The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

right, now I've caught up with the posts, I'll post what I came in here to post about ... last night's Question Time. Did you see it?

I was absolutely wetting myself at the shouty "proud highlander who would die for his country" (a no-er, in case you missed it). Fantastic, he was like a character from a comedy series.

(if you've not seen it check it on iPlayer, if only for the true comedy value of shouty-man).

I was also rather stunned at how good a job Scott Hastings did for yes - far better and more positive than I've seen from anyone, with a positivity I didn't think was possible when rebutting an idea. I reckon there's plenty others could learn from him.

(that's a critique on his performance, not an expression of support for anything he said, just to make it clear).

I was also quite impressed with Ricky Ross, until he fell into standard nat mode. At one point he interrupted the [no] businessman (I forget the name) and said "you want numbers, let me give you numbers". And then he gave one meaningless number before reverting to the normal nat assertions based on nothing but hope (with not another number given).

And then he played his own game of Project Fear, with a concrete assertion that Scotland would be punished via a revision of the Barnett Formula* for even daring to have the vote if it votes no. Pathetic.

I gave up paying attention at that point (tho shouty man got my attention again later on, by shouting).

* there's a good case that can be made for revising the Barnett Formula - something which even the SNP used to say should happen, btw. Being able to make a good case for change (if it were to happen) is something entirely different to "punishment".

If the money Scotland gets via the Barnett Formula is able to pay for services that cannot be afforded within the rest of the UK, then it's pretty clear that the Barnett Formula is giving Scotland more than is fair to the rest of the UK.

(just to make clear, I fully accept that Scotland costs more to run than rUK does, because of its geography and small population. I've no issue with Scotland within the UK getting extra to cover its natural higher costs, and I'm not aware of any serious politician who is).

Edited July 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

right, now I've caught up with the posts, I'll post what I came in here to post about ... last night's Question Time. Did you see it?

I was absolutely wetting myself at the shouty "proud highlander who would die for his country" (a no-er, in case you missed it). Fantastic, he was like a character from a comedy series.

(if you've not seen it check it on iPlayer, if only for the true comedy value of shouty-man).

I was also rather stunned at how good a job Scott Hastings did for yes - far better and more positive than I've seen from anyone, with a positivity I didn't think was possible when rebutting an idea. I reckon there's plenty others could learn from him.

(that's a critique on his performance, not an expression of support for anything he said, just to make it clear).

I was also quite impressed with Ricky Ross, until he fell into standard nat mode. At one point he interrupted the [no] businessman (I forget the name) and said "you want numbers, let me give you numbers". And then he gave one meaningless number before reverting to the normal nat assertions based on nothing but hope (with not another number given).

And then he played his own game of Project Fear, with a concrete assertion that Scotland would be punished via a revision of the Barnett Formula* for even daring to have the vote if it votes no. Pathetic.

I gave up paying attention at that point (tho shouty man got my attention again later on, by shouting).

* there's a good case that can be made for revising the Barnett Formula - something which even the SNP used to say should happen, btw. Being able to make a good case for change (if it were to happen) is something entirely different to "punishment".

If the money Scotland gets via the Barnett Formula is able to pay for services that cannot be afforded within the rest of the UK, then it's pretty clear that the Barnett Formula is giving Scotland more than is fair to the rest of the UK.

(just to make clear, I fully accept that Scotland costs more to run than rUK does, because of its geography and small population. I've no issue with Scotland within the UK getting extra to cover its natural higher costs, and I'm not aware of any serious politician who is).

Yeah, watched QT. I was a bit appalled that shouty man got a second opportunity to make a fool of himself. I think that was close to taking the piss out of someone with mental health issues. A bit like x factor.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, watched QT. I was a bit appalled that shouty man got a second opportunity to make a fool of himself. I think that was close to taking the piss out of someone with mental health issues. A bit like x factor.

Yep, I found it a bit uncomfortable too, particularly the 2nd time. But it was still also very funny, because it was so much like a comedy series character.

Meanwhile ... if it had been something similar from a yes-er, I'm betting that the claims today (not necessarily from you) would be that it was a set-up by a biased BBC designed to make yes a laughing stock. You might want to mull that one over.

[LJS]

Who knows? I certainly wouldn't rule out him being there for comedy value. & I'm sure you right, if he been pro Indy some would undoubtedly have seen it as a set up.

The programme that followed the one wi Andrew Neil portillo & Abbott caused a bit of mild outrage on my Facebook for stereotyping Scotland.

I tended to agree although Tommy Sheridan was value for money as always!

[eFestivals]

The programme that followed the one wi Andrew Neil portillo & Abbott caused a bit of mild outrage on my Facebook for stereotyping Scotland.

I tended to agree although Tommy Sheridan was value for money as always!

I'd dosed off before the end of QT.

I lost interest when I realised via Ross that the wonderful grassroots campaign you speak of consists of unchallenged grand statements.

[LJS]

I'd dosed off before the end of QT.

I lost interest when I realised via Ross that the wonderful grassroots campaign you speak of consists of unchallenged grand statements.

Not entirely sure what relevance what Ricky says has to the existence or otherwise of a grassroots campaign.

Going to bed was a wise decision

[eFestivals]

Not entirely sure what relevance what Ricky says has to the existence or otherwise of a grassroots campaign.

I just saw the way many sucked it up, like it really meant something - when it means as much in reality as Dave Cameron saying he'll make this a fairer country. The real truth only comes from substance.

I forgot to say I was amused at Ricky's vision of the 'for sale' signs outside every English hospital, a surprise to everyone in England in fact. And then for him to be told that the perfect Scottish NHS was being run in a very similar way to in England.

And he quickly moved on, the truth being a bit too hot for him there.

[eFestivals]

who's plot is this one BTW (I genuinely don't know)...

That could have been done by either side I reckon.

[eFestivals]

Salmond dismissed these estimates as "stuff and nonsense".

He needs to come up with a new punchline.

[eFestivals]

And this had passed me by entirely...

At the end of May, the Scottish government revised its own, more optimistic, oil forecasts downwards by as much as £12bn for the next three years.

Ouch - that's like an extra year's deficit in just three years!

And by Alex's own hand too, no wonder it's been kept so quiet! Even the most hardcore nat can't bat that one off.

Oh, I'm talking about here, btw:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/11/danny-alexander-alex-salmond-scottish-finances

[wee_insomniac]

Tommy Sheridan was and always is a complete idiot... When he kept interrupting Michael Portillo it was just so childish. And the whole trainspotting bit was just ridiculous...

[LJS]

Tommy Sheridan was and always is a complete idiot... When he kept interrupting Michael Portillo it was just so childish. And the whole trainspotting bit was just ridiculous...

He's not everyone's cup of tea I'll grant you but I do have a certain admiration for him. How many other politicians would go to jail for their beliefs? And I refuse to criticize anyone for interrupting portaloo.

I am aware that he is not without his flaws!!!

[LJS]

And this had passed me by entirely...

Ouch - that's like an extra year's deficit in just three years!

And by Alex's own hand too, no wonder it's been kept so quiet! Even the most hardcore nat can't bat that one off.

Oh, I'm talking about here, btw:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/11/danny-alexander-alex-salmond-scottish-finances

Of course there are always different views

which is not surprising especially with the notorious unpredictability of the price of oil.

My question to you, Neil is, having accepted & indeed justified the UK government's suppression of the "facts" ( Neil loves facts) about oil in the 1970's, is there any particular reason we should believe what they are saying about oil now?

[LJS]

I just saw the way many sucked it up, like it really meant something - when it means as much in reality as Dave Cameron saying he'll make this a fairer country. The real truth only comes from substance.

I forgot to say I was amused at Ricky's vision of the 'for sale' signs outside every English hospital, a surprise to everyone in England in fact. And then for him to be told that the perfect Scottish NHS was being run in a very similar way to in England.

And he quickly moved on, the truth being a bit too hot for him there.

quite how you are able to judge on the strength of the grass roots yes movement from your vantage point escapes me .

this proves nothing but is quite fun & gains revenge for whoever posted the No propaganda the other day

[OneLittleFish]

quite how you are able to judge on the strength of the grass roots yes movement from your vantage point escapes me .

this proves nothing but is quite fun & gains revenge for whoever posted the No propaganda the other day

Sorry, but that's just offensive garbage.

[LJS]

Sorry, but that's just offensive garbage.

really, tell me more

What offended you?

& how was it garbage

In truth I was really just getting back at Kaosmark2 who recently posted this

I took him to task & suggested pasting in our favourite bits from our favourite Yes/No websites would not add a great deal to the debate.

Am I right in remembering you as the guy who had had a bit of hassle down the pub for supporting No. How have things been lately?

[OneLittleFish]

really, tell me more

What offended you?

& how was it garbage

In truth I was really just getting back at Kaosmark2 who recently posted this

I took him to task & suggested pasting in our favourite bits from our favourite Yes/No websites would not add a great deal to the debate.

Am I right in remembering you as the guy who had had a bit of hassle down the pub for supporting No. How have things been lately?

I find it offensive as it attempts to portray one side as the good guys and one side as the bad guys. It's cheap at best. I know both good and unlikeable people who are voting for either side, I don't pretend otherwise.

Edited July 11, 2014 by OneLittleFish

[kaosmark2]

In truth I was really just getting back at Kaosmark2 who recently posted this

Don't these comparative bits show the difference between how the campaigns' negativity is displayed though? The SNP's are going "we're good, the English are evil, trust us, agree with us". The BT/No/whateveryouwanttocallit campaign are going "Salmond is a lying shit (just try and ignore that we are as well".

Also, the one I'd posted was vaguely relevant to the comments that had been made recently here about Salmond's attitude and response to criticisms of his proposals. You took objection to the fact I'd posted campaign propaganda and I said that's fair enough and I wouldn't do it again. Is retaliation really a good attitude to have in a nation soon to be the left-wing haven that will guide the rest of the world into a utopia?

I find it offensive as it attempts to portray one side as the good guys and one side as the bad guys. It's cheap at best. I know both good and unlikeable people who are voting for either side, I don't pretend otherwise.

[LJS]

I find it offensive as it attempts to portray one side as the good guys and one side as the bad guys. It's cheap at best. I know both good and unlikeable people who are voting for either side, I don't pretend otherwise.

Well, of course you are right - however you have chosen to make your first contribution to this debate for some considerable time & comment on (I think) the only graphic I have posted from the yes campaign - one of the things I enjoy about the debate here is that unlike a lot of the on line stuff elsewhere its not full of people cutting & pasting stuff or endlessly repeating the same stuff.

If you look through the discussion we have been having, I hope you will agree it is generally free of folk taking "cheap shots" - it would be easy for me to take the piss out the No campaign because BNP, Ukip, George Galloway support them but I realise the debate is a bit more important than that.

[LJS]

Don't these comparative bits show the difference between how the campaigns' negativity is displayed though? The SNP's are going "we're good, the English are evil, trust us, agree with us". The BT/No/whateveryouwanttocallit campaign are going "Salmond is a lying shit (just try and ignore that we are as well".

Also, the one I'd posted was vaguely relevant to the comments that had been made recently here about Salmond's attitude and response to criticisms of his proposals. You took objection to the fact I'd posted campaign propaganda and I said that's fair enough and I wouldn't do it again. Is retaliation really a good attitude to have in a nation soon to be the left-wing haven that will guide the rest of the world into a utopia?

'twas only a bit of fun

How do I justify posting my indy propaganda?

1: it's friday night

2: Neil constantly bangs on about the racism of the Salmond Natz but he doesn't have the support of BNP, SDL, Ukip, Orange order

3: there is no number 3

But ... you are right (as I was when I slagged you off) it adds nothing of great value to the debate to post the stuff both of us did.

let's finish with a song

http://youtu.be/IlDijR0Y60Q

Let friendship and honour unite

And flourish on both sides the Tweed.

[eFestivals]

My question to you, Neil is, having accepted & indeed justified the UK government's suppression of the "facts" ( Neil loves facts) about oil in the 1970's, is there any particular reason we should believe what they are saying about oil now?

I haven't justified it, I said their rationale for hiding it has been proven correct by the facts.

Why should you believe the OBR now? Given their record on how much oil will be pumped, you shouldn't believe a word of what they say about how much oil will be pumped.

Because they have a terrible record - of over-estimating it every single time, even after making new downward estimates (just like this new downwards estimate).

And, as I was flagging up in what you quoted, Alex has recently admitted to over-estimating it himself - with a connected massive impact onto an iScotland's finances in the first years of indy. It'll increase Scotland's already-massive deficit by around 33%, something you really shouldn't be brushing off (particularly when you dream of increased social justice).

Of course, Alex says in years beyond that the oil will flow like jam from a Robertson*'s factory, but that only stands a chance of really happening if major new fields are discovered. And I know there's some big hopes for the west, but the facts say that the finds were poor when drilling was done in the most likely spots; do note that now-privately-owned BP is not clamouring to get back there to drill again.

(* do they even still exist? I don't buy jam)

Edited July 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

quite how you are able to judge on the strength of the grass roots yes movement from your vantage point escapes me .

this proves nothing but is quite fun & gains revenge for whoever posted the No propaganda the other day

Who's side do I want to be on?

The side that makes the most sense. Sense is always better than non-sense.

Salmond has told you this a once-in-a-lifetime binary decision, and yet we all know that the on the day after a 'no' vote (if that's what happens) he starts his campaign for the next independence referendum.

You constantly point out you're not voting for Salmond (it would be no more difficult to do the footie pitch based on him, in case bit's passing you by). Me not supporting indy *this time* is not me voting for Dave or the status quo.

And it is a case of "this time". If Scotland showed a greater maturity towards it as well as it being more of a united Scotland's dream I'd warm to it far more*.

(* I'd never default to it tho, as I believe that mankind's future is with less deliberately-created divisions and not more)

But the sums and claims would also have to add up. There's no point leading people into a misery they don't think they'll be getting, and that remains the case for all the while Salmond asserts that his plans are perfection and nothing will knock a jot of them off-course.

[eFestivals]

If you look through the discussion we have been having, I hope you will agree it is generally free of folk taking "cheap shots"

You know what, I'm really chuffed to see you say that.

(there's of course room for pisstakes at times from both sides, given what both campaigns says at times).

[eFestivals]

2: Neil constantly bangs on about the racism of the Salmond Natz but he doesn't have the support of BNP, SDL, Ukip, Orange order

I don't constantly bang on about it. I recognise it's there - just as some in Scotland are able to see it (as posted in this thread) even if you cannot.

The fact that you mention "BNP, SDL, Ukip, Orange order" alongside what you say I say only gets to show you're looking in the wrong place for the SNP's use of racism.

The SNP is not making similar claims to the likes of the BNP and UKIP, but it uses words and concepts in an identical way, which is designed to work on specific intellectual susceptibilities - victimhood - in the same way.

UKIP claims that the UK is a victim of the EU/Brussels/nasty Europeans.

I'm sure you can work the rest out.

[LJS]

You know what, I'm really chuffed to see you say that.

(there's of course room for pisstakes at times from both sides, given what both campaigns says at times).

Hmmmm, do you think I let you off the hook there?