The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

1: we know wingsman lives in Bath, yet any time he is mentioned you proclaim loudly as if this is important new information. It's not. It's irrelevant old information.

2: one Sunday paper has come out for independence. The rest are all either against or allegedly neutral. The establishment will always oppose change. Whether it is a plot or not (i'm not sure it is) it is a big obstacle to the yes campaign.

3:you know exactly what I mean about what it's worth to the No campaign. It's free publicity ...which if they had to pay for it would cost millions.

4: you obviously haven't read some of the stuff written about the McLottery winners.

And it is certainly the biggest grassroots campaign I've seen in Scotland in my lifetime.

5: you seem to continually Labour under the illusion that all we talk about is whether we'll be better or worse off. We talk about lots of other stuff.

[eFestivals]

1: we know wingsman lives in Bath, yet any time he is mentioned you proclaim loudly as if this is important new information. It's not. It's irrelevant old information.

2: one Sunday paper has come out for independence. The rest are all either against or allegedly neutral. The establishment will always oppose change. Whether it is a plot or not (i'm not sure it is) it is a big obstacle to the yes campaign.

3:you know exactly what I mean about what it's worth to the No campaign. It's free publicity ...which if they had to pay for it would cost millions.

4: you obviously haven't read some of the stuff written about the McLottery winners.

And it is certainly the biggest grassroots campaign I've seen in Scotland in my lifetime.

5: you seem to continually Labour under the illusion that all we talk about is whether we'll be better or worse off. We talk about lots of other stuff.

1. the fact that he's saying "do as I say and not as I do" is very relevant.

2. newspapers report, they don't set the agenda. One has come out for indy, none have come out for the union - but just carry on feeling victimised.

3. and yet the army of cybernats gets much more.

4. I've read what the McLottery winners have said, and i've got no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is the claim of grassroots when there's zilch, as the donations get to show..... You do know that yes have been banging on about how no is all funded byt self-interested millionaires, don't you? Well, guess how yes is funded, but more-so (by the fact that it's just one millionaire)?

5. Nope, I'm under the correct apprehension that both sides talk equal bullshit (as stuff like "grassroots" shows for yes), but that the rational is absent from both.

I should have kept a list of all the lines of attack that yes-ers have used on no but where yes have since been exposed as doing the same - like being funded by millionaires and not grass roots. It would be quite a long list by now.

But yes brings something different and better, yes, and politics will have changed. :lol:

At the end of the day, all yes have on their side is "be a little Scotlander". If that appeals go for it but don't go bullshitting yourself that it's something else.

[russycarps]

I see nicola sturgeon's response to the tory tax proposals is to screech "they are lying!"

a bit pathetic really, considering there are many ways she could have intelligently taken apart these proposals.

Edited June 3, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I see nicola sturgeon's response to the tory tax proposals is to screech "they are lying!"

is that a surprise? It's the SNP response to anything that disagrees with them.

It's a better kind of politics, as long as you go along with everything Alex says.

[russycarps]

is that a surprise? It's the SNP response to anything that disagrees with them.

It's a better kind of politics, as long as you go along with everything Alex says.

Arent the Yes lot getting bored with it though? Wouldn't they rather hear WHY these ideas from the torys are bad, rather than "they are lying!".

Do they mean that if the torys are not lying, the proposals are actually good? It's confusing if they refuse to engage in debate. But I suppose by not engaging, there is no danger they will expose their failings.

Can any of the Yes crowd remind me again why holyrood has never used its tax varying powers, I've forgotten the reason.

[LJS]

Right, again not speaking for the Scottish people, the Yes campaign or the SNP.

I want a government in Holyrood that is responsible for setting taxation policy not tinkering with one tiny part of UK taxation policy.

If there is one thing that is political suicide it is to increase the basic rate of income tax - and it is a pretty unfair way to raise revenue as it disproportionally penalises low to medium wage earners. Promising to raise income tax just makes you an easy target for the press.

Just for the record, I personally would happily fork out a bit more tax if I believed it was justified & any party that has the balls to stand on a higher tax for better services platform goes a long way to winning my vote just for sheer courage. In a UK context if all they were offering was a rise in standard rate income tax, I would expect a rise in tax allowance to protect the lowest paid. This is not an option open to Scotland.

As for the Tory promises on more devolution: unfortunately for them, they have form on this - promising more devolution & delivering fuck all. So you will perhaps excuse us if some of us are just a wee bit cynical. I'm sure the SNP are playing politics here but then so is everyone else. The whole history of devolution is that the main parties only offer us anything when the SNP becomes a significant threat.

[LJS]

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?

I thought i'd better return to this.

Now, correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will)

Your argument (if i get it right ) is that Scots cannot lose there EU citizenship (which doesn't exist anyway) because we will remain UK citizens & the UK is still in Europe.

Your argument is pure semantics - the No position is that Scotland will be out of the EU along with Antartica & Pluto so the fact that we have UK citizenship will be worth what in any practical sense?

[LJS]

4. I've read what the McLottery winners have said, and i've got no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is the claim of grassroots when there's zilch, as the donations get to show..... You do know that yes have been banging on about how no is all funded byt self-interested millionaires, don't you? Well, guess how yes is funded, but more-so (by the fact that it's just one millionaire)?

so, because a couple of punters decide to lob a few million at the yes campaign, this completely devalues the thousands who contribute both financially & in terms of time & commitment to the yes campaign. Trust me, this is the biggest grassroots movement in Scotland in my lifetime. have a wee look at the what's on section of the Yes Scotland website. Have a look at the myriad of projects that are raising thousands through crowdfunding mainly through small donations. You are wrong on this one.

One of the things that constantly depresses me (as I am sure it does you) is the lack of political engagement in this country (uk & scotland). If all the Independence campaign does is raise that a few notches, it will not have been in vain.

Incidentally, I am not naive enough to believe that everyone running around canvassing, pushing leaflets through letter boxes etc will stay engaged - especially if there is a no vote - I'd settle for 10-20%.

[kaosmark2]

(uk & scotland).

They're not separate atm you know

[eFestivals]

I want a government in Holyrood that is responsible for setting taxation policy not tinkering with one tiny part of UK taxation policy.

I'm guessing that you'd not seen the IFS report before you posted that.

Perhaps you should have cut to the chase, and said the true fact? "I want to pay more taxes".

If there is one thing that is political suicide it is to increase the basic rate of income tax

it'll be interesting to see how iScotland deals with its £9Bn pa deficit then, particularly as it's promised to spend around 10% more than Scotland currently does.

As for the Tory promises on more devolution: unfortunately for them, they have form on this - promising more devolution & delivering fuck all.

I could be wrong, but I believe you've got history all to fuck. It's a rather common theme of yes-ers.

Unless you're going to show me the quotes by Thatcher saying "I'm a big fan of devolution"? Rather than what i know she said, that she wasn't at all, ever.

Next up you'll be saying that various businesses have form for saying they might quit Scotland, while pretending that all circumstances are equal and that if they've said it once and not done it the same applies in all circumstances.

Having said all of that, the tories - like all politicians - are lying fuckers. So reject that bunch of lying fucks and get another one ... but just pretend that's something better, eh?

The whole history of devolution is that the main parties only offer us anything when the SNP becomes a significant threat.

Or alternatively - if you're a fan of democracy - when there's actually support for it within the Scottish people.

You know, like there wasn't in 1979.

</me stands back and waits for the mythed-up response to the '79 vote >

Edited June 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I thought i'd better return to this.

Now, correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will)

Your argument (if i get it right ) is that Scots cannot lose there EU citizenship (which doesn't exist anyway) because we will remain UK citizens & the UK is still in Europe.

You've got "my" argument right, yes. The true facts.

100% at odds with Salmond's lies in his Bruges speech.

Your argument is pure semantics - the No position is that Scotland will be out of the EU along with Antartica & Pluto so the fact that we have UK citizenship will be worth what in any practical sense?

Have you read Salmond's words in his Bruges speech? :lol:

If it's "pure semantics" to state the truth of the situation in regard to the EU rights Scottish people will keep as individuals via the continuing UK citizenship, what do you call Salmond's version of those individuals EU rights, where he lies? :lol:

[eFestivals]

so, because a couple of punters decide to lob a few million at the yes campaign, this completely devalues the thousands who contribute both financially & in terms of time & commitment to the yes campaign.

If it devalues the contributions on the no side - and yes-ers say it does - then it's the same on the yes side.

FFS. And you wonder why I keep posting here, when you don't do fair and equal consideration?

[LJS]

They're not separate atm you know

well spotted!

I was merely clarifying what i meant when I said "this country"

As you will be aware I live under the delusion that Scotland is a country.

[LJS]

I'm guessing that you'd not seen the IFS report before you posted that.

Perhaps you should have cut to the chase, and said the true fact? "I want to pay more taxes".

it'll be interesting to see how iScotland deals with its £9Bn pa deficit then, particularly as it's promised to spend around 10% more than Scotland currently does.

I could be wrong, but I believe you've got history all to fuck. It's a rather common theme of yes-ers.

Unless you're going to show me the quotes by Thatcher saying "I'm a big fan of devolution"? Rather than what i know she said, that she wasn't at all, ever.

Next up you'll be saying that various businesses have form for saying they might quit Scotland, while pretending that all circumstances are equal and that if they've said it once and not done it the same applies in all circumstances.

Having said all of that, the tories - like all politicians - are lying fuckers. So reject that bunch of lying fucks and get another one ... but just pretend that's something better, eh?

Or alternatively - if you're a fan of democracy - when there's actually support for it within the Scottish people.

You know, like there wasn't in 1979.

</me stands back and waits for the mythed-up response to the '79 vote >

NO, I hadn't seen the IFS report - wouldn't have made any difference though, The point of independence is that government for Scotland in Scotland will be different - so any report which assumes we will carry on doing the same & just bolts on some additional costs without allowing for any benefits is not particularly credible in my eyes.

Thatcher, as far as I am aware never professed to be in favour of devolution but other Tories clearly held out the prospect of "better" devolution under the Tories if we voted no - you can put a number of interpretations on why they did that but none would inspire any confidence in their honesty or trustworthiness.

Bizarrely we now have the Tories, having ruled out a devo max option in the referendum, campaigning for devo max.

And yes in both previous referenda many of the threats of "bad things" were made just as they are being made now. Hey , maybe they are suddenly true this time. boys & Wolves spring to mind.

*I won't bother revisiting the way yes became No in 1979 - I think we know each other's view on that one

[kaosmark2]

well spotted!

I was merely clarifying what i meant when I said "this country"

As you will be aware I live under the delusion that Scotland is a country.

I far prefer jumping into this debate with pedantic nitpicking than actually engaging with the arguments between you and Neil. It means I actually get some variation in what I say

[LJS]

If it devalues the contributions on the no side - and yes-ers say it does - then it's the same on the yes side.

FFS. And you wonder why I keep posting here, when you don't do fair and equal consideration?

I am not arguing about the value or otherwise of contributions, I am arguing about the relative vibrancy & activism of the 2 campaigns.

The difference that seems to escape you is that whereas No appears to have few active supporters , The yes campaign certainly appears to have many many more. Unless you are implying that the McLottos are personally paying them to campaign, their money does not detract from the significance of that grassroots movement.

[LJS]

Yougov did a wee poll for BT the other day that was spun to show that Scots wanted lots of stuff to be shared throughout the UK

Neil has hinted at the fact that different polls produce different results depending on the way the questions are asked & other variables.

anyone interested may care to look at the detailed results & questions

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/z2tft73rcy/BetterTogether_ScotlandComparison_140519.pdf

these are clearly skewed to give a desired result

Even more interestingly Yougov asked the same questions in England & Wales - but these results received no publicity

let's compare results of one question:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Government should

redistribute income from those with the most to those with the least?

Scotland

Strongly agree 30

Tend to agree 30

TOTAL AGREE 60

England

Strongly agree 20

Tend to agree 29

TOTAL AGREE 49

Now, Neil & have have had our disagreements on whether there is any difference in views and attitudes north & south of the border - here is a little bit of evidence to support my side

here are the full English results:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dzh2dl3yt3/BetterTogether_EnglandComparison_140519.pdf

\there are also results for Wales available should anyone be interested - I'll leave you to find them yourselves

Edited June 4, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Wow!!!!

Better Together leader Alistair Darling infuriates the SNP by comparing Alex Salmond to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/better-together-leader-alistair-darling-3645707

Neil, you must be kicking yourself that you hadn't come up with that comparison

[eFestivals]

NO, I hadn't seen the IFS report - wouldn't have made any difference though, The point of independence is that government for Scotland in Scotland will be different - so any report which assumes we will carry on doing the same & just bolts on some additional costs without allowing for any benefits is not particularly credible in my eyes.

Well, it'll certainly be different, yep.

But whether that "different" is the sort of state you believe you'll get by voting yes is another thing entirely.

Most yes-ers seem to think they'll be getting a left-leaning state, but as soon as someone points out that what that left leaning state might achieve could be impossibly unaffordable, a strange kind of denial seems to come over them.

Cos don't forget, this utopian left-leaning state has said there'll be higher public spending, lower taxes AND an oil fund - and all from the same £9Bn deficit-supported regional economy as now.

Any smart cookie would have recognised that it just doesn't add-up. Scotland is being sold a mongrel pup as a pedigree adult by the very people who claim they'll be leading a different type of govt that'll do things differently and create a different and great country.

And that's because it's only the English politicians that are lying politicians, eh?

Thatcher, as far as I am aware never professed to be in favour of devolution but other Tories clearly held out the prospect of "better" devolution under the Tories if we voted no - you can put a number of interpretations on why they did that but none would inspire any confidence in their honesty or trustworthiness.

or alternatively, the untrustworthiness comes from Scottish re-writing of history: where the devolution was won, words never said were spoken, and bitterness at the con subsumed a nation.

Welcome to the world of the petty rabble-rousing little nationalists.

Bizarrely we now have the Tories, having ruled out a devo max option in the referendum, campaigning for devo max.

What is it about democracy you don't get?

Scotland voted for the party that very specifically campaigns for an indyref and not a devoref.

Scotland has got what it voted for, but even that's an English con. You couldn't make it up.

Oh, you already have.

And yes in both previous referenda many of the threats of "bad things" were made just as they are being made now. Hey , maybe they are suddenly true this time. boys & Wolves spring to mind.

What is it about different circumstances having different outcomes that you find so hard to grasp?

*I won't bother revisiting the way yes became No in 1979 - I think we know each other's view on that one

The way that less than 40% of Scotland supported devo, you mean?

Perhaps my memory is better than yours?

The rules were very clear. Before the vote, no one (bar the SNP) had any problem with those rules, because they recognised that major change requires major support.

In hindsight those rules were an error because it's allowed the SNP to spin their national myths.

[eFestivals]

I am not arguing about the value or otherwise of contributions, I am arguing about the relative vibrancy & activism of the 2 campaigns.

The difference that seems to escape you is that whereas No appears to have few active supporters , The yes campaign certainly appears to have many many more. Unless you are implying that the McLottos are personally paying them to campaign, their money does not detract from the significance of that grassroots movement.

The "grassroots" movement you talk about is a microcosm of the whole indy campaign.

There's all these people planning to vote yes, and who support the yes campaign.

But top of their "what's important" list for pre-indy and post-indy is that campaigning for yes costs them nothing, and that post-indy costs them nothing .... oh, and let's double-check our citizenship privileges, so that we can run away from the mistake of our own votes.

A nation needs the supporters that an independent Scottish nation just doesn't have. At best it has people who vote jam for themselves - the exact thing that infuriates about Westminster, where people vote for jam that never gets delivered.

Edited June 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil has hinted at the fact that different polls produce different results depending on the way the questions are asked & other variables.

I've said no such thing but you've constantly said this, as a reason for why the polls don't reflect what you want to believe that the people of Scotland think.

I've seen that there's a myth going around yes-ers that the polls were wrong about the last SG election, because it got the distribution of seats very wrong - not helped by the rather complicated system that's used to distribute the seats in a (sort of) geographical manner ... and yet the actual support for parties in its different directions was got absolutely spot-on within those polls (the better polling companies, so ignore anything like Panelbase, for instance).

Will the polling for indy votes be hugely wrong? Unlikely I think, given the accurate history.

Now, Neil & have have had our disagreements on whether there is any difference in views and attitudes north & south of the border - here is a little bit of evidence to support my side

So you think a minor difference to questions that are much like the no-brainer feel-good statements that politicians make (and for which we've got no measure of how the questions were understood as actually meaning), show a significant difference of opinion in Scotland?

The questions are of the quality "should we try and save the dying?" - where the answer at a basic level is always 'yes'.

The differences you point out are small enough to cover the nuances behind that question, such as:

- do we have the skills to save the dying

- do we have the resources to save the dying

- will I give things up that I currently have so that the dying can be saved.

And that's before getting to the perception within Scotland that you're all terribly nice with a social conscience - which will cause people to agree with a nice question that has no real comeback (after all, it's just a poll) onto those who have answered the question.

The point is that the differences, even if 100% meant in all circumstances, are not big enough to cause any significantly different political outcome.

It's much like you saying that the fuckwittery of UKIP has no truck in Scotland, whilst forgetting that those who are susceptible to a nationalist line have for a long time already been hooked in Scotland. The fuckwits are there and all thinking the same things, they just put their crosses in different boxes.

At the end of the day, are the richer Scots happy to vote themselves poorer, more-so than the richer people of England are? Cos that's what Scotland will need to happen, and it just won't - for a start, those "richer people" are the ones you'll be voting for.

Edited June 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil, you must be kicking yourself that you hadn't come up with that comparison

not as much as you should be kicking yourself for falling for the misleading myth-making headline.

But don't you worry about that, eh?

[LJS]

I won't waste my time responding in detail to Neil's latest collection of rants as I have voiced my views on pretty much everything he has to say & I can't be arsed repeating myself.

Its a while since we had a song. Here is a beautiful & poignant ditty I found on the vote no borders grass roots site.

Enjoy

Edited June 5, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

So, Alex is Kim Jong-il, and it turns out that the Irish president Mr O'Bama doesn't much care for him.

I'm wetting myself at the cybernats getting worked up about Obama's words. As if they'd have said any of the same "how dare he..." if he'd instead said he was Alex's best buddy.

Obama being against is much of a surprise as NATO being against indy, or the UK's heralded "free" press sticking firmly with the status quo. There's even a full recognition of this within the yes campaign, with its promises that nothing will change, and it (laughably) pretending nothing will change by the White Paper saying that Scotland can have it all.

The nats love to see it all as an establishment conspiracy against them, when it's simply the case that people feel more comfortable with the status quo than they do the unknowns and uncertainties of deliberately caused change.

I've no problem with Scotland being indy if that's how it goes, but the longer this all goes on the more I begin to think that few in Scotland are intellectually or emotionally ready to be independent right now, because success at independent requires an acceptance of others having the same rights as you wish for yourselves.

Edited June 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Obamma lamma ding dong!