The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

except it does no such thing. The PDF referenced doesn't even have the words "scotland is a country" within it.

 

 

In fact it does contain those exact words on Page 7 at paragraph 3. I accept that you will now accuse the transcriber of BBC interviews of being a dirty racist snipper or perhaps a liar.

The link is in my original post from 21st Feb that I then quoted today. There is no point in me posting it again. You were the only person who would have imagined and then falsely claimed it wasn`t there.

I will not expect an apology but have made my views clear and provided links etc that I though were relevant and of interest to anyone with a genuine interest in the indy debate. I accept that you think I am a liar and have not provided evidence links etc to what was actually said. 

You have still been unable to find NS saying Scotland has a greater right to indy than an English city and I think there is a very good reason for that. Feel free to keep making that claim but I think I have gone beyond what`s reasonable to help you realise that you have been very much mistaken on this. Fair enough you believe it`s all about racism and blood and soil but that doesn`t mean everyone else is viewing the debate through hate fuelled specs  

As I said earlier, it`s all here in black and white. 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In fact it does contain those exact words on Page 7 at paragraph 3.

I searched the text from both within acrobat, and then copied the text into a text editor and did a search within that too - to no result in both.

I'll give it another go now.

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In fact it does contain those exact words on Page 7 at paragraph 3.

so it does.

But, just to prove I wasn't taking the piss, try searching it for "Scotland is a country", and (providing you're using same browser as me, chrome) you'll find it doesn't find it.

Having copied it again into a text editor, it's got a new line (rather than word-wrapping) after 'Scotland', so I guess that's why.

I'll have a look at it another time, things to do.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I see he thinks Khan linked Nats to racism too.  Seeing as you've already said that Khan did no such thing, perhaps tell kiddo to drop the lies?

Wrong. Again. I clearly said that Khan did not explicitly say Scottish Nationalism was racist because he is not a total idiot. The speech & it's spinning were clearly designed to suggest a link. In this view Chris & I are supported by most of the UK press  & a number of significant labour supporting voices.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I see he lies about the money too - truly his father's child  - by claiming a "lack of interest that the British establishment takes in its peripheral outposts". Such a lack of interest that Scotland is given the most money in the UK.

Yeah, the only way to show interest is to throw money around. At no stage does Chris suggest the British establishment is depriving Scotland of money.

Unsurprisingly,  you define interest as "all about the money"

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

And he claims "to have been colonised". PMSL

That wasn't my reading of it. It seemed to me he was comparing British nationalists with those from  countries who had been colonised & won independence. 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

And he claims a special type of English xenophobia of Scotland on the periphery, but of course there can be nothing like that from those who rant about the distant Westminster. Scots are special after all.

Again, your interpretation is different from mine. I certainly detected no accusation of xenophobia. Indeed his point is very similar to a point you made about Scotland & the UK being on the periphery of Europe.

 

I note you haven't really addressed the point of the article.

 

[LJS]

Hey, Neil, here's a wee article to help you understand how some of us might just feel the British establishment isn't that interested in Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-may-is-playing-with-fire-by-attacking-snp-1-4383791

[LJS]

And another one from the man often described as Scotland's leading historian. There is something for both sides here.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/tom-devine-snp-must-deal-with-economy-to-win-indyref2-1-4381922

Edited March 7, 2017 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Hey, Neil, here's a wee article to help you understand how some of us might just feel the British establishment isn't that interested in Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-may-is-playing-with-fire-by-attacking-snp-1-4383791

No idea who the writer is but for me, a decent summary. I sense we are under starters orders.

We`ve spoken on here about NS playing the long game and the Labour 3rd option of a federal UK is chip paper already. Straight fight with the Unionists with many in Labour keeping their heads down is on the cards.

" Type of Country " sounds like the main theme.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I note you haven't really addressed the point of the article.

 

Don`t hold your breathe 

I thought it was well written and an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

I had wondered about a pirate reference with your username thingy.

Bloody pirates thinking they can steal our gold / jobs / oil etc

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The speech & it's spinning were clearly designed to suggest a link.

only to those who have it in their heads that there is one.

The problem is your own, not his.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Yeah, the only way to show interest is to throw money around. At no stage does Chris suggest the British establishment is depriving Scotland of money.

Unsurprisingly,  you define interest as "all about the money"

Nope. I'm merely using the money as a way to demonstrate there's not the abandonment that he wants to believe.

Cos how many people do you know who express their dislike/displeasure/disinterest by voluntarily providing more and not less?

FFS.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I certainly detected no accusation of xenophobia

he lays an idea out as one that 'the English' have, and says its absent in Scots

Given that what he lays on 'the English' is a crock of shit anyway, it's very definitely the thing you can't see.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Hey, Neil, here's a wee article to help you understand how some of us might just feel the British establishment isn't that interested in Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-may-is-playing-with-fire-by-attacking-snp-1-4383791

I gave up reading at the first para, where it lays out the idea that those wrapped in flags - but only the 'unionist' flag (cos there's no flag waving with Scottish nationalism :lol:) - are abhorrent.

Yep, that proves your point about the absence of xenophobia.

Edited March 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The only person talking about independence right now is the Prime Minister. 

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-may-is-playing-with-fire-by-attacking-snp-1-4383791

Yeah, Sturgeon never mentions it. Particularly when she's making whole speeches about it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sturgeon+speech+independence&tbm=nws&*

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

And another one from the man often described as Scotland's leading historian. There is something for both sides here.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/tom-devine-snp-must-deal-with-economy-to-win-indyref2-1-4381922

he's defo right about the goading. Get on with it, or accept you have no clothes.

I see he's spotted the thing you've been denying, that Sturgeon has boxed herself in.

He also notices that there's no economic answer to the deficit.

He also thinks she's going to lose.

I could have written all that.

Now, if everyone else in the indy campaign had that much brain, just think how smart that indy campaiagn would be.

But then he goes and spoils it will bullshit about how support for indy is "much higher" than in 2014 - which there's absolutely no evidence for. The evidence shows a drop and not a rise.

“And the thought of unending UK rule by a right-wing Tory government is a powerful weapon if wielded astutely." - cos it worked so well last time...?

This bit is right tho:  Defeat will mean that the cause is lost for this generation and the one after that.
 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

We`ve spoken on here about NS playing the long game

PMSL. There's no long game. There's only one game.

That the coded 'Westminster' is the cause of all Scotland's problems. If only 'we' could throw off the coded 'Westminster' control, everything in Scotland will be just perfect... because all the bad bits aren't to do with Scots or Scotland.

As laughable as it ever was.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I note you haven't really addressed the point of the article.

it has a point that isn't about how the coded 'Westminster' is the cause of all ills in Scotland? 

You'll have to tell me what it is.

[LJS]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he's defo right about the goading. Get on with it, or accept you have no clothes.

I see he's spotted the thing you've been denying, that Sturgeon has boxed herself in.

He also notices that there's no economic answer to the deficit.

He also thinks she's going to lose.

I could have written all that.

Now, if everyone else in the indy campaign had that much brain, just think how smart that indy campaiagn would be.

But then he goes and spoils it will bullshit about how support for indy is "much higher" than in 2014 - which there's absolutely no evidence for. The evidence shows a drop and not a rise.

“And the thought of unending UK rule by a right-wing Tory government is a powerful weapon if wielded astutely." - cos it worked so well last time...?

This bit is right tho:  Defeat will mean that the cause is lost for this generation and the one after that.
 

I was curious what reaction to that article would be. I commented that there was stuff for both sides in the article but refrained from insulting your intelligence by listing the ones I particularly liked. I wondered when I posted it if you would show similar restraint. Imagine my surprise when you showed no such restraint!

You then claimed...

"But then he goes and spoils it will bullshit about how support for indy is "much higher" than in 2014 - which there's absolutely no evidence for. "

Except he didn't claim that at all. He claimed ....    "Support for independence is now much higher than it was at the start of last campaign"

Hmm, yet another example of misrepresentation from Neil.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

it has a point that isn't about how the coded 'Westminster' is the cause of all ills in Scotland? 

You'll have to tell me what it is.

Could you explain what you mean by "coded 'Westminster'" please?

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

Except he didn't claim that at all. He claimed ....    "Support for independence is now much higher than it was at the start of last campaign"

Hmm, yet another example of misrepresentation from Neil.

PMSL.

The mis-representation is yours, in thinking that means anything.

It was a new consideration in 2014, so opinion was always going to move - tho it also needs pointing out that it didn't move very much at all. The gap between yes/no moved very little, and the 'rise' in indy support was merely the undecideds making up their minds in one way or another.

Everyone made up their minds in 2014, and those minds are in exactly the same place overall as they were 3 years ago.

Support for indy will only rise further if the indy proposition this time is better than last time, and it just can't be. The oil money myth - which always was a myth (some of us always knew it was) - has been blown away, and there's nothing to fill the massive hole in the finances it's left.

It's no coincidence that Sturgeon tried out the line "independence transcends the economics" 6 months ago, but sadly for her it didn't fly. 

As far as everything that can be seen goes, indy is over already.

Edited March 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Could you explain what you mean by "coded 'Westminster'" please?

it's about the hated other, the only tool of all nationalists.

What don't you understand about false grievance?

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL.

The mis-representation is yours, in thinking that means anything.

No, the misrepresentation is yours claiming he said something he didn't say.

 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It was a new consideration in 2014, so opinion was always going to move - tho it also needs pointing out that it didn't move very much at all. The gap between yes/no moved very little, and the 'rise' in indy support was merely the undecideds making up their minds in one way or another.

I supposed depends how you define "not very much" there was a significant narrowing of the gap between yes & no.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Everyone made up their minds in 2014, and those minds are in exactly the same place overall as they were 3 years ago.

That is clearly not true. Polls have shown that a significant number have changed their mind. However, the changes in one direction have been balanced by changes in the other.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Support for indy will only rise further if the indy proposition this time is better than last time,

I broadly agree with this.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 and it just can't be.

I disagree with this.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The oil money myth - which always was a myth (some of us always knew it was) - has been blown away, and there's nothing to fill the massive hole in the finances it's left.

It's no coincidence that Sturgeon tried out the line "independence transcends the economics" 6 months ago, but sadly for her it didn't fly. 

As far as everything that can be seen goes, indy is over already.

We'll see.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

I supposed depends how you define "not very much" there was a significant narrowing of the gap between yes & no.

if you think about 5% is significant, you're right. 

It's much much less than the 15% gain for indy that many like to put forwards (which does have a basis in one set of numbers, I'm happy to agree).

But anyway, that was last time anyway, when it was a new thing people had to consider. It's no longer a new thing and we know where firm considered opinion sits now, so there won't* be changes of any similar scale this time.

(* unless there's something unexpected gets in the mix).
 

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

That is clearly not true. Polls have shown that a significant number have changed their mind. However, the changes in one direction have been balanced by changes in the other.

I did say - very deliberately - "overall".

Anyway, I see you think 5% is significant. That's cleared up the thing above.

But if the changes of that (approx) 5% each-way is significant, then surely it's also significant that indy has lost further support via that change, even tho the lost support is small. It shows that the whole brexit thing is working in the opposite way that Sturgeon (and you) had been hoping.

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

I disagree with this

then you'll have to tell me how a Scotlanmd with bigger cuts than tories on steroids is going to be the better Scotland you think you'll be getting.

And you'll have to convince your countrymen that poorer is better. Me, I can't see that selling.

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

We'll see.

If Sturgeon had your mindless faith, we'd be in an indy campaign already. 

There's a reason why we're not, and it's not because of a confidence like yours.

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's about the hated other, the only tool of all nationalists.

What don't you understand about false grievance?

I understand that it is one of your go-to phrases that you trot out when you can't be arsed with rational discussion.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

I understand that it is one of your go-to phrases that you trot out when you can't be arsed with rational discussion.

are you really trying to suggest that there's no attempt to blame Westminster for all of scotland's problems?

You've happily admitted that the SG hasn't had its available money to spend cut, yet the SG are claiming that Westminster is forcing it to make cuts - which is a LIE!!!

One of many similar lies that are designed to try and win indy via those lies.

And a country established on a lie is going to be a great place of course.

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: and a country that won't do better for its poor when it has a £9bn brucie-bonus is very definitely not going to do better for its poor when it doesn't have that £9bn brucie-bonus.

[LJS]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I gave up reading at the first para, where it lays out the idea that those wrapped in flags - but only the 'unionist' flag (cos there's no flag waving with Scottish nationalism :lol:) - are abhorrent.

Yep, that proves your point about the absence of xenophobia.

I worry more and more about your understanding of the English language. 

Flags aren't mentioned until the second paragraph & the "unionist" flag doesn't appear at all (I'm not quite sure what the unionist flag even is).

The "Union Flag" which I take it we are all familiar with does appear but not until the third paragraph and Lesley doesn't say that that those wrapped in it are abhorrent. 

She does point out the irony of TMay railing against flag waving nationalists to an audience including the two rather strange ladies in the Union Flag jackets. I find it hard to imagine that you would fail to see even a tiny wee smidgeon of irony there.

And that's it for flags: 2 whole mentions for flags none of which are for the mythical "unionist Flag" (is it from Middleboro perhaps?) and no mention of anything or anyone being abhorrent.

In a stunning virtuoso performance, you get absolutely nothing at all right about the article you claim to have only read the first paragraph of. Hardly surprising perhaps as the first paragraph consists of one sentence containing 12 words. One of these words has three syllables so perhaps its understandable that you struggled to understand her point. 

There is some interesting speculation around how TMay sees Westminster's relationship with Holyrood and what this means for the looming final battle.

But, remarkably nothing at all that bears any relation to your cursory dismissal of Ms Riddoch's piece.

I would seriously suggest you pay a bit more attention to Lesley's writing. She is a smart & incisive commentator on Scottish politics. Although pro-independence, she is no slave to the party line and her background (Born in England to Scottish parents, brought up in Belfast, moved to Scotland at 13 then educated at Oxford and Cardiff universities) gives her a pretty varied insight into UK & Scottish politics)

 

[LJS]

Neil, I posted a piece by my son in the hope it might help you understand a little more about the nature of the Scottish Independence movement. That was, of course hopelessly naive. There is no room in your world for acceptance that others can legitimately hold views that conflict with yours. There is no respect for genuinely held differences of opinion. Indeed, those who disagree with you are branded as idiots, morons & worse.

 My son, Chris is a fully grown adult,He is passionate about politics in Scotland but is mature enough to understand that not everyone shares his views and not childish enough to believe they are idiots if they don't. He will never be the man to make the economic case for Independence because money means nothing to him.

I couldn't be prouder of him for all these things. He doesn't need his father to fight his battles, so I shall not be responding to any more of your snide & ill-informed sniping at his words.

I would suggest that you take a peek at the comments below his article for an example of reasonable and respectful BTL conversation. You'll find a link to this there which I found interesting.

https://newscotblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/some-thoughts-on-britishness/

And just to prove we can all be childish, I take some pleasure in the fact that he has received nearly 3 times the number of comments that your pal chokka has received for his last two article in a tenth of the time. (mind you chokka stopped saying anything new a long time ago.

Night night.