The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Just to note. I think if you compare polling results with previous results from the same pollster, which is kind of the only relevant comparison, you will find some have risen since publication of constitution.

nope, that's what I was comparing. Every poll by every polster has seen the support for yes drop since the constitution was published (according to that wiki page, anyway).

Neil's anti Indy argument seems to be riding more & more on his personal distaste for Alex.

As I've made clear all along, there's instances where I'd be prepared to vote yes - but it certainly wouldn't be on only the word of a proven liar who cares more about the result than he does the consequences* onto Scotland.

(* I have no problem with Scots chosing to bring possibly-bad consequences onto themselves, while I do have a big problem with those people being deceived into doing that).

& yes we have a deficit but Is it not smaller per capita than UK?

Nope. The deficit is worse in Scotland than for the UK, by Alex's own figures and including the oil.

Who told you the opposite, the porkie-pie, the lie? Perhaps you should start to question their claims?

[eFestivals]

Yes, but it is subsidised by the rest of the UK.

Since 1990, there's been a handful of years where Scotland has (including it's oil) out-performed the rest of the UK in relation to its proportional deficit - but not many years, not as many as yes-ers go around telling everyone.

However, Scotland also has higher running costs than rUK does (because of it's geography), and that makes things even worse for Scotland's own deficit.

iScotland cannot offer the same level of public services as now without huge tax increases (before we get to its financial sector heading south)... which of course is going to mean cuts in public services at a greater rate than those horrible English tories who went to Eton are doing in England,

But let's pretend that none of this is relevant and vote yes with confidence.

Edited July 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Since 1990, there's been a handful of years where Scotland has (including it's oil) out-performed the rest of the UK in relation to its proportional deficit - but not many years, not as many as yes-ers go around telling everyone.

However, Scotland also has higher running costs than rUK does (because of it's geography), and that makes things even worse for Scotland's own deficit.

iScotland cannot offer the same level of public services as now without huge tax increases (before we get to its financial sector heading south)... which of course is going to mean cuts in public services at a greater rate than those horrible English tories who went to Eton are doing in England,

But let's pretend that none of this is relevant and vote yes with confidence.

Hilarious

[eFestivals]

Hilarious

It's better to laugh now, when there's no consequences.

Meanwhile, why do you believe stuff that's contrary to the facts? Might it be that you've been mislead by the good honest side you intend voting for, with great hopes for the future, in the land where politicians are different, and don't take the piss out of the people?

I'm happy for anyone to make their choice on the basis of the facts, but even you're not happy to mug yourself, are you?

[LJS]

It's better to laugh now, when there's no consequences.

Meanwhile, why do you believe stuff that's contrary to the facts? Might it be that you've been mislead by the good honest side you intend voting for, with great hopes for the future, in the land where politicians are different, and don't take the piss out of the people?

I'm happy for anyone to make their choice on the basis of the facts, but even you're not happy to mug yourself, are you?

So through all the years when north sea oil was at its peak, only a few of these would have seen an independent Scotland worse Off than the UK?

If that's the case why bother suppressing the mccrone report?

[eFestivals]

So through all the years when north sea oil was at its peak, only a few of these would have seen an independent Scotland worse Off than the UK?

Scotland managed to have no deficit for most of the eighties (nine out of ten years, I think it is). It's had no deficit for just a few years since then (four years out of 15, i think).

In the years that its run a deficit, in some of those years - including the last two (you might want to take note of it being recent years, due to falling oil production) - Scotland's deficit has been greater than the UK as a whole's.

These are facts, very important facts for someone who hopes an iScotland will deliver greater public services, a sovereign wealth fund, no national debt, and no increased taxes - all vaguely promised by 'yes', but all an impossibility within the facts.

Why don't you know of these facts?

Who has been telling you differently, and perhaps you should place less trust in their word?

If that's the case why bother suppressing the mccrone report?

because the facts don't matter to people like you? That you'll raise mis-placed hopes above all of the facts, exactly as you're doing by sucking up the porkies of yes and refusing to accept any basis to anything that no says?

Just about every nation state is a financially viable nation state. Where each state differs is with what they are able to deliver whilst remaining financially viable; that's not something to toss aside as casually as you're doing.

Edited July 30, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I've just seen the most fantastic words in a newspaper's comments....

So as Scotland already has an independent education system and legal system, it would make better sense to make all other areas of Scottish life independent from England, Wales and N.I. without giving up any if the benefits of being in a larger union.

[eFestivals]

I keep coming across comments by yes-ers along the lines of "if the UK introduced a proper federal system, we might just decide to stay".

Every time I read words like that, my interest is piqued as to what sort of federal system these people are meaning, and how it might avoid having all of the same issues (tho not necessarily in the same places) as what we have already?

(Often, there's comments around that of the 'federal govt' being voted for via PR, but that's no part of federalism; we could have PR with or without a federal system, and we could have a federal system with or without PR. So anything about a "better voting system" via PR shouldn't be included as any major part of it.)

I'd be interested to hear how it might work and how it would avoid the "democratic deficit" that yes-ers in Scotland claim exists.

So... can anyone tell me what sort of ideas of federalism are floating around Scotland that are being referenced by these people?

[LJS]

Don't think federalism is a viable option for a number of reasons.

The main one being ..there appears to be no appetite for it in England.

Even if there was a federation of England Scotland Wales & NI would have the same problem the UK currently has ...England has way more people than the other 3 combined.

To work you would need to split England up into a number of semi-autonomous regions and as far as I can detect there is pretty close to zero support for that.

Just my opinion of course.

[kaosmark2]

To work you would need to split England up into a number of semi-autonomous regions and as far as I can detect there is pretty close to zero support for that.

I support that. But yeah, there isn't.

[eFestivals]

Don't think federalism is a viable option for a number of reasons.

The main one being ..there appears to be no appetite for it in England.

Even if there was a federation of England Scotland Wales & NI would have the same problem the UK currently has ...England has way more people than the other 3 combined.

To work you would need to split England up into a number of semi-autonomous regions and as far as I can detect there is pretty close to zero support for that.

Just my opinion of course.

I end up with a similar conclusion with the outlines I can create in my head, but what I wanted to know is what ideas of a federal set-up it is that seemingly has support within Scotland.

If it's something like you outline then Scotland's wants are still subservient to England's wants, and so I don't see how that's regarded as any better within Scotland than what we currently have.

The only way I can think of that Scotland is thinking any federal system as better is if Scotland has fallen for all of the "Westminster is evil" guff that Salmond has cooked up as his own version of "we all hate the English, don't we", as though every part of what happens within Westminster comes only from within Westminster.... which of course it doesn't.

Edited July 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Having written that, it's just occurred to me how Scotland's belief in being put upon by England is only the result of Scotland believing that it should have its own special place within the UK. It's become its own self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's no appetite for federalism within England because England is (relatively) happy with how things are now, where each vote is (or was, until '97) equal and no one has special rights.

Scotland has created its own paranoia, its own chip on shoulder, by not wishing to join in and participate in the democracy that we have. If the efforts made in Scotland for indy had instead been put behind reforms for Westminster, then the chances of reform at Westminster increase hugely because there's a quiet appetite for reform in England too.

For example, it would have made it much more likely that the recent AV referendum that no reformer really wanted would have instead had the public momentum for a vote on PR. And I have no doubts that a PR vote would have been won.

Much like with indy itself (if it happens), Scotland's political choices are leading Scotland into a dead-end alley rather than the better place it says it yearns for, via itself keeping its eye only on the small picture.

Edited July 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

Even if there was a federation of England Scotland Wales & NI would have the same problem the UK currently has ...England has way more people than the other 3 combined.

I've never really understood this point, England is not some occupying force that limits Scotland's say in the country's affairs is it? You have as a population the exact same rights (infact more with the Scotish Parliament) as we do. Not everyone in England thinks the same and not everyone in Scotland thinks the same... (Ignoring wealth devides obviously but thats true for a "poor" person in the UK regardless of where they live.)

Going by that logic, the rest of England should seek indepedence from the South East/SE as apparently London would have more say than them.

Edited July 31, 2014 by LondonTom

[eFestivals]

Going by that logic....

Logic? There is no logic.

There is only a self-fulfilling idea, that says that Scotland is special and therefore Scotland should give itself special representation.

It's very laughable, because if anywhere else in the UK (say: London, as that actually does what Scotland likes to think it does itself, and contributes more than it gets) was making the same demands as 'yes' makes for Scotland, the complaints of unfairness from Scotland would be deafening.

If that's a bit confusing, just consider the discrimination that happens within Scotland to Uni students from rUK. If England had a 'special' (more expensive) pricing structure for anything for those who reside in Scotland they'd be banging on about it for centuries from now.

[LJS]

Just back from a public meeting in the village hall in craignure on the isle of mull. Packed hall. 2 speakers from each side including Douglas Alexander & Mike Russell (snp) good debate with no acrimony. Mull has many English residents & from those who spoke, it seemed more were pro yes (not scientific)

No promises of jam but quite inspiring.

[LJS]

After all Neil's crazed blabbering about the inherent dangers in Alex's DIC (draft interim constitution) the first article I've found expressing concerns comes from the yes side.

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/07/31/crowdsourcing-democracy-who-will-write-scotlands-constitution/?fid=15399&isc=1&did=e307855c1feb785e5b9ccc59f111568fa57686da&ctp=article

Like I said, we won't let him get away with any skulldugerry

[eFestivals]

Just back from a public meeting in the village hall in craignure on the isle of mull. Packed hall. 2 speakers from each side including Douglas Alexander & Mike Russell (snp) good debate with no acrimony. Mull has many English residents & from those who spoke, it seemed more were pro yes (not scientific)

has it not occurred to you that people have no need to attend a meeting like this to know what's what?

No promises of jam but quite inspiring.

there was an SNP speaker there, and he didn't promise jam?

I don't believe you. They don't have any other lies to peddle to try and con your vote from you.

Edited August 1, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

After all Neil's crazed blabbering about the inherent dangers in Alex's DIC (draft interim constitution) the first article I've found expressing concerns comes from the yes side.

then you've not been following the debate as you've been claiming to.

Might it be that you're only listening to yes-ers, as tho there can be no truth from the mouths of anyone else?

Like I said, we won't let him get away with any skulldugerry

Once Alex has passed his DIC into law just a few days after a yes vote (if a yes vote happens, of course), you have no legal means to stop him getting away with anything he wants - he will have granted himself dictatorial powers, because that the real, actual effect of the DIC.

And you say you've read the DIC, and yet you failed to notice that fact in its entirity.

Oh, and you can't stop him passing the DIC into law either, just in case that might have been your comeback.

Cos in your wonderful PR system that is not warped ( ) anything like Westminster is (but has no checks or balances AT ALL, which useless Westminster does), a minority vote gives dictatorial powers, no different to everything you say is bad about Westminster.

Meanwhile, constitutions - even temporary ones - should be written by and voted for by the public, not imposed on the people by a power-grabber to grab himself all power, exactly as he promised he never would do.

And from yes-ers comes not a whisper. Still!

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/07/31/crowdsourcing-democracy-who-will-write-scotlands-constitution/?fid=15399&isc=1&did=e307855c1feb785e5b9ccc59f111568fa57686da&ctp=article

That article is a joke, because it's written like it's all Scotland's choice.

As i keep trying to tell you, Salmond has already stolen that choice from you with his DIC that you're happy to endorse.

You can choose to believe him about the permanent constitution if you wish, but he lied about writing the DIC so he might well be lying about everything else constitutional too.

Edited August 1, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

has it not occurred to you that people have no need to attend a meeting like this to know what's what?

there was an SNP speaker there, and he didn't promise jam?

I don't believe you. They don't have any other lies to peddle to try and con your vote from you.

Of course people can get information without going to meetings, which it why it was generally thought that the political public meeting was a thing of the past.

It seems to me to illustrate the level of interest & engagement in the debate & is massively encouraging.

As for jam thing, believe me or not, but I was there & you weren't. I would have thought you would know my views well to understand that a jam based argument would not have impressed me. But hey! I'm making it up!

Edited August 1, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It seems to me to illustrate the level of interest & engagement in the debate & is massively encouraging.

Interest? Yup. Engagement? I'm far less sure.

If people were properly engaged, people like you would be taking Salmond to task, not saying "well, no one else is complaining, so you, a no-er, must be lying".

Engagement requires proper thinking, something you've been unable to do over the DIC, because you refuse to recognise the fact that Salmond is granting himself unlimited powers.

That's unlimited powers for politicans, not the people.

As for jam thing, believe me or not, but I was there & you weren't. I would have thought you would know my views well to understand that a jam based argument would not have impressed me. But hey! I'm making it up!

So the SNP-er said there'd be no CU?

The SNP-er said that iScotland would see a reduction in govt spending to balance the books?

That sort of thing?

Or did he promise you jam?

[LJS]

Interest? Yup. Engagement? I'm far less sure.

If people were properly engaged, people like you would be taking Salmond to task, not saying "well, no one else is complaining, so you, a no-er, must be lying".

Engagement requires proper thinking, something you've been unable to do over the DIC, because you refuse to recognise the fact that Salmond is granting himself unlimited powers.

That's unlimited powers for politicans, not the people.

You can be such an arrogant twat sometimes

[eFestivals]

You can be such an arrogant twat sometimes

More than you can can stick your head in the sand and go 'la la la I'm not listening"?

I've tried to draw your attention to the *fact* that Alex is not giving sovereignty to the people as the DIC grandly proclaims in its first line, but he's instead stealing all power in Scotland for poliicans - the exact same thing as Westminster, which yes-ers say is the cause of all problems at Westminster.

And you don't care.

If you don't care, be honest enough to stop the Westminster bullshit and proclaim only "Scotland, Scotland, my Scotland".

If you do care, don't let the w*nker steal what you're fighting for - because that's what your inaction is letting him do.

Sovereignty is the prize of the referendum. Without getting that sovreignty you get nothing at all.

And Alex is planning to give you nothing at all. He makes that plain in the DIC.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY!!!!

[LJS]

More than you can can stick your head in the sand and go 'la la la I'm not listening"?

La la la

I've tried to draw your attention to the *fact* that Alex is not giving sovereignty to the people as the DIC grandly proclaims in its first line, but he's instead stealing all power in Scotland for poliicans - the exact same thing as Westminster, which yes-ers say is the cause of all problems at Westminster.

And you don't care.

If you don't care, be honest enough to stop the Westminster bullshit and proclaim only "Scotland, Scotland, my Scotland".

If you do care, don't let the w*nker steal what you're fighting for - because that's what your inaction is letting him do.

Sovereignty is the prize of the referendum. Without getting that sovreignty you get nothing at all.

And Alex is planning to give you nothing at all. He makes that plain in the DIC.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY!!!!

[eFestivals]

Glad we've got that sorted out, anyway.

Blind or hatred, take you pick.

Edited August 1, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

a indy referendum with no prize from a successful vote.

It's a new one for the world, I'll grant Scotland that one.