The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Welsh political blogger Mike Sivier relates the cancellation of the Scottish Young Conservatives 2014 Conference. They had sold a total of 12 tickets.for the big event of their year.

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/scottish-tory-party-youth-wing-cancels-annual-conference-after-selling-just-12-tickets/

Yeah, read about that...almost felt sorry for them for a moment. But that soon passed.

[eFestivals]

I don't trust politicians to make those decisions for us. I'd rather everyone in the country were treated like intelligent people who could make their minds up based on facts, than manipulated, deceived and drowned in double-speak until we're either disillusioned, paranoid, or resigned to a sense of no control (or possibly all of the above).

I don't trust politicians to make those decisions for us either, but neither do I trust the electorate. The electorate are at least as stupid as any politicians, as their votes for certain politicians or parties gets to show.

In this particular instance, I think the politicians made the right call for all of the people. They saw the danger of Scotland taking the oil just for itself, and they acted to try to stop it.

Their right call is shown by the very fact of this ref - that wouldn't be happening if there was no oil.

[eFestivals]

Well about 12.5% less actually ( 43.9% UK, 31.5% Scotland)

the increase in support for Thatcher (compared to the previous situation) was around the same in Scotland as it was the UK as a whole. Scotland holds its own culpability, contrary to the myth.

It took all of that Thatcher love-in for Thatcher to be Thatcher.

this was the second LOWEST % vote for the Tories in Scotland since the second world war.

In '79? When the number of tory seats in Scotland grew substantially?

remind not to come to one of your love ins!!!

Or one of Scotland's, where all facts of the past can be denied.

[eFestivals]

Really?

It certainly ain't what is driving the 3 regular pro Indy posters on this column.

Nor the majority that I speak to.

There's intellectual confusion and there's also some porkies (by yes-ers as a whole, not necessarily people here personally).

The central theme of the ref is "everything Scotland creates Scotland should have" - which is as Thatcherite as it's possible to be.

Things then digress into "...and what Scotland has will be shared around its people". Fair enough.

But it's not happening, is it? Nothing can be seen of that happening, either within the current SG circumstances where it could happen, nor in the official the vision for iScotland's future. The only thing to be seen there is the Thatcherite promise of tax cuts for the rich.

When Scotland has had the chance to vote for better sharing amongst its people, Scotland has rejected it.

In fact, Scotland has even rejected its own powerbase, as the SG voting turnouts get to show.

Of course it will be driving some - ain't much you can do about human nature. You listen to too much stuff from the NO! campaign which concentrates on telling us we will be so much worse off, so you fall for the assumption that everyone voting yes believes we will be so much better off.

If you don't think you'll be better off*, remind me why you're supporting indy?

(* better off can mean more than just money).

Why don't we ask Comfy numb how much talk there was at his meeting last night about the great riches in store for us after independence?

which has the greater penetration? A car-park meeting* of a few tens of people, or Alex making grand speeches about £300k for everyone?

(* perhaps Comfy's meeting wasn't that, but very many are).

[eFestivals]

1: Alex Salmond's love affair with Rupert Murdoch: Nowhere above do I say Scottish Independence will make politicians perfect but I think any whiff of corruption wafting from Holyrood pales into insignificance when compares to the rancid stench of sleaze which has consistently eminated from Westminster.

the amount of corruption is always proportional to the amount of money available to be corrupted. :rolleye:

Are local councils as hugely corrupt as Westminster? Nope, which is precisely the same reason why the SG appears to be less corrupt than Westminster.

Is the amount of corruption in councils proportional to the amount they spend? Yep. It won't be different in the SG either now or after indy.

I spent an hour or three the other night reading massive tracts about how huge numbers of Scots thinks both of the Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils to be hugely corrupt (and it was just those two only because the wider discussion was about those specific places).

But there's lesser corruption in Scotland. OK.

2: Neil's bedroom: The ideal democracy would be you govern yourself because you would always get the government you want. i really don't want to go into Neil's bedroom! He might be in the middle of one of his famous love-ins

In any democracy, to use the yes campaign's words, there's a democratic deficit for those who vote for the party that doesn't win. The yes campaign is suggesting that this will end in iScotland.

Funnily enough, there's no different democratic deficit in all of the UK.

Scotland's answer is not to address that deficit with improvements, but to throw its toys out of the pram entirely.

Yes-ers might say "wee Scotland can do nothing". Really? You seem to have managed to do quite a lot ... but only for yourselves, because yes-ers believes Scotland as first amongst equals.

[eFestivals]

Again, you make me wonder. Are you against the Freedom of Information Act ? Do you think people like Ed Snowden are traitors ?

I'm against neither.

But I am against greedy fuckers who want everything for themselves - you know, Thatcherites.

If lies are required to get the greedy to share then I'm in favour of those who'll benefit and not the greedy.

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP):

The Government have hushed up an opinion poll from the taxpayers who paid for it at a cost of £50,000. The poll reportedly shows a surge in support for Scottish independence. Tory and Labour scare stories are not working. There should be no Government secrecy, so will the Deputy Prime Minister be straight with the public on independence and publish that poll? There is no reason that it should be kept secret.

Publish I say. Let's expose the myth that Scotland wants indy. It's what the Scots do themselves in every poll to date.

Edited May 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I don't think Scottish independence will result in improved lives for anyone. I think greater devolution is the best option (all over the UK, not just to Scotland), along with a more proportional government and new voting system (I favour AV+, although I still reckon PR would be better than our current shite).

Yep.

Scotland's democratic deficit would be addressed by a better voting system.

But the SNP doesn't want stuff like that addressed, they want to draw the borders around their empire and to then say "it's mine, it's all mine".

There's been UK grassroots reform groups for centuries. The SNP could have pushed with them for reform if reform was the important thing to them, but instead they pushed for their own empire.

The fact that the SNP succeeded with what they have pushed for while those grassroots movements make little progress only gets to show where those yes-ers priorities lie - with themselves and not their country.

[Buff124]

The central theme of the ref is "everything Scotland creates Scotland should have" - which is as Thatcherite as it's possible to be.

.

So, what you're saying is that Scotand's electorate are actually closet Thatcherites who, despite their personal and collective greed, repeatedly vote for perceived (I'm looking at you, Labour Party) left of centre political organisations. ?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

So, what you're saying is that Scotand's electorate are actually closet Thatcherites who, despite their personal and collective greed, repeatedly vote for perceived (I'm looking at you, Labour Party) left of centre political organisations. ?

Pretty much so, yeah - tho the rest of the UK is much the same too.

There's merely a greater idea (but no reality of it) of that left of centre thing in Scotland, because you have another party in the mix who aren't the tories.

As I keep pointing out, the people who might vote tory in Scotland didn't all die between 1979 and 1983, and neither did they give up the idea of putting themselves first - as nuLabour's success gets to show.

Edited May 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

and furthermore, that said electorate's greed is hugely misplaced, as the economic reality would be bereft of the jam they are promised. Kinda ironic, huh ?

The Promised Jam has a ring to it, but I won't post the obvious Springsteen vid. Yet.

[LJS]

and furthermore, that said electorate's greed is hugely misplaced, as the economic reality would be bereft of the jam they are promised. Kinda ironic, huh ?

The Promised Jam has a ring to it, but I won't post the obvious Springsteen vid. Yet.

Buff, have you not realised Neil knows & understands Scotland & the Scots better than we do?

We only live here so what would we know?

Neil, on the other hand has read lots of stuff so it is useless to argue against him.

[eFestivals]

and furthermore, that said electorate's greed is hugely misplaced, as the economic reality would be bereft of the jam they are promised. Kinda ironic, huh ?

Ironic, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

After all, all politicians promise the jam, and if it is delivered it normally has little to do with the politicians' promises.

And just as much of a standard is that every voter says that more should be done to help the poor, but then rail against any consequence of doing that that might come back on them.

Which is why I don't see iScotland as being the promised land.

There's little that couldn't be done now as after indy if the political will was there. The simple fact is that it isn't.

And that's for much the same reason as for why yes looks like losing - that people are wary of change because the possible consequences back on them.

And that's despite the yes campaign trying to suggest that the only changes post-indy will be jam falling from the sky rather than rain, but everything else will be identical - it's to try and address people's natural fears.

And it's a lie, because things will be fundamentally different; iScotland will cease to have the same free access to anything of rUK's that it's become used to. (That's not saying that's automatically a bad thing; I'm merely pointing out the difference).

[eFestivals]

Buff, have you not realised Neil knows & understands Scotland & the Scots better than we do?

We only live here so what would we know?

Neil, on the other hand has read lots of stuff so it is useless to argue against him.

Show me the actions to back up the claims.

Actions speak louder than words.

[LJS]

Yep.

Scotland's democratic deficit would be addressed by a better voting system.

But the SNP doesn't want stuff like that addressed, they want to draw the borders around their empire and to then say "it's mine, it's all mine".

There's been UK grassroots reform groups for centuries. The SNP could have pushed with them for reform if reform was the important thing to them, but instead they pushed for their own empire.

The fact that the SNP succeeded with what they have pushed for while those grassroots movements make little progress only gets to show where those yes-ers priorities lie - with themselves and not their country.

Scotland already has a better voting system than Westminster - not perfect I'll grant you, but as the debate that accompanied the AV referendum demonstrated, it is one thing to agree that we need a fairer voting system - another to agree on what it should be.

[eFestivals]

Scotland already has a better voting system than Westminster - not perfect I'll grant you, but as the debate that accompanied the AV referendum demonstrated, it is one thing to agree that we need a fairer voting system - another to agree on what it should be.

You won't have me slagging off PR in favour of other systems.

And that means that Scotland gets the govt it actually votes for, and Scotland sees itself as left of centre, yeah?

You do know I'm laughing, right?

Cos where's the left leaning polices of the left leaning govt of the people of Scotland?

But it will all be different post-indy, yeah? People will become more sharey? Really?

[eFestivals]

The point is: iScotland will not be the country that many believe they'll be getting.

[LJS]

Show me the actions to back up the claims.

Actions speak louder than words.

In the last 5 general elections the labour party's vote has been on average 6% higher in Scotland. Considering Scotland effectively has a 4 party system while the UK has a 3 party system , and considering you yourself have dubbed the SNP as left leaning (when it suited your arguments) it is fair to assume the political centre in Scotland is somewhere to the left of the UK as a whole.

[LJS]

You won't have me slagging off PR in favour of other systems.

And that means that Scotland gets the govt it actually votes for, and Scotland sees itself as left of centre, yeah?

You do know I'm laughing, right?

Cos where's the left leaning polices of the left leaning govt of the people of Scotland?

But it will all be different post-indy, yeah? People will become more sharey? Really?

Free personal care, free prescriptions, no tuition fees, acting to nullify the bedroom tax,

That is with limited powers.

And of course as you keep forgetting it doesn't have to be the SNP that govern an Independent Scotland.

[LJS]

In any democracy, to use the yes campaign's words, there's a democratic deficit for those who vote for the party that doesn't win. The yes campaign is suggesting that this will end in iScotland.

Funnily enough, there's no different democratic deficit in all of the UK.

Scotland's answer is not to address that deficit with improvements, but to throw its toys out of the pram entirely.

Yes-ers might say "wee Scotland can do nothing". Really? You seem to have managed to do quite a lot ... but only for yourselves, because yes-ers believes Scotland as first amongst equals.

Again for the umpteenth time - it is not a democratic deficit if I don't get the government I vote for. If a nation consistently doesn't get the government it votes for that is a democratic deficit.

I don't think you would argue with that.

What you do argue with is whether Scotland is a nation or not - I and a comfortable majority of Scots believe it is.

[Buff124]

[eFestivals]

In the last 5 general elections the labour party's vote has been on average 6% higher in Scotland. Considering Scotland effectively has a 4 party system while the UK has a 3 party system , and considering you yourself have dubbed the SNP as left leaning (when it suited your arguments) it is fair to assume the political centre in Scotland is somewhere to the left of the UK as a whole.

It votes that way, true. Yet the policies of the SG (any govt) have been standard UK fodder policies, very middle ground. They don't show any difference in reality to account for that different voting pattern.

For whatever reasons, it's the thing in Scotland to not vote tory. All the ideas that exist in a person's head that might have someone in England vote tory all still exist within Scottish heads, as the policies get to show even if the votes don't.

For me, the trade-off is hard to see as worth it. A few symbolic gestures (eg: Faslane) will be in exchange for losing the genuine advantages of a big* state, and nothing else.

(* big in geographical, economic, and population terms, I mean)

And that's at best. There's still all of the big questions of currency, and EU, etc, etc - where the reality could be far more painful than anyone might wish, whilst the potential gains are minimal in the medium term, and poor in the longer term.

[LJS]

the increase in support for Thatcher (compared to the previous situation) was around the same in Scotland as it was the UK as a whole. Scotland holds its own culpability, contrary to the myth.

It took all of that Thatcher love-in for Thatcher to be Thatcher.

In '79? When the number of tory seats in Scotland grew substantially?

Or one of Scotland's, where all facts of the past can be denied.

It doesn't matter how you twist it less than 1/3 of votes cast cannot equal Scottish approval of thatcher.

& yes the conservative vote increased in Scotland by about .56% compared with the vote for Ted Heath in 1974. Ted was massively unpopular in Scotland following his attempt to close down Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. which resulted in the worst Conservative result in Scotland in the 20th Century - so yes Maggie's vote was, at that time the second lowest Conservative % vote since the 2nd world war.

I won't bang on about this because it is not of great relevance, I'd really just be impressed, if for once you were able to say -"hmm, maybe got that one a bit wrong"

[LJS]

It votes that way, true. Yet the policies of the SG (any govt) have been standard UK fodder policies, very middle ground. They don't show any difference in reality to account for that different voting pattern.

For whatever reasons, it's the thing in Scotland to not vote tory. All the ideas that exist in a person's head that might have someone in England vote tory all still exist within Scottish heads, as the policies get to show even if the votes don't.

For me, the trade-off is hard to see as worth it. A few symbolic gestures (eg: Faslane) will be in exchange for losing the genuine advantages of a big* state, and nothing else.

(* big in geographical, economic, and population terms, I mean)

And that's at best. There's still all of the big questions of currency, and EU, etc, etc - where the reality could be far more painful than anyone might wish, whilst the potential gains are minimal in the medium term, and poor in the longer term.

With the exception of the last paragraph, that is a pretty reasonable argument against independence and I don't dispute that people genuinely hold such views. There is of course a trade off to be made - no argument is all good v. all bad. & it's a judgement call whether it is worth the risk.

[eFestivals]

It doesn't matter how you twist it less than 1/3 of votes cast cannot equal Scottish approval of thatcher.

& yes the conservative vote increased in Scotland by about .56% compared with the vote for Ted Heath in 1974. Ted was massively unpopular in Scotland following his attempt to close down Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. which resulted in the worst Conservative result in Scotland in the 20th Century - so yes Maggie's vote was, at that time the second lowest Conservative % vote since the 2nd world war.

I won't bang on about this because it is not of great relevance, I'd really just be impressed, if for once you were able to say -"hmm, maybe got that one a bit wrong"

I'm not disputing the votes, I'm disputing the meaning you're attaching to them.

Tory thinkers don't stop being tory thinkers if they decide to vote for someone else. Blair was the perfect illustration of that.

The tories are still in Scotland they're just hiding under different flags.

[eFestivals]

With the exception of the last paragraph, that is a pretty reasonable argument against independence and I don't dispute that people genuinely hold such views. There is of course a trade off to be made - no argument is all good v. all bad. & it's a judgement call whether it is worth the risk.

Glad to see we agree on some, anyway.

And that last bit? That's one of those judgement calls (tho a 'perhaps', not a definite). Even the SNP's judgement isn't so far different from mine in this.