The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Neil I owe you an apology. I had previously stated, truthfully, that I had never met or heard anyone before who thought that Scotland was a region not a Country.

Last night, a unionist lady on qt said when talking about the Euro ref that "we" had voted as a region and that was that.

She actually said "region" lol

Any relation ? :-)

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think she's going to call this next Indy ref for 2018 right enough. I think you and ljs have called this already. NS must be confident that a combination of a much higher starting base, the hard brexit, continuing Tory leadership and demise of Labour will give her the numbers.

Did you see that polling LJS has been posting?

One said 49% of people want another ref never or in 20+ years. You can be sure every single one of them is not an indy supporter, and will not be swung from that view.

Which leaves 51% who want a ref sooner than 20 years, of which most will support indy. But not all - because they'll be some people who want an 2nd over and done with, so indy can properly go back in its box for decades.

It's unwinnable, barring some sort of freak happening around the turnout.

 

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The while type of Country thing versus Tory out of Europe land will be the narrative she will look to sell it on. I accept you don't recognise Scotland as a Country etc.

And when she tries to sell it, the first question to be asked will be: how will it be funded?

And then it's all about the important questions of deficit, currency, and continuing trade (or not), where no one on the indy side is able to supply adequate answers. Because it's impossible to.

The only workable answer is massive cuts, but I doubt that's going to be offered as a workable solution, o it'll be a campaign of deception again with willing morons helping to spread lies.  If indy wins it'll be a Trump-like win, built on lies believed by idiots.

The 'type of country' thing is an unattainable dream, however noble it might be in ambition. The smart people know that, Sturgeon included. 

The only thing to find out is how big she's prepared to lie.

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

OMFG.

So you now reckon that the UK govt places no obligations on more-local authorities to care and look after the refugees they take on....?

What happens in England are those obligations from the UK govt. What Sturgeon does in Scotland are the same obligations from the UK govt.

The UK govt is giving you fuicking money for it. Do you think it's giving the money without an obligation going with it?????? 

The obligation is NOT to spend only the supplied funds on the refugees. it's to care for those refugees to the agreed level. If extra funds are needed to do that the extra funds are supplied 'locally'.

There will be a big variance of needs of the individual refugees, so it would be mindlessly-fucking dumb to say "you don't need to ever spend a penny extra on any one of them".

 

She's done another extra beyond the standard obligations. What don't you get?

One of those links you supplied was funding for a refugee charity. Do you think that 'English govt'* money doesn't do the same, and that in the time of a refugee crisis it won't be granting extra?

(* we both know there's no such thing, but administration of all the same things that the SG does is done for England from somewhere, and from an England-only budget).

 

You have talked about sturgeon. What happens in England is irrelevant to your point because sturgeon isn't in England.

The home office pays money to local authorities to cover the cost of housing the refugees etc. It does not pay that money to the Scottish government. 

The local authorities bear the responsibility for ensuring the refugees are housed, educated etc etc.

The Scottish government could have sat back and allow this process to take place. It could have kept it's money in it'd purse to spend on presents for the middle classes.

It didn't. It set up a Co-ordinating body with COSLA and various other bodies (including the Scottish Refugee Council who you mentioned above)

They also made additional funds available both to councils and to other organisation working with refugees.

They were not required to do any of this and I'm not claiming it is anything particularly remarkable, I'm simply using these facts to refute your bogus & entirely fictitious claim that the poison fascist had done nothing.

Please don't insult me (& embarrass yourself) by replying with another list of what England does. Your accusation was entirely that Sturgeon had done nothing beyond what she had to do. You cannot prove that point by claiming England had done something too.

I shall repeat that I am not claiming saintliness for the blessed Nicola. I really don't have enough information to be sure is she has done all she could. I do have enough information to be sure that your claims are malicious and invented.

Edited February 17, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil I owe you an apology. I had previously stated, truthfully, that I had never met or heard anyone before who thought that Scotland was a region not a Country.

Last night, a unionist lady on qt said when talking about the Euro ref that "we" had voted as a region and that was that.

She actually said "region" lol

Any relation ? :-)

Texas is a country. Bavaria is a country. Brittany is a country. California is a country.

They're each as much a country as Scotland is, but i bet you've never once referred to any of them as a country.

So as likely your relation as mine, i reckon.

[LJS]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

ahh, OK ... then yep, on the blood and soil Scotland basis she espouses, the putting Scotland first* that you know and love, yep, she's a fascist.

 

Brexit is very much about putting Britain first, & Theresa May is very much the high priestess of Brexit noe. Does that make her a fascist?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

your bogus & entirely fictitious claim that the poison fascist had done nothing.

that's the fake, your claim right there. :rolleyes:

I've not been making that claim (except via poor wording, perhaps). I've certainly mentioned a lot it's about the nothing extra.

It's standard process for any authority at any level to look upwards for help and coordination and to get it to deal with an emerging problem which is happening elsewhere under that greater authority.

It's why the whole bloody structure is like it is. FFS.

Fuck sake, I'm crediting Sturgeon and the SG with actually having a useful purpose and doing it's job for once - but only its job, nothing extra - and you want to tell me I'm wrong?

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Did you see that polling LJS has been posting?

One said 49% of people want another ref never or in 20+ years. You can be sure every single one of them is not an indy supporter, and will not be swung from that view.

I'm sure your first point is right and I'm pretty sure more or less all those intending to vote "no" wodl say they are opposed to a second indyref. However I fail to see any Justification that none of them will be swung from that view. Its as logical as saying the most 51% who want a second indy ref are pro indy and will never be swung from that view. what polls have shown clearly is that people have been changing their minds. there is no reason why they won't continue to do so

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which leaves 51% who want a ref sooner than 20 years, of which most will support indy. But not all - because they'll be some people who want an 2nd over and done with, so indy can properly go back in its box for decades.

It's unwinnable, barring some sort of freak happening around the turnout.

It really isn't and you know it.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

And when she tries to sell it, the first question to be asked will be: how will it be funded?

And then it's all about the important questions of deficit, currency, and continuing trade (or not), where no one on the indy side is able to supply adequate answers. Because it's impossible to.

The only workable answer is massive cuts, but I doubt that's going to be offered as a workable solution, o it'll be a campaign of deception again with willing morons helping to spread lies.  If indy wins it'll be a Trump-like win, built on lies believed by idiots.

The 'type of country' thing is an unattainable dream, however noble it might be in ambition. The smart people know that, Sturgeon included. 

The only thing to find out is how big she's prepared to lie.

 I've given up replying to this sort of nonsense so lets have a song, shall we? Its ages since we've had a good song.

 

[pink_triangle]

56 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I can't Imagine Pink Triangle is mad enough to be reading this but if you are, perhaps you an understand why I always seem to be defending Sturgeon when Neil just makes stuff up about her.

 

In a rare moment of madness, I happen to be in the vicinity! I have nothing personally against Sturgeon. My main point about her is I sometimes feel SNP supporters put her on a higher pedestal than an average politician, almost as if she is above the usual games. My view is she plays politic the same way as anyone else. It doesn't make her good or bad, it just makes her a politician.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Brexit is very much about putting Britain first, & Theresa May is very much the high priestess of Brexit noe. Does that make her a fascist?

Brexit is about putting Britain first. But unless you're happy for me to associate you with the Orange Order on a similar basis, that's fuck all to do with me.

May is being a politician and following a public instruction. We all know she's against brexit personally, ffs. It's not ideological, but practical democratic politics. It's not the same thing to where Sturgeon's at, which is ideological, and trying to get the support to win that isn't there yet.

(you might think i've been soft on May there, but just consider what my attitudes would be towards the validity of a win for Scottish indy. I might not like the manner in which it's been won, but I'll 100% be supporting the validity of the vote on the same principle of democracy as I'm allowing May above. I hope you've seen enough of my posts to know I think a [legal, approved] vote should be respected in just about all circumstances, else voting means nothing).

There's also the geographic logic of GB as a unitary state. There's only tribalism and history (of that tribalism) to define the Scottish state as you and her want it. Again, not the same things.

BTW, had to explain to my new assistant today how come Scottish tickets are often on a different website to the rest of a tour. Internalising markets isn't something that's happening - yet - in England. That'll be costly post-indy.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In a rare moment of madness, I happen to be in the vicinity! I have nothing personally against Sturgeon. My main point about her is I sometimes feel SNP supporters put her on a higher pedestal than an average politician, almost as if she is above the usual games. My view is she plays politic the same way as anyone else. It doesn't make her good or bad, it just makes her a politician.

I completely agree with you. Personally I rate her a bit higher than most politicians but then I'm sure you rate some higher than others too, but you are right, she is still a politician.

Neil takes a different view, he says she is a fascist and has done nothing *extra* for refugees. This is unfair and inaccurate so for some bizarre reason I have wasted loads of time defending her. 

[LJS]

Anyway as part of my Public Information commitment here are some more numbers from the Bishop.

I think there is spin to be spun for both camps here

I'll simply remark that (after leave voters) Labour supporters are the most opposed to immigration. How uplifting!

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

(you might think i've been soft on May there, 

perish the thought!

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm sure your first point is right and I'm pretty sure more or less all those intending to vote "no" wodl say they are opposed to a second indyref. However I fail to see any Justification that none of them will be swung from that view. Its as logical as saying the most 51% who want a second indy ref are pro indy and will never be swung from that view. what polls have shown clearly is that people have been changing their minds. there is no reason why they won't continue to do so

I reckon mine is a quite logical take on it.

I say they can't be swung, and all would vote no. I didn't say none would ever vote yes.

Scottish indy is something everyone already has an informed opinion on. Everyone's heard the arguments, and they've already chosen where they sit in current circumstances.

In those 20+ years ones I reckon there's plenty who would support indie in different economic circumstances, where it's not certain the price would be savage austerity. In 20+ years things might look different, but they're not going to look very different in a shorter time-scale than that (barring a nuclear accident in England, or something similarly major).

Those would be thinking people, who do economics, who understand the scale of the problem, who are open to persuasion, but led by the facts. It's just not possible to turn those facts in indy's favour in the next few years.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

It really isn't and you know it.

I don't discount the chance that indy might win, but nothing is indicating it will, and other stuff is strongly suggestive that it won't.

Never mind, eh? Maybe in 20 years.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

 I've given up replying to this sort of nonsense so lets have a song, shall we? Its ages since we've had a good song.

 

Ahhh, the normal distraction technique when you know the facts are against you. Very well done.

 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In a rare moment of madness, I happen to be in the vicinity! I have nothing personally against Sturgeon. My main point about her is I sometimes feel SNP supporters put her on a higher pedestal than an average politician, almost as if she is above the usual games. My view is she plays politic the same way as anyone else. It doesn't make her good or bad, it just makes her a politician.

Yep, that's the truth of things.

But for indy, there has to be some added exceptionalism. Sturgeon cares more than nasty old May down in London, you only have to see her Scottishness to know it.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

I completely agree with you. Personally I rate her a bit higher than most politicians

No shit sherlock

You'll absolve her of playing politics with refugees in the way you won't absolve others for doing the same.

 

Quote

but then I'm sure you rate some higher than others too, but you are right, she is still a politician.

Neil takes a different view, he says she is a fascist and has done nothing *extra* for refugees. This is unfair and inaccurate so for some bizarre reason I have wasted loads of time defending her. 

I said she's a blood and soil nationalist, as shown by her often breaking into "Scotland is a country". There's nothing civic in that.

And i'd be right.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No shit sherlock

You'll absolve her of playing politics with refugees in the way you won't absolve others for doing the same.

 

I said she's a blood and soil nationalist, as shown by her often breaking into "Scotland is a country". There's nothing civic in that.

And i'd be right.

do we need to play this game again?

[LJS]

NOt sure why but i seem to be in a musical mood today

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

do we need to play this game again?

you've yet to tell me what the 'civic' is in claiming a greater right to independence because of tribal Scotland.

You never do. There's a reason why.

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

Anyway as part of my Public Information commitment here are some more numbers from the Bishop.

I think there is spin to be spun for both camps here

I'll simply remark that (after leave voters) Labour supporters are the most opposed to immigration. How uplifting!

I don't think it would be any spin to say there's a strong anti-immigration feeling in Scotland, that's probably little different overall to England (tho there will be an amount of variance, because there is with the immigration too, and the pressures it brings).

The way some people like to present it, England is full of (only) racist kippers and Scotland is a luvvie-duvvie other world.

It also says that one of the things Sturgeon has been trying to use as a selling point - more immigration - might actually be working against her and not for her (much as her pro-EU stance seemingly has, tho only by a minute amount).

Boxed in on all sides. It's really not panned out how she was thinking it might.

 

[Comfy Bean]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you've yet to tell me what the 'civic' is in claiming a greater right to independence because of tribal Scotland.

You never do. There's a reason why.

Tribal ?

Are you aware of any significant differences around the rules of who could vote in the Indy ref and the Eu ref ?

I have long ago accepted that you genuinely concluded that our Indy ref was all about hatred of the other / Englander or whoever. It's always about the hate.

Your opinion is alien to me but I also regard it as quite revealing about how you see things.

You seem upset that our exit will end the union. Few care about it as much as you appear to. Fair play to you, you fight hard for its survival. As I said earlier, what type of Country we live in seems way more important to me.

 

[Comfy Bean]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Boxed in on all sides. It's really not panned out how she was thinking it might.

 

I'm not sure she's boxed in.

She has clearly stated it's off the table for 2017.

It might be 2018 but we don't know.

What we do know is that it will be when NS decides.

With us all forced to wait till she decides, you will need to define what you mean by her being boxed in.

Whats your best guess Neil ?

Autumn 2018 seems to be the word. A long way away in politics.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you've yet to tell me what the 'civic' is in claiming a greater right to independence because of tribal Scotland.

You never do. There's a reason why.

why is Scotland tribal & the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland isn't?

As it happens us Scots are made up of many tribes & generally speaking we all get on very in a very civil & civic way. 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Tribal ?

how do you think ancient Scotland came to exist?

 

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Are you aware of any significant differences around the rules of who could vote in the Indy ref and the Eu ref ?

Are you aware that the polls around indy are polling the correct electorate?

 

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have long ago accepted that you genuinely concluded that our Indy ref was all about hatred of the other / Englander or whoever. It's always about the hate.

Not at all. It's about a misplaced sense of grievance. It just so happens that almost everyone who gets the blame for those grievances is English, so for some of your indy supporters it is just that.

 

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Your opinion is alien to me but I also regard it as quite revealing about how you see things.

While your opinion and refusal to face up to the facts isn't alien to me. It's actually very familiar. It's exactly the same as seen within kippers, trumpers, and Corbynistas too. Hope beyond all reason.

If you were campaigning for indy on the basis of "it'll be fucking hard, things will have to be cut, drastically, but we'll make our own decisions" my attitudes to your posts would be different. I could respect that honesty in a way I can never respect the deliberate head in the sand act.

 

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You seem upset that our exit will end the union.

Not at all, I just think it would be fucking stupid in the circumstances, and will achieve the opposite of what you hope. As such it would be fair to say it would be considered a disaster by the very people who wanted so badly.

If the UK were the abusive occupier some indy supporters imagine, it would be fair enough. If the economics were better in Scotland's favour it would be fair enough. I don't give a shit what you want to regard as being your country or the status it has - that's purely up to you.

Just as I didn't want brexit to win on a lie, I don't want indy to be won on the lie - and for the same reasons. It will devastate some people's lives, unnecessarily. For a dream that can't be had.

 

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Few care about it as much as you appear to. Fair play to you, you fight hard for its survival. As I said earlier, what type of Country we live in seems way more important to me.

I got interested for no particular reason, and then was hooked by the cybernats, who were a new phenomenon back then.

And now I just laugh at how fact-free the whole thing is.

 

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

why is Scotland tribal & the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland isn't?

As it happens us Scots are made up of many tribes & generally speaking we all get on very in a very civil & civic way. 

It might well be tribal, but it's a sharing by the tribes, without anyone (except you) fencing a bit off and saying 'this is special, this bit is mine'.

The UK didn't come together as tribes, anyway, but from the other end, by govt, and king.

I'd say that was the point the tribalism was put away, to a large degree (at least in theory).

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It might well be tribal, but it's a sharing by the tribes, without anyone (except you) fencing a bit off and saying 'this is special, this bit is mine'.

The UK didn't come together as tribes, anyway, but from the other end, by govt, and king.

I'd say that was the point the tribalism was put away, to a large degree (at least in theory).

Tosh