

I'm not mindlessly going along with yes, and therefore I'm all about the flying the union flag.

It's a good job i'm not Scottish, eh? Else you'd have to call me no true Scotsman.

You really are a very confused person, tho I'm not so surprised. It seems to me that you know you're conflicted by the lies of yes, but ultimately you feel it's better to go along with them.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Well I've been posting, but I'm more against-secession rather than pro-union.

Some people can't grasp the difference.

To the people who can't, the only true Scotsmen are those who'll vote yes.

[eFestivals]

I will be disappointed if we gain independence & all the warnings of BT prove to be true & prevent iScotland achieving that.

Whoa!!! I see you're starting Salmond's post-yes-vote campaign a bit early. It's only after the yes vote that you get to blame rUK for all the lies of the white paper.

[eFestivals]

No offence intended ( I did say "much of the time")

I'm trying to work out if there's a big difference between anti-secession & pro union...

Does it mean you oppose independence but you think the Union is a bit rubbish?

When you say "the Union" or "the UK" you mean "tory domination".

There's plenty of us who know that toryism (or tory-lite, nuLabour) is w*nk, but that doesn't blind us to the fact that all countries big or small have crises, but that the big countries are able to better ride them out - because there's greater resources and diversity of resources that are able to be shared around.

We're only having the convo because Scotland doesn't wish to share. I know how you Scots love to mention McCrone, but you keep forgetting to mention that he was 100% right. To paraphrase, Scotland can't be told about the oil, because Scotland will want to steal it all for itself - and so it's proving.

There might be a desire within Scotland by some people to have something radically different - there is in plenty within England too - but if you look around at other countries, which is radically different? None. They're all near-identical.

And that's because people are near-identical, no matter where you might to draw imaginary lines.

You'll vote for change and get the same, but without the advantages that 'a big country' gives.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

uh oh, the Rev Neil's back with another sermon

Time for some light relief

ps got told last nite Metallica's a definite...that wee purple rascal

[eFestivals]

Good plan, diversion.

After all, we can't have the facts breaking out. That might prove awkward.

[LJS]

such tiny minds.

I'm not mindlessly going along with yes, and therefore I'm all about the flying the union flag.

It's a good job i'm not Scottish, eh? Else you'd have to call me no true Scotsman.

You really are a very confused person, tho I'm not so surprised. It seems to me that you know you're conflicted by the lies of yes, but ultimately you feel it's better to go along with them.

The flying the Union Flag thing was a figure of speech & was not intended as an in depth analysis of your position.

But I'm glad you realise how annoying it is when people misrepresent your position.

So I'll cut you a deal ... I'll stop accusing you of waving the Union Flag

If you stop accusing me of believing Scots and Scotland are superior, of believing in a Westminster conspiracy, and of sharing anything with Ukip.

From now on when you pin something on me that I haven't said this will be my response

Edited April 28, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

There might be a desire within Scotland by some people to have something radically different - there is in plenty within England too - but if you look around at other countries, which is radically different? None. They're all near-identical.

The Scandiwegian ones are notably different. I wouldn't go so far as to say radically, but that's a result of globalisation. Even the pseudo-communist countries have huge similarities.

[LJS]

Iv'e been accused of being uncritical of Alex Salmond &, although I have agreed that his relationship with Rupert M was pretty questionable, I have generally spoken reasonably positively about him, mainly because I believe he & the government he leads have done a pretty good job.

At the same time the competition for most inspiring party leader is not exactly sensational.

I am however, unimpressed with this

Alex Salmond has ‘a certain admiration’ for Putin

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-has-a-certain-admiration-for-putin-1-3390695

Admittedly, if you read the attached article, it is a bit of a hatchet job & Salmond attaches so many if's & buts as to make it almost meaningless. But is is just incredibly cack-handed to hand your opponents the opportunity to write this headline

[Buff124]

all countries big or small have crises, but that the big countries are able to better ride them out

You'll vote for change and get the same, but without the advantages that 'a big country' gives.

So, bigness of country correlates with ability to ride out a crisis ? Nice hypothesis.

The UK is the 22nd biggest out of 196, so we're a big country. The boundary would have to be drawn at 98 (the halfway mark) which is bad news for the likes of Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark.

Unlucky, dudes. You just ain't big enough to be able to ride out a crisis.

[LJS]

Good plan, diversion.

After all, we can't have the facts breaking out. That might prove awkward.

pretty much everything from both sides in this campaign are estimates, projections, predictions. There are precious few facts.

You will note that I have not claimed "Fact" status for any for any of the reports/studies etc I have quoted, I have only tried to argue there are 2 credible sides to the story. You are the one who claims to have revelation of the True & Holy facts..

You quote McCrone & in fact justify distorting or withholding facts as a legitimate campaign tactic.

interesting

Edited April 28, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

But I'm glad you realise how annoying it is when people misrepresent your position.

agreed

If you stop accusing me of believing Scots and Scotland are superior, of believing in a Westminster conspiracy, and of sharing anything with Ukip.

I don't believe i've directed any one of those at you personally, but if I've done so it was an error of typing rather than anything meant, and I apologise.

I might have said an erronious 'you' to mean a wider 'scottish' or 'yes' position, again, I apologise. I might have said 'yes-ers' when meaning only some yers-ers. If that's got you, I apologise.

As for those things themselves, I won't apologise for having recognised significant aspects of what is going on. It's not just the one side who is indulging in bollocks.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

It's lovely & fluffy but a meaningless piece.

For exactly the same reasons why poverty doesn't get tackled in the UK, it won't get tackled in iScotland - just as it hasn't been tackled by the SNP (oh, I forgot, everything about Scottish poverty is Westminster's fault ).

And that's that the majority (or a big enough proportion, anyway) think they already pay more than enough towards those things.

Scotland is not so very different. It's long had an established "none of the above" party in the SNP so the 'UKIP effect' is far less likely to show up there, but UKIP still look like getting over 50% of the support in Scotland as they'll get in England in the Euro Elections.

And the 2015 GE will be amusing to watch in Scotland if everything else were the same, with a massive chuck of "none of the above" voters no longer having much choice for who to vote for. They can't vote for LibDems, because they're now tories.

But because everything in Scotland will not be the same as last time, perhaps that'll get lost beneath the nationalist flag waving ... and those UKIP-ers just love nationalist flag-wavers, even if they don't much like the Scottish ones.

You know part of me agrees with you & thinks, why will an Independent Scotland be any more likely to deliver a fairer Society than the present UK.

Well, the first thin to establish is that in the last 30 years the UK has, bt any measure, been consistently shite in this area. We ( yes it is we for Scotland is part of the UK) did a wee bit better under new labour , introducing the minimum wage & doing some good in the alleviation of child poverty. But it was clear their heart wasn't in it.

I really cannot see any reason to believe that this is likely to change. And this, more than anything else is what has caused me to change from a pro- devolution socialst/unionist to a pro- independence socialist.

Give me one good reason why I should believe for one moment that things in the UK under the current system are likely to change in the foreseeable future?

I don't think you can & if I am right, the only question is: am I completely bonkers to think there is the slightest chance of things being any different in an independent Scotland?

Maybe.

The honest answer is " I cannot be sure" but I have given reasons before why I think there is a chance that we might be able to build a fairer society.

Scots are no better or worse than anyone else. But we appear, to have a bit more belief in the "common good" We are the only part of the UK to have voted in significant numbers for a genuine Socialist party in recent years.

I have never subscribed to any sort of anti Scottish conspiracy from Westminster. We just don't matter enough. Perhaps, that is inevitable, If you are governing over 60 million people, the furthest away 5 million are likely not to be the top priority.

Its not a conspiracy - its maths.

[LJS]

agreed

I don't believe i've directed any one of those at you personally, but if I've done so it was an error of typing rather than anything meant, and I apologise.

I might have said an erronious 'you' to mean a wider 'scottish' or 'yes' position, again, I apologise. I might have said 'yes-ers' when meaning only some yers-ers. If that's got you, I apologise.

As for those things themselves, I won't apologise for having recognised significant aspects of what is going on. It's not just the one side who is indulging in bollocks.

[Buff124]

So, bigness of country correlates with ability to ride out a crisis ? Nice hypothesis.

Part 2

You'd think that Iceland - population a measly 300k - would be complete toast after their recent crisis which entailed letting their banks fail, and tearing up the country's Constitution. But strangely there's only 10% of the population currently below the poverty line (more than 10% below the median salary) compared to the UK who have 16% of the population living in poverty.

These stats games can go on for ages - your turn.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

maybe this is the difference between the two campaigns

http://nationalcollective.com/fundraising/

where is the better together equivalent?

Edited April 28, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

just done an amazingly scientific online quiz to see how English i am

& here are the results

(drum roll)

How English are you?

You got 12 out of 15 correct answers

By George! Arise a true Englishman. You are a credit to your country. Your OBE is in the post!

- See more at: http://www.supanet.com/quiz/how-english-are-you-q296p0.html#sthash.IBJFwl8p.dpuf

[Comfy Bean]

pretty much everything from both sides in this campaign are estimates, projections, predictions. There are precious few facts.

Pretty much spot on I would say LJS and we all agreed earlier ( I think ) that politicians will talk the bull in an attempt to " win ". They have to pick out the best estimates / projections / predictions that suit whatever side of the argument they are on. It`s then up to us to use our own bullshitometer to work out who we believe the most ( or who`s lying the least ). Anywayz.....on the oil revenues that came up again earlier. My view, for what it`s worth, is that either side will be able to find an " industry expert " who can provide figures / estimates to fit their argument. As someone who knows zilch about oil, I have always wondered if it is not more likely that folks in the oil industry would UNDERestimate the zillions of barrels "we" have in oil as it would be commercially bonkers to run about telling everyone that there was loads and loads of the stuff. Why attract competitors into our waters and drive down prices with that kind of talk ? Plus....although oil available will of course go down this could in theory drive prices up so we are in a guessing game.

One thing for sure is that there is oil off our shores just now and continuing hopes for more down the west coast. A sensible long term policy would see a fair slice of the revenue from this ploughed back into advancements in wind / wave technology and building industries around all types of renewable energy. We " could " lead the way in manufacturing and exporting renewable technology around the world. I`m thinking jobs in our industrial communities.

Edited April 28, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Talking of estimates, projections and predictions......if we can all agree with the following then perhaps we can close the thread. I think they are spot on, accurate to the penny and will stand up to even Neil`s closest scrutiny

[kaosmark2]

Talking of estimates, projections and predictions......if we can all agree with the following then perhaps we can close the thread. I think they are spot on, accurate to the penny and will stand up to even Neil`s closest scrutiny

I assume you're joking, but just in case you're not:

Oil and gas have been argued over loads, but I don't think Scotland will be able to get as much as the SNP claim they could.

"potential wind and tide energy". The key word there is potential. Most of the facilities aren't actually in place, and the ones that are have been heavily subsidised by the UK government, something an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to do.

Aren't the next two stacking?

Tourism industry relies heavily on tourism from the rest of the UK, again, it's money cycled in from England. Will it be as dominant if Scotland give two fingers to everyone? I've no idea.

Construction industry is again heavily subsidised by the UK government, ditto farming. Scotland's farming and construction industries won't be anywhere near as strong if the country isn't a part of the UK, because guess what? rUK won't want to be dependent on imports and foreign labour, it'll start subsidising and establishing greater holds of its own.

[LJS]

Talking of estimates, projections and predictions......if we can all agree with the following then perhaps we can close the thread. I think they are spot on, accurate to the penny and will stand up to even Neil`s closest scrutiny

Hmm

Don't entirely want to spread division in the YES camp

but this is not why i am voting yes - the future is uncertain - that is kind of the nature of the future

[LJS]

I assume you're joking, but just in case you're not:

Oil and gas have been argued over loads, but I don't think Scotland will be able to get as much as the SNP claim they could.

"potential wind and tide energy". The key word there is potential. Most of the facilities aren't actually in place, and the ones that are have been heavily subsidised by the UK government, something an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to do.

Aren't the next two stacking?

Tourism industry relies heavily on tourism from the rest of the UK, again, it's money cycled in from England. Will it be as dominant if Scotland give two fingers to everyone? I've no idea.

Construction industry is again heavily subsidised by the UK government, ditto farming. Scotland's farming and construction industries won't be anywhere near as strong if the country isn't a part of the UK, because guess what? rUK won't want to be dependent on imports and foreign labour, it'll start subsidising and establishing greater holds of its own.

Both sides are claiming ownership of the future

The one thing that is certain about the future is that it is ...err... uncertain

I am so disappointed that neither side is prepared to campaign on principle not some pathetic competition as to how much money you will have in your pocket.