The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Costa Rica.

[LJS]

There has been a (predictable) barrage of criticism of the proposed interim constitution from the likes of Brian Wilson & John McTiernan.

All of which seems to ignore the inconvenient fact that iSco will continue to be a democracy with an electoral system which makes any party winning an overall majority unlikely (the last election took place at a time which was particularly unfavourable for Labour & the LibDems the 2 significant rivals to the SNP)

So unless we are being asked to believe that the Great Alex will abolish elections & declare himself Supreme Lifetime Leader of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Salmondonia, he will not be able to get away with the alleged abuses & general dodginess of the PropInterCon. I hardly think that the voters of Scotland having shown unprecedented interest in the referendum campaign will suddenly lose all interest as soon as the vote is won.

Its just another example of politicians' default position of rubbishing whatever their opponents say.

off topic - shouldn't Glastonbury be on this weekend? - It always used to be the weekend of the Summer Solstice (or nearest to it) I'm sure it was every time I went ( admittedly last time was 1986 - so i could well be a little out of date)

[LJS]

This explains much more eloquently than I have ever managed why the UK Labour party is no longer the answer.

"Yes vote will allow Labour supporters to campaign for fairer society

Friday 20 June 2014

I have been a member of the Labour Party for more than 50 years.

I joined because of its founding mission to campaign for a better, more equal society for working people and their families - that's why it is called Labour. Over the last 20 years I, and many other members and former members, have despaired at the policies of the leadership at Westminster. Jimmy Reid described New Labour as "non-Labour".

Two related events in March triggered me into publicly supporting the Yes Campaign. In Perth, Labour leader Ed Miliband said Labour was the party of social justice, yet days later at Westminster voted with the Tories and Liberal Democrats for a welfare cap. Now, for short-term political opportunism, mainly marginal seats in the south, he has announced the replacement of Jobseekers Allowance for under 21s with a means-tested conditional training allowance ("Labour plan for parents to support their children until age 22", The Herald, June 19).

Most of those affected will not have rich parents to subsidise them. These vulnerable young people are being asked to suffer for the failures of the politicians and bankers who have caused this recession, yet have we seen any sanctions on them? The quality of training being provided, mainly by private firms who have made large profits, is dubious. Most jobs, if any, on offer at the end of training will be low-paid, part-time or zero hours, agency or bogus self-employed. When I left school I had the choice of three apprenticeships, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair destroyed our manufacturing industry. We need policies which will reinvigorate industry and create high skilled, well-paid jobs.

Also, the Poverty Alliance has issued a report, Poverty and Social Exclusion showing that one in five Scots are multi-deprived and that, in the past 30 years, the number of people falling below society's minimum standard of living has increased from 14% to 33%, despite the size of the economy doubling.

I hope Labour wins the 2016 UK Elections next year, as they will be an improvement on the Tories. However, on their record, we can expect no radical economic or social policies to tackle endemic social inequality. A Yes vote in September would give Labour Party members and supporters in Scotland the opportunity to campaign for that better, fairer society for which we strive.

Bob Thomson,

Past Chairman, Scottish Labour Party,'

[viberunner]

On the bluster front :

We will need passports for our parrot / poodle if we want to take them to Blackpool on our hols.

There will be passport control at Gretna.

We will all have £1400 in our banks if we vote NO ( thanks ).

Dark forces will get us if we vote YES.

It will cost £3billion to set up iscotland.

As I said before, there is some drivel coming from both sides.

Absolutely. You have to remember, despite himself, Neil is Margaret Thatcher in drag.

[eFestivals]

Has anyone translated this yet?

Doesn't it worry you that you've been unable to?

Who is going to hold the SNP to account if you're not able to understand what they're doing?

[eFestivals]

All of which seems to ignore the inconvenient fact that iSco will continue to be a democracy with an electoral system which makes any party winning an overall majority unlikely (the last election took place at a time which was particularly unfavourable for Labour & the LibDems the 2 significant rivals to the SNP)

Everyone thought it was unlikely when the unlikely happened. And then the unlikely happened again.

And the union-supporting London-based Labour and LibDems will be popular in a newly independent Scotland.

Meanwhile, if people aren't even able to spot what's the result of the nice words of the draft constitution, no one is going to complain about the issues it causes - until those issues are hard-coded into law and you're reliant on politicans to revoke them.

And the people are sovereign, but not sovereign enough for the SNP to promise them the final say.

[viberunner]

Who is going to hold the SNP to account if you're not able to understand what they're doing?

If the only person in England both able to understand and willing to explain their secret agenda, i.e. you, is only will to do it in such an obfuscating language, then quite possibly nobody will.

That's why crystal-clear clarity from you is so urgently required.

Else it just sounds like generic UKIPPY grumbles.

[LJS]

If the only person in England both able to understand and willing to explain their secret agenda, i.e. you, is only will to do it in such an obfuscating language, then quite possibly nobody will.

That's why crystal-clear clarity from you is so urgently required.

Else it just sounds like generic UKIPPY grumbles.

I think neil is just making one of usual overblown claims where he has put 2 & 2 together & got 5.

When challenged, he can't produce anything to back up his claim so he tries to make it look as if its us that is stupid because we can't see what is so obvious.

As always Neil can sort it out by showing us clearly where it says that anyone will be disenfranchised.

In other news, I see the start up costs are down again & Salmond will debate with Darling - that should be fun.

[viberunner]

It's not even that I think or argue Independence will be a utopia, it might be a bloody struggle to start with, especially if Spain and England decide to be w*nkers.

But I'm one to stand up to bullies. Capitulation is for the French.

[eFestivals]

If the only person in England both able to understand and willing to explain their secret agenda, i.e. you, is only will to do it in such an obfuscating language, then quite possibly nobody will.

That's why crystal-clear clarity from you is so urgently required.

Else it just sounds like generic UKIPPY grumbles.

Yeah, if anyone says anything that yes-ers disagree with it must be wrong.

If you've done what I suggested than you have all the information already. If you're not able to understand what you've read actually means in operation then that should be a bit of a wo9rry for you.

------

Meanwhile, I'm loving that an expert says that a new Scottish national infrastructure can be created for about one quarter of a couple of miles of tram-track, or half the cost of a parliament building.

Where do you sign up to that guy's course? By having academic training from this expert I could save the world a fortune.

(PS: even the expert says "for £200m, plus the cost of all the bits i've not costed" ... which makes it a very different story from his own headline number.)

[eFestivals]

I think neil is just making one of usual overblown claims where he has put 2 & 2 together & got 5.

When challenged, he can't produce anything to back up his claim so he tries to make it look as if its us that is stupid because we can't see what is so obvious.

As always Neil can sort it out by showing us clearly where it says that anyone will be disenfranchised.

What are you not understanding about what the draft constitution says?

Who gets to vote for the national govt in an indy Scotland?

If you're as good at studying the issues as you wish to believe, you'll already know that it's a smaller electorate than are voting for indy, because many of those voters will be disenfranchised - thus making Scotland after indy more ethnic and less civic.

Isn't Alex pointing that out to you? Then either me or him is misleading you. Care to take a guess which it is?

[eFestivals]

It's not even that I think or argue Independence will be a utopia, it might be a bloody struggle to start with, especially if Spain and England decide to be w*nkers.

But I'm one to stand up to bullies. Capitulation is for the French.

Yes-ers wants sovereignty.

Yes-ers refuse to accept that other sovereign countries have sovereignty.

In Scotland, the people are sovereign yes-ers don't understand sovereignty.

Edited June 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

What are you not understanding about what the draft constitution says?

Who gets to vote for the national govt in an indy Scotland?

If you're as good at studying the issues as you wish to believe, you'll already know that it's a smaller electorate than are voting for indy, because many of those voters will be disenfranchised - thus making Scotland after indy more ethnic and less civic.

Isn't Alex pointing that out to you? Then either me or him is misleading you. Care to take a guess which it is?

Could you quote me the part of the proposed draft constitution that says this, please? It's a simple request.

[eFestivals]

Could you quote me the part of the proposed draft constitution that says this, please? It's a simple request.

It doesn't explicitly say "we will make Scotland more ethnic", nor "we will exclude people from voting who currently vote". If 'more-ethnic' is the SNP's deliberate plan (and I'm not saying it is, I'm only saying the effect is more ethnic) then they're not going to state it explicitly given how much they've pushed the 'civic' thing; and if more-ethnic isn't their deliberate plan but is merely the effect, then they're not going to be pointing out to people who might vote 'yes' that they'll be disenfranchised.

You have to read and understand the whole thing, joining words up into full and coherent ideas of how things will be implemented. It *IS* all there for you to put together, but it does have to be put together - and only you can do that, if you can do that.

Edited June 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

It doesn't explicitly say "we will make Scotland more ethnic", nor "we will exclude people from voting who currently vote". If 'more-ethnic' is the SNP's deliberate plan (and I'm not saying it is, I'm only saying the effect is more ethnic) then they're not going to state it explicitly given how much they've pushed the 'civic' thing; and if more-ethnic isn't their deliberate plan but is merely the effect, then they're not going to be pointing out to people who might vote 'yes' that they'll be disenfranchised.

You have to read and understand the whole thing, joining words up into full and coherent ideas of how things will be implemented. It *IS* all there for you to put together, but it does have to be put together - and only you can do that, if you can do that.

So, to sum up then, you made it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

[eFestivals]

So, to sum up then, you made it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

No.

If you're not smart enough to follow the details of the consequences of your own nation's independence, what's to say?

Well, we know what yes voters say, they say that anything that's different to what they think must be a lie (unless spoken by an unnamed Westminster source, which is the only time in Westminster's history that a truth has been spoken ).

I think those yes voters have a few surprises coming, all the result of their own attitudes.

[eFestivals]

PS: you can come back and admit you were wrong in May 2016, cos i'm guessing it won't become clear to you until then.

[LJS]

There has been no shortage of criticism of the proposed draft constitution, as you would expect, none that I have read has picked up on this alleged disenfranchisement or ethnicisation.

If it was real or even plausible I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

Edited June 23, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

• give citizenship to anyone "habitually resident in Scotland and with a UK passport, or to the children of Scottish citizens;

I suppose that raises the question about current Scots living outside of Scotland ?

or you could quote a bit more of it...

all those who, immediately before Independence Day, hold British citizenship and

either—

(i) are habitually resident in Scotland at that time, or

(ii) are not habitually resident in Scotland at that time but were born in

Scotland,

[eFestivals]

There has been no shortage of criticism of the proposed draft constitution, as you would expect, none that I have read has picked up on this alleged disenfranchisement or ethnicisation.

If it was real or even plausible I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

or perhaps like you, they don't understand what they've read?

Citizens get national votes, temporary residents do not.

[eFestivals]

I only had a guardian article go off which did have any more details. Cheers for the extra details.

and that extra detail says "let's have as many ethnic Scots as it's possible to get".

Very civic, that.

[LJS]

and that extra detail says "let's have as many ethnic Scots as it's possible to get".

Very civic, that.

I will leave you with your fantasy world where Alex is Rab C Mugabe presiding over his Tartan Reich & ethnically cleansing the Sassenach Scum from the land.

It is so ridiculous it's not worth arguing with.

Edited June 23, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I will leave you with your fantasy world where Alex is Rab C Mugabe presiding over his Tartan Reich & ethnically cleansing the Sassenach Scum from the land.

It is so ridiculous it's not worth arguing with.

OK, you have a problem with the irrefutable facts.

Do the citizenship rules make iScotland more "ethnically" Scottish than it actually is, or not? There is only one correct answer.

Do the proposed "ethnic" citizenship rules disenfranchise some people in Scotland to the benefit of not-in-Scotland "ethnic" Scots, or not. There is only one correct answer.

("ethnic" is in quotes because just as for England there's no such thing as "ethnic" except in some stupid people's imaginations).

Edited June 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

OK, you have a problem with the irrefutable facts.

Do the citizenship rules make iScotland more "ethnically" Scottish than it actually is, or not? There is only one correct answer.

Do the proposed "ethnic" citizenship rules disenfranchise some people in Scotland to the benefit of not-in-Scotland "ethnic" Scots, or not. There is only one correct answer.

("ethnic" is in quotes because just as for England there's no such thing as "ethnic" except in some stupid people's imaginations).

i refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier answer

[eFestivals]

i refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier answer

And I refer you to the first line of the draft constitution...

In Scotland the people don't understand what sovereignty is.