The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I have finally given up on the dream that progressive change can be achieved in the UK through the ballot box.

I refer you to the devolution vote. I refer you to Sept 18th.

I refer you to the facts, the facts that prove this idea irrefutably wrong.

[LJS]

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?

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

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

Please, not Neil's bedroom!

Of course any street, village town, county, region is perfectly entitled to seek independence if they wish. I would argue Scotland is more than just another region.

One of the main reasons I opposed independence for so long was precisely because I did not feel comfortable "abandoning" the rest of the UK. I believed that together we could make things better. I no longer believe that is possible within the UK.

Of course I may be completely wrong but this is my sincere belief.

The fact that the north sea oil boom has passed its peak has in a strange way helped me feel more comfortable with independence. I was not comfortable with the notion of Scotland grabbing all the vast oil wealth & leaving the rest of the UK in relative poverty. Oil revenues are now low enough for that to be much less of an issue.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[russycarps]

Please, not Neil's bedroom!

Of course any street, village town, county, region is perfectly entitled to seek independence if they wish. I would argue Scotland is more than just another region.

One of the main reasons I opposed independence for so long was precisely because I did not feel comfortable "abandoning" the rest of the UK. I believed that together we could make things better. I no longer believe that is possible within the UK.

Of course I may be completely wrong but this is my sincere belief.

The fact that the north sea oil boom has passed its peak has in a strange way helped me feel more comfortable with independence. I was not comfortable with the notion of Scotland grabbing all the vast oil wealth & leaving the rest of the UK in relative poverty. Oil revenues are now low enough for that to be much less of an issue.

Are you aware of how incredibly selfish a view that is? I cannot fathom thinking like this.

I want equality throughout the world, you want equality throughout scotland.

What a tiny tiny vision you have.

[LJS]

I refer you to the devolution vote. I refer you to Sept 18th.

I refer you to the facts, the facts that prove this idea irrefutably wrong.

Both of these votes apply in Scotland only.

So only the votes of those eligible to vote count. I.e. voters in Scotland.

I have been talking about Westminster elections.

As usual you change the subject when it suits.

[LJS]

Are you aware of how incredibly selfish a view that is? I cannot fathom thinking like this.

I want equality throughout the world, you want equality throughout scotland.

What a tiny tiny vision you have.

What makes you assume I don't want equality throughput the world?

My point is I can't see a feasible way to advance the cause within the UK.

I think there is a chance we can do it in Scotland.

I do not seek to deny that chance to anyone else.

Maybe if a fairer more equal Scotland emerges it might serve as an example of what can be done & reinvigorate the left in rUK.

Far fetched? Maybe.

[LJS]

So to sum you guys up anyone who votes yes for the promises of jam is selfish & stupid.

Anyone who votes yes in the hope of a better future is just selfish?

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[russycarps]

So to sum you guys up anyone who votes yes for the promises of jam is selfish & stupid.

Anyone who votes yes in the hope of a better future is just selfish?

you are voting for the hope of a better future for scotland only. Sticking 2 fingers up at the rest of us poor saps.

that just seems rather selfish to me.

Edited May 29, 2014 by russycarps

[LJS]

you are voting for the hope of a better future for scotland only. Sticking 2 fingers up at the rest of us poor saps.

that just seems rather selfish to me.

If you choose to see it that way, it's your choice.

I've explained why I despair of real change for the better in the UK in the foreseeable future. Please tell me where I am wrong. What is your vision for a better UK?

[eFestivals]

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.

How much sleaze do you hear about on your metropolitan/county/local councils?

And how much meaningful criticism (as opposed to moany gripes) do you hear of them (that are within their powers to change) no matter which party might run them?

These are essentially the same reasons for why you hear little of sleaze and corruption within the SG, and why to a large extent they're perceived as doing a pretty good job. It's not like Labour were voted out because they were considered to be doing a a pretty bad job IN THE SG*, was it?

(* Scotland supposedly hates Westminster - but Westminster decides how Scots vote in Scotland. How weird is that? )

And yet unlike a local council, Alex *DOES* have the powers to do all he says he'll do but chooses not to use them (and disingenuously blames it all on Westminster). His excuse? "It's not worth having a fairer society until it's a solely Scottish fairer society". That sounds like a man of conviction and fair-minded principles, eh?

[eFestivals]

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.

You think you have it bad.

For every election I've voted in for the last 30 years, I've never once voted for a winning candidate - until the Euro elections the other day.

And I've never once thought of re-drawing the boundaries to artificially create myself a win, either.

[LJS]

How much sleaze do you hear about on your metropolitan/county/local councils?

And how much meaningful criticism (as opposed to moany gripes) do you hear of them (that are within their powers to change) no matter which party might run them?

These are essentially the same reasons for why you hear little of sleaze and corruption within the SG, and why to a large extent they're perceived as doing a pretty good job. It's not like Labour were voted out because they were considered to be doing a a pretty bad job IN THE SG*, was it?

(* Scotland supposedly hates Westminster - but Westminster decides how Scots vote in Scotland. How weird is that? )

And yet unlike a local council, Alex *DOES* have the powers to do all he says he'll do but chooses not to use them (and disingenuously blames it all on Westminster). His excuse? "It's not worth having a fairer society until it's a solely Scottish fairer society". That sounds like a man of conviction and fair-minded principles, eh?

Well actually Neil, we have heard quite a lot about alleged corruption & malpractice in a number of Scottish local authorities over the past few years.

As I have never suggested that being Scottish somehow makes you more saintly, that is hardly surprising.

And do you really think in the wake of the Westminster expenses scandal there weren't journalists crawling all over Holyrood looking for a similar story here?

What does it all prove? Probably not a great deal. I certainly wouldn't claim any moral superiority here. Probably just that, being set up more recently, Holyrood processes are a wee bit less arcane & impenetrable.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[russycarps]

What is your vision for a better UK?

Less division, not more.

I live and work in london. I would be vehemently against London becoming an independent state, even though as an individual I would very definitely be much, much better off, and a left leaning government would be assured.

I guess thats the difference between me and you.

[eFestivals]

Both of these votes apply in Scotland only.

because that's where all the Scottish efforts have gone.

Essentially, Scotland had decided its independence as soon as SNP votes got to a meaningful level. This is why in many ways I'm hoping that you do vote yes in Sept - cos it is going to happen sooner or later. In many ways it's better if you get on with it soonist (tho with Alex? Perhaps not).

When Scotland had the chance to get behind UK-wide change Scotland rejected it (as did the rest of the UK). That's a fact that says all sorts of different things to me, but the relevant point right here is that the one chance you've had to see change in the UK in England produced much the same result as in Scotland - showing that maybe we're not so out of step about the desire for change after all.

I've little double that if the vote had been for PR it would have won, but we have weasley Clegg to blame for that one. It's a demand Cameron couldn't have ultimately refused if Clegg had held out for it, because it would have been 'the people' taking the decision ... and Cameron couldn't have won the further election that would have come without a coalition if he was calling that election because he'd refused to let 'the people' decide. It was a prize easily within Clegg's reach.

I have been talking about Westminster elections.

As usual you change the subject when it suits.

I'm not attempting to move any goal-posts, but it feels like you're constructing artificial barriers to any meaningful comparison that damages a yes view.

You do know that it's OK to accept all the bollocks that's flying around by actually mentioning it, don't you? (and I don't mean only from the no side).

[eFestivals]

So to sum you guys up anyone who votes yes for the promises of jam is selfish & stupid.

Anyone who votes yes in the hope of a better future is just selfish?

I'll agree with the first one.

I don't agree with the 2nd, but for all sorts of different reasons - while still going with that being correct for some people to some extent.

[LJS]

Less division, not more.

I live and work in london. I would be vehemently against London becoming an independent state, even though as an individual I would very definitely be much, much better off, and a left leaning government would be assured.

I guess thats the difference between me and you.

federal Europe then?

Join the eurozone?

that would reduce division, wouldn't it?

[LJS]

You think you have it bad.

For every election I've voted in for the last 30 years, I've never once voted for a winning candidate - until the Euro elections the other day.

And I've never once thought of re-drawing the boundaries to artificially create myself a win, either.

I have never once complained about not getting the government I voted for. That's not how democracy works.

Last Thursday I voted green which got me sod all but I'm not complaining

I have complained about Scotland not getting the government it voted for. A totally different thing.

& we are not drawing boundaries to get the result we want - the boundaries have existed for hundreds of years - & yes they have changed from time to time & yes all national boundaries are artificial constructs but no one is suggesting we do away with them all & have a united states of the fucking world so it is only about which boundaries we have.

[eFestivals]

Well actually Neil, we have heard quite a lot about alleged corruption & malpractice in a number is Scottish local authorities over the past few years.

Well actually LJS, I wasn't expecting you to say there was none.

What there is is no big deal in the overall scheme of things. A smaller fuss for a smaller democratic body.

Can you see where this is going yet?

Alex spends much of his time (subject to circumstances, when in 'poor me' mode) telling the world how Scotland is treated like a parish council and get a bit of pocket money but doesn't have any power blah blah blah blah.

So he's primed the Scottish people ready for his excuses, and when he says something like "I'd like to address poverty but I can't, that nasty Westminster stops me", he gets sympathy, and you believe he's doing a good job.

(whereas actually doing a good job would be him addressing the poverty that he has the power to address ).

He makes it all seem so wee and weak, and so any scandal or failure is that too. Whjereas big powerful Westminster has big powerful scandals.

And do you really think in the wake of the Westminster expenses scandal there weren't journalists crawling all over Holyrood looking for a similar story here?

The SG has the big advantage of not carrying 700 years of history along with it. I'm guessing that the sorts of expectations for defining a brand new expenses regime for Holyrood was rooted in modern-day business practices by both the electorate and the politicians.

Personally, I'd have Rule One of a reformed Westminster as mass redundancies for all senior staff, and all previously-served politicans would be disbarred. It's about the only way i can think of to ensure that history was shaken off.

What does it all prove? Probably not a great deal. I certainly wouldn't claim any moral superiority here. Probably just that, being set up more recently, Holyrood processes are a wee bit less arcane & impenetrable.

agreed- much as I say just above.

[LJS]

I'll agree with the first one.

I don't agree with the 2nd, but for all sorts of different reasons - while still going with that being correct for some people to some extent.

is that a compliment?

go on... say it is

it would mean so much

[eFestivals]

I have complained about Scotland not getting the government it voted for. A totally different thing.

nope, it's really not. You're choosing to draw the line around Scotland, and in my silly hypothetical Bedroom Republic I'm choosing to draw the line around myself.

In both cases we'd be choosing where the line goes purely for the love of the result, and what we're really both doing is conveniently ignoring the actual line which is used for this, which is the shoreline (almost. Sorry NI ).

The line that yes-ers use is tautology designed by yes purely as a reinforcing tool. It's an inescapable mind game unless you step away to properly consider it, and you've been hooked.

[eFestivals]

federal Europe then?

Join the eurozone?

those are where I'd like to see things go.

The greater the numbers involved, the greater the chances of the idiots being marginalised.

that would reduce division, wouldn't it?

With current opinions? Probably not. Ho-hum.

Whereever you draw the lines you always have to overcome the idiots tho. At least there'd be fewer human constructs divide us for them to use as reference points.

[LJS]

Here's a wee question for Neil.

But if anyone else wants to answer it- feel free.

Alex Salmond has been accused of many things. Stupidity is not one of them. In terms of being effective & being in the right place at the right time, It's probably between him & Boris (BJ) Johnson for being the best since St. Tony de Blair ( you will note I am talking effective not in any way moral or decent here)

Its also generally accepted that Alex is a very big fan of Alex Salmond & would like nothing more than to be up there with Bob the Bruce & Billy Wallace as national heroes with statues & monuments etc etc.

Why then would he run the risk of winning independence based on a tissue of lies which according to everything you say will be exposed from the word go as Scotland fails to get into the EU, has no currency, gets kicked out of NATO, tens of thousands of jobs head south etc etc.

You say he will just blame Westminster. How stupid do you think the Scots are? He would be the David Moyes of Scotland United. he would make Gordon Brown seem popular.

So why is he doing it?

Is he really stupid?

or is it it the case that the "facts & figures" he bases his case on, whilst optimistic are not far enough out to wreck the project?

This is actually a serious question not some smart arse debating point, because I just don't see what he would gain if his lies are as blatant as his opponents say.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

is that a compliment?

go on... say it is

it would mean so much

If I have to spell it out then of course I think many would be voting yes for what are 100% honourable reasons from any individuals' perspective.

But for many of them, how they've ended up there is far from honourable. That's where my problems are with the whole indyref thing.

[eFestivals]

Alex Salmond has been accused of many things. Stupidity is not one of them.

I refer you to his love of bankers, and his want of laxer regulation than was even tory policy of the time/. ... and ask you to reconsider those words.

I've known lax bank regulation was big problem since the early 90s if not before then (and my record is at least as good as St. Vince's, as you'd have seen here if you'd been around to see it). Why was Alex much more uninformed than the likes of me?

[LJS]

nope, it's really not. You're choosing to draw the line around Scotland, and in my silly hypothetical Bedroom Republic I'm choosing to draw the line around myself.

In both cases we'd be choosing where the line goes purely for the love of the result, and what we're really both doing is conveniently ignoring the actual line which is used for this, which is the shoreline (almost. Sorry NI ).

The line that yes-ers use is tautology designed by yes purely as a reinforcing tool. It's an inescapable mind game unless you step away to properly consider it, and you've been hooked.

we are not choosing the line for the result. If we were we would miss out Dumfries & Galloway & include the North East of England down to Sunderland & Newcastle.

You are talking bollocks

the "line that yessers use" is the line that has existed on maps & things for over 400 years

We even have the road signs already - another cost of independence saved

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

I refer you to his love of bankers, and his want of laxer regulation than was even tory policy of the time/. ... and ask you to reconsider those words.

I've known lax bank regulation was big problem since the early 90s if not before then (and my record is at least as good as St. Vince's, as you'd have seen here if you'd been around to see it). Why was Alex much more uninformed than the likes of me?

I'm kind of fed up with this. Everyone fucked up on the banks.

You may have been wise to it.

Hell, there was a time when I believed we should nationalise the banks. i was told that was a ridiculous idea.

Funny that.

Show me the mainstream politicians who were shouting warnings from the rooftop & not dropping their trousers to be shafted by the bankers.

Yes, Alex is culpable on this but he is absolutely not alone.