The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I've yet to read anyone say anything like "SNP=UKIP" apart from the likes of you as a way to try and swerve the truth.

I've given you a list of similarities (that starts by pointing out they have different policies, for the particularly dim). They're all true.

Get over it.

Neil

I want to help you

Just admit you've made a mistake.

I've done it - I know because you keep reminding me.

We're all human.

And if you admit you have made a teeny weeny error of judgement, I'll promise not to remind you of it every couple of pages.

Go on you can do it

[LJS]

did I say "every voter who votes for them is only doing so as a protest"?

Yep, obtuse.

no, you are right you didn't

and we never claimed you did

Even the most bonkers protest vote party has probably had at least 1 vote from someone who really believes in their policies

Under no definition of the phrase is voting for the SNP a protest vote

Edited May 1, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

nothing to actually say about the words themselves then?

Not neccessary. LJS has that gig covered.

I've given you a list of similarities (that starts by pointing out they have different policies, for the particularly dim). They're all true.

Get over it.

What conclusion is one supposed to draw from your 'list of similarities' ?

Salmond has made up some numbers for the oil, that the oil industry themselves think are way too high. That's a deliberate lie!

The OBR think the numbers are too high. The OBR predict 2016 price at $92pb, yet OPEC for instance predict $115pb. The OBR predicts no growth in production by 2016, Scot Govt predicts 3.7% growth due to infrasctructure investment of £14bn by oil companies.

Neither side are *lying*. They are making predictions.

Am I lying if I say that 26 April 2016 will be a sunny day ? Or am I lying if I predict there will be heavy showers ?

every British national in Scotland will keep their British citizenship and so all of EU rights they have as an individual. So another deliberate lie.

Has someone told Barroso yet ?

You're under a misapprehension that there's anything* the UK particularly wants from an independent Scotland, except what it owes.

The UK govt doesn't want it to be independent, but if it is? It's gone, a "nowt to do with us" attitude.

What would rUK want out of post Yes (caveats, caveats) negotiations ?

100% ownership of all publicy funded physical assets within rUK territory, eg Motorway network, London Underground system etc

100% ownership of the Bank of England ?

Nuclear sub base ?

Access to fishing grounds ? No problem if Scotland is an EU member, assuming rUK doesn't leave the EU in 2018.

[LJS]

Joyce McMillan in today's Scotsman writing about Ukip mainly. Also touches on similarities/differences between ukip & Snp.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-when-fair-play-is-posted-missing-1-3396477

[eFestivals]

Neil

I want to help you

Just admit you've made a mistake.

How is it a "mistake" to state the truth of the similarities of SNP and UKIP?

Would it also be a "mistake" to point out that Labour, LibDems, Tories, UKIP and the SNP all share the similarity of being neoliberal parties?

FFS.

It's a "mistake" of mine just like it's a "mistake" of mine to point out when lovely Alex is lying to Scotland to try and steal a victory for himself - for himself, not for the Scottish people or for Scotland.

Comedy gold.

[eFestivals]

Under no definition of the phrase is voting for the SNP a protest vote

After 30 years of protest voting some people have forgotten that's what they're doing.

Propaganda sometimes works. And it's working.

[eFestivals]

Not neccessary. LJS has that gig covered.

more comedy gold.

What conclusion is one supposed to draw from your 'list of similarities' ?

Whatever thought processes they might trigger. Voting thru knowledge is better than voting thru ignorance*, yeah?

But firstly thought processes have to happen to recognise the truth of those similarities, so for the likes of you it appears there can be no conclusion of thought, only prejudiced rejection.

* this is what you just can't get. I'm not against independence (it's your choice, not mine!), but I'm always against bullshit and ignorance.

If you don't realise that the conclusion you've reached is being warped via bullshit, how can you know you're making the right decision?

The OBR think the numbers are too high. The OBR predict 2016 price at $92pb, yet OPEC for instance predict $115pb. The OBR predicts no growth in production by 2016, Scot Govt predicts 3.7% growth due to infrasctructure investment of £14bn by oil companies.

Neither side are *lying*. They are making predictions.

and yet Salmond's "predictions" are wildly greater than the industry itself believes could be the case. So where has Alex got his numbers from?

Whatever they are, they cannot be considered anything accurate within the normal criteria for these things.

Lovely Alex has already been proven wrong with his estimates for 2012 and 2013, and will also be proven wrong for 2014. Does that count for nothing, when the financial future of your country will depend on the accuracy of these things?

It's a great thing that from 2016 Alex starts getting right what he's been getting wrong, and the jam will be pumped from the seas around Scotland like it never has before, and Scotland will be the economic powerhouse of Europe.

Has someone told Barroso yet ?

Nice gross stupidity. People like you are deciding your country's forever, yeah?

Care to tell me where and how the EU decides the rules of British citizenship, which have already been made 100% clear in the event of an iScotland?

Your fellow yes voters are already liking the fact that it doesn't matter if iScotland fucks up, because they have the sanctuary of rUK guaranteed. It's a good job they're all so committed to iScotland, yeah?

What would rUK want out of post Yes (caveats, caveats) negotiations ?

100% ownership of all publicy funded physical assets within rUK territory, eg Motorway network, London Underground system etc

100% ownership of the Bank of England ?

Nuclear sub base ?

Access to fishing grounds ? No problem if Scotland is an EU member, assuming rUK doesn't leave the EU in 2018.

Oh FFS .... we both know that both sides will get the physical assets in each country.

We also know that rUK will retain all state institutions and instruments of power (but not the full assets & liabilities of those things), and that's because iScotland is saying it wants nothing to do with UK state institutions and instruments of power. That's the whole purpose of leaving the UK.

First up, what has to be decided is what Scotland's share of the UK is (Barnet formula? Population size? economic input? - each idea puts it somewhere slightly different). Once that's sorted the rest gets worked around that. It's really not difficult, tho they'll of course be a lot of devil in the detail.

rUK will be happy to live with the consequences of Scotland's choice if that is independence. Let's hope Scotland is too (doesn't look it tho, and it's not even happened yet ).

Edited May 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Neil, calling people who disagree with you "stupid" is not e very sophisticated arguing technique.

Apparently it's what cybernats do.

[eFestivals]

Neil, calling people who disagree with you "stupid" is not e very sophisticated arguing technique.

It can also be one of those things you have an aversion to, but that seems to have passed you by as well.

Apparently it's what cybernats do.

It is, and I should do better.

But really, when you're only able to find two facts in those words I posted about the various similarities of the SNP and UKIP, I don't think engagement is going to help, do you?

No person could ever succeed in informing a person who is not open to information.

Edited May 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

It can also be one of those things you have an aversion to, but that seems to have passed you by as well.

It is, and I should do better.

But really, when you're only able to find two facts in those words I posted about the various similarities of the SNP and UKIP, I don't think engagement is going to help, do you?

No person could ever succeed in informing a person who is not open to information.

I asked you to help me.

You wouldn't (because you couldn't as you were wrong)

I regularly have civilised reasonable conversations with people who intend to vote no, or who are undecided.

I have yet to have my sanity or integrity called into question by any of them, so upsetting as it will be to you, I shall take a little break from here.

I shall leave with the words of Jim Sillars at the memorial to Margo MacDonald.

“The Margo MacDonald way is to recognise that you are dealing with opponents, not enemies, not with ogres but with fellow human beings, with whom you can disagree but must do so without malice – and where the exercise of mutual respect is a civilised corrective to uncivilised abuse, which can so easily mutate into an irreversible corrosive, malign influence in the conduct of public life in Scotland.

“If she could refuse to sunder friendships with people who fundamentally opposed her on the issue upon which she spent her life, then so can we all. She could call Alistair Darling the ‘Abominable No Man’, but continue to like him. If she could debate without venom, so can we all. If she could respect the right of the other side to their opinions, so can we all. That’s what she wanted me to say.”

[Buff124]

Still finding this interesting, but the arguments are inevitably polarised due to a lack of a third option on the referendum ballot paper.

IS there at least one thing in the referendum debate that we can all actually agree on ?

Let's have a try.

What percentage of a minority Yes vote is required to apply sufficient leverage for early action* on the next tranche of political devolution ?

I think 40% minimum, with 45% probably the sweet spot. Anything higher and it could get fractious, in a political sense of course. What percentage do you think ?

*I do note that further reserved powers were transferred today with the removal of a cap on Scot Govt funding for Discretionary Housing Payments. This effectively annuls the Bedroom Tax in Scotland.

[eFestivals]

I asked you to help me.

You wouldn't (because you couldn't as you were wrong)

Nope. I didn't because some things just ain't worth it.

i have yet to have my sanity or integrity called into question by any of them, so upsetting as it will be to you, I shall take a little break from here.

neither of which I did.

It was your ability to understand real, actual happenings in the world that I called into question.

[eFestivals]

Still finding this interesting, but the arguments are inevitably polarised due to a lack of a third option on the referendum ballot paper.

IS there at least one thing in the referendum debate that we can all actually agree on ?

Let's have a try.

What percentage of a minority Yes vote is required to apply sufficient leverage for early action* on the next tranche of political devolution ?

I think 40% minimum, with 45% probably the sweet spot. Anything higher and it could get fractious, in a political sense of course. What percentage do you think ?

It's a vote for what is on the ballot paper only.

You voted for a Scottish govt who had that and only that as their main policy, remember?

If you wanted to have a vote on devolution you should have voted for a devolutionist party.

Perhaps take this as a lesson in "you get what you vote for"? That's something that matters a lot with the referendum!

I do note that further reserved powers were transferred today with the removal of a cap on Scot Govt funding for Discretionary Housing Payments. This effectively annuls the Bedroom Tax in Scotland.

It does. It will be interesting to see whether the SNP wish to annul the bedroom tax in Scotland, and if they do what other part of the Scottish budget will take a hit as a result.

(having to take a hit somewhere else is nothing unfair on Scotland, that's how budgets have to work. The people of Scotland already have nearly £2k extra per-person spent on them by govt than the rest of the UK get, so there's penalisation happening).

Edited May 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I know I promised to stay away but I thought this quote may help

"Proposals for a second question on further devolution short of independence were firmly opposed by the UK government."

Now I don't actually know if this quote is correct. (it's from Wikipedia)

And I may be wrong in thinking it has been implied here that it was the Scottish government that opposed the devo max option.

It is of some importance as buff is not alone in suggesting we are not bein given a full set of of options to choose from.

If it is true was it a calculation based on the assumption NO would win?

If so, is it a massive misjudgment...if yes win?

Edited May 3, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

"Proposals for a second question on further devolution short of independence were firmly opposed by the UK government."

If it is true was it a calculation based on the assumption NO would win?

If so, is it a massive misjudgment...if yes win?

The No campaign is currently ratcheting up the excluded-middle strategy , trying to keep the focus on all-or-nothing. No devo max option, no middle way,and independence characterised as being cast into the void. Banks, businesses and the BBC will pack up and join the caravan heading southwards. No aid or assistance offered by rUK in the journey towards self determination. Its a risky strategy according to Alan Trench, one of the few commentators who doesn't seem to be on anyone's payroll.

http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/the-uk-governments-increasingly-clear-referendum-position/

[Originally] Posted 01 March 2014 - 10:35 PM

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/167463-the-dirty-independence-question/?p=4253658

[LJS]

I have decided to reposition myself in this debate. I know you will all be devastated but is shall no longer share my views & opinions. partly because I have pretty much explained my case, I don't have much to add & partly because I have had enough of the insults & personal abuse I have received. I am very thick skinned but it is just a bit tiresome, when you are trying to be constructive to be met with a constant stream of

FFS.

PMSL.

Oh FFS.

there's nothing in the world that might enter your head with meaning.

I suggest you forgo your vote. It's probably best.

Edited May 3, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

I am going to break a long running rule of mine & quote something that was originally published in a pro independence website ( Bella Caledonia) but as it was written by a man born in England, of part English part Shetland ancestry, whose main political activity has been in the Shetland Isles although he went to Edinburgh University where if memory serves me right he shared a flat with Gordon Brown. He was for many years a stalwart of the Labour Party in Shetland. Although originally on Bella Caledonia I have lifted it from the "Scottish Review of Books" which I believe is in the pocket of neither campaign. It is a long & technical article but I suspect Neil may find it interesting - It's the first article of its kind that I have seen.

http://www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/index.php/editorsblog/entry/most-of-the-act-of-union-would-survive-scottish-independence

[russycarps]

Sorry but that article is fucking awful

[LJS]

here's something else for you to discuss

The Sunday Post - once the newspaper with the highest per capita readership in the western World ( or something like that anyway) has been running a wee series on the referendum.

Quite reasonably they started off with an appeal to both sides for fair play ... & it was a success as shown by their headline

Both sides of the independence debate agree to a ‘clean fight’

excellent ... that is great news.

now heare is what each side actually said

Alistair Darling, leader of the ­Better Together campaign:­

The decision we make in September is a choice between two futures — do we want the best of both worlds, with a more powerful Scottish Parliament backed by the strength, security and stability of being part of UK. Or do we take a leap into the unknown with separation?

The eyes of the world are upon us. Passions will run high, but both sides must be absolutely clear that personal abuse is unacceptable. Recently the boss of Barrhead Travel told his staff he thought leaving the UK would be bad for jobs and business. The backlash from nationalists in vilifying a man who dared to speak out was shaming on Scotland. We can’t go on like this. The stakes are high. Hard questions have to be asked. But let’s do that in a way that’s a credit to Scotland. The abuse has to stop now.

First Minister Alex Salmond:

Scotland should be immensely proud of the debate we are having on our nation’s future.

Because the truth is, whatever the differences of opinions, it is a profoundly democratic and peaceful one. And that cannot be said of every such process around the globe, past and present.

Only last month, US Secretary of State John Kerry held up Scotland’s referendum as an international example of how these things should be done.

The next five months give all of us the chance to live up to that high praise.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be honest and sincere differences of opinion — or that facts will not be disputed. That is part of the essence of healthy political debate in a democratic society.

But the arguments must be conducted in a civilised way by everyone involved. The opportunity of a lifetime awaits voters on September 18 and they deserve a debate which matches that opportunity.

marks out of 10 please for rising above petty politics & entering into the spirit of the question.

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/independence-referendum/independence-on-trial/both-sides-of-the-independence-debate-agree-to-a-clean-fight-1.327483

Edited May 3, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Sorry but that article is fucking awful

you haven't had time to read it

is your criticism literary

or political?

[LJS]

Sorry but that article is fucking awful

at least Neil makes some sort of vague effort

you come in 4 days since your last incisive comment with this?

Lollipop

Plimsol

[LJS]

this I did not expect

The paper declares its editorial position this weekend with a front page designed by Alasdair Gray, the famous artist, author and advocate of a Yes vote.

In its editorial, the Sunday Herald states: ''Scotland is an ancient nation and a modern society. We understand the past, as best we can, and guess at the future. But history is as nothing to the lives of the children being born now, this morning, in the cities, towns and villages of this country.

"On their behalf, we assert a claim to a better, more decent, more just future in which a country's governments will be ruled always by the decisions of its citizens.''

Edited May 3, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I know I promised to stay away but I thought this quote may help

"Proposals for a second question on further devolution short of independence were firmly opposed by the UK government."

Now I don't actually know if this quote is correct. (it's from Wikipedia)

The SNP had stood on a policy of an independence referendum. Basically, Dave Moron called Alex out on his policy, that he should stick to the policy he'd been elected on.

While Dave Moron's motivations for that were likely to be self-interest rather than anything else, I think that was the right stance to take. If the people of Scotland had wanted a devolution referendum, then they should have voted for a party that wanted that.

Independence (especially) and devolution are ideas with such lasting consequences that it's not a good idea to muddle the two, especially when the communication around the idea of independence or not is often of such poor quality.

And I may be wrong in thinking it has been implied here that it was the Scottish government that opposed the devo max option.

At the end of the day, it depends what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Alex had hinted at a 3 choice referendum. Dave called him out, to stick to the policy he was elected on. Alex decided he'd do what Dave had been suggesting (tho not necessarily because Dave had suggested it).

At the end of the day it matters not. The only vote in September is independence yes or no. Make your decision on that question.

What you don't want to do is join the yes campaign's own "project fear", of saying "if you vote no Scotland will be penalised for having had the vote at all" or "if you vote no there'll be no more devolution for Scotland" or whatever. Other possibilities are other possibilities, and you could certainly get a vote on them with enough support, just as you have independence.

It is of some importance as buff is not alone in suggesting we are not bein given a full set of of options to choose from.

Scotland had the full choice at the SG election. Scotland chose to vote for the party that wanted an independence (only) referendum.

But it's great that you blame Westminster for it, eh? Alex wouldn't want it any other way.

If it is true was it a calculation based on the assumption NO would win?

In Dave's eyes, very probably.

In Alex's too, which is why he'd have preferred to have had Devo Max on there too at the point he was elected.

If so, is it a massive misjudgment...if yes win?

On Dave Moron's part? Yep. The tories won't forgive him for it, which is a good thing.

Why do you think Dave Moron allowed a vote on AV but not on PR? It's because he knew an AV vote wouldn't be won, but a PR one might well have been.

Alex has nothing to lose if there's a no vote. He can claim the fact of the vote as a victory; he can claim any support above 0% as a victory; and he can blame the English Westminster for what the people of Scotland think in their own heads no differently to how he always does. They've been "bullied", or fallen for the "bluster".

It's a great life for Alex, where Scotland rarely stops to think.

[eFestivals]

No aid or assistance offered by rUK in the journey towards self determination.

Can I ask why you think a foreign state has to fund Scotland's sovereign choice?

[eFestivals]

I have decided to reposition myself in this debate. I know you will all be devastated but is shall no longer share my views & opinions. partly because I have pretty much explained my case, I don't have much to add & partly because I have had enough of the insults & personal abuse I have received. I am very thick skinned but it is just a bit tiresome, when you are trying to be constructive to be met with a constant stream of

I'm sorry if you think I've been insulting you, but if you're not able to recognise a large number of facts within that comparison I posted, what do you think I should think of that? That your blindness is praiseworthy?

A meaningful debate requires recognition of the situation. When there is nothing to be criticised of anything of yes, the debate is over.