The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

& just on a side point, talk me through the measures alex has taken to actively increase poverty in Scotland.

Those poor get poorer because they have less money than they might otherwise have.

Where's the money come from to give the richer classes free Uni (so Alex can twonk the English) and free prescriptions (so he can twonk the English) to the detriment of the poorest?

But Alex hasn't caused the increased poverty (so he can blame the English), oh no.

[eFestivals]

PS: you cannot blame Westminster's policies for Scotland's increased poverty - because those Westminster policies have seen a drop in poverty within the rUK, plus less of those policies effect Scotland than they do the rest of the UK.

(that's not me trying to say those Westminster policies are good btw, it's merely me accepting the truth of the average effect of those policies. I fully accept that they've hit some people very hard)

[eFestivals]

Tougher than Tories pledge will help No camp - MP

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/tougher-than-tories-pledge-will-help-no-camp-mp-1-3471496

What a choice!

I cannot begin to put into words how much the Labour party has disappointed me. What exactly the fuck is the point of the Labour party? & this Is the only realistic alternative to the Tories to govern the UK.

Stop the union bus, I want to get off!

...& yes Neil, it will be better in iSCO

I feckin' hate what Labour are doing, but they are working within the resources available.

Scotland currently borrows £12Bn a year, because it can't pay its way. iScotland will need to borrow more (at least initially) to fulfil its commitments (and has been admitted by Swinney).

So how's that gonna work out? You sure it's going to be better?

[eFestivals]

The nasty English anti-Scottish conspirator Swiss Bank UBS has pointed out that the money will run from iScotland (in fact, it's already started!) - even the money of yes-voting Scots - and that will result in people in Scotland paying more on their loans and mortgages for iScotland to stay solvent. It'll also cause a downturn in iScotland's economy.

Still, the good news is that that will be worth around £6Bn a year to rUK (guess who's paying? ), so do please vote yes for the good of England.

Edited July 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Interesting couple of articles...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/whatever-the-result-in-september-we-are-independent-now-today.24639453

and, in response....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/10/scots-scotland-independence-referendum

-----

Sadly for such a heavyweight, Ascherson gives himself away as too corrupt to be listened to seriously, by his repeating of the myth that it was Cameron who had Devo Max struck off the referendum, when democratic principles, the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland, and Alex's final choice are the reasons it's not included.

Ultimately, it's rabble-rousing, where the pursuit of power has become more important than the truth. You can gain support by lies, but you will never keep it.

If an iScotland is going to work anywhere close to Salmond's best dreams, then it will only succeed in doing so by having a supportive population behind it.

[eFestivals]

So, the EU....

If we take Salmond's statement of Scotland becoming a member via article 48 - via the backdoor as it were - as true, what of Scotland's actual membership terms?

Salmond says that Scotland will get a bunch of opt-outs, despite the fact that there has never been a new EU member who has got a single opt-out.

Ok, I accept that some of the current UK opt-outs are actually a possibility (note: not guaranteed) for iScotland, because if Scotland gets in via article 48, that in itself would be a recognition it's not a new member in the way of normal new members.

However, Salmond says that transfer of UK opt-outs (in a proportional way) will give iScotland part of the UK's rebate, which the other members are very unlikely to grant. iScotland is stating just how rich it would be, and nabbing this rebate back is free-money for the other members while iScotland is over a barrel with its desire to be an EU member - and all 28 would have to agree to iScotland's request that it doesn't contribute in full. So the transfer of the rebate (an opt-out in itself) is very unlikely.

The next main one, the Schengen agreement opt-out, is something iScotland is likely to get *if* rUK and Ireland (the two member countries most effected) say they don't mind. So it depends on those countries being happy with Scotland's immigration policies; essentially, iScotland will not have sovereignty to change these unless rUK/Ireland agree to any changes.

What about the Euro opt-out? It's very unlikely that Scotland would get this. The world is demanding signals from the EU that the EU project is not being abandoned, and further still, is being taken forwards as previously committed to. And so it's likely that a greater commitment to future Euro membership will be required from Scotland than has been required from other member states in the past (such as the often-quoted Sweden) - which is likely to include a firm timescale along with the commitment to join the Euro.

Which is horribly in conflict with the desire for a CU with the rUK.

Which is horribly in conflict with the 35 chapters of issues that EU members have to comply with. iScotland is a very long way short of meeting entry requirements, no matter how many times it falsely states as a current member it meets all criteria (it does not, and simply cannot do in an instant).

But even if all those issues can be worked thru to iScotland's benefit, there's one further opt-out Salmond says he'll get, an opt-out that no other nation has nor would dare ask for.

And that's an opt-out for the free movement of people - just like any good tory hopes he'll get via a renegotiation, which if happened would signal the beginning of the end for the EU.

I can't see that one happening, even tho Salmond wants to operate that with just one victim*.

(* i've even been nice there, and not followed thru to call it what it is. )

[LJS]

Interesting couple of articles...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/whatever-the-result-in-september-we-are-independent-now-today.24639453

and, in response....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/10/scots-scotland-independence-referendum

-----

Sadly for such a heavyweight, Ascherson gives himself away as too corrupt to be listened to seriously, by his repeating of the myth that it was Cameron who had Devo Max struck off the referendum, when democratic principles, the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland, and Alex's final choice are the reasons it's not included.

Corrupt? It seems to be widely accepted that Cameron vetoed a third option - so called devo Max

Downing Street believes the UK government achieved a strategic success in forcing Salmond to drop demands for the Scottish parliament to be allowed to stage a two-question referendum, including an extra option of greater devolution within the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/15/alex-salmond-scotland-referendum-deal

All the unionist parties - the Lib Dems, the Tories and Labour - want just a single question in the upcoming independence referendum, a clear answer to whether Scotland does or does not want to remain in the union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17094333

David Cameron has offered to transfer the necessary powers for Mr Salmond to hold a legal referendum only if he asks a single question on separation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9369801/Alex-Salmond-Devo-max-instead-of-independence-is-very-attractive.html

You regularly make a perfect reasonable argument - "Scotland voted SNP - SNP wants independence - therefore Scotland got what it voted for" Although when it suits you you invalidate that result due to the low turnout.

That does not alter what appears to be the generally accepted fact that Cameron vetoed a third question. ( I wasn't at the negotiations but a quick search couldn't find anyone peddling a different view) so when Neal Ascherson says "David Cameron's decision to strike the Devo Max option off the referendum ballot paper. The choice was to be simply independence, yes or no." that is hardly corrupt.

I have of course made the point before that the decision to insist on a straight yes no was clearly made because Cameron was confident of an easy win. Although we all agree that a No win is still the most likely outcome, it is more than a little ironic that faced with a Yes campaign somewhat more vibrant & resilient than expected the three main parties are now falling over themselves to offer Scotland additional powers in the event of a no vote.

Leaving aside the spurious corruption nonsense these are two well written & well argued articles - Ascherson overdoes the colony stuff a bit in my view while Kettle underestimates the disillusionment with New Labour & the democratic deficit.

[LJS]

So, the EU....

If we take Salmond's statement of Scotland becoming a member via article 48 - via the backdoor as it were - as true, what of Scotland's actual membership terms?

Salmond says that Scotland will get a bunch of opt-outs, despite the fact that there has never been a new EU member who has got a single opt-out.

Ok, I accept that some of the current UK opt-outs are actually a possibility (note: not guaranteed) for iScotland, because if Scotland gets in via article 48, that in itself would be a recognition it's not a new member in the way of normal new members.

However, Salmond says that transfer of UK opt-outs (in a proportional way) will give iScotland part of the UK's rebate, which the other members are very unlikely to grant. iScotland is stating just how rich it would be, and nabbing this rebate back is free-money for the other members while iScotland is over a barrel with its desire to be an EU member - and all 28 would have to agree to iScotland's request that it doesn't contribute in full. So the transfer of the rebate (an opt-out in itself) is very unlikely.

The next main one, the Schengen agreement opt-out, is something iScotland is likely to get *if* rUK and Ireland (the two member countries most effected) say they don't mind. So it depends on those countries being happy with Scotland's immigration policies; essentially, iScotland will not have sovereignty to change these unless rUK/Ireland agree to any changes.

What about the Euro opt-out? It's very unlikely that Scotland would get this. The world is demanding signals from the EU that the EU project is not being abandoned, and further still, is being taken forwards as previously committed to. And so it's likely that a greater commitment to future Euro membership will be required from Scotland than has been required from other member states in the past (such as the often-quoted Sweden) - which is likely to include a firm timescale along with the commitment to join the Euro.

Which is horribly in conflict with the desire for a CU with the rUK.

Which is horribly in conflict with the 35 chapters of issues that EU members have to comply with. iScotland is a very long way short of meeting entry requirements, no matter how many times it falsely states as a current member it meets all criteria (it does not, and simply cannot do in an instant).

But even if all those issues can be worked thru to iScotland's benefit, there's one further opt-out Salmond says he'll get, an opt-out that no other nation has nor would dare ask for.

And that's an opt-out for the free movement of people - just like any good tory hopes he'll get via a renegotiation, which if happened would signal the beginning of the end for the EU.

I can't see that one happening, even tho Salmond wants to operate that with just one victim*.

(* i've even been nice there, and not followed thru to call it what it is. )

I sense a softening of your line on EU membership - and indeed BT/NT are not pushing it much these days either.

There seem to be more conciliatory noises coming from Brussels & Strasbourg now that mad dog Barosso been taken away.

Have you read this lady?

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/3d8f589fda4fb7526a70254d4/files/e3c82843-2a9f-41af-a4e3-de3eeec55737.pdf

This paper maintains that despite assertions to the contrary from UK lawyers, EU

lawyers and EU officials, any future independent Scotland’s EU membership should

be assured, and its transition from EU membership qua part of the UK, to EU

membership qua independent Scotland relatively smooth and straightforward. In other

words, it would take the form of an internal enlargement2

of the EU using the

procedure for treaty amendment in Article 48 TEU. These arguments are made on the

basis of EU law itself, which, it is argued, provide all the resources necessary to

assure an independent Scotland’s EU membership through EU treaty amendment, and

not through a cumbersome accession process as a new member state. In particular, the

values, norms and ‘special ethos’ of the EU, expressed in concepts such as EU

citizenship, fundamental rights and duties of loyalty, combine to provide a reasoned

justification for such internal enlargement.

As ever I am in no position to judge the merits of her argument but as Professor of European & Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford, she probably knows more than I do!!

She may even have read the treaties which would take her up alongside you, Neil.

I am not suggesting this proves without a shadow fo a doubt that we can Waltz (or reel) into the EU without any problems at all. It just seesm to support the view that it may not be as difficult/impossible as suggested by the NoBt campaign.

[LJS]

The nasty English anti-Scottish conspirator Swiss Bank UBS has pointed out that the money will run from iScotland (in fact, it's already started!) - even the money of yes-voting Scots - and that will result in people in Scotland paying more on their loans and mortgages for iScotland to stay solvent. It'll also cause a downturn in iScotland's economy.

Still, the good news is that that will be worth around £6Bn a year to rUK (guess who's paying? ), so do please vote yes for the good of England.

http://www.cityam.com/1404901721/ubs-no-vote-scottish-independence-will-still-shake-stocks

This seems to put a somewhat different slant on the UBS report.

Has anyone ever considered that given some folk might move their savings North as a sign of their commitment to iScotland -It's certainly something I would consider (although sadly my "savings" would barely cover a season ticket for Albion Rovers & a year's supply of Tunnock's tea cakes.)

I would certainly withdraw any savings from any bank that jumped ship - and I can't imagine I would be alone.

[LJS]

I feckin' hate what Labour are doing, but they are working within the resources available.

Scotland currently borrows £12Bn a year, because it can't pay its way. iScotland will need to borrow more (at least initially) to fulfil its commitments (and has been admitted by Swinney).

So how's that gonna work out? You sure it's going to be better?

Scotland doesn't borrow anything currently because it is not allowed to.

Our share of UK borrowing may be £12Bn. What it will be in 2 years time will depend on many things.

I have to take a deep breath & steel myself before I stick the knife into Labour because they are responsible for so much that this country (UK) has achieved & can be rightly proud of - my youngest son is called Keir for fuck's sake (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/19/labour.labourconference1) but to say Labour are simply "working within the resources available" lets them off the hook to a totally unacceptable extent.

You criticise Salmond for his proposed corporation tax cut & portray it as a gift to the super rich - a point which, as you are aware, I am not without sympathy for. Meanwhile Labour cut corp tax more than once when last in power, presided over a continuing increase in inequality - so UK is now amongst the most unequal countries in the developed world -but labour sees no alternative way out or recession but to hammer the poor.

People got so disillusioned with labour they turned to the Libdems because hey genuinely seemed more left wing than Labour. That worked out well.

Meanwhile the MP's with their two houses & their (still) massive expenses have lost pretty much all connection with the electorate. Increasingly, they have never actually done a real job, any individualism or spark of rebellion is flushed out by the party vetting systems. They get elected to Parliament & live their lives in the London/Westminster bubble.

In short I cannot imagine a way that Westminster will deliver any thing approaching fairness or redistribution of wealth.

Can Scotland do better?

Of course it can.

Will it do better?

I honestly don't know. I obviously fervently hope so but I am well aware that we are not some sort of saintly super-race - we have all the vices that people all over the world have - perhaps at the heart of it I hope that Edinburgh does not have the power to corrupt politicians the way London does - the Edinburgh "bubble" is easier to burst - that Politicians can be better held to account in a small country & that having invested so much in the Independence debate enough people will remain engaged enough to make sure that the politicians make good on all the hopes and expectations raised throughout the campaign.

And of course it all comes back to the labour party - there has been a steady stream of Labour activists "defecting" to the Yes side. For many of them it seems to be as much about reclaiming their party as reclaiming their country. If they succeed and Scottish Labour again becomes a party that Keir Hardie & James Maxton would recognise & feel at home in, then maybe we might achieve something remarkable.

& now a great Scottish singer singing a great song about English revolution

Edited July 10, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Nope. The SNP won't stop their racism win or lose. Nothing if ever their fault, it's always the fault of those nasty foreigners.

And you've never noticed this?

If you got many of Farage's speeches and changed 'UK' to 'Scotland' and 'EU' to 'UK' and then read the words to many yes voters they'd cheer those words.

It's not an accusation I bandy about lightly either. I use it only when i see it.

I think we need to agree to differ on the Racism thing.

[Comfy Bean]

I think we need to agree to differ on the Racism thing.

For me, its been the lowest point of this " debate " ( on here ). Laughable stuff. I have steered well clear because I`m still not convinced Neil actually believes it. One small point I would make is how much does our racist, right wing government or country if you like charge the incoming students for their health care while they are here extending their education.

If the answer is nothing - it`s free for anyone studying in Scotland for the duration of their studies and in many cases beyond, how does that fit with the nasty insular picture Neil is trying to paint.

The bit about deliberately driving people into poverty must also have been a wind up. Last I heard no-one in Scotland will be paying the bedroom tax and our current government introduced a council tax reduction scheme that is the same across the 32 councils which makes for a simpler system that sees the poorest folks not missing out on benefits due to a complicated system that is different in every part of the Country. I recognise that everything will not be perfect ( not by a long way ) but some could do with recognising that Saint Alex HAS already got some things right.

Long way to go of course.

Agree on your points earlier LJS on the Labour party and their current direction. Seems like a good time to remind you that Jim Sillars, SNP as you know, has said that one of the many benefits of an Independent Scotland will be that he may, in his lifetime, have the opportunity to vote for a real Labour party again. Saw the Socialist Labour Party in our town centre today handing out the YES leaflets.

[kaosmark2]

For me, its been the lowest point of this " debate " ( on here ). Laughable stuff. I have steered well clear because I`m still not convinced Neil actually believes it. One small point I would make is how much does our racist, right wing government or country if you like charge the incoming students for their health care while they are here extending their education.

If the answer is nothing - it`s free for anyone studying in Scotland for the duration of their studies and in many cases beyond, how does that fit with the nasty insular picture Neil is trying to paint.

The bit about deliberately driving people into poverty must also have been a wind up. Last I heard no-one in Scotland will be paying the bedroom tax and our current government introduced a council tax reduction scheme that is the same across the 32 councils which makes for a simpler system that sees the poorest folks not missing out on benefits due to a complicated system that is different in every part of the Country. I recognise that everything will not be perfect ( not by a long way ) but some could do with recognising that Saint Alex HAS already got some things right.

Long way to go of course.

Agree on your points earlier LJS on the Labour party and their current direction. Seems like a good time to remind you that Jim Sillars, SNP as you know, has said that one of the many benefits of an Independent Scotland will be that he may, in his lifetime, have the opportunity to vote for a real Labour party again. Saw the Socialist Labour Party in our town centre today handing out the YES leaflets.

I don't think they are racist, but I do think Salmond has used racism to try and win people over to voting yes. The portrayal of the English as nasty bullies is trying to reignite historical prejudices and antipathy. I believe he is happy to incite racist attitudes for political gain.

I don't believe the politicians campaigning for a No are above this btw. I believe that it's just clearly not in their interests to try and display such attitudes. If they started slagging off the Scottish, or bigging up the English, it'd be counter-productive in terms of getting Scots to not view the English as different and willingness to vote No. I don't think either side is BETTER than the other, just that Salmond is exploiting different opportunities for negative campaigning than the No-ers are. Both campaigns are built on lies, bullying, manipulation and negativity, the difference is just where and how they're doing it.

[eFestivals]

Corrupt? It seems to be widely accepted that Cameron vetoed a third option - so called devo Max

If you want tories to not impose their will on you as that myth says is the case, you have to vote 'no'.

Meanwhile, you've got what you voted for. That's called the democracy you say Westminster doesn't give you.

Nothing was forced onto Alex. Even the Camoeron-hating Salmond isn't saying "Cameron denied Scotland Devo Max".

You regularly make a perfect reasonable argument - "Scotland voted SNP - SNP wants independence - therefore Scotland got what it voted for" Although when it suits you you invalidate that result due to the low turnout.

Both are relevant and true points. What's your issue with the truth?

That does not alter what appears to be the generally accepted fact that Cameron vetoed a third question.

"generally accepted" by myth makers.

Even Alex doesn't support the myth you want to beleive.

I have of course made the point before that the decision to insist on a straight yes no was clearly made because Cameron was confident of an easy win.

I'd say that was why he allowed any vote at all, true.

And the opposite of that is you wanting Devo Max on the ballot because you know that the yes you support can't win.

But it's just Dave that's the anti-democrat, yeah? When he's given Scotland what it voted for, and when you're demanding he gives Scotland what Scotland didn't vote for.

it is more than a little ironic that faced with a Yes campaign somewhat more vibrant & resilient than expected the three main parties are now falling over themselves to offer Scotland additional powers in the event of a no vote.

Care to show me them all saying "we will never give Scotland any extra devolved power" to make your myth stand up?

Leaving aside the spurious corruption nonsense these are two well written & well argued articles - Ascherson overdoes the colony stuff a bit in my view while Kettle underestimates the disillusionment with New Labour & the democratic deficit.

the democratic deficit that Scotland voted to keep, and that Scotland won't campaign to change - either for Scotland, or for all of the UK.

Instead, much of Scotland wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's allowed to of course, but that simple fact proves that myth false too.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Neil, if you read what I have written you will see that I have never said we SHOULD have had third option. Not have I stated that I want one.

I have merely been discussing the decision made by Cameron to rule out a third question (that it was Cameron's decision seems to be accepted by all but Neil) & whether it is wise or not.

To give an example of how it at backfire, it is more likely than not that I would have voted for devo Max if that had been an option.

Cameron has forced me to choose between outright independence or the status quo. As you know, I have come to the view that independence is the best option, so much so that I now prefer it over devo max.

I am grateful to Dave for providing me with the opportunity.

[eFestivals]

I sense a softening of your line on EU membership - and indeed BT/NT are not pushing it much these days either.

Not at all. I was simply playing thru the scenario as yes-ers claim will happen.

FFS, talk about looking for hope where none exists.

There seem to be more conciliatory noises coming from Brussels & Strasbourg now that mad dog Barosso been taken away.

Much like the conciliatory noises that have been made towards Cameron in the last few days, perhaps?

Where the important words were not "we're listening" but were in fact "if every one of the 28 agrees".

Have you read this lady?

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/3d8f589fda4fb7526a70254d4/files/e3c82843-2a9f-41af-a4e3-de3eeec55737.pdf

I just have. And have you taken the start of the 2nd para on board...?

"This paper maintains that despite assertions to the contrary from UK lawyers, EU lawyers and EU officials, any future independent Scotland’s EU membership should be assured".

Hope over substance.

"Internal enlargement" is a non-starter. iScotland's membership requires the unanimous approval of 28 sovereign states; there is no legal route around that, NONE!

As ever I am in no position to judge the merits of her argument but as Professor of European & Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford, she probably knows more than I do!!

yep, she does - to the point that she recognises that the majority of people with her level of expertise disagree with her view.

Perhaps take that part on board as well as the part that confirms what you wish to hope as true?

She may even have read the treaties which would take her up alongside you, Neil.

and the greater number of experts who disagree with her haven't?

I am not suggesting this proves without a shadow fo a doubt that we can Waltz (or reel) into the EU without any problems at all. It just seesm to support the view that it may not be as difficult/impossible as suggested by the NoBt campaign.

I've said all along that I expect some sort of temporary kludge which will de-facto keep iScotland within the EU while not actually being in the EU.

If that's the case, it'll be me that's right and Alex (and you) that's wrong.

But that's not really the important part of anything. The important part will be the terms of that kludge and (later) membership, which is what I was addressing with that post.

[eFestivals]

I have merely been discussing the decision made by Cameron to rule out a third question (that it was Cameron's decision seems to be accepted by all but Neil) & whether it is wise or not.

Alex Salmond is very well known for going along with Dave without complaint, isn't he? :lol:

[LJS]

Alex Salmond is very well known for going along with Dave without complaint, isn't he? :lol:

The story I've read was Dave got the yes no question, eck got to delay the vote.

Whether eck agreed or disagreed with the yes no question makes no difference to the point I am making.

[eFestivals]

http://www.cityam.com/1404901721/ubs-no-vote-scottish-independence-will-still-shake-stocks

This seems to put a somewhat different slant on the UBS report.

Not from the point of view of it's impact onto Scotland, it doesn't.

Has anyone ever considered that given some folk might move their savings North as a sign of their commitment to iScotland

people have considered it, and then laughed a lot. Even yes-ers are moving their money south (yes, even right now! Just ask a few of those companies).

The simple fact is - there's no getting away from this - is that Scotland's banking sector is waaaaaay bigger than an iScotland could meaningfully guarantee - and so people's pensions (a vast amount of rUK pensions are currently 'in' Scotland) would be at risk.

You've previously mentioned worries about your state pension. Don't you think that other, richer people might have even greater concerns about the safety of their money?

You can throw that off (as is invariably the case for yes-ers) and say "a more balanced scenario would be a good thing for iScotland" - and that's undoubtedly true. But that is not a no-further-consequences thing.

iScotland would lose an average of around £5Bn a year in taxes by the relocation of the head offices of many (currently) based-in-Scotland financial firms.

On top of that, these firms currently support 200,000 jobs in Scotland. Not all of those would leave Scotland, but it's reckoned that around 60,000 jobs would go (plus associated taxes from those too).

Remember, these firms are not making any statement on yes or no, they're making a statement on how their businesses can be sustained at the same levels - that and only that.

And they'll also haver to make many of these moves to ensure they're complying with all of EU, Scottish, and UK law.

I would certainly withdraw any savings from any bank that jumped ship - and I can't imagine I would be alone.

I'm sure you wouldn't be.

Likewise, people in England would withdraw their money from financial institutions in Scotland - not out of nationalist (or anti-nat) meanness tho, but to protect their savings which iScotland cannot do.

Guess which country ends up with a financial gain via this, and which country ends up in a financially worse position?

[eFestivals]

The story I've read was Dave got the yes no question, eck got to delay the vote.

Whether eck agreed or disagreed with the yes no question makes no difference to the point I am making.

what point are you making, exactly?

One moment you're trying to say how mean and nasty Dave is for giving the people of Scotland what they explicitly voted for, and the next you seem to be saying it doesn't matter.

It's actually rather transparent. You've seen it as a stick to try and twonk Dave/Westminster/England with, and that's all that matters.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

what point are you making, exactly?

One moment you're trying to say how mean and nasty Dave is for giving the people of Scotland what they explicitly voted for, and the next you seem to be saying it doesn't matter.

It's actually rather transparent. You've seen it as a stick to try and twonk Dave/Westminster/England with, and that's all that matters.

You read far too much into what I am saying.

I am only commenting on the wisdom or otherwise of Dave's tactics. I'm saying he made a political calculation which could backfire on him big time.

It is a commonly held view that yes would not win in a three option referendum.

So if there is a yes vote in September it will be largely thanks to Dave.

[eFestivals]

[eFestivals]

For me, its been the lowest point of this " debate " ( on here ). Laughable stuff. I have steered well clear because I`m still not convinced Neil actually believes it. One small point I would make is how much does our racist, right wing government or country if you like charge the incoming students for their health care while they are here extending their education.

Salmond is penalising people on the basis of where they come from.

(edit: 'Salmond' just above did originally say 'you'. I meant 'Scotland' by 'you', which was a very poor use of words; no offence meant. On changing, I've decided that 'Salmond' is more correct than 'Scotland').

There's a reason why the EU does not permit this to happen between member states. Have you worked out why yet?

The bit about deliberately driving people into poverty must also have been a wind up.

why must it?

The facts are that the numbers in poverty has reduced in all parts of the UK except Scotland in recent years.

And this is despite people in Scotland having 20% extra to be spent on them by govt.

I don't much like this fact, because it implies that tory austerity is the right solution. But it is a fact, and I'm not posting here to deny facts.

Last I heard no-one in Scotland will be paying the bedroom tax

People in rUK are paying it - and poverty is STILL reducing there.

So why is poverty getting worse in Scotland despite no bedroom tax, and despite 20% extra money?

There's a cause somewhere. What's the cause?

and our current government introduced a council tax reduction scheme that is the same across the 32 councils which makes for a simpler system that sees the poorest folks not missing out on benefits due to a complicated system that is different in every part of the Country. I recognise that everything will not be perfect ( not by a long way ) but some could do with recognising that Saint Alex HAS already got some things right.

if they were right, poverty would not be goling the opposite way to nhow it is in the rest of the country, surely?

Success is measured by effect, not how you choose to view the words that are uttered.

Agree on your points earlier LJS on the Labour party and their current direction. Seems like a good time to remind you that Jim Sillars, SNP as you know, has said that one of the many benefits of an Independent Scotland will be that he may, in his lifetime, have the opportunity to vote for a real Labour party again. Saw the Socialist Labour Party in our town centre today handing out the YES leaflets.

I reckon Sillars is smarter than you're crediting him for, cos he knows what effect his policies will have. Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I don't think they are racist, but I do think Salmond has used racism to try and win people over to voting yes. The portrayal of the English as nasty bullies is trying to reignite historical prejudices and antipathy. I believe he is happy to incite racist attitudes for political gain.

This is precisely what i'm getting at. I'm pleased to see that some in Scotland can see it for what it is.

I don't see the fact of him doing that as a reason in itself to vote for either option - after all, politicians non all sides do what they need to do to gain the support they need.

But it would be nice if people were able to recognise bollocks as being bollocks, no matter from which direction it comes from.

And it's particularly laughable when I hear claims of a better politics in Scotland.

[eFestivals]

The story I've read was Dave got the yes no question, eck got to delay the vote.

it was Scotland that got the yes/no question by asking for it.

That's an indisputable fact.

But the myth makers dispute it.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals