The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

As for Brown, Darling etc, the nationality of the members of the ruling parties is totally irrelevant to my argument

a better result requires better decisions.

Care to tell me how Scottish people like these won't get elevated to the upper echelons of power within Scotland when politics in rUK is no longer open to them?

Are you trying to say that "the people are sovereign" but somehow they'd only support the (actually) clever people?

just as much as the nationality of the population of Scotland is irrelevant. If anything it just indicates how under the current system scots have to go south to get the best jobs!!!

Currently they go south to become a disaster.

When they can't go south any more, will they cease to cause disasters?

And no one is redrawing borders they already exist.

no they don't. mNo national borders exist for the nation of Scotland. There is no nation of Scotland.

As soon as you decide there is a nation of Scotland, your choice is a tautology, it ceases to be free choice.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil, thought you might find this of interest - & agree with a fair bit of it

I didn't even get into the text. I stopped reading at the headline.

A people who fall for "the people are sovereign" when they have less sovereignty over the political class than Westminster gives are neither active or radical.

Or sovereign.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yeah that's exactly what i've said - Neil you can do better than that

Your wanted outcome via independence *DOES* require that to happen tho, and you know it.

And you're also smart enough to know it's not coming either, but you prefer not to face that one.

[eFestivals]

OK, I know I've promised I wouldn't indulge your conspiracy theories about the DRAFT INTERIM constitution.

Yes of course the "people are sovereign" stuff is meaningless twaddle.

Wayhey! Meaningful progress, yes-ers facing up to the guff.

But what else can they say?

that the people hold sovereignty over the political class, and these are the methods via which that is achieved (constitutional referendums, limits of politicans powers, etc, etc).

Like every other constitution in Europe?

Rather than being *WORSE* than Westminster gives you?

It's actually dead simple, but Scotland is sitting back and handing it lock stock and barrel over to the politicians.

There can be no worse result than a yes vote with the constitution as it stands. A yes vote under all other circumstances is MUCH better.

Once Scotland has voted yes, the draft will get enacted with no further say from Scotland. Alex already has the political power to force it thru, and without big reasons for him to not have total control of the situation, he'll ensure he keeps total control of the situation.

The only big reason you can give him is by challenging him, and not by being mice.

But as the UK & New Zealand are, I believe, the only countries in the world without written constitutions, we kind of have to have one.

Absolutely! It's the most important part of forming a new state - the people *actually* having sovereignty.

Which isn't got by giving politicians all power with fewer restraints on their power than exists at Westminster, as the draft does.

What is important is not the constitution but that we ensure we have robust structures in place to ensure the government is subject to meaningful scrutiny.

the draft says you have no structures and you have no scrutiny.

It will be up to the people of Scotland to ensure they hold the government to account.

Which you can only do by being sovereign over them.

That requires something more than a non-guaranteed vote every five years (which is all the draft offers).

Alex could legally abolish elections on iDay, because there's no legal mechanism to stop him.

(that's not me saying I expect him to, but the fact he's allowing it for himself gets to show it's not beyond what he believes he might do.)

Edited July 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Anyway ....

I'm thinking that Alex might be about to be gifted his game-changer.

I spent a few hours yesterday googling angles on the Westminster paedo thing, and it looks pretty clear that it has the ability to fully blow up at any time and just about demolish Westminster (even within England). I'm thinking that the cross-party agreement last week for new spying powers is not about terrorism.

However, Scotland isn't free of its own related accusations for things happening in Scotland by Scotsmen, so quite how it all might be viewed up there I'm not entirely sure - Scottish law is (apparently) just as able to mount a cover-up.

I'll be quite happy for it to blow up. It looks the best short-term bet for changes at Westminster.

[eFestivals]

Scottish independence could see sterling fall 10pc, says Morgan Stanley

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10967259/Scottish-independence-could-see-sterling-fall-10pc-says-Morgan-Stanley.html

It's a consequence, but not a scary one from where I'm sat.

Firstly, Sterling has risen by around 10% in the last year anyway, so it's more than just indy which changes things.

Secondly, it's something that can be ridden out without anyone hardly noticing - as was the case with the much bigger 30% devaluation in 2008.

Thirdly, it makes the rUK economy more competitive.

And fourthly, it shrinks the wealth gap, which is always a good thing unless you're one of the too-rich w*nkers who's paying.

[russycarps]

Scottish independence could see sterling fall 10pc, says Morgan Stanley

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10967259/Scottish-independence-could-see-sterling-fall-10pc-says-Morgan-Stanley.html

It's a consequence, but not a scary one from where I'm sat.

Firstly, Sterling has risen by around 10% in the last year anyway, so it's more than just indy which changes things.

Secondly, it's something that can be ridden out without anyone hardly noticing - as was the case with the much bigger 30% devaluation in 2008.

Thirdly, it makes the rUK economy more competitive.

And fourthly, it shrinks the wealth gap, which is always a good thing unless you're one of the too-rich w*nkers who's paying.

of course alex has factored this into his oil revenue spending forecasts, right?

Edited July 15, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

of course alex has factored this into his oil revenue spending forecasts, right?

nope, he's factored in nothing at all for a situation where Scotland d0oesn't get a CU with rUK.

Whatever his Plan B is, he has no plan for it.

[Comfy Bean]

nope, he's factored in nothing at all for a situation where Scotland d0oesn't get a CU with rUK.

Whatever his Plan B is, he has no plan for it.

For anyone undecided on Eck`s Plan A. Here`s the current view from Better Together on what happens if Scotland votes NO. This should help you make your mind up

[eFestivals]

For anyone undecided on Eck`s Plan A. Here`s the current view from Better Together on what happens if Scotland votes NO. This should help you make your mind up

do you think that 'Eck makes greater sense?

The winning side around the indy question is the one with the most sense, not anything else. Not the result of the vote.

'Yes' only get to be winners if they deliver on their promises. It's future history which gets to be the judge.

[Comfy Bean]

I think that Salmond puts his point across with passion and sounds as if he knows what he is talking about. Whether or not you agree with him is of course the real issue but that is embarrassing from Lamont. That is the only point I was trying to make. Assuming you watched that clip, do you agree with the gist of what I am saying ? I know you know her role / position in politics up here.

[eFestivals]

I think that Salmond puts his point across with passion and sounds as if he knows what he is talking about.

"bullying and bluster" sounds like he's got nothing at all of anything to say, quite frankly. Vacuous!

Whether or not you agree with him is of course the real issue but that is embarrassing from Lamont. That is the only point I was trying to make. Assuming you watched that clip, do you agree with the gist of what I am saying ? I know you know her role / position in politics up here.

I know who she is, yeah, and I'm reasonably familiar with her (not anything like I presume you to be, tho).

I think i probably view her much as Scotland seems to, that she's London's glove puppet.

But, you know, people like her getting put into that position of power by people in Scotland, is one of the problems that Scotland has to face whether it votes yes or no - and not forgetting that the likelihood of her becoming your country's glorious leader to represent Scotland is quite strong.

And if you vote yes, you're giving her more power to fuck up Scotland as you clearly think she might. Voting yes is not all gain!

This is why I keep coming back to the really important part for a better country: it's not who makes the decisions, it's not where the decisions are made. It's about the quality of the decisions.

The smaller pool of people you have to choose from ... well, I keep reading how you Scots are the best educated in Europe. I'm sure you can work that you're choosing to give your country a natural disadvantage.

Edited July 15, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

"bullying and bluster" sounds like he's got nothing at all of anything to say, quite frankly. Vacuous!

I know who she is, yeah, and I'm reasonably familiar with her (not anything like I presume you to be, tho).

I think i probably view her much as Scotland seems to, that she's London's glove puppet.

But, you know, people like her getting put into that position of power by people in Scotland, is one of the problems that Scotland has to face whether it votes yes or no - and not forgetting that the likelihood of her becoming your country's glorious leader to represent Scotland is quite strong.

And if you vote yes, you're giving her more power to fuck up Scotland as you clearly think she might. Voting yes is not all gain!

This is why I keep coming back to the really important part for a better country: it's not who makes the decisions, it's not where the decisions are made. It's about the quality of the decisions.

The smaller pool of people you have to choose from ... well, I keep reading how you Scots are the best educated in Europe. I'm sure you can work that you're choosing to give your country a natural disadvantage.

Plenty of countries with small "pools of talent" seem to manage ok. Plenty of countries with massive "pools" of talent don't. & vice versa. I think you would find it hard to make a convincing case for big means better.

You have made the point a few times that we might get a shit government after a yes vote. Well, frankly having lived under 8 governments since I was first allowed to vote all of them shit of varying flavours, I really frankly don't see how it could be worse. And I can easy peasy see how it can be better.

Reading what you have written in the general news thread, you make a persuasive case for getting Westminster to fuck.

[eFestivals]

Plenty of countries with small "pools of talent" seem to manage ok. Plenty of countries with massive "pools" of talent don't. & vice versa. I think you would find it hard to make a convincing case for big means better.

logically that should be the case, if everything else is equal.

But anyway, you'll get the shite as well as the good which was more my point, to be considered against Alex's perfect world and whether those perfect outcomes might be achieved.

Reading what you have written in the general news thread, you make a persuasive case for getting Westminster to fuck.

If you're on about the paedo rumours, there's (proportionally) been just as much of all the same things going on in the same years centred in Edinburgh, with cover-ups continuing today.

So it's a bit daft to pin too much on 'Westminster' as being a great evil about this. The problem comes about because of concentrations of power, and nothing else.

And you'll be having more power concentrated within Scotland - which means that the possibilities for corruptions and conspiracies of any kind centered within Scotland will skyrocket.

I'm not not trying to suggest that's a reason to vote no btw; corruption will happen somewhere (Scotland or Westminster). I just think it'll be a bit premature to become smug about it, with a lot of finger pointing at Westminster as though it couldn't happen in Scotland (independent or not).

Edited July 15, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Here's a wee sidetrack.

I was chatting to one of my colleagues at work today who I had always assumed would be a "no" as she seems to fit the "risk averse woman" demographic which has been much spoken of. Imagine my delight to discover that she is a firm "yes" - (I wish more women were firm Yesses when I spoke to them!!!)

I chatted to her for a wee while & I was expressing my frustration with the argument from parts of the Yes campaign that we will all be much better off. She agreed & said "I expect we'll be worse off" & then explained her reasons why this didn't detract from her view that it was the "right" thing to do. This got me thinking & I would say on a split of at least 3 to 1 the folk I know who are voting yes are absolutely not doing so because of Neil's fabled jam but because they think it is the right thing to do. I'd be interested to hear what Vibey & Comfy's experience is here. I'm pretty confident they don't want Indy for the dosh but what is their experience of the motivation of other yessers they know.

[eFestivals]

Here's a wee sidetrack.

I was chatting to one of my colleagues at work today who I had always assumed would be a "no" as she seems to fit the "risk averse woman" demographic which has been much spoken of. Imagine my delight to discover that she is a firm "yes" - (I wish more women were firm Yesses when I spoke to them!!!)

I chatted to her for a wee while & I was expressing my frustration with the argument from parts of the Yes campaign that we will all be much better off. She agreed & said "I expect we'll be worse off" & then explained her reasons why this didn't detract from her view that it was the "right" thing to do. This got me thinking & I would say on a split of at least 3 to 1 the folk I know who are voting yes are absolutely not doing so because of Neil's fabled jam but because they think it is the right thing to do. I'd be interested to hear what Vibey & Comfy's experience is here. I'm pretty confident they don't want Indy for the dosh but what is their experience of the motivation of other yessers they know.

It's great that some are able to properly recognise that it won't be all-jam falling from the sky. I'm fully supportive of such people voting yes if that's what they wish.

But the big problem for iScotland is not people like those, it's the ones who do believe that jam will fall from the sky. When that jam doesn't fall, what happens as a result? There's several possibilities.

The first one is that people will change their mind about their support for indy - but too late. The decision they've made is irreversible. And so Scotland might turn in on itself, and never be a happy country.

The second is that iScotland's problems will continue to be blamed all on Westminster/London/rUK/England, in exactly the same way as happens now. Alex has spent the last 25 years stoking up this idea; the whole of the indyref is based within this idea; so who is Alex going to blame when the world doesn't give all its power to iScotland to grant it Alex's perfection?

In case it's passing you by, whichever way Scotland votes I wish it every success with that choice - and yet I find it exceedingly hard to see things panning out well, given that there won't be massive support for indy should it win, and that that much of its support has been gained thru over-optimistic promises (or more correctly: deliberate untruths) that will see some of that not-big support fade away quite quickly.

Meanwhile, London looks north and sees Scotland saying "it's all mine" (like any good tory), and decides it wants some of that too. Thanks Scotland. :angry:

You don't build a fairer society by denying the funds to those in need to build that fairer society.

And in the Scotland that likes to believe itself fairer and that fairer comes by default thru Scotland's "better" democracy, will the democratic will of Scotland be accepted by Scotland?

Or might the SNP say "fuck what you think, we're right and the people of Scotland don't know shit. Let's have another indyyref"? That's better democracy, eh?

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

It's great that some are able to properly recognise that it won't be all-jam falling from the sky. I'm fully supportive of such people voting yes if that's what they wish.

But the big problem for iScotland is not people like those, it's the ones who do believe that jam will fall from the sky. When that jam doesn't fall, what happens as a result? There's several possibilities.

The first one is that people will change their mind about their support for indy - but too late. The decision they've made is irreversible. And so Scotland might turn in on itself, and never be a happy country.

The second is that iScotland's problems will continue to be blamed all on Westminster/London/rUK/England, in exactly the same way as happens now. Alex has spent the last 25 years stoking up this idea; the whole of the indyref is based within this idea; so who is Alex going to blame when the world doesn't give all its power to iScotland to grant it Alex's perfection?

In case it's passing you by, whichever way Scotland votes I wish it every success with that choice - and yet I find it exceedingly hard to see things panning out well, given that there won't be massive support for indy should it win, and that that much of its support has been gained thru over-optimistic promises (or more correctly: deliberate untruths) that will see some of that not-big support fade away quite quickly.

Meanwhile, London looks north and sees Scotland saying "it's all mine" (like any good tory), and decides it wants some of that too. Thanks Scotland. :angry:

You don't build a fairer society by denying the funds to those in need to build that fairer society.

And in the Scotland that likes to believe itself fairer and that fairer comes by default thru Scotland's "better" democracy, will the democratic will of Scotland be accepted by Scotland?

Or might the SNP say "fuck what you think, we're right and the people of Scotland don't know shit. Let's have another indyyref"? That's better democracy, eh?

did I understand you right? London greed is the fault of Scotland?

[eFestivals]

did I understand you right? London greed is the fault of Scotland?

yep - it's copying Scottish greed. Haven't you noticed that indy for Scotland is driven by greed?

(I'm not saying that you, specifically, are. Just to make that clear).

It's seen what Scotland has managed in demanding all it creates (and has offshore ) for itself, and realises that just like Scotland it could have more money for itself by demanding its own only for itself.

And the "fairness" that yes-ers in Scotland claims of itself results in extra poverty elsewhere, but yes-ers are quite happy to vote those others into poverty as long as they're richer themselves. Exactly as some in London would like to do (including Boris).

These are real world facts. Scotland doesn't get more resources without those resources being taken from others, and the exact same thing would apply if London managed similar.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

yep - it's copying Scottish greed. Haven't you noticed that indy for Scotland is driven by greed?

(I'm not saying that you, specifically, are. Just to make that clear).

It's seen what Scotland has managed in demanding all it creates (and has offshore ) for itself, and realises that just like Scotland it could have more money for itself by demanding its own only for itself.

And the "fairness" that yes-ers in Scotland claims of itself results in extra poverty elsewhere, but yes-ers are quite happy to vote those others into poverty as long as they're richer themselves. Exactly as some in London would like to do (including Boris).

These are real world facts. Scotland doesn't get more resources without those resources being taken from others, and the exact same thing would apply if London managed similar.

Well, as you know my desire for independence is fuelled by frustration at Westminster's ongoing failure to address poverty & inequality. I understand your view that there is no guarantee iScotland would do better.

The notion that London needs lessons in greed from anyone is truly remarkable!

I take it your accusation that rUK will be worse off after independence means you are now accepting Scotland will be better off. You can't have it both ways!

[russycarps]

Well, as you know my desire for independence is fuelled by frustration at Westminster's ongoing failure to address poverty & inequality. I understand your view that there is no guarantee iScotland would do better.

The notion that London needs lessons in greed from anyone is truly remarkable!

I take it your accusation that rUK will be worse off after independence means you are now accepting Scotland will be better off. You can't have it both ways!

The same London that is one of the most left leaning parts of the UK? Think yourself lucky the people who live there arent as greedy as a you Yes voting scots.

Edited July 16, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

The notion that London needs lessons in greed from anyone is truly remarkable!

It's true all the same.

Greed is a selfish action, and it doesn't get more selfish and greedy than to say "everything of mine should be only mine, because only me deserves what is mine".

Nothing of the needs of others or the effects onto others is within that "it's mine" consideration. Scotland comes first just because it's Scotland.

That is what Scotland is doing. Any discussion we might have over why it's doing that doesn't change that it IS doing that.

And what one region can do, another region can also do.

What aren't you getting about Scotland being greedy and enabling the greed of others?

I take it your accusation that rUK will be worse off after independence means you are now accepting Scotland will be better off. You can't have it both ways!

As i was writing those words I suspected you might come back with this.

The facts of what will happen (good or bad, it doesn't matter) aren't actually of an relevance to the greed scenario. It is "mine" that iScotland is demanding; how big "mine" turns out to be in reality isn't part of that.

The simple fact that yes-ers are going around saying "England takes Scotland's money, that money should all be Scotland's" is the proof that yes-ers are being driven by greed.

Nothing of any yes-ers's consideration (that I've seen, and i've seen a LOT!) is about "what effects might there be onto other people from Scotland demanding everything". It is only Scotland that matters to these people, nothing of anyone else in the UK.

Which is why Boris loves it. You cannot get more tory in view-point than what yes-ers are expressing. Personal greed, yourself above all others.

[LJS]

You have to say we're pretty shite at greed, though.

We only really get round to it once the oil starts running out.

If only we'd been greedy thirty years ago....

Now what did Westminster do with all that oil money?

Well, one thing it didn't do was set up any sort of oil fund unlike, I believe, every other major oil producing country except Iraq.

Instead it used the oil money to fund the wholesale destruction of UK industry & to pay the resulting dole money. Meanwhile the streets of London resonated to the sounds of spivs in their Porsches.

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

The same London that is one of the most left leaning parts of the UK?

well, apart from the bit of London that isn't London.

Where democracy doesn't operate.

Where the rule of Westminster's law doesn't operate.

Where Blair can get bought off after 100 years of Labour opposition, to further entrench the non-democracy of that part of London and it's hold over Westminster.

Which operates as no less of a tax haven than Jersey, IoM, Luxemberg, the Caymans, the Virgin Isles, and everywhere else.

The mother of sham democracies.

[LJS]

Harry Enfield: loadsamoney:

[eFestivals]

You have to say we're pretty shite at greed, though.

We only really get round to it once the oil starts running out.

If only we'd been greedy thirty years ago....

It would have certainly put iScotland in a better position.

And open it up to even greater *true* accusations of greed.

Now what did Westminster do with all that oil money?

pissed it up the wall.

Now, what did Scotsmen in Scotland do with Scottish taxes and Edinburgh taxes? Pissed them up the wall.

It's all very well saying "we'll do it better", but it means nothing unless you actually do. Where's the evidence that you might? There is none.

Well, one thing it didn't do was set up any sort of oil fund unlike, I believe, every other major oil producing country except Iraq.

You cannot spend the same money three times over, as Alex will quickly teach you.

Instead it used the oil money to fund the wholesale destruction of UK industry & to pay the resulting dole money. Meanwhile the streets of London resonated to the sounds of spivs in their Porsches.

There were no rich people in London before Scottish oil was discovered, it's true. Everyone bred whippets and pigeons instead.