The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

They also had the left wing of Labour

And here was the media telling me Red Ed was the dangerous commie left-wing of Labour

Edited December 17, 2014 by kaosmark2

[Comfy Bean]

I wouldn't say that's unique to Yes voting Scots

Agreed. In Neil`s post though he referred specifically to Yes voting Scots ( see above ).

" those people " and " lost causes ". Imagine if YES had won

[Comfy Bean]

I don't think any part of the UK is particularly well served by the Tories, or even Labour, but I think Scotland would be worse off under independence and the SNP.

Not trying to split hairs here. Serious question, what would your views be on the likely state of an Independent Scotland under the Labour Party. Clearly we would have to be talking about a very different Labour Party and not one acting as a " London Branch ". I think that if YES had won ( I realise they didn`t ) then we would have needed / wanted to have a strong Labour Party in opposition that would have been ready to step in if the SNP had not delivered on election promises.

As I`ve said before, I`m assuming that the SNP would have won the 1st election in those circumstances.......in time we may find out I suppose.

[LJS]

so, comparing with the 2010 General election when we had an unpopular Labour government seeking re-election with recent polls when we have an unpopular Tory government seeking re-election, Scottish Labour has lost about 40% of its support, when all other things being equal, you would expect an increase in their support. You would kind of imagine they might benefit from the collapse in LibDem support & being on the winning side in the Indy ref.

All I have been doing in the past few pages is speculating as to why they have lost this amount of support - although I have been critical of them previously (& shall be again I'm sure) that has not been my aim here, I have been trying to spark discussion on why they have suffered such a dramatic fall in support & whether their new leader, and his initial pronouncement s are likely to turn things round for them.

Neil, appears incapable of differentiating comment from criticism. In the light of his oft stated view that this Labour collapse will lead to a Tory government, I thought we might have had something more constructive than his usual abuse.

I have been abused for all my explanations for Labour's current woes... so what do you guys think is the root cause & what can & should they do about it?

[lost]

16+17 year olds deserve the vote IMO. If you can work and pay NI and income tax, you should be able to vote.

I'm pretty sure you pay tax from any age i.e the Harry Potter actors/actresses would of paid taxes at 10/11 years old.

[kaosmark2]

Not trying to split hairs here. Serious question, what would your views be on the likely state of an Independent Scotland under the Labour Party. Clearly we would have to be talking about a very different Labour Party and not one acting as a " London Branch ". I think that if YES had won ( I realise they didn`t ) then we would have needed / wanted to have a strong Labour Party in opposition that would have been ready to step in if the SNP had not delivered on election promises.

As I`ve said before, I`m assuming that the SNP would have won the 1st election in those circumstances.......in time we may find out I suppose.

I'll just make the core points as to my view of this:

1) Because the SNP would be conducting the negotiations, they'd be the ones determining iScotland's future, and the proposed white paper for a separation agreement (or whatever you want to call it), would be agreed pre-Labour in power.

2) iScotland would still be fairly dependent on rUK, and the policies of rUK, without having anywhere near as much chance to influence them. It's also likelier that rUK would have a greater Tory influenec than before.

3) I believe the best policies are made when Labour have a narrow majority and aren't arrogant about remaining in power. An iScotland which rejected the SNP quickly would have an arrogant Labour ruler it (even if distinct from the Westminster branch).

4) The transition of changing public services, government, currency, borders (albeit very light ones), rearranging EU membership, etc. would be costly and difficult.

All in all, I think a Labour-led iScotland wouldn't be as bad as a SNP-led one, but fundamentally, my view of it is that independence is a bad idea anyway (at least in the current economic and political climate), and that Salmond leading the negotiations to define "independence" wouldn't have actually have resulted in an agreement of benefit to Scotland.

[Comfy Bean]

I`m standing by Norway`s economy being more dependent on oil than Scotlands is. I realise Neil is saying " that`s not actually true " but I think he has been wrong before ( maybe ).

I also realise that comparing Scotland to Norway is totally pointless and I don`t remember anyone doing it on here during the campaign. When I mentioned it earlier I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek ( i used one of the wee tongue sticking out things and everything ) !

[kaosmark2]

so, comparing with the 2010 General election when we had an unpopular Labour government seeking re-election with recent polls when we have an unpopular Tory government seeking re-election, Scottish Labour has lost about 40% of its support, when all other things being equal, you would expect an increase in their support. You would kind of imagine they might benefit from the collapse in LibDem support & being on the winning side in the Indy ref.

All I have been doing in the past few pages is speculating as to why they have lost this amount of support - although I have been critical of them previously (& shall be again I'm sure) that has not been my aim here, I have been trying to spark discussion on why they have suffered such a dramatic fall in support & whether their new leader, and his initial pronouncement s are likely to turn things round for them.

Neil, appears incapable of differentiating comment from criticism. In the light of his oft stated view that this Labour collapse will lead to a Tory government, I thought we might have had something more constructive than his usual abuse.

I have been abused for all my explanations for Labour's current woes... so what do you guys think is the root cause & what can & should they do about it?

I actually agree largely with your analysis. I think supporting No and being seen alongside the tories has damaged their support (not to that degree), but I think that's a product of a combination of a fanatic portion of the electorate and a campaign from non-Labour politicians to weaken Labour's support in Scotland.

[kaosmark2]

I`m standing by Norway`s economy being more dependent on oil than Scotlands is. I realise Neil is saying " that`s not actually true " but I think he has been wrong before ( maybe ).

I also realise that comparing Scotland to Norway is totally pointless and I don`t remember anyone doing it on here during the campaign. When I mentioned it earlier I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek ( i used one of the wee tongue sticking out things and everything ) !

Norway are more dependent on funds that come from oil. Scotland is more dependent on oil extracted at this moment.

[LJS]

Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with the tories over an issue. The SNP have stood shoulder to shoulder with the tories over many issues in Holyrood.

The only reason "it's not the same" is because you're deciding it isn't.

Based in the idea that all the righteous voted yes.

Neil, this is nonsense & you know it. Amongst "traditional" labour voters ( & we have a lot of these in Scotland - or did until recently) campaigning alongside Tories is a unacceptable. And it wasn't necessary - I'm not saying this is particularly logical - lots of politics isn't logical - but it is common sense & someone in the Labour Party should have worked it out - maybe they were just used to taking their support in Scotland for granted

[LJS]

I actually agree largely with your analysis. I think supporting No and being seen alongside the tories has damaged their support (not to that degree), but I think that's a product of a combination of a fanatic portion of the electorate and a campaign from non-Labour politicians to weaken Labour's support in Scotland.

Ah, a constructive comment - apologies for my rudeness earlier on Kaos - i replied in a hurry & thought I was replying to Neil . in my book it's fine to be rude to Neil (& Barry) The rest I try & be a bit more polite with!!!

I think the fanatic portion of the electorate is a bit of a red herring as few of them would have been Labour voters but I'm sure your second point is valid ... but ... isn't that what politician's do day in day out? - which comes back to SLAB giving them an open goal by to score into.

Also, looking at it pragmatically, if Scottish Labour had been more in touch with their support & realised upwards of 25% were in favour of Indy, would they have taken the same line? A party campaigning against its own members was always likely to end badly. I think I'm right in saying in the 1979 devo referendum they didn't have a "party line" & allowed people to campaign for either side. Would that have been an option. It is a little known fact that this was the Scottish green's position - it just so happened they were overwhelmingly pro yes.

[Comfy Bean]

I'll just make the core points as to my view of this:

1) Because the SNP would be conducting the negotiations, they'd be the ones determining iScotland's future, and the proposed white paper for a separation agreement (or whatever you want to call it), would be agreed pre-Labour in power.

Your forgetting " Team Scotland " - cringe. Patrick Harvie was on it and Salmond was on record as saying it would be cross party and even invited Darling to play a part ( live on tv )

2) iScotland would still be fairly dependent on rUK, and the policies of rUK, without having anywhere near as much chance to influence them. It's also likelier that rUK would have a greater Tory influenec than before.

Agreed. Would have taken well over a decade before our different direction bedded in ( atleast )

3) I believe the best policies are made when Labour have a narrow majority and aren't arrogant about remaining in power. An iScotland which rejected the SNP quickly would have an arrogant Labour ruler it (even if distinct from the Westminster branch).

I believe just by being smaller and more accountable, a Labour party who go back on promises would have been replaced by the SNP and vice vera. In my view " we " would have had the power to actually change things. Clearly people in Scotland do NOT have that power. I have many times before accepted the maths of England being bigger.

4) The transition of changing public services, government, currency, borders (albeit very light ones), rearranging EU membership, etc. would be costly and difficult.

Take your point but would add that a lot of the big tickets are already devolved and that " some " of the costs would have been offset by savings.

All in all, I think a Labour-led iScotland wouldn't be as bad as a SNP-led one, but fundamentally, my view of it is that independence is a bad idea anyway (at least in the current economic and political climate), and that Salmond leading the negotiations to define "independence" wouldn't have actually have resulted in an agreement of benefit to Scotland.

I think that an Independent Scotland would have been a " fairer " place than we are currently whichever party was in power. I think the Union and Westminster system is fucked, outdated,corrrupt and will collapse under the weight of debt. If it does, then I know who won`t be left to pick up the tab.

[LJS]

I have deliberately avoided getting into the latest round of "Scotland Doomed" for three reasons

1: we had months of it during the indy campaign

2: it is more hypothetical than ever now

3: I frankly can't be arsed trying to argue against Neil's figures which come out of thin Slovenian air & are backed up with links to completely different figures.

I do accept that the yes campaign failed to make a convincing case for Scotland's financial viability as an independent country & this will be one of the most important tasks for Nicola to address if she has any serious ambitions to deliver indy in the next 10-15 years

[kaosmark2]

Also, looking at it pragmatically, if Scottish Labour had been more in touch with their support & realised upwards of 25% were in favour of Indy, would they have taken the same line? A party campaigning against its own members was always likely to end badly. I think I'm right in saying in the 1979 devo referendum they didn't have a "party line" & allowed people to campaign for either side. Would that have been an option. It is a little known fact that this was the Scottish green's position - it just so happened they were overwhelmingly pro yes.

Do you believe it's a good idea for politicians to campaign for an issue they strongly disagree with and their party disagrees with for the sake of appeasing voters?

[kaosmark2]

I believe just by being smaller and more accountable, a Labour party who go back on promises would have been replaced by the SNP and vice vera. In my view " we " would have had the power to actually change things. Clearly people in Scotland do NOT have that power. I have many times before accepted the maths of England being bigger.

I think that an Independent Scotland would have been a " fairer " place than we are currently whichever party was in power. I think the Union and Westminster system is fucked, outdated,corrrupt and will collapse under the weight of debt. If it does, then I know who won`t be left to pick up the tab.

I actually agree with this idea, but I don't think Scottish independence is the answer. I prefer a more federal system with devolution to a number of regions (larger than counties, smaller than countries), combined with a revamp of Westminster (voting system, house of lords, monarchy...).

[LJS]

Do you believe it's a good idea for politicians to campaign for an issue they strongly disagree with and their party disagrees with for the sake of appeasing voters?

Absolutely not!!

That in a nutshell is what is wrong with British politics.

But I'm not talking about appeasing voters. I'm talking about appeasing members - & in my view members of a party should make the policy for that party & there may be instances when if opinion is divided you say - "the party has no policy on this, members are free to campaign for whichever side they wish." There is plenty of precedent for this.

Edited December 17, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I think many on the YES side are desperate for Labour to do something and viewing Scottish voters as " lost causes" is not what we have in mind. It`s clear you just don`t quite get that.

the words I see from Scotsmen are nothing like that at all. What i see said* is that Labour are despised in Scotland, that Labour are dead in Scotland, and that Labour are beyond redemption in Scotland.

(* I'm not thinking that every Scotsman thinks that. I'm saying that those who do and who are expressing the words I see (and there's a lot of them, even if it's only a vocal minority) are beyond being retrieved by anything. Their thinking is not guided by the policies on offer within the context of the UK's situation, but instead is guided by a hatred of what they think the UK stands for).

It`s interesting you use the word bitterness.

Bitterness is what those people are expressing. It's an observation, it's not an invention.

I see an opportunity missed

Is that another of those fact-free visions you keep having, that rarely reference any of the available facts?

and as I pointed out earlier NS has dusted herself down and is getting on with the business of making Scotland a fairer place.

When she's done the first thing that makes Scotland a fairer place, get back to me. She's done fuck all on that line as yet.

That's not me saying she'll do nothing of making Scotland a fairer place, it's me stating the fact that she's done nothing yet to make Scotland a fairer place.

If she does make Scotland a fairer place she'll be doing better than Salmond - who took from the poor to enrich the middle classes.

A different view on austerity,

but no actual workable plan. Get back to me if she ever has one.

[eFestivals]

Your right sir, platforms were shared.

So double standards in Scotland, based in vitriol and bitterness and not by referencing the facts in the considered thinking manner.

YES shared a platform with the Green party. As you know, Patrick Harvie was my man of the match. They also had the left wing of Labour and Tommy and his " comrades " plus Greenpeace.

and lost, because the Scottish public didn't support what they offered.

If the UK govt is as bad as you say, how bad does the failure of yes make yes?

Off the top of my head Darling was on board with the Tories, Clegg ( yeah I know ), the BNP, UKIP, the Orange Order, Blair, Obama, Almost all media outlets led by the BBC and SKY, our wonderful and genuine Banking community and all the big Supermarkets ( not LIDL or ALDI ). Lord somebody or other from BUPA also gave his views as did Sir somebody from an oil company who`s oil sits just off our shores oh and Gorgeous.

Ahhh, the wonderful world were the reporting of facts is only allowed if those facts are approved by yes.

Have you ever stopped to think about how thinking like that helped yes to lose?

I'm still seeing huge numbers of Scots claiming that Scotland contributes 9.8% of the tax revenues but only gets 9.3% of the spend.

Why is that, when the yes media are beacons of truth and the mainstream media are all liars who managed to con enough Scots for 'no' to win, as the narrative you give says?

Meanwhile, when is the huge new oil find to the west of Shetland getting announced? You know, the new secret oil field that Camoron had his secret helicopter trip to in full view of the world's media.

[eFestivals]

so, comparing with the 2010 General election when we had an unpopular Labour government seeking re-election with recent polls when we have an unpopular Tory government seeking re-election, Scottish Labour has lost about 40% of its support, when all other things being equal, you would expect an increase in their support. You would kind of imagine they might benefit from the collapse in LibDem support & being on the winning side in the Indy ref.

yep, but that would require Scots to be real left wingers, and not centralists who have never voted in the majority for a truly left party or policy platform. In fact, very few have ever voted left at all.

Why are those LibDem seats not going to go to Labour? For the exact same reason as they're currently LibDem seats in the Scotland you like to believe is left-wing.

All I have been doing in the past few pages is speculating as to why they have lost this amount of support - although I have been critical of them previously (& shall be again I'm sure) that has not been my aim here, I have been trying to spark discussion on why they have suffered such a dramatic fall in support & whether their new leader, and his initial pronouncement s are likely to turn things round for them.

Neil, appears incapable of differentiating comment from criticism. In the light of his oft stated view that this Labour collapse will lead to a Tory government, I thought we might have had something more constructive than his usual abuse.

PMSL.

I've been trying to get a discussion out of you about why Scotland thinks like it does, which you decided to take as me making that accusation of you personally. I've had to post on many occasions to point out that i'm talking Scotland and not you specifically.

I've been trying to get you to comment, when you've only wanted to criticise, with empty statements about how Labour are fatally damaged because they supported yes but where you've been unable to justify how that's any part of their actual policies.

I have been abused for all my explanations for Labour's current woes... so what do you guys think is the root cause & what can & should they do about it?

you have yet to explain Labour's current woes.

Explain to me how a rational mind can reject everything Labour only because they supported yes.

<and then came only silence >

Edited December 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I`m standing by Norway`s economy being more dependent on oil than Scotlands is.

you do love your fact-free assertions, don't you?

I also realise that comparing Scotland to Norway is totally pointless and I don`t remember anyone doing it on here during the campaign. When I mentioned it earlier I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek ( i used one of the wee tongue sticking out things and everything ) !

Tongue-in-cheek is a pisstake onto your own words - which would be you saying that Norway wasn't oil dependent.

Which is the truth of things of course, rather than your fact-free assertion I've quoted at the top of this post.

Scotland runs a deficit of 10+%, while oil revenues are 8% of GDP and 16% of govt spending.

Norway runs a budget surplus (with the surplus going into the oil fund) of 13% in 2013 (here), oil revenues are 15% (World Bank) or 10% (OECD) of GDP depending which year you look at (the fall is based on declining oil output, just as with Scotland), meaning that Norway barely spends any of it's oil money (some years it does, some years it doesn't) - making it not dependent on its oil at all (tho that's now starting to change, due to falling output, plus the collapse in the oil price).

But even if the numbers confuse you, how the fuck do you think Norway has managed to accumulate an 'oil fund' of £830Bn if its govt spending is so oil dependent? All of that oil money would have been spent on govt spending as it is in Scotland if what you said were true.

But you just keep believing your fact-free assertions, eh? Working to an economic fantasy will make an iScotland the envy of the world.

Edited December 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

By Better Together involving the 3 main Westminister parties, I think it was also a message to the whole of the UK, rather than just to Scotland. Whatever flavour you prefer, you saw a lot of the big players in the UK putting differences aside and working together....sort of, anyway. I think if Labour had run off and done it's own thing, then the general public would see them as not willing to pull together for the greater good and trying to play the politics of Scotland's indy ref - and would harm their polls in the rest of the UK. I know afterwards (7am the next morning), they're all going their separate ways, but I think for rUK, it was less about party politics and more about a straight YES or NO question,.

Right now we're only 3 months after the indy ref, so feelings in Scotland are still heightened - Labour will pull back support their with time. Whether in time for the GE is another matter though.

[eFestivals]

Neil, this is nonsense & you know it. Amongst "traditional" labour voters ( & we have a lot of these in Scotland - or did until recently) campaigning alongside Tories is a unacceptable.

I know, I'm not pretending it isn't.

But unlike you, neither am I pretending that's a view based in actual rational thinking or logic.

It's thinking based in bitterness and hatred.

A good idea is a good idea, no matter who supports it - which is precisely why the SNP was exceedingly happy to have support from the tories at various times over particular policies.

And it wasn't necessary

So you think a divided and contradictory no campaign would have been more successful?

If divided and contradictory is better, why didn't yes do that too? They might have won.

I'm not saying this is particularly logical

It's logic-free.

The exact point I've been making.

- lots of politics isn't logical -

PMSL - so it isn't logical for the SNP to accept the support of the tories over policies? It would have instead been a better idea to not put forwards good ideas because they'd be supported by the tories?

As is becoming clear, you're one of the many Scots who have lost the political plot. Policy ceases to mean anything, because it cannot surpass the hatred and bitterness that is your primary driver.

but it is common sense

Nope. Common sense is supporting a good idea because it's a good idea.

Common sense is not rejecting a good idea because of the others who support it.

& someone in the Labour Party should have worked it out - maybe they were just used to taking their support in Scotland for granted

Or maybe they thought Scots had rational minds?

A fatal error perhaps, but one based in sense and respect for the people of Scotland.

[eFestivals]

Also, looking at it pragmatically, if Scottish Labour had been more in touch with their support & realised upwards of 25% were in favour of Indy, would they have taken the same line? A party campaigning against its own members was always likely to end badly.

PMSL. Can you not see your own stupidity in those words?

If campaigning against it's own members is a bad thing, how would campaigning against 75% of it's members be the better thing?

As I keep saying, you've lost the political plot.

Politics is about getting enough support for your ideas - and you don't do that by going against the tide.

I think I'm right in saying in the 1979 devo referendum they didn't have a "party line" & allowed people to campaign for either side. Would that have been an option.

No. It's a different question, with a massively different outcome.

It is a little known fact that this was the Scottish green's position - it just so happened they were overwhelmingly pro yes.

That probably explains why they're the only Green party in the world that have campaigned for the all of the world's oil to be extracted and burnt.

[eFestivals]

In my view " we " would have had the power to actually change things.

except the world economic system, which would have quickly had reality settle back in to iScotland.

You would not have had the power to deal with the Scottish deficit except by massively greater cuts than the tories are giving you.

[eFestivals]

I have deliberately avoided getting into the latest round of "Scotland Doomed" for three reasons

1: we had months of it during the indy campaign

2: it is more hypothetical than ever now

3: I frankly can't be arsed trying to argue against Neil's figures which come out of thin Slovenian air & are backed up with links to completely different figures.

I do accept that the yes campaign failed to make a convincing case for Scotland's financial viability as an independent country & this will be one of the most important tasks for Nicola to address if she has any serious ambitions to deliver indy in the next 10-15 years

PMSL - the indy campaign is long over, and STILL not a single soul in Scotland has a meaningful comeback to some random Slovianian who single-handedly intellectually blew away every yes-er.

Instead, they can only player the woman and not the ball.

You might as well wave a flag saying "we know we're shit".

Edited December 18, 2014 by eFestivals