The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

just an observation...

No expense has been spared over the years to ensure that the democratic wish of the residents of the Falkland Islands are able to exercise their democratic right to remain British.

It would appear no expense is being spared to persuade the residents of Scotland that they should remain part if the UK.

Both decisions being nothing to do with oil, nothing to do with nationalism, and nothing to do with old farts wanting to maintain the fragmented remnants of empire.

[LJS]

that's not correct. At worst, about 20% get the govt of choice and at best about 40% get the govt of choice. It's only gets marginally better in other parts of the UK.

I credited you with a bit of intelligence & integrity so I did not bother prefacing my comments with "under our crazy fptp voting system"

So let me rephrase ....

under our crazy fptp voting system which awards the gold medal to the party that wins the most seats which is usually but not always the party that gets more votes than the next best party but never a majority of the votes cast... Scotland is more often than not represented by the party that comes 2nd 3rd or even 4th . England is nearly always represented by the party that comes first.

Apologies if I didn't make myself clear the first time round

incidentally, I think we would find ourselves broadly in agreement on PR.

p.s. good try trying to shift the point of the argument

better luck next time

[eFestivals]

i'm not employing anyone to take me anywhere.

I am voting for Independence & will then consider applications from those who wish to run the fairground.

You seem to have missed a few bits.

The man you are empowering to make your country independent has already laid out the groundwork, and you get no say whatsoever over it if you vote yes.

By your vote you are telling him to make Liz your head of state; you are telling him to make iScotland a member of NATO; you are telling him to make iScotland an EU member.

And you are telling him to keep you shackled to Westminster, with less control than now over Westminster's actions, and with less control than now of Scotland's fiscal stance.

None of these things you get any further say over. By voting yes, you are positively voting for these things (and others).

I know you desperately want someone who swallows hook line & sinker every word that the SNP & Mr Salmond says, to argue with.

Nope.

I desperately want someone from Scotland - you know, like you - to hold him to account. You know, call him the c**t that he is for some of the lies he's using on you to try and buy your loyalty over one of the biggest decisions you'll make in your life. Instead of him trying to win on the real issue.

What is it now, about three months you've been posting here? And I'm still waiting.

I am sorry I cannot be that person for you.

Never mind, I'm not that bothered for my own sake.

It's not me sleepwalking into independence holding the hand of a man of no integrity while mirroring his stance.

I don't attack Salmond & the SNP because that is not my job in this little game we are playing. It's your job.

Nope. It's your job to hold your own politicians to account. If you don't, it's you who suffers the consequences.

[eFestivals]

When I get to 60 I will get free bus travel but only within Scotland - is it racism that I will have to pay for buses in England?

Try it the other way around, where the actual factual state of things exists (and not where you want to imagine that it does).

It isn't about what Alex has given to Scotland, it's about what he has very deliberately chosen - with an explicit clause - to deny to those from rUK.

And that he's operating his racism with cash from rUK.

It's about divide and rule, exploiting difference. It's what nationalists do; Alex is operating *EXACTLY* as do UKIP.

[eFestivals]

I credited you with a bit of intelligence & integrity so I did not bother prefacing my comments with "under our crazy fptp voting system"

So let me rephrase ....

... that Scotland voted to keep FPTP at about the same rate as the rest of the UK, thus proving that the Westminster system is nowhere near as hated as Alex likes to pretend?

There's plenty of realities and truths in this debate that I don't like, but that doesn't stop me from recognising the actual real facts of the martter.

It would be better for Scotland if people in Scotland also accepted the real facts and not Alex's myth.

under our crazy fptp voting system which awards the gold medal to the party that wins the most seats which is usually but not always the party that gets more votes than the next best party but never a majority of the votes cast... Scotland is more often than not represented by the party that comes 2nd 3rd or even 4th . England is nearly always represented by the party that comes first.

Scotland voted to keep the system that you're pretending that Scotland hates.

[eFestivals]

I largely agree with your points. I just disagree with your aggressive debate tactics and phrasing.

PMSL ;lol: ... what you're really saying here is nothing at all. You're saying "I refuse to say it even tho it's true".

Facts - even horrible ones - are always better than fantasies in the end.

[kaosmark2]

PMSL ;lol: ... what you're really saying here is nothing at all. You're saying "I refuse to say it even tho it's true".

Facts - even horrible ones - are always better than fantasies in the end.

The tuition fees policy is racist.

Salmond is a lying c**t.

I haven't seen a justification for a yes vote yet which isn't linked to either false promises or a degree of nationalism.

However, constantly talking down to people, not emphasising points when you agree with something they say, shifting the subject matter to make more accusations and get steadily more extreme with them. You're not debating this in a manner which is actually as if you want to convince others of it, you're arguing and belittling like a politician trying to score points.

[LJS]

... that Scotland voted to keep FPTP at about the same rate as the rest of the UK, thus proving that the Westminster system is nowhere near as hated as Alex likes to pretend?

There's plenty of realities and truths in this debate that I don't like, but that doesn't stop me from recognising the actual real facts of the martter.

It would be better for Scotland if people in Scotland also accepted the real facts and not Alex's myth.

Scotland voted to keep the system that you're pretending that Scotland hates.

I'm not arguing about the electoral system. I'm arguing about the sort of government we get.

The whole av referendum is a red Herring.

You know there were lots of reasons why that failed. The result of that referendum is neither here nor there in this debate.

[LJS]

The tuition fees policy is racist.

Salmond is a lying c**t.

I haven't seen a justification for a yes vote yet which isn't linked to either false promises or a degree of nationalism.

However, constantly talking down to people, not emphasising points when you agree with something they say, shifting the subject matter to make more accusations and get steadily more extreme with them. You're not debating this in a manner which is actually as if you want to convince others of it, you're arguing and belittling like a politician trying to score points.

Ot maximise hits on his website?

[LJS]

Re NATO, the EU & Liz.

I am happy to be in the first 2, would prefer to be without the 3rd.

If there is sufficient public support for any change, as a democratic independent country we will be free to change any time we choose in the next couple of hundred years.

Just as the UK may well have a choice about the EU soon.

[kaosmark2]

Ot maximise hits on his website?

Nah, I don't think he'd cheapen an argument for that sake.

[eFestivals]

The tuition fees policy is racist.

Salmond is a lying c**t.

I haven't seen a justification for a yes vote yet which isn't linked to either false promises or a degree of nationalism.

That's a first, and I thank you.

any debate needs to reference the facts and not pretend they're something else.

However, constantly talking down to people, not emphasising points when you agree with something they say, shifting the subject matter to make more accusations and get steadily more extreme with them. You're not debating this in a manner which is actually as if you want to convince others of it, you're arguing and belittling like a politician trying to score points.

What I've been doing is taking the piss - on the basis that trying to talk facts is been pointless while some refuse to recognise the whole.

[eFestivals]

I'm not arguing about the electoral system. I'm arguing about the sort of government we get.

the relevance of any govt to the people who have voted is based solely within the electoral system that is used.

The whole av referendum is a red Herring.

Nope, not at all.

It's a system that would have made govt more relevant to a greater number of those who voted - but the people of Scotland preferred to instead keep a system that (to use Scotland's own words) "disenfranchises" Scotland.

So either the Scottish people have been played superbly by Alex into a position where they feel it's vital to vote indy for the good of democracy (but note they've been played - that's the important bit here!!!), or the whole of the "disenfranchied" thing is complete bollocks.

Take your pick.

You know there were lots of reasons why that failed. The result of that referendum is neither here nor there in this debate.

It is. We're having this debate because of an idea being put forwards that Scotland is disenfranchised by Westminster.

Yet when Scotland have chosen to not use a voting system that would give more relevance to their votes, is that really true or are there more things at play, with some of those things being hidden or unsaid?

[eFestivals]

Ot maximise hits on his website?

Sometimes you get me better than most, and sometimes you display the same connection to what's really going on as you do with the indy ref.

[eFestivals]

Re NATO, the EU & Liz.

I am happy to be in the first 2, would prefer to be without the 3rd.

If there is sufficient public support for any change, as a democratic independent country we will be free to change any time we choose in the next couple of hundred years.

Yep, you'll of course be free to change those things - but as you're discovering with the indyref itself, it's not so easy to over-turn what is already embedded.

The inclusion of these things as a part of what you're voting for is nothing at all to do with what might be good for an iScotland, but are instead about trying to win the vote by making the changes as minimal as possible (because people are naturally wary of change).

Beware the man who wants victory for himself at any price (with the price paid by others - the voters; YOU!).

Principles are being subsumed by the desire for victory - *EXACTLY* the same as Westminster does that you hate and blame for all the problems.

And yet sovereignty cannot ever be about anything other than principles.

I find it hard to see the vote as anything aside from voting for a bucket of shite. The fact that you'd be exchanging one bucket of shite for another bucket of shite gets you no further away from the shite.

You might prefer your own bucket of shite compared to someone else's of course, but it's not merely a straight swap. It's not only the bucket of shite you're losing, as Alex's bankers-free-for-all would have already taught you if he'd had his dream fulfilled less than 10 years back.

Just as the UK may well have a choice about the EU soon.

iScotland is having no choice about the EU. Salmond says you're in, and you'll be in before you get to have a say if Alex is on the money ( ).

As for the UK having a choice, if it does that choice is going to surprise you. Alex is playing up the UKIP thing for his advantage, not because there's much to it.

[LJS]

Neil, you have inadvertently stumbled upon another great slogan for the yes campaign...

"It's Scotland's shite"

"& our bucket too!"

That should do the trick.

[LJS]

As for the UK having a choice, if it does that choice is going to surprise you. Alex is playing up the UKIP thing for his advantage, not because there's much to it.

If I had to put a bet on it. I would say there will be an in out referendum because the Tories will probably win the next election. I would also think the balance of probability is that the vote will be for staying in.

I think after the euro elections the EU will be a bit more open to change which means DC will probably be able to come away from negotiations with something that with a bit of nimble footwork can be sold to the electorate as a great British victory.

It's far from certain though. There are lots of things that could go wrong.

The one good thing is it would lead to the usual in fighting in the Tory party & hopefully weaken them.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Neil, you have inadvertently stumbled upon another great slogan for the yes campaign...

"It's Scotland's shite"

"& our bucket too!"

That should do the trick.

If you care to note, I pointed to the buckets of shite both sides are carrying.

[eFestivals]

If I had to put a bet on it. I would say there will be an in out referendum because the Tories will probably win the next election. I would also think the balance of probability is that the vote will be for staying in.

I think after the euro elections the EU will be a bit more open to change which means DC will probably be able to come away from negotiations with something that with a bit of nimble footwork can be sold to the electorate as a great British victory.

It's far from certain though. There are lots of things that could go wrong.

The one good thing is it would lead to the usual in fighting in the Tory party & hopefully weaken them.

There's almost nothing to suggest that the tories will win next year.

But that aside, I mostly agree with the rest. But if Dave Moron got his renegotiation of the things he wants changed (so he can portray a great victory), they'll be a heavy price to pay from other EU member states.

Anyone going into an EU negotiation process saying "I want that" is immediately at a disadvantage - because those who might allow it will extract their own price in return.

And this is precisely why Alex's stuff about the EU is so laughable. There's not a hope in hell that (for instance) iScotland will simply have it's 'share' of the UK's rebate transferred across to it. That will be a part of the price that iScotland will pay to have the other EU member states on side.

[kaosmark2]

That's a first, and I thank you.

any debate needs to reference the facts and not pretend they're something else.

What I've been doing is taking the piss - on the basis that trying to talk facts is been pointless while some refuse to recognise the whole.

Definitely not a first from me in this thread. I've been referencing Salmond's BS and the nationalism side since the first few pages.

My biggest issue is still the idea that we should be focusing on separation and our differences rather than breaking borders down. Voting yes out of a desire for more self-governance I can understand, but when I've pushed further it's always come across as nationalistic tendencies or "Westminster is evil mmkay". I WANT to see better cases though, as the issue interests me.

[LJS]

If you care to note, I pointed to the buckets of shite both sides are carrying.

Our bucket is shinier than yours & our shite smells of strawberry jam.

[eFestivals]

My biggest issue is still the idea that we should be focusing on separation and our differences rather than breaking borders down.

Yep - divide and rule.

And after the UK has kicked Rupert out of politics (if only temporarily), it's Rupert who is going to get to rule Scotland.

I wish someone in Scotland would ask Alex why he lies about and hides his meetings with Rupert, and what deal has been done.

[eFestivals]

Our bucket is shinier than yours & our shite smells of strawberry jam.

It might look like and smell like strawberry jam, but it's still shite.

You'll find this out at some point. The question you need to ask yourself is whether you'd rather find out before or after you've voted.

[LJS]

Definitely not a first from me in this thread. I've been referencing Salmond's BS and the nationalism side since the first few pages.

My biggest issue is still the idea that we should be focusing on separation and our differences rather than breaking borders down. Voting yes out of a desire for more self-governance I can understand, but when I've pushed further it's always come across as nationalistic tendencies or "Westminster is evil mmkay". I WANT to see better cases though, as the issue interests me.

As I've said before, my yes vote is not based on any notion of Scots or Scotland being in any way better. Nor do I believe we are somehow being conspired against by England/the English/ Westminster.

It is not based on an expectation that I will be financially better off.

I have changed my mind on this within the last year having previously been pro-devo anti-Indy.

So what made me change my mind.

I have finally given up on the dream that progressive change can be achieved in the UK through the ballot box. The "centre ground" has moved so far to the right in the past 40 years that there is no credible left wing option to vote for.

Furthermore, since I started voting, the UK has elected 5 Tory governments that Scotland did not vote for. Labour has won 3 elections & we did vote for them.

Unfortunately, the Labour party had changed. And it changed because of the perceived need to appeal to the middle classes in the home counties.

Neil will argue that independence won't change this. I believe it can ...it is possible. Not certain but possible.

I believe post independence a Scottish Labour party will no longer need to pander to daily mail readers & will have an opportunity to rediscover its radical roots. I am not alone in this hope.

I also believe that common sense would suggest that the interests of the residents of Scotland will be better served by a government whose sole concern is Scotland. It is not a criticism of Westminster that it had to balance the needs of different parts of the UK when making decisions: that's its job. It does inevitably mean it doesn't always make the best decisions for Scotland.

As for Alex & the SNP. Neil makes much of Alex's affair with Rupert Murdoch & I have never denied there are legitimate concerns there. But he is not alone in that one & in general both he & the Scottish parliament are tainted with much less sleaze & corruption than Westminster.

He & the Snp are perceived as having made a pretty good job of running what they have the power to run. So although I vote for parties other than the SNP more often than not, I would still rather be governed by them than Cameron or Miliband.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

Furthermore, since I started voting, the UK has elected 5 Tory governments that Scotland did not vote for. Labour has won 3 elections & we did vote for them.

How small an area do you go down to? There are many regions in the UK that have never voted Tory, many constituencies, many households. Why does "Scotland as a region didn't vote for what the whole UK did" matter more than those? Why is that argument more relevant than saying Neil's bedroom didn't vote for them?

I also believe that common sense would suggest that the interests of the residents of Scotland will be better served by a government whose sole concern is Scotland. It is not a criticism of Westminster that it had to balance the needs of different parts of the UK when making decisions: that's its job. It does inevitably mean it doesn't always make the best decisions for Scotland.

So screw the rest of the UK, they can be left to rot with crappy governments if the Scottish get their concerns met?

He & the Snp are perceived as having made a pretty good job of running what they have the power to run. So although I vote for parties other than the SNP more often than not, I would still rather be governed by them than Cameron or Miliband.

So the SNP have good PR in relation to their level of responsibility? OK.