The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

So ... what's all this business of Salmond's spad sending those emails?

Storm in a teacup, something sackable, or Scottish politics showing that it's nothing different to Westminster?

You're spinning Neil

How many e mails did Campbell Gunn send?

1

[eFestivals]

The e mail did not "smear" Claire Lally unless misidentifying someone's father in law is a smear.

yup ... tho quite why spads are being employed to alert the media to the backgrounds of any people the media might interact with I don't know.

It does however mean that when she is presented by the no thanks campaign simply as an "ordinary mother" this is at best a bit iffy & at worst downright dishonest.

Isn't it the case that she presented herself as an ordinary mother?

(I may be wrong, it's not anything I've followed closely, but that was the impression I've got from what I've read).

And, while I can see why there's objections to that description (and I agree with them to a large extent), when does a person stop thinking of themselves as 'ordinary'?

From the very little I know about her, it could easily be that she sees herself as an ordinary carer (like so many other carers), but one where she's had opportunity to have a big influence into the debate around carers and caring.

I'm seeing plenty of room here for there to be no conspiracy and no meaningful attempt to deceive, instead just a self-description that isn't the same as others would use as a description.

But, while are good reasons to expose what can be legitimately considered a deception about her position, I still don't see why exposing her should be any part of a taxpayer-funded govt employee's job.

Edited June 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You're spinning Neil

How many e mails did Campbell Gunn send?

1

As far as I know, just one - but where the tax payer paid for him to do it, plus for the time for him to know about things for him to do it, plus all of the rest of the time he's clearly spending on 'yes' and not on SG business.

You might not like it, but if the taxpayer has any position currently (until such time as the tax payer votes themselves another position) then that position is for the union and not against it - and therefore it becomes impossible to justify taxpayer spends on the yes campaign.

It's for that very reason that the official campaigns are remote from govt.

And yes, I'm aware that 'no' are taking the piss by doing much the same, spending taxpayers money in support of no - but all the same, that is the official current position of the UK's taxpayer (so it does have a modicum of moral justification behind it [tho I don't agree with it happening like that, just to be clear]), and anyway .... a major claim of this campaign is how different Scottish politics is - and yet it's doing all the same things.

To use the word that Buff liked to throw in now and then, the arguments around this by the SNP have become classic whataboutery - where they've tried to keep the focus on the content of the email and not on the fact that that email came to exist in the first place.

Because if the discussion starts to zoom in on the *really* relevant point here of the SG funding the yes campaign then so many of the yes campaign's claims are toast.

[LJS]

If no is the official position of the UK government, then yes is the official position of the Scotland government.

But & more importantly I agree with you that we should not have special advisors as they currently exist.

[LJS]

As far as I know, just one - but where the tax payer paid for him to do it, plus for the time for him to know about things for him to do it, plus all of the rest of the time he's clearly spending on 'yes' and not on SG business.

You might not like it, but if the taxpayer has any position currently (until such time as the tax payer votes themselves another position) then that position is for the union and not against it - and therefore it becomes impossible to justify taxpayer spends on the yes campaign.

It's for that very reason that the official campaigns are remote from govt.

And yes, I'm aware that 'no' are taking the piss by doing much the same, spending taxpayers money in support of no - but all the same, that is the official current position of the UK's taxpayer (so it does have a modicum of moral justification behind it [tho I don't agree with it happening like that, just to be clear]), and anyway .... a major claim of this campaign is how different Scottish politics is - and yet it's doing all the same things.

To use the word that Buff liked to throw in now and then, the arguments around this by the SNP have become classic whataboutery - where they've tried to keep the focus on the content of the email and not on the fact that that email came to exist in the first place.

Because if the discussion starts to zoom in on the *really* relevant point here of the SG funding the yes campaign then so many of the yes campaign's claims are toast.

The whole story appears to have started with a times article that stated Alistair darling was the only politician speaking at the rally in question.

In response to that Bathman revealed that ms. Lally was one of the speakers & went on to detail her involvement in politics. He also wondered if she might be the daughter in law of pat lally. He clearly did not know this for a fact.

Gunn then appears to have picked this up bit made the mistake of assuming that it ess a fact.

This is why it is of no great significance in my opinion. It is just part of the game both sides play where they try & catch each other out at every turn. What Gunn did was give @bt the opportunity to deflect attention away from the dubious "ordinariness' of Claire lally & onto the alleged smears from the yes side.

Edited June 14, 2014 by LJS

[Stash]

The whole story appears to have started with a times article that stated Alistair darling was the only politician speaking at the rally in question.

But is that not actually accurate? Is Claire Lally actually a politician now?

For anyone who answered yes to that question, can you answer the same question for

- Sara Payne (appointed Victims Champion in 2009)

- Alan Sugar (appointed Business Champion in 2009)

- Mary Portas (appointed Retail/High Street Champion in 2011)

Are they all politician now too?

[LJS]

But is that not actually accurate? Is Claire Lally actually a politician now?

For anyone who answered yes to that question, can you answer the same question for

- Sara Payne (appointed Victims Champion in 2009)

- Alan Sugar (appointed Business Champion in 2009)

- Mary Portas (appointed Retail/High Street Champion in 2011)

Are they all politician now too?

You can argue that one either way. When do you stop being an "ordinary" person & become a politician?

The main point I have been trying to make here is that this whole story is not the big deal that much of the media & the BT campaign have been making it out to be.

There has been a lot of really lazy reporting on this with the clear implication that Campbell Gunn & the SNP were somehow behind some of the online poison (allegedly) directed at Ms Lally.

These people display an extraordinary naivety about the sort of vile & offensive rubbish that appears every day on twitter & the like, Sad & pathetic people making vile comments online are not by any means confined to this debate. They conveniently ignore the fact that there is equally vile & offensive stuff emanating from both sides.

I don't get involved in any of that stuff myself - one of the reasons I contribute here is that is relatively civilised, but I have occasionally browsed through some on line debates on the referendum & you do see some of the same contributors posting again & again.

My belief is they are relatively small in number & the last thing we should be doing is giving them publicity - I am sure these sad & pathetic people will be delighted when one of their vile posts is quoted in the press or on TV.

p.s. some encouraging polls for Yes in the last few days

[eFestivals]

p.s. some encouraging polls for Yes in the last few days

I'm particularly liking ( ) the Daily Record one, that suggests yes will win if Scotland believes the tories will win the next GE - which only gets to show that "better democracy" is little to do with anything of the indyref, and that significant numbers in Scotland are as politically unsophisticated* as it's possible to be.

(* note: I'm not suggesting anywhere else is likely to be any better, just that Scotland doesn't live up to the claims made for it).

[LJS]

I'm particularly liking ( ) the Daily Record one, that suggests yes will win if Scotland believes the tories will win the next GE - which only gets to show that "better democracy" is little to do with anything of the indyref, and that significant numbers in Scotland are as politically unsophisticated* as it's possible to be.

(* note: I'm not suggesting anywhere else is likely to be any better, just that Scotland doesn't live up to the claims made for it).

so for a few per cent of the population, their decision might be influenced by increased probability of a Tory government. Now, I think these people are a little silly ... but then it is only a few percent - let's not jump to too many conclusions now.

[LJS]

I'm particularly liking ( ) the Daily Record one, that suggests yes will win if Scotland believes the tories will win the next GE - which only gets to show that "better democracy" is little to do with anything of the indyref, and that significant numbers in Scotland are as politically unsophisticated* as it's possible to be.

(* note: I'm not suggesting anywhere else is likely to be any better, just that Scotland doesn't live up to the claims made for it).

From the same poll I believe

"THREE times as many people trust Holyrood to make decisions in the interests of Scotland as opposed to politicians at Westminster, a poll has revealed.

When asked who they trusted most to make decisions in Scotlands best interests, 52% of Scots said Holyrood, while 17.3% said Westminster, according to the study by Survation.

When the 30.7% who said they did not know were excluded, 75% trusted Holyrood more while 25% preferred Westminster."

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/poll-scots-trust-holyrood-more-than-westminster-1-3444741

[eFestivals]

so for a few per cent of the population, their decision might be influenced by increased probability of a Tory government. Now, I think these people are a little silly ... but then it is only a few percent - let's not jump to too many conclusions now.

I've not seen those poll results in detail (tho I've read some reports about them), but given that 'no' had a 5% lead on the standard yes/no and then yes wins if Scotland think the tories will win, it's more than just a few percent.

A significant number - enough to swing the vote by what that poll says - are voting on the basis of their own stupidity, in exactly the same manner as they would a general election ... but as there's no further vote, voting stupid is only voting stupid.

That's not a good thing no matter how you might wish to dress it up ... but yes will ignore it and secretly cheer, because victory is more important than the people of Scotland.

[LJS]

I've not seen those poll results in detail (tho I've read some reports about them), but given that 'no' had a 5% lead on the standard yes/no and then yes wins if Scotland think the tories will win, it's more than just a few percent.

A significant number - enough to swing the vote by what that poll says - are voting on the basis of their own stupidity, in exactly the same manner as they would a general election ... but as there's no further vote, voting stupid is only voting stupid.

That's not a good thing no matter how you might wish to dress it up ... but yes will ignore it and secretly cheer, because victory is more important than the people of Scotland.

I wouldn't say voting yes to keep the Tories out is completely stupid. But it is making the decision for very short term reasons.

I think it's a bit of hypothetical question though & I don't imagine it will be in the forefront of people's minds when they come to vote.

[eFestivals]

that "trust" question is more than a bit stupid, and it's very stupid to take anything meaningful from it.

It can mean any number of things. It can mean that

- in whatever circumstances the SG makes rthe best decision.

or

- that the SG makes the best decisions only within its limited remit, but shouldn't be trusted to make decisions with a wider remit.

If you cared to have noticed, even JKR praised the SG while coughing up £1M and telling people to vote no.

----

As it happened I bumped into a Scottish friend of mine on Saturday, and amongst other things I asked him what his opinion was on the indyref.

Just for some context: he's from Edinburgh, about 15 or 20 years older than me (so 65 or 70), and has lived down south for at least 25 years (I'm not sure when exactly he moved to England). He still has plenty of family in Scotland, and travels up there regularly. (I've known him for around 15 years. I've no idea where his politics actually are, tho I'd be hugely surprised [for good reasons] if he wasn't a big supporter of 'social justice' programmes of all sorts).

(I'm just going to repeat his opinion - I've personally no idea how true or not it might be).

He said he'd vote no if he had a vote (which he doesn't). He'd be voting no on the basis that he feels it's the parochial views of people in Scotland that have always held Scotland back and that Westminster has been the progressive influence on Scotland.

He also said that the SNP have increased the parochial views of people in Scotland during the last 30 years and made it a more insular place.

Edited June 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't say voting yes to keep the Tories out is completely stupid. But it is making the decision for very short term reasons.

If a person is only voting yes to keep the tories out, then it can't be anything but completely stupid.

Because: voting yes does not keep the tories out. A 3% corp tax cut as offered by the SNP is as tory as it gets, and tory policies like that is what yes will bring.

[viberunner]

A YES votes protects Scotland's progressive bent, and might encourage the English to think for themselves about themselves - for a change.

To call the SNP Tory is beyond idiotic. As someone who has studied up here, and as a carer of a seriously disabled partner, I could list the differences they personally have made to our lives.

If they're Tory, so be it. They're still vastly far to the left of the Conservative Tories, the Liberal Democrat Tories, and the Labour Tories. That'll have to do for now.

[russycarps]

how do you create a more equal society by enriching dividend holders?

[eFestivals]

A YES votes protects Scotland's progressive bent

yes, because the low corp tax promised by St Alex is a progressive policy and not a regressive, neoliberal and tory one. :lol:

, and might encourage the English to think for themselves about themselves - for a change.

Or alternatively, some are more selfish than others, saying how progressive it is to demand all the money for themselves and fuck everyone else.

Like any good tory.

To call the SNP Tory is beyond idiotic.

I'm not calling them tory, i'm pointing out how similar they can be to the tories - with regressive policies just like the tories, and not anything progressive.

PS: you know the things you dream of? Who is going to vote themselves a tax increase to pay for them? The tory-leaning Scottish electorate certainly won't, because they're tory-leaning no different to England.

I know, I know, all the tories in Scotland dropped dead in 1983.

If they're Tory, so be it. They're still vastly far to the left of the Conservative Tories, the Liberal Democrat Tories, and the Labour Tories. That'll have to do for now.

The promise of tax cuts for the richest (and no promise of anything for anyone else) should have you revise your opinions, but you'd rather fall for Alex's carefully constructed myth.

PS: has Alex told you what price he's paid Murdoch yet?

Edited June 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

how do you create a more equal society by enriching dividend holders?

You don't.

[eFestivals]

You don't.

then iScotland is going to go into meltdown over the lack of dream fulfilment.

[viberunner]

@eFestivals

All I can say is, as a former student up here, and as someone with a partner disabled by MS, I can personally confirm this is Leninology up here compared to England. And much - no, all - of that direclty the result of the actions of the SNP.

But no doubt about it, they're needing to make Scotland some money, so they will be looking to attract and retain businesses, so yes they're Tory from that POV.

But then again, you're a businessman too aren't you? Running a business promoting the luxury good and services of some very BIG businesses... ;-)

But I'll no be call you Mags because of it.

[eFestivals]

well, if England had an extra 20% to spend on its residents to take its spend per-person equal to Scotland's, then you can be sure that all of the same things could be afforded in England too.

But England, unlike Scotland, is happy to pool its revenue towards the common good.... so it makes me laugh a lot when I hear those claims of a fairer society.

And yes, I know that the SNP plan to race even faster towards the bottom than the tories in England do, to the glory of neoliberal capitalism and not to the glory of any fairer society with the required higher taxes.

But then again, you're a businessman too aren't you? Running a business promoting the luxury good and services of some very BIG businesses... ;-)

I'm merely someone earning a living like everyone else that's earning a living, but where I'm lucky enough to work in one of the greenest and most socially responsible business sectors, and where my efforts are against the neoliberal trend and not in support of them.

Meanwhile, the chances on average get to say that you're more likely to be the active Mag than me, but never mind eh?

Enjoy the missing fulfilments, disappointments and higher taxes to the glory of the rich if your dreams come true.

Edited June 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Referendum... Not election.

Did you forget again, Neil?

[eFestivals]

Referendum... Not election.

Did you forget again, Neil?

Eh? Haven't mentioned either word in the posts on this page. I did on the previous page in relation to Scottish voters seemingly treating it like an election.

[eFestivals]

Just had a butchers at the draft constitution.

Nice enough, with nothing of any real significance to comment on, apart from....

I'm loving the assumption that's written as fact of the EU position, showing that Scotland's often proclaimed better politics isn't beyond trying to mislead the people to victory.

[LJS]

Eh? Haven't mentioned either word in the posts on this page. I did on the previous page in relation to Scottish voters seemingly treating it like an election.

Never said you did, but as you are perfectly well aware we are not voting to decide the rate of Corp tax.

Not are we voting to install St. Alex as the lifetime president of the democratic republic of Scotland.

But then , it's easier to argue your case your way, isn't it?