The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

LJS, on 29 May 2014 - 5:04 PM, said:

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.

not going to happen though is it?

If it was likely, I would reconsider my vote but even you will agree - exiting the EU is more likely

[LJS]

did anyone notice that Neil actually dodged my question by banging on about banky banksters again?

edit: I retract that allegation & apologise

sorry neil

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

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.

Personally, I think he never thought he had a chance of winning, so felt he could promise the world because he knew he'd never have to deliver (this time around on these particular promises, anyway).

I think he's got surprised at how close it's got. I think he's a worried man that he might have to deliver.

With the EU, he couldn't go into this saying "out" (else he turns into Scotland's version of the BNP), so he's had to try and make the real world fit his position.

And with NATO, and CU, and Liz, these are changes that Scotland is not ready for even if he wanted them (I don't know either way). So with these he's had to make his policy fit the real world.

After all, while he doesn't want to win, he also can't get trashed - because that 3ould put him back to square one.

The prize is still there to be had. The prize is everything, but you can only grab it when you can grab it.

-----

But an alternative view might be that he can promise the world knowing he can't get everything from any negotiation, and so he can point at Westminster as the reason why the things dependent on the negotiations haven't been delivered.

And that is certainly the most perfect situation any nationalist anywhere could ever wish for.

[LJS]

it was so subtle you probably wouldn't have noticed

Edited May 29, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Personally, I think he never thought he had a chance of winning, so felt he could promise the world because he knew he'd never have to deliver (this time around on these particular promises, anyway).

I think he's got surprised at how close it's got. I think he's a worried man that he might have to deliver.

With the EU, he couldn't go into this saying "out" (else he turns into Scotland's version of the BNP), so he's had to try and make the real world fit his position.

And with NATO, and CU, and Liz, these are changes that Scotland is not ready for even if he wanted them (I don't know either way). So with these he's had to make his policy fit the real world.

After all, while he doesn't want to win, he also can't get trashed - because that 3ould put him back to square one.

The prize is still there to be had. The prize is everything, but you can only grab it when you can grab it.

-----

But an alternative view might be that he can promise the world knowing he can't get everything from any negotiation, and so he can point at Westminster as the reason why the things dependent on the negotiations haven't been delivered.

And that is certainly the most perfect situation any nationalist anywhere could ever wish for.

doesn't make much sense to me.

the first bit almost hangs together - except it's not a great epitaph..."the man who nearly delivered independence"

I presume you accept that he believes in independence. If he was solely driven by ambition he would have done better in the labour party or even the Tories although he would probably have had to move south.

If he gets independence & it is a disaster he will not get off the hook as lightly as you think.

[eFestivals]

we are not choosing the line for the result.

You definitely are, even if you won't admit it.

Q. there's something wrong with politics in the place where I live, what can we do to improve things?

A. if we work from this pre-existing Scotland line, we can use the

different boundaries to create all sorts of different situations, to highlight the differences inside and outside as being much bigger than they really are.

Q. but where does that get us?

A. in power my son, in power.

You are talking bollocks

Not at all. If you wanted to create a new line, you'd have to validate that line to other people as meaning something, a reason why you should be bound together. It's far from an easy task.

History has done Salmond a favour, that's all. He's put weight on that line as meaning something bigger than it has done for decades, and over time more and more people have bought into it.

People in Yorkshire have an even greater regional identity than people in Scotland do, but it doesn't have them thinking that Yorkshire should be indy. That requires someone to cook up a myth to build that idea around.

[eFestivals]

the first bit almost hangs together - except it's not a great epitaph..."the man who nearly delivered independence"

how many times do I need to say it to you? This won't be the only vote.

It's not over till the fat Alec sings.

I presume you accept that he believes in independence. If he was solely driven by ambition he would have done better in the labour party or even the Tories although he would probably have had to move south.

I think he did, not so sure about now. It's probably too lost in the ambition. It's probably more of an auto-pilot speaking thing now - tho I wouldn't suggest it's much different for all the other career politicans.

And while Main-3 might have given better guarantees of a career, there's very low chances of a high-flying career.

So perhaps he's one of those types who prefers to be a big fish in a small pond rather than the opposite. You should be hoping he isn't tho, that would be the worst for you.

If he gets independence & it is a disaster he will not get off the hook as lightly as you think.

that will matter less to him than the big prize.

The prize is everything - which is why he's prepared to both bullshit & drop principles to get there.

[LJS]

You definitely are, even if you won't admit it.

Q. there's something wrong with politics in the place where I live, what can we do to improve things?

A. if we work from this pre-existing Scotland line, we can use the

different boundaries to create all sorts of different situations, to highlight the differences inside and outside as being much bigger than they really are.

Q. but where does that get us?

A. in power my son, in power.

Not at all. If you wanted to create a new line, you'd have to validate that line to other people as meaning something, a reason why you should be bound together. It's far from an easy task.

History has done Salmond a favour, that's all. He's put weight on that line as meaning something bigger than it has done for decades, and over time more and more people have bought into it.

People in Yorkshire have an even greater regional identity than people in Scotland do, but it doesn't have them thinking that Yorkshire should be indy. That requires someone to cook up a myth to build that idea around.

I don't want to create a line

It already exists

Its only pretend on a map: but it is no more or less pretend than the pretend line on a map that divides France from Belgium, or the UK from the Republic of Ireland.

If I meet you in a pub & you ask me where I am from - I will say "Scotland"

This is true of the majority of Scots.

I will not say Great Britain or the UK

It is part of my identity.

It is part of me.

That does not make me anti British or anti English (unless we are playing you at football)

It is how I and the majority of the People of Scotland feel. (i Believe)

I actually can't help it. It's not something I have decided on after a long debate.It is what I am. I can no more decide to be British than I can decide to be French (although that would be quite cool)

I utterly reject & abhor narrow ethnic nationalism so I do not restrict Scottishness to those like me who were born in Scotland to Scottish parents. I welcome all who choose to make Scotland their home. As I have said before there are parts of the highlands & Islands of Scotland which owe their continued existence to the contribution to people who have chosen to move there from England . I welcome & applaud that.

The "Nationalist" word is an ongoing problem. England has had an on & off problem with English Nationalism manifested through organisations like the National Front, The BNP & the EDL. I am sure everyone who has contributed here is united in deploring them. Their nationalism bears no relation to mine & that is why I do not use the N word myself.

[LJS]

And while Main-3 might have given better guarantees of a career, there's very low chances of a high-flying career.

So perhaps he's one of those types who prefers to be a big fish in a small pond rather than the opposite. You should be hoping he isn't tho, that would be the worst for you.

remember Alex got flung out the SNP at one stage. To present him as choosing the route he has chosen out of ambition is a hard case to argue.

& if Alistair Darling could rise as far as he did - I think Alex could have gone a bit further .

[eFestivals]

I don't want to create a line

It already exists

Its only pretend on a map: but it is no more or less pretend than the pretend line on a map that divides France from Belgium, or the UK from the Republic of Ireland.

yep, it already existed but had as good as fallen into disuse for anything meaningful (unlike with France and Beliguim). In everyday terms, it merely described the region of the UK you come from. It didn't have much more meaning than that.

Alex has spent 30 years telling people like you that it means more, that it should mean more to people. And luckily for him when he started doing that he had the most unpopular govt in Westminster for a very long time (Thatcher) - and so the circumstances happened to help along the myth he was spinning along.

People like you in Scotland are deciding that Scotland should mean more to you via his prompting - just as he wants you to, for his benefit and not yours.

[eFestivals]

To present him as choosing the route he has chosen out of ambition is a hard case to argue.

I've not argued it.

I think, for most people, at some point down a steady line self-interest starts to play a bigger and bigger role, and it's the principles which led that person there in the first place which get compromised for that.

I don't think Alex is doing anything particularly outlandish in the world of politicians. I just think that he's just another politician, no less likely to bullshit for his own benefit than anyone else.

That's fine on one level, you're going to choose some of a number of politicians wherever you are.

But when the whole thing is being presented as a better kind of politics, it gets hard to take it seriously. And when this is about a bigger question than the normal politics, and which has no reverse gear once you engage forwards, a snake oil salesman is not the person to have at the front.

& if Alistair Darling could rise as far as he did - I think Alex could have gone a bit further .

Nah, politics doesn't work on brains, as George Bush gets to prove.

[LJS]

hare is Blair McDougall of Better Together demonstrating why we should clearly believe their statistics

just 44 per cent of Scots believe that the proceeds from the North Sea should be used solely for Scotland’s benefit. Some 61 per cent of Scots believe that we should pool and share our resources across the whole of the UK to pay for pensions.

And they say voters are apathetic

Not in Scotland

105% of us have opinions up here.

[eFestivals]

hare is Blair McDougall of Better Together demonstrating why we should clearly believe their statistics

And they say voters are apathetic

Not in Scotland

105% of us have opinions up here.

Still, an error with maths is pretty easy.

It's much much harder to confuse the guaranteed EU citizenship (for individuals) thru continuing UK citizenship that the people of Scotland will have (if they vote yes) with no EU individual citizenship, as Alex managed.

[LJS]

Still, an error with maths is pretty easy.

It's much much harder to confuse the guaranteed EU citizenship (for individuals) thru continuing UK citizenship that the people of Scotland will have (if they vote yes) with no EU individual citizenship, as Alex managed.

no idea what you are on about there

I don note that the no campaign do appear to have moved from "they won't let you into the EU" to "you won't be able to keep the UK opt outs" the goalposts are moving

[eFestivals]

no idea what you are on about there

Alex went to Bruges for what was deemed a big speech.

He banged on about how 5M Scots would lose their "EU rights", and how that was unfair on them.

And yet not a single one will lose those rights.

He LIED!!!

He KNEW he was LYING.

He bullshitted to win votes in Scotland (with his own game of project McFear - what those nasty english are trying to do to you), and to create a false impression in the minds of the assembled EU people.

I don note that the no campaign do appear to have moved from "they won't let you into the EU" to "you won't be able to keep the UK opt outs" the goalposts are moving

'No' kept pointing out Alex's bollocks, Scotland said it didn't like negative. It's rather hard to call someone a liar without being negative tho, huh?

It was amusing that yesterday 'no' managed to transform the cost to Scots of indy into a "UK bonus" - having obviously taken that 'negative' thing on board.

[LJS]

Alex went to Bruges for what was deemed a big speech.

He banged on about how 5M Scots would lose their "EU rights", and how that was unfair on them.

And yet not a single one will lose those rights.

He LIED!!!

He KNEW he was LYING.

He bullshitted to win votes in Scotland (with his own game of project McFear - what those nasty english are trying to do to you), and to create a false impression in the minds of the assembled EU people.

here's what Alex actually said

We propose a practical, common sense approach to membership, which means that there is no detriment – none whatsoever – to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership. And the alternative – the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access; 160,000 EU workers and students, and of course voters, in Scotland suddenly uncertain about their status; five and a quarter million people ceasing to be EU citizens against their will – this alternative, as Sir David Edward points out, is clearly absurd. But it is more than absurd. There is simply no legal basis in the EU treaties for any such proposition. And it is against the founding principles of the European Union.

this is one paragraph in a long speech in which he mentions in passing that the alternative to Scotland remaining in the EU would, amongst other things, mean Scottish citizens would no longer be EU citizens.

In what way is that banging on?

In what way is that a lie?

the full text of his speech is here if you want to check your facts

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/Scotland-s-Place-in-Europe-bdf.aspx

[LJS]

Great news guys!

The referendum campaign starts today.

[eFestivals]

In what way is that a lie?

In the way that it's not true.

In the way that Alex knows it's not true.

No UK citizen is going to lose their UK citizenship, and therefore it's a deliberate lie to say that "five and a quarter million people ceasing to be EU citizens against their will".

The only people who will cease to be "EU citizens" (that's a lie too, there's no such thing ) will do so at their own behest - if they *actively* choose to to have their UK citizenship cancelled.

And even if they do that, guess what? The moment they ask for it back, they get it back.

Alex is a liar. He is lying to you to try and get your vote under false pretences. Getting your vote means more to him than than the lies he'll tell you to get your vote.

He does not have Scotland's interests at heart; he has his own interests at heart. The prize is everything, the Scottish people don't matter.

[LJS]

Morning Neil.

It's quite a pleasant late spring day here. I hope the weather is nice where you are.

[eFestivals]

I hope the weather is nice where you are.

so do I. I'm spending the next three days outside in it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you now know in what way it's a lie.

Nothing to say?

The indy vote is trying to be won by lies. What else that he says is lies?

[russycarps]

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.

Dont you see that as the eventual consequence of humanity then?

Not in our lifetimes of course, or our kids, or their kids, but an enlightened species in the future will all surely rise above petty border quarrels and live together for the greater good.

Scottish independence is a small minded backwards step.

[LJS]

Scotland can be one of the United states of the world as easily as the UK.

I think we're likely to have drowned in melted polar ice first though.

[russycarps]

Scotland can be one of the United states of the world as easily as the UK.

I think we're likely to have drowned in melted polar ice first though.

But there will be no UK or Scotland! Borders between countries will seem a bizarre concept in years to come. A border between UK and Scotland being the most bizarre of all, considering the geography of the island and the fact we're all the same north and south of the border (apart from Essex).

You'll be alright anyway, you'll be living in a castle on top of ben nevis.

[LJS]

It's all gone terribly quiet here- must be the start of the referendum campaign.

Now maybe you have all agreed that yes is the correct answer... or maybe Neil is away for the weekend.

It may also be that the sun has been shining (well it has in my wee corner of Scotland anyway) I do hope it has where you are - (except for Neil of course - I hope he has his own personal raincloud pissing down on him)

I don't really by the way.

just a wee bit of drizzle would be fine.

Apparently the SNP claim we will get 1.5 billion hours of extra sunshine by 2030

Now just in case any of you are under the impression that the Media are covering the referendum with any sort of fairness have a wee look at this: http://wingsoverscotland.com/another-one-of-our-blackouts/#more-56353

Now I don't often post from Wings over Scotland, because they are very pro Yes, but on this occasion, I don't think you could take issue with the point they make. I think we are all wearily aware that the media will spin things to suit their point of view- that's just the way it is- but the "Scottish" Sunday Express has gone way beyond spin & just blatantly made this story up.

It is one of the most extreme examples of what the Yes campaign faces - the assembled might of the British Media, Establishment & assorted vested interests. What is that worth to the No campaign? Yet they sanctimoniously complain when an ordinary couple from Largs who have had the good fortune to win the Lottery give a few million to the Yes campaign.

yeah its not fair is it?

I see more & more in the sections of the media which maintain some attempt at balance that the vote is not about whether we will be better or worse off (the truth is no one - not even Neil- knows) But about the sort of society we want in Scotland.

In other words - its not about greed: I welcome that & look forward to a debate about the sort of Scotland we want to see for the next 50-100 years.

[eFestivals]

Now I don't often post from Wings over Scotland, because they are very pro Yes

ahhh ... wingsoverbath. Every yes-ers favourite bit of England.

Matey says that Scotland is fab, but not fab enough for him to actually live there.

It is one of the most extreme examples of what the Yes campaign faces - the assembled might of the British Media, Establishment & assorted vested interests.

... or alternatively, a newspaper printing stuff which interests their readers, without much regard if it's true or not? You know, like any tabloid, including the one in Scotland run by Alex's best buddy.

Would any tabloid print something similar about anything which didn't love Liz, or "our boys", or a million other "British" things?

But carry on thinking it's all a special plot to victimise just Scotland, and ask Alex if he can include it in his forthcoming next-national-myth. Alex loves to rabble-rouse with anything you'll suck up.

What is that worth to the No campaign?

nothing at all. It's not part of the no campaign.

It's part of a "campaign" to sell newspapers to the stupid by the owner of that newspaper, exactly as any words in any newspaper are.

Yet they sanctimoniously complain when an ordinary couple from Largs who have had the good fortune to win the Lottery give a few million to the Yes campaign.

No one has "complained" - apart from people like you.

It has been *reported* - with truth and no lies - that that couple have given huge amounts of money to both yes and the SNP - as is their right.

What yes don't like with that truthful reporting is that all of the claims - they've disappeared now, haven't you noticed? - of yes being a "grassroots" campaign have evaporated - because that myth has been exposed for what it is.

But about the sort of society we want in Scotland.

In other words - its not about greed:

Isn't it? Then why are bribes the major factor for trying to win votes by both sides?

The facts disprove the myth.

Edited June 2, 2014 by eFestivals