The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

You just keep repeating the same question endlessly

because you never ever answer it. You've just avoided it again.

There's a reason why, and it's not what you claim, it's what you know but won't post.

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

because you never ever answer it. You've just avoided it again.

There's a reason why, and it's not what you claim, it's what you know but won't post.

 

Sorry Neil.

I give up.

I have addressed in great detail your question. You have not addressed any of my points other than to insult me and repeat your groundless claim.

Unless you are prepared to respond to the detaisled points I have made, I shall consider myself the victor in this debate by default. 

It is impossible to engage in debate when only one side is debating. 

It looks more and more likely that Indyref 2 is on its way. if you'd liek to continue debating the pros & cons of that over the next year or so, I am more than happy to do so. 

But not with someone whose entire tactic is to ignore the points I have made, claim dishonelty that I have not answered your question and insult me.

Enjoy your own personal Indyref 2 echo chamber.

Quote

In 5 Minutes, eFestivals will say

You never answered my question you twat.

I won I won

My argument is bigger than your argument

You are a moron.

Nah na ne nah nah

 

 

Anyway, its not all bad, I haven't listened to this for years  - Off to listen to a bit more now.

[LJS]

Crap in the Guardian defending Khan's odious attack on Scottish nationalism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/parallels-scottish-nationalism-racism-sadiq-khan#comment-93998302

Superb response:

"I'm honestly so fucked off by this that I'm finding it hard to articulate effectively, but I'll give it a bash.

I'm of mixed Scots and North African parentage. I've lived in Scotland my whole life, born in one city, raised in the country, moved to another city, and then another - I've gotten around in my 30-plus years. The Scottish side of my family is also comprised of English relatives. We don't all agree on everything, but none of us would dare call the other racist for disagreeing with the person with the most melanin in the room. I grew up in a white town. A really white town. I got it tight. Racism has been ever-present throughout my life, but not in enough volume for it to fully break me. I've largely overcome the problems it caused for my confidence. But I rarely even encounter it anymore, and when I do it's often in the context of the independence debate, but not often from those who support the idea of self-determination for Scotland. In my experience, when people in the Yes movement encounter 'blood and soil' ethnic nationalist attitudes among their own, they challenge them and that confidence to challenge racist attitudes and have people of all backgrounds back me up is a new feeling. I like the direction we're moving in as a country, and it feels like the perfect antidote to this rising tide of ethnic nationalism that seems to be gripping certain parts of the UK and across Europe. Scotland's not perfect, but it wants better. Not better than England, but better than the current constitutional settlement."

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Crap in the Guardian defending Khan's odious attack on Scottish nationalism.

You still haven't said what was odious in calling your wish for division "divisive".

It appears that what is by-far the most odious about this whole thing is how much people like you are happy to lie about it.

It's almost like you're trying to live out what Khan said as fully as you can.

Either that, or Scots are thick as pigshit, and I don't think Scots are thick as pigshit.

Edited February 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You still haven't said what was odious in calling your wish for division "divisive".

It appears that what is by-far the most odious about this whole thing is how much people like you are happy to lie about it.

It's almost like you're trying to live out what Khan said as fully as you can.

Either that, or Scots are thick as pigshit, and I don't think Scots are thick as pigshit.

Ah, back to your old trick of pretending I haven't addressed some point or other coupled with some free insults.

I refer you to my earlier post...

"Again, my point wasn't that Khan is wrong (although of course I think he is) but that it was politically a really stupid thing to say. When you have lost hundreds of thousands of voters to the SNP and when over a quarter of your own supporters are in favour of independence, calling these folk racists seems a rather odd way to win them back/retain their support.

And before someone says he didn't actually call Nats racist, while that may be true, a seasoned and experienced politician like Khan would undoubtedly know how his remarks would be reported. "

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Ah, back to your old trick of pretending I haven't addressed some point or other coupled with some free insults.

I refer you to my earlier post...

"Again, my point wasn't that Khan is wrong (although of course I think he is) but that it was politically a really stupid thing to say. When you have lost hundreds of thousands of voters to the SNP and when over a quarter of your own supporters are in favour of independence, calling these folk racists seems a rather odd way to win them back/retain their support.

And before someone says he didn't actually call Nats racist, while that may be true, a seasoned and experienced politician like Khan would undoubtedly know how his remarks would be reported. "

so, you're saying you're thick by being outraged at something you know wasn't said...?

 

[eFestivals]

So anyway, so far the 'campaign' seems to be the same as 2014, of people who know different making claims they know are false to try and stoke false grievances because they know they can't offer a proposition that can stand up by itself.

And these people making false claims - lies - are the same people who say that an independent Scotland with these lying people in charge will be a better Scotland.

It's quite laughable.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

so, you're saying you're thick by being outraged at something you know wasn't said...?

 

No that's not what I said. Which is clear of you possess the ability to read.

[LJS]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So anyway, so far the 'campaign' seems to be the same as 2014, of people who know different making claims they know are false to try and stoke false grievances because they know they can't offer a proposition that can stand up by itself.

And these people making false claims - lies - are the same people who say that an independent Scotland with these lying people in charge will be a better Scotland.

It's quite laughable.

On the contrary, I think the campaign will be very different this time as this chap articulates rather well..

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

No that's not what I said. Which is clear of you possess the ability to read.

you've admitted he didn't say what you're spreading around.

Nuff said. :rolleyes:

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

On the contrary, I think the campaign will be very different this time as this chap articulates rather well..

so far all there is are lies, same as last time.

And we've not even got to the really tough part yet, about how the books are going to balance without turning Scotland into tories-on-steroids-land.

Plus of course the huge costs of establishing and supporting a new currency, and all of the damage to Scotland's economy from rUK internalising its market.

It'll be the same lies with the same outcome, I reckon, and you'll fail to understand why for the 2nd time.

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

you've admitted he didn't say what you're spreading around.

Nuff said.

Some day you will actually directly address something I say...

No, I'm being an idiot. That day will clearly never come.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Some day you will actually directly address something I say...

what you said was that you're outraged at something he didn't say.

He said all of brexit, nationalism, Trump, and racism are the same divisive - which they are. Unless you can tell me different, and how dividing a current nation into two parts isn't divisive?

It's not his fault that some people are looking to find offence that isn't present.

That's YOUR fault for grasping for any and all false grievances because indy can't be made to stand up by itself.

[Comfy Bean]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

you've admitted he didn't say what you're spreading around.

Nuff said.

I " think " he did say what was printed in the Record. He then tweaked his conference speech.

Its bottom of the barrel stuff. Much like the stuff posted of late on here by your good self.

[LJS]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

what you said was that you're outraged at something he didn't say.

He said all of brexit, nationalism, Trump, and racism are the same divisive - which they are. Unless you can tell me different, and how dividing a current nation into two parts isn't divisive?

It's not his fault that some people are looking to find offence that isn't present.

That's YOUR fault for grasping for any and all false grievances because indy can't be made to stand up by itself.

My main point in bringing up Khan's remarks was not that what he said was offensive or wrong but that it was politically stupid. You've made it clear you disagree which is fine. People will inevitably hold different views on what are the best tactics for any party or movement. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Scottish LAbour party itslef is split on whether his intervention was smart or not. 

My second point, which you have studiously ignored was that he (or whoever wrote the speech) must have been aware of how that speech would be reported. It would be naive in the extreme not to understand that the link that was made would   be made & not, as you claim, just by snippers but also by the national media. But, its worse than that, because this linking of the SNP with racism was clearly not some sort of accidental misunderstanding by virtually the entire UK press. I presented 7 or 8 headlines in the General news thread all interpreting his remarks in exactly the same way. That is either the most extraordinary coincidence or else they were briefed the story in that way by Labour spin doctors. There is no other plausible explanation for the near unanimous reporting of a meaning which, according to you , was not contained in the original speech. Khan is not stupid enough to stand up and say "the SNP are racists." Apparently he is stupid enough to be used as stooge in a ham-fisted attempt to get that message across loud & clear whilst being able to pretend that that isn't really what he said.

Its a bit like someone talking about blood & soil & then holding their hands up all innocently protesting "Nazis?, whoever said anything about the Nazis?"

Dogs & whistles spring to mind.

Its dirty dirty politics & I would really have hoped that the Labour Party could rise above such rancid nonsense. 

 

 

.

 

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I " think " he did say what was printed in the Record. He then tweaked his conference speech.

Its bottom of the barrel stuff. Much like the stuff posted of late on here by your good self.

yep, what he planned to say was printed in lots of places.

As LJS has admitted, it doesn't say what is being claimed of it.

The bottom of the barrel stuff is the lies being spread about what he didn't say. Desperate stuff by the Nats.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

My main point in bringing up Khan's remarks was not that what he said was offensive or wrong but that it was politically stupid.

It was stupid only so far as the particular order of the words he chose, which has allowed those like you to claim something that was never said.

He's making a point about divisive politics. His point is well made.

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

That is demonstrated by the fact that the Scottish LAbour party itslef is split on whether his intervention was smart or not. 

I don't think it was 'smart' within full context but the failing here isn't his, it's yours and those like you.

You're choosing to deliberately misrepresent what he said, and someone more in touch with Scottish politics than Khan would have known that snippers deal only in lies, and that Labour is the enemy far more than the tories are. It's a predictable outcome.

I suspect that he has little time to follow these things, and has fallen for Sturgeon's kitten suit and mistakenly thought those who support her are fellow leftists.

All the same, while I don't think it was smart, he spoke truth. I'm not going to condemn him for speaking truth to the manipulative.

Edited February 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

so far all there is are lies, same as last time.

And we've not even got to the really tough part yet, about how the books are going to balance without turning Scotland into tories-on-steroids-land.

Plus of course the huge costs of establishing and supporting a new currency, and all of the damage to Scotland's economy from rUK internalising its market.

It'll be the same lies with the same outcome, I reckon, and you'll fail to understand why for the 2nd time.

As I said I believe the debate (at least from the Yes side) will take a different tack from the last time and will be largely about choosing what sort of country we wish to live in. (the No side, one assumes, will simply churn out the same old 10bn reason to be cheerless part 2 "now with added racism"

In a speech last night to the David Hume institute in London Nicola seemed to support my view...

 

"...But the basic question we face is actually quite simple – what sort of country do we want Scotland to be and who gets to decide?

 

The policies of Scotland’s elected parliament, since devolution, provide some sort of an answer.  They suggest that the people of this country overwhelmingly believe in a Scotland that is progressive, internationalist, outward looking, connected and compassionate.

 

Those values and priorities are threatened by the type of Brexit which the UK Government appears to be pursuing – one which is inward looking, regressive and which ignores Scotland’s views time and time again. 

 

The UK Government still has an opportunity to change course before it triggers the Article 50 process.   I very much hope it does.

 

However if it doesn’t, it will show that the democratic deficit which people voted to end in 1997 doesn’t just endure – it continues to cause harm to Scotland’s interests, to our international relationships, to our very sense of our own identity. 

 

And so if those circumstances arise, proposing a further decision on independence wouldn’t simply be legitimate, it would arguably be a necessary way of giving the people of Scotland a say in our own future direction.

 

It would offer Scotland a proper choice on whether or not to be part of a post Brexit UK - a UK that is undoubtedly on a fundamentally different path today than that envisaged in 2014.

 

And in the absence of compromise from the UK Government, it may offer the only way in which our voice can be heard, our interests protected, and our values upheld.

 

As a result of the Brexit vote, we - Scotland and the UK - stand just now at a crossroads. Decisions taken in the months to come will reshape our economy, our society and our place in the world - in short, they will shape the kind of country we are going to be. The question is should we decide for ourselves which path to take or are we willing to have that decided for us?

 

We may all offer different answers to that question. But surely the choice should be ours."

https://www.snp.org/david_hume_institute

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

As I said I believe the debate (at least from the Yes side) will take a different tack from the last time and will be largely about choosing what sort of country we wish to live in

To which the only true definition to that will be: a poorer one.

It would be a more-honest approach, but they'll be even less buyers for that than last time's lies. As I might have mentioned, it's all about the money - cos scots are less different than you want to believe.

It would, however, give indy a chance for sometime in the long distant future. People will be more inclined to believe an honest good case from a party that has presented an honest bad case, I reckon. Two sets of trying to win indy by a lie will probably have them untrusted for all time.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It was stupid only so far as the particular order of the words he chose, which has allowed those like you to claim something that was never said.

He's making a point about divisive politics. His point is well made.

I don't think it was 'smart' within full context but the failing here isn't his, it's yours and those like you.

You're choosing to deliberately misrepresent what he said, and someone more in touch with Scottish politics than Khan would have known that snippers deal only in lies, and that Labour is the enemy far more than the tories are. It's a predictable outcome.

I suspect that he has little time to follow these things, and has fallen for Sturgeon's kitten suit and mistakenly thought those who support her are fellow leftists.

All the same, while I don't think it was smart, he spoke truth. I'm not going to condemn him for speaking truth to the manipulative.

No of course you're not because we know you believe he's right & indeed probably didn't go far enough  - I mean he never referenced "Blood & Soil" 

Some folk (who happen to be involved in politics in Scotland so might actually have a fucking clue what they are talking about take a different view...

 

Exclusive: Scottish Young Labour slam “disastrous” and “untrue” Sadiq Khan Scottish nationalism statements

...

“Scottish Labour appears to have given up on winning back hundreds of thousands of its former voters who voted ‘Yes’ and now support the SNP. There is little other explanation for why the party leadership believes tacking to a more hardline unionist position will help reverse our electoral fortunes. The intervention by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was disastrous with his linking of far-right racism and hundreds of thousands of progressive voters in Scotland.

“We believe that such language is not only unhelpful to Scottish Labour, but is simply untrue in regards to Scottish nationalism. Scottish nationalism seeks to divide working-class people based on national borders, while the far-right seek to actively attack minorities within any given society. Although this approach went down well with some delegates in the hall, it simply reinforced our decline in the wider country....

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10428/exclusive-scottish-young-labour-slam-disastrous-and-untrue-sadiq-khan-scottish

 

You will see that these people are not in agreement with me on everything - it would be odd if they were - but they do agree that Khan's statement was “disastrous” and “untrue”

But they will be wrong and you will be right.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how khan was wrong, and that separation isn't divisive.

Might the reason be, just perhaps, that even you know he's right (and so I am too)?

Edited February 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how khan was wrong, and that separation isn't divisive.

Might the reason be, just perhaps, that even you know he's right (and so I am too)?

 

I have told you how he was wrong in great detail and repeatedly - & I have not argued that separatism isn't divisive - that is a straw man. However if you are interested I would argue that a separate Scotland would be a lot more internationalist & inclusive than a isolationist & Nationalist UK. The world is full of "separate" countries. Like it or not, its how we organise the planet & it ain't going to change. Lots of these countries have emerged or re-emerged in the past few decades. They have often emerged form other nations. Other than in a strictly Geographic sense they are not all divisive by any means. By you logic India & Pakistan should never have split. Bangladesh should never have split from Pakistan. Norway & Sweden should never have split. 

I have however argued that his comments were clearly & blatantly intended to suggest a link between Scottish Nationalism & racism. You have not addressed that in the slightest and astonishingly accuse me of not replying to you.

I have replied to every point you have made. You have filleted my points & only replied to the parts that suit you & then you have the brass neck to accuse me of not answering your questions. I really have no idea how fucking stupid you think I am!

Yet again the choice is entirely yours - if you want a debate you can have one. It takes two.

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

No of course you're not because we know you believe he's right & indeed probably didn't go far enough  - I mean he never referenced "Blood & Soil" 

Some folk (who happen to be involved in politics in Scotland so might actually have a fucking clue what they are talking about take a different view...

 

Exclusive: Scottish Young Labour slam “disastrous” and “untrue” Sadiq Khan Scottish nationalism statements

...

“Scottish Labour appears to have given up on winning back hundreds of thousands of its former voters who voted ‘Yes’ and now support the SNP. There is little other explanation for why the party leadership believes tacking to a more hardline unionist position will help reverse our electoral fortunes. The intervention by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was disastrous with his linking of far-right racism and hundreds of thousands of progressive voters in Scotland.

“We believe that such language is not only unhelpful to Scottish Labour, but is simply untrue in regards to Scottish nationalism. Scottish nationalism seeks to divide working-class people based on national borders, while the far-right seek to actively attack minorities within any given society. Although this approach went down well with some delegates in the hall, it simply reinforced our decline in the wider country....

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10428/exclusive-scottish-young-labour-slam-disastrous-and-untrue-sadiq-khan-scottish

 

You will see that these people are not in agreement with me on everything - it would be odd if they were - but they do agree that Khan's statement was “disastrous” and “untrue”

But they will be wrong and you will be right.

 

 

 

Excellent post. Even Andrew Neil described Khans comments as "absurd ".

He offered Kez the opportunity to " distance " herself from his comments. She danced round it and must be mad that this dominated the Scottish conference.

Shambles. Unless you're Neil of course lol

[LJS]

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Excellent post. Even Andrew Neil described Khans comments as "absurd ".

He offered Kez the opportunity to " distance " herself from his comments. She danced round it and must be mad that this dominated the Scottish conference.

Shambles. Unless you're Neil of course lol

Ha ha Comfy!

Neil's debating style on here - which was never very sophisticated - now appears to consist entirely of asking questions which you and or me answer whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question. We then answer his question again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question. We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question. We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question. We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.We then answer his question yet again whilst making some points of our own which Neil then completely ignores while complaining that we haven't answered his question.

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I have told you how he was wrong in great detail and repeatedl

No, you've said he didn't say what you're trying to put on him. 

FFS

Tell me how division isn't divisive, so that Khan is the wrong you're now saying he is...?

Or admit you're talking utter crap.