The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Well, once the dust settles, I would certainly expect there will be an attempt to learn lessons from the campaign & what the best way forward is.

that would be the sensible expectation.

But there's a huge chunk who don't want the dust to settle, because they refuse to accept the result.

And the demonising of the old is taking off; the blame for the no vote is being placed on "English immigrants" and "foriegn immigrants" with claims they should be denied votes next time. Etc, etc, etc.

As I said, sales of bacofoil are soaring.

After a few days off I've read a lot of some current Scottish opinions, which is pretty much summed up within these following words I've lifted from elsewhere...

Our democracy is now so corroded the losers in an election scream conspiracy because they lost.

That's the division that Salmond has caused, and has been happy to cause by pursuing an indyref when there was not a single indicator that he had any chance of success. Such divisions suit his purposes (as history can demonstrate to those who do history)

Don't have the figures to hand but greens were certainly well over 1%.

1.55%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011#Result

(and Tommy's lot don't even register for anything above 0%).

The Greens in Scotland are even less supported than the Greens in "tory" England. Funny that, eh?

The UK's only sizeable non-neoliberal party is most loved in England, and an irrelevance in supposedly-neoliberal-rejecting Scotland.

[eFestivals]

The scottish indyref ... what people really thought....

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ywzyqmrf2u/Scotland_Final_140905_Sunday_Times_FINAL.pdf

The people who believed the SNP claim that there would be a currency union and that the No side is bluffing (page 10):

88% of yes voters

15% of no voters

The people who did NOT believe the SNP claim that there would be a currency union and that the No side is bluffing:

5% of yes voters

78% of no voters

The people who believed the SNP claim that Scotland will be a member of the EU union from the independence day = negotiation from within the EU (page 11):

70% of yes voters

9% of no voters

The people who believed that Scotland would leave the EU and would have to negotiate a new membership deal:

23% of yes voters

81% of no voters

There have been new reserves of oil found in Scotland during the campaign, but the UK government is keeping them secret:

Probably true:

72% of yes voters

13% of no voters

Probably false:

15% of yes voters

71% of no voters

Delusion is the new politics. Where's Alex Jones?

Edited September 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

It was good to see the "sophisticated scottish electorate" on Panorama last night.

They seemed largely just as ignorant and ill-informed at those south of the border. Remind me what makes them special again?

[eFestivals]

It was good to see the "sophisticated scottish electorate" on Panorama last night.

I didn't see that. Fancy giving a summary?

They seemed largely just as ignorant and ill-informed at those south of the border. Remind me what makes them special again?

I've recently decided that around 50% of voters - at a minimum - distributed proportionally around any vote don't have a frigging clue what they're voting for.

(note: this applies to anywhere in the UK in my thinking).

For example....

I'm astounded by words above that show a lack of understanding of a central and key part of Scotland's relationship within the UK, which surely has to be understood before anyone is able to decide if Scotland would be economically better off as indy or still within the UK.

Edited September 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

I didn't see that. Fancy giving a summary?

I've recently decided that around 50% of voters - at a minimum - distributed proportionally around any vote don't have a frigging clue what they're voting for.

(note: this applies to anywhere in the UK in my thinking).

For example....

I'm astounded by words above that show a lack of understanding of a central and key part of Scotland's relationship within the UK, which surely has to be understood before anyone is able to decide if Scotland would be economically better off as indy or still within the UK.

It was a program following a selection of Yes, No and Undecided voters in the run up to the vote.

They were just normal people and they could have been from any part of the UK, nothing at all about them made them appear to be more informed, more insightful, more sophisticated or more motivated than anyone else I've ever met (and I've lived all over the UK!).

It made me laugh though as there was some old dude swearing at the telly during the darling v salmond telly debate about the currency, and he was roaring about how no-one could stop them using the pound. Reminded me a lot of some of the posters in this thread...

It was clear that those who had decided to vote yes had believed all the propaganda from that campaign and nothing at all could change their mind. Likewise, the no voters were exactly the same.

The undecideds were mostly concerned about the economic aspect of it all, and were largely learning towards no.

Overall, it was pretty dull and not really worth a watch, but it didnt leave me with a more favourable impression of scottish voters than any other human beings. Unsurprising, as scottish exceptionalism is a nonsense.

I'd say your 50% is being very generous.

Edited September 23, 2014 by russycarps

[mrtourette]

Neil, in what way is Quebec fucked?

Honest question I know nothing of it.

French?

[eFestivals]

Neil, in what way is Quebec fucked?

Honest question I know nothing of it.

businesses and govt agencies decided there were much better places to exist that weren't full of nutters. Montreal went from being one of Canada's prime cities to an-almost-nothing, as things that people valued migrated to Toronto.

It was a combination of delusions of success falling from the air, and racism, that did it. So there's nothing there for yes-ers to learn from.

Edited September 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Why would I need to correct your error? Why would you even have an error?

Are you suggesting that you haven't even know the basics of what you for/against?

And that instead you've been blindly following misinformation?

What misinformation - you are misinformed and as usual when you are misinformed you start playing silly buggers - I said "t the vast majority of the Scottish Government's funding comes via a block grant from Westminster the size of which is determined using the Barnett formula " if you say that is incorrect, you need to back it up or admit you are wrong

Yep, tho not for plenty of people, including bad-loser Salmond - who seems to have suddenly become leader of the no campaign by the sounds of it, what with his concern for them.

Tho that's not been a concern when he's demonised them as all old gits, suggested UDI, and denied free reporting of major moments in Scottish politics.

Strange that.

Ooh, he didn't let the Telegraph in! what an outrage!! Glad to see you standing up for the Telegraph - or what do you usually call them ? the Torygraph. Frankly I wouldn't waste one keystroke standing up for them ... but you seem to think it is worth it!

Hmmm, if you'd put down that flag you were so frantically waving for a few moments and actually listened, you'd never have posted those words. Not unless you were deliberately lying, anyway.

Here's what I said "That is not how it was sold & it is not how it will be perceived if significant powers are not delivered to the timetable promised. (my opinion)" I have absolutely no idea what point you are making here, as you seem to be even less rational than usual today - the only interpretation I can think of is that because we lost we have no right to demand the No side keep their promises. But you aren't wuite crazy enough to think something like that are you?

It's precisely because it's already fucked up due to Scottish demands that further demands can't be allowed to fuck it up further.

If a split settlement is the right thing for Scotland, then Scotland deserves a working split settlement, doesn't it?

Powers cannot be devolved without that having an equal effect elsewhere. That part has to be considered along with everything else.

Remember, Scotland voted for the union, it didn't vote for devo max or anything else. That means that the position of the union outside Scotland is no less relevant than the position of the union inside Scotland.

Personally (as i posted here) I'd have preferred that they'd not been that last minute begging campaign, because it's merely further confused the already confused.

You are right, Scotland didn't vote for devo max ... because it wasn't on the ballot paper because dickhead Cameron wouldn't put it on the ballot paper. but the FACT is we were promised substantial new powers to a very specific timetable - if the labatories can deliver a solution to the west Lothian Question within that timescale that is fine, I have no objection to that. But they cannot use that as an excuse to delay the wondrous timetable... and if they do, the consequences maybe significant!

there's lots to suggest a major split is coming. It'll be interesting to see which demographic the SNP leadership feels is most important to keep.

I have speculated about this and it certainly would be no surprise... but I have seen nothing as yet to suggest it will happen - do you have inside info?

so Scotland will vote to let the tories in?

Or is Alex Jimmy K gonna declare UDI if the SNP win half the seats?

You started off posting here about "the sophisticated Scottish electorate". The only basis for that claim is the manner they've used their votes in different arenas in different ways.

That might change some, but I doubt it'll change hugely. Tho if it does change hugely, the result will be a very dis-united Scotland under which no one benefits.

the writing for that is on the wall.

It's quite amusing - the sophisticated electorate is one of many things you have accused me of saying that I have never said - indeed, I have stated that, in my opinion, the only way we can be described as more sophisticated is that we have to cope with a greater variety of voting systems than you guys.

And this Scotland will vote to let the Tories in Claptrap really is the biggest load of bullshit ever - its a safe bet that whatever happens in the next GE there is unlikely to be a huge rise in the Tory vote. so the people responsible for letting the Tories in will bee ... wait for it .... drum roll ... the People who vote Tory (& they won't be in Scotland ... but it will be our fault!!!)

There's the realists, and then there's the fantasists.

There's the tartan tories, and then there's the nuSNPers*.

(* as 'socialist' as Blair, where individuality is king and welfare destroying solutions are hailed like any good tory).

That's one hell of a group to try to hold together.

They've done pretty well over the past few years, haven't they?

It took Quebec two indyrefs to destroy itself, but yes-ers haven't looked at the lessons from history. It's looking like Scotland might go one better.

If there was a reasoned argument there , I might say something

Edited September 23, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

that would be the sensible expectation.

But there's a huge chunk who don't want the dust to settle, because they refuse to accept the result.

As I have said, it will take some people more time than others - rest assured many of us are working hard to ensure that people's energies are directed in a constructive direction. I now see very few "45" or "i voted yes" twibbons on my twitface.

And the demonising of the old is taking off; the blame for the no vote is being placed on "English immigrants" and "foriegn immigrants" with claims they should be denied votes next time. Etc, etc, etc.

I have heard of 1 instance of someone getting some grief for being English (they were in fact Welsh) I have seen not one anti English or anti foreigners comment on any of the feeds I subscribe too nor on any of the comments there. In fairness, I do not spend a lot of time in the comments sections of blogs or papers as even in supposedly enlightened places like the Guardian, it is pretty vile on both sides. But if you seek this stuff out I have non doubt you can find it ... & I could do the same on the other side.

Sorry Neil, if we hate you, it's not because you are English

After a few days off I've read a lot of some current Scottish opinions, which is pretty much summed up within these following words I've lifted from elsewhere...

That's the division that Salmond has caused, and has been happy to cause by pursuing an indyref when there was not a single indicator that he had any chance of success. Such divisions suit his purposes (as history can demonstrate to those who do history)

I think even you would agree that that is a very one sided view which bizarrely seems to suggest we should only seek change if there is a good chance of success - good job no one told Mandela & Gandhi that one ( & before you start - I do realise their causes were of a greater magnitude than ours). But on a more realistic note, I await your abandonment of PR as there is not much chance of you ever getting it. What a pathetic empty unprincipled view to take.

"Stoke City announce withdrawal from premier league as they have no chance of winning it!"

1.55%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011#Result

(and Tommy's lot don't even register for anything above 0%).

The Greens in Scotland are even less supported than the Greens in "tory" England. Funny that, eh?

The UK's only sizeable non-neoliberal party is most loved in England, and an irrelevance in supposedly-neoliberal-rejecting Scotland.

There are a few factual errors needing corrected here - I haven't mentioned Tommy's lot - Tommy is no longer in the SSP he has his own party "solidarity" The SSP are still recovering from the damage tommy did to them.

I will be charitable & assume you didn't understand that the Greens only stood in the regional lists as they had no chance in the FPTP constituency bit.

here is what they actually got in the regional lists

Party Seats +/- Votes % +/-% Labour 22 +13 523,559 26.3 -2.9 SNP 16 -9 876,421 44 +13 Conservative 12 -2 245,967 12.4 -1.6 Liberal Democrat 3 -3 103,472 5.2 -6.1 Green 2 +1 87,060 4.4 +0.3

Now I will not pretend that, that is amazing but it is a lot more than you said (AKA Neil was wrong)

It went up to just over 8% in the Euro elections. Unfortunately for them the next election is a FPTP Westminster General Election.

unfortunately for you getting your facts wildly wrong (The UK's only sizeable non-neoliberal party is most loved in England, and an irrelevance in supposedly-neoliberal-rejecting Scotland) .made you look like a bit of a dick

Anyway, I would have thought you would have welcomed a rise in green party membership, or do you abandon all principle in defence of the union?

[LJS]

I'm astounded by words above that show a lack of understanding of a central and key part of Scotland's relationship within the UK, which surely has to be understood before anyone is able to decide if Scotland would be economically better off as indy or still within the UK.

tell me more, Neil?

[LJS]

NO idea how accurate this is but then I guess we have all been guilty of the odd inaccuracy from time to time

You will notice the labour party graph stops ... here's what wikipedia says

In 2008, Scottish Labour Party membership was reported as 17,000, down from a peak of approximately 30,000 in the run-up to the 1997 general election.^[8] The figures included in the Annual Report presented to the Scottish Party Conference in 2008, also recorded that more than half of all Constituency Labour parties (CLPs) had less than 300 members, with 14 having less than 200 members.^[9]

In September 2010, the party issued 13,135 ballot papers to party members during the Labour Party (UK) leadership election. However, these did not necessarily equate to 13,135 individual members – due to the party's electoral structure, members can qualify for multiple votes.^[1] The party has declined to reveal its actual membership figures since 2008, and did not publish the number of votes cast in the leadership election, only percentages.^[10]

^{So it would be a real surprise if the dominant party in Scotland has more than 13,000 members.}

Edited September 23, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Three things have really disappointed me in this thread

1: The "unionists" (I understand that is an approximate description!) have consistently chosen to attach more value to reports from the ( predominantly) right wing & (undoubtedly) pro union press over what those few of us actually living our lives here in Scotland have told you. You have repeatedly talked of Anti-English feeling when virtually none has existed. Over recent weeks the main pro Indy posters have been myself & comfortablynumb. I will not presume to comment on my own views but comfy is clearly a thoroughly good guy who clearly would not deliberately mislead you and did not come to this discussion to prove any smart arsed debating points. Both of us tried to be polite & respectful - Comfy did way better than me on that front - although I did try. I'd really really like to know how repeatedly insulting the people you are holding a discussion with is in any way helpful? Incidentally, in my posts today, I made a deliberate decision to be a bit insulting.. just for fun but sadly, i feel I fell short of the high standards set by you guys PMSL ROFL FCUK YMCA

2: I have spent an inordinate amount of time correcting misquotes of what i have said - this is a really infantile & pathetic debating technique. Neil is particularly guilty of this - a word of advice,Neil try & avoid the phrase "so what you are saying is..." especially when what follows bears no relation to what the person has said.

3: personal insult: WTF is that about? we are adults having an adult discussion. I have been accused of proxy racism. i have been compared with Ukip & the Nazis, Countless times, I have been accused of being an idiot. How the fuck is that any way helpful?

Edited September 23, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

What misinformation - you are misinformed and as usual when you are misinformed you start playing silly buggers - I said "t the vast majority of the Scottish Government's funding comes via a block grant from Westminster the size of which is determined using the Barnett formula " if you say that is incorrect, you need to back it up or admit you are wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula#How_the_formula_works

It's a small part of the calculations for Scotland's money, not a major part. It's existed for about 35 years.

The major parts go back over 100 years, to when Westminster first started "buying" Scotland off.

I have heard of 1 instance of someone getting some grief for being English (they were in fact Welsh) I have seen not one anti English or anti foreigners comment on any of the feeds I subscribe too nor on any of the comments there. In fairness, I do not spend a lot of time in the comments sections of blogs or papers as even in supposedly enlightened places like the Guardian, it is pretty vile on both sides. But if you seek this stuff out I have non doubt you can find it ... & I could do the same on the other side.

Sorry Neil, if we hate you, it's not because you are English

I'm not claiming that the racism is the view of everyone.

But I am stating the true fact that it's there, very openly, in all sorts of places where supporters of independence 'gather' online - including right in-yer-face in the biggest gatherings (facebook, etc). And in most instances it's not instantly condemned by all others, and often not condemned at all.

If the same was going on around black people, jews, muslims or plenty of others, nothing like the same things would happen - it's this comparison which shows it up for how bad it is.

There's a strong narrative in groups of yes-ers that the vote was lost because of these "foreigners" and not because the yes campaign was a crock of shite - there's plenty more that would have supported even half-a-credible-plan, but they couldn't support no plan at all (surely you've encountered this, and at a volume?).

I think even you would agree that that is a very one sided view which bizarrely seems to suggest we should only seek change if there is a good chance of success - good job no one told Mandela & Gandhi that one ( & before you start - I do realise their causes were of a greater magnitude than ours). But on a more realistic note, I await your abandonment of PR as there is not much chance of you ever getting it. What a pathetic empty unprincipled view to take.

The difference with Mandela & Gandhi to Salmond? They both had over-whelming public support.

But anyway, Scotland is not a colony and neither is it oppressed (tho you wish to present it as such, as you just did ).

Salmond's choices have their intended consequences and their unintended ones. His choice has been to unnecessarily sow divisions within your country to the detriment of your country via a campaign he never had a hope of winning.

And he preferred to do that than do what the people of Scotland wanted. There was no Salmond option for Cameron to allow a non-indyref.

There are a few factual errors needing corrected here - I haven't mentioned Tommy's lot - Tommy is no longer in the SSP he has his own party "solidarity" The SSP are still recovering from the damage tommy did to them.

My apologies at not keeping up to pace with Scotland's egos and their lusts for power.

I see that Tommy's party did even worse than the (rounded) 0% of the SSP. So the point stands.

I will be charitable & assume you didn't understand that the Greens only stood in the regional lists as they had no chance in the FPTP constituency bit.

I did, and they got the percentage of votes for your parliament I quoted - off-the-scale small. "tiny" is the point I was making, and tiny they are.

Now I will not pretend that, that is amazing but it is a lot more than you said (AKA Neil was wrong)

as votes for your parliament, I was not.

Tiny support, leading to tiny candidature, leading to tiny votes. If this changes in the future that's a good thing, but don't pretend Scotland's politics has different outcomes to the ones that have happened.

Anyway, I would have thought you would have welcomed a rise in green party membership, or do you abandon all principle in defence of the union?

Yes, all no-ers are tories. They all went to Eton. And they're all English.

Ooh, he didn't let the Telegraph in! what an outrage!! Glad to see you standing up for the Telegraph - or what do you usually call them ? the Torygraph. Frankly I wouldn't waste one keystroke standing up for them ... but you seem to think it is worth it!

It wasn't only the telegraph, there were two other media orgs banned too. While other media organisations weren't banned, the reporters those sent had to be 'approved' to be allowed admission (so other specific journos were banned).

Restricting the rights of the free press to freely report things as they see it is what?

It's Putin-esque. It's Kim Il Jung. Etc, etc, etc.

If you don't see this as indicative of anything then I suggest you take off that blindfold.

Remember, this was a statement to your nation as it's leader he was making, it wasn't some pointless policy briefing. He was settling political scores at the expense of the nation.

Edited September 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

tell me more, Neil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula#How_the_formula_works

[eFestivals]

Edited September 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Not much time this morning.

The greens got 4.4% as the table I posted shows.

I shall not be voting Labour next year. It will not be my fault if that leads to a Tory victory. It will be the fault of those who vote Tory.

[eFestivals]

Three things have really disappointed me in this thread

1: The "unionists" (I understand that is an approximate description!) have consistently chosen to attach more value to reports from the ( predominantly) right wing & (undoubtedly) pro union press over what those few of us actually living our lives here in Scotland have told you.

Yep, that's the yes-er's narrative - that anyone who disagreed with them was a tory.

The reality is - even amongst a huge number of Scots (I've seen their words myself) - is that plenty could have supported indy (or better-supported, even if they ultimately did decide to vote no) with some sort of credible indy plan and less patent bollocks.

The main body of yes-ers has yet to wake up to this, it's clear to see from online comments. Their own methods and campaign has been their own undoing.

For example: the latest yes-ers idea is that a declaration UDI is a distinct and real possibility if the SNP return over 50% of MPs in May - with quotes available in large yes-ers groupings that say "legal advisers of the SNP have said this can legally be done".

"The 45" will quickly be much smaller if this carries on. I refer you to Quebec, again.

You have repeatedly talked of Anti-English feeling when virtually none has existed.

That's simply not true.

Have you bothered to look at the 'rules' for "the 45", for example. Why do they need rules for things that don't happen?

Did those rules come in after incidents? After the mainstream press had flagged up those incidents - and more to the point, the lack of internal response to those incidents?

No one here is trying to pretend that such things are the major part of the yes campaign, but I'm certainly able to recognise that it's been a big enough part for the yes-ers response to often be very muted for the purposes of solidarity of yes support.

Even Alex during the campaign made the occasional slip, where he said "English" and not his more normal "Westminster", because even he can't keep to his own script.

Over recent weeks the main pro Indy posters have been myself & comfortablynumb. I will not presume to comment on my own views but comfy is clearly a thoroughly good guy who clearly would not deliberately mislead you and did not come to this discussion to prove any smart arsed debating points. Both of us tried to be polite & respectful - Comfy did way better than me on that front - although I did try. I'd really really like to know how repeatedly insulting the people you are holding a discussion with is in any way helpful? Incidentally, in my posts today, I made a deliberate decision to be a bit insulting.. just for fun but sadly, i feel I fell short of the high standards set by you guys PMSL ROFL FCUK YMCA

I'm very pleased that both of you have contributed and have continued to do so. I hope it continues.

But just as you've often found things said by BT to be laughable, the same happens from the other side. It helps if you recognise that.

I've been particularly impressed by comfy (this isn't meant as a pop at you, btw, LJS). He stated very openly that he was working from no facts but just what he thought on the basis of nothing much - and i kept putting those words of his back at him, and he always took it on the chin.

2: I have spent an inordinate amount of time correcting misquotes of what i have said - this is a really infantile & pathetic debating technique. Neil is particularly guilty of this - a word of advice,Neil try & avoid the phrase "so what you are saying is..." especially when what follows bears no relation to what the person has said.

I'm sorry if it's come across to you in that way. It's not once been a deliberate intention to mis-represent what you're getting at. There's often deeper issues behind words that are said, and i'm merely trying to get at the heart of things.

One of my major flaws is to go straight for that heart, which sometimes (often?) leaves others wondering how i got there - but there's always a logical pathway, and I'm working from the idea that you're on that path as a result of your own words.

While I'm guilty of making those assumptions, (in those instances) your words certainly do leave the scope for those assumptions to be made.

If my assumptions are wrong, tell me that they are and why they are, and then everything is clear.

3: personal insult: WTF is that about? we are adults having an adult discussion. I have been accused of proxy racism. i have been compared with Ukip & the Nazis, Countless times, I have been accused of being an idiot. How the fuck is that any way helpful?

I've not seen *you* compared with UKIP, the nazis or anything else like that. Care to point me at it?

I have seen ideas of both sides compared with UKIP in this thread, and perhaps yes with Nazis too (tho I'm struggling to remember any examples). Nationalists both great and small all use a very particular methodology and narrative - that is the same thru all of UKIP, the SNP and the Nazis. This has long been recognised.

I put "Putin-esque" and more in a post made earlier. Banning unliked media as Salmond did the other day (for a National statement, not a party one!) is just the sort of thing which Putin does but Downing Street does not. Forget that at your peril in a future indy Scotland.

[eFestivals]

Not much time this morning.

The greens got 4.4% as the table I posted shows.

they got 1.55% of the national vote, as the wikipedia link I gave shows.

I shall not be voting Labour next year. It will not be my fault if that leads to a Tory victory. It will be the fault of those who vote Tory.

While you're perfectly free to make your own choices and suffer the consequences of your choices as a result of those choices, there will be consequences you dislike if there's a tory govt, and the reality is that different choices could have lessened those bad consequences. So ultimately, you're voting to create bad consequences.

That puts you into Salmond-land, where he acts against the wishes of Scotland to create the divisions to help bring about what Scotland doesn't want, so he can then say it's what they do want.

Is that democracy in action, even within our fucked up system? Or are their more intelligent ways to bring about the people's will?

[LJS]

they got 1.55% of the national vote, as the wikipedia link I gave shows.

Your link shows 4.38 %

[eFestivals]

Your link shows 4.38 %

My apologies - I mis-read the seats percentage as the votes percentage.

Just so I better understood that right percentage you're quoting, I've gone and read-up on the AMS system you use in Scotland, and from that - as much to make my life easy as anything else (it would be too convoluted a discussion) - i'll happily accept* that 4.38% as meaningful for its support levels at that time.

(* tho perhaps alongside that you'll accept that it's probably something lesser in real terms, because of how AMS works).

Anyway, from that read, I've discovered Decoy Lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_Member_System) which I suspect might be coming to Scotland just as soon as the potential (ab)use is cottoned on to.

Back to the Greens .... I take back my comment about lower support in Scotland than rUK; it's higher in Scotland.

As I'm sure you're aware, one very likely reason for that is the use of a proportional system - which is why I think Scotland would be making a big mistake to just take new powers, rather than demand a PR system for Westminster. Without PR at Westminster the core problem remains, and so the yes campaign said it's Westminster that's the problem.

Why identify the problem, and then ask nothing for a solution to fix it? Running away with just new powers doesn't have you run very far, because you're still on Westminster's leash.

Unless the Scottish people really want the new powers to fail?

Edited September 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

It's a UK election to return a UK govt. That is decided by all parts of the UK on an even and equal basis. If Scotland wishes to contribute to a tory victory by its voting choices, then Scotland has contributed to that tory victory. To pretend otherwise would be moronic.

Oh dear. So should the people of Scotland continue to vote for the SNP Govt, a Govt widely accepted as making a good fist of things up here then your take on that would be that we are only doing so to contribute to a Tory victory ?

What a bizarre and disrespectful thing to say ? I remember you saying how Dave couldn`t win the next GE and I questioned your judgement at the time saying something like....in the scrap of a campaign Dave would out shine Milliband with ease - quite literally. 7am on the day after we voted to return and fall back into line with Team UK......still makes me sad typing that - Dave was out smarting him - which wouldn`t be hard. Even up here, Ed had to get Brown to come and bail him out ! Time will tell I suppose but I think Milliband and Balls couldn`t win a raffle.

I see today that the SNP is now the UK`s 3rd biggest party. I doubt you will ever be able to bring yourself to recognise the fact that the majority of working age folks in Scotland do not wish to be part of the Westminster establishment anymore. Some would say the dream shall never die

[Comfy Bean]

Just reading about Tesco being investigated by the serious fraud office ! Surely some mistake. Every word they say should be treated as gospel ? A bit like those up standing banking types. Next thing we know the BBC will be reporting that the oil is not in fact down to the last few buckets........

I`m sure Sir Ian will be along shortly to keep them right !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29342142

[Comfy Bean]

Think we had the link to the live debt bomb on here a few times. Best of both worlds is what we voted to come back to ! Here`s another opinion. Lots of other opinions are, as we know, available.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/george-kerevan-uk-economy-is-a-ticking-time-bomb-1-3550780

[Comfy Bean]

Not much time this morning.

The greens got 4.4% as the table I posted shows.

I shall not be voting Labour next year. It will not be my fault if that leads to a Tory victory. It will be the fault of those who vote Tory.

I`m as sure as I can be that the performances and effort put in by Patrick Harvie up and down the country during the last 2 years will be rewarded when we get the chance to give the Green`s a bigger say.

[LJS]

Just a brief comment as this thread is in its death throes

I couldn't resist this as a perfect example of Neil's debating technique

LJS, on 23 Sept 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Three things have really disappointed me in this thread

1: The "unionists" (I understand that is an approximate description!) have consistently chosen to attach more value to reports from the ( predominantly) right wing & (undoubtedly) pro union press over what those few of us actually living our lives here in Scotland have told you.

your reply..."Yep, that's the yes-er's narrative - that anyone who disagreed with them was a tory. ;)"

Now absolutely nothing in what I said suggests anyone is a Tory. But then its much easier to answer the allegation (which I didn''t make) of being a Tory, than it is to address the actual point I was making.

the real irony is that in the same post as the quote above I said

" I have spent an inordinate amount of time correcting misquotes of what i have said - this is a really infantile & pathetic debating technique. Neil is particularly guilty of this - a word of advice,Neil try & avoid the phrase "so what you are saying is..." especially when what follows bears no relation to what the person has said. "

And you kindly supplied with me a perfect illustration of the point I was making.

Your justification for this is ...

" It's not once been a deliberate intention to mis-represent what you're getting at. There's often deeper issues behind words that are said, and i'm merely trying to get at the heart of things.

One of my major flaws is to go straight for that heart, which sometimes (often?) leaves others wondering how i got there - but there's always a logical pathway, and I'm working from the idea that you're on that path as a result of your own words.

While I'm guilty of making those assumptions, (in those instances) your words certainly do leave the scope for those assumptions to be made.

If my assumptions are wrong, tell me that they are and why they are, and then everything is clear."

I love the "one of my major flaws is to go straight for that heart." No, Neil, one of your major flaws is that you deliberately & consistently misrepresent what people say in an attempt to score cheap debating points. It really is tiresome. I suggest you have a look at the exchanges between myself & Kaos a few days ago which were civilised & respectful whilst still being able to challenge the other's point of view.

I know you and Barry have your little Punch & Judy game you like to play which is quite fun, but that is an in-joke. not all of us are in on it!!

Edited September 24, 2014 by LJS