The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I`m sure we have covered this already but due to the good work done by Salmond and his party over the years Scotland will send few, if any, Tory MP`s into the Westminster pot. How`s that working out round your way ? To be clear I`m not blaming any of you guys for a tory govt ( well apart from the Gary fella ) but it is a bit perverse for you to keep banging on that a Tory Government getting shit loads of votes from the middle englanders is in some way our fault.

And LJS says I've got a twisted way of arguing?

I've said that if Scotland causes Labour to not be the biggest party, Scotland will have chosen a tory govt for itself - cos there's two only options for the winner, and if you're not supporting one you're enabling the other.

That's something different to voting tory. As I keep pointing out, this is a UK election; Scotland does not have a vote or even a role, and the result onto Scotland is a result Scotland can infliuence no less than anywhere else.

The rationale for the indyref was Scotland not getting the govt it votes for. Voting SNP is punching yourself in the face to prove that point always true; if you voted Labour, you'd no longer be able to make the claim you need to have to justify indy.

Strawman! Hello Wurzel.

Yeah, it's OK you know, the rest of the UK has got it already. Scotland is responsible for nothing Scotland does. Even when it votes no it meant yes.

(SNP-ers and UKIP's new Polish chum should get on very well ).

Edited November 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

the one who is prepared to contribute to govt for the good of all UK citizens, and not just his own direct agenda.

The one who wants a tory govt less than the other.

Are you referring to Danny Alexander here ? Seriously ?

[eFestivals]

The campaign was anything but about all the "riches" we would have. It's just convenient for you to portray it that way as that is easier to counter than the many other pro Indy points.

And yet, and yet ... in that official campaign document of the white paper, there were hundreds of pages of the hopes for a new iScotland (all of which cost extra money), and just three pages of economics for how it would all be paid for - and where those economics continued with the 'hopes' theme.

Some of us spotted the disconnect; others did not.

Until it's played straight, it can be called out for what it is: a lie.

[eFestivals]

Are you referring to Danny Alexander here ? Seriously ?

I am, yes. He's already proven how much he's prepared to compromise.

Salmond won't even ask Westminster a question, because he refuses to concede that Westminster rules over him.

I'm not trying to suggest that I agree with the compromises that Danny Alexander was prepared to make, but he's able to recognise what the system we have is and how it works - for all of the UK, and not just for his own agenda.

Every act that Salmond makes will be only for the purpose of driving a bigger wedge between the UK and Scotland, for his own empowerment - not for the good of Scotland.

[LJS]

And yet, and yet ... in that official campaign document of the white paper, there were hundreds of pages of the hopes for a new iScotland (all of which cost extra money), and just three pages of economics for how it would all be paid for - and where those economics continued with the 'hopes' theme.

Some of us spotted the disconnect; others did not.

Until it's played straight, it can be called out for what it is: a lie.

And how many people do you think read the white paper?

The white paper formed a very small part of the campaign.

[Comfy Bean]

And LJS says I've got a twisted way of arguing?

I've said that if Scotland causes Labour to not be the biggest party, Scotland will have chosen a tory govt for itself - cos there's two only options for the winner, and if you're not supporting one you're enabling the other.

That's something different to voting tory. As I keep pointing out, this is a UK election; Scotland does not have a vote or even a role, and the result onto Scotland is a result Scotland can infliuence no less than anywhere else.

The rationale for the indyref was scpotland not getting the govt it votes for. Voting SNP is punching yourself in the face to prove that point always true; if you voted labour, you'df no longer be able to make the claim you need to have to justify indy.

Strawman! Hello Wurzel.

Yeah, it's OK you know, the rest of the UK has got it already. Scotland is responsible for nothing Scotland does. Even when it votes no it meant yes.

(SNP-ers and UKIP's new Polish chum should get on very well ).

I was talking about the fact that I ( sadly ) believe that the Tories will gain a majority in England. Even without your crystal ball, I am happy to predict that this will not be repeated in Scotland or in many other areas of the UK for that matter. To blame Scotland or any other parts of the UK who don`t vote for the tories seems a bit bonkers. Extreme as this may seem to you, I`m " blaming " the people who choose to vote Tory for the fact that we have a Tory Govt. I think your over complicating things

Since you mentioned UKIP. They won`t get a lot of votes up here either. Who`s faults that ?

[LJS]

I am, yes. He's already proven how much he's prepared to compromise.

Salmond won't even ask Westminster a question, because he refuses to concede that Westminster rules over him.

I'm not trying to suggest that I agree with the compromises that Danny Alexander was prepared to make, but he's able to recognise what the system we have is and how it works - for all of the UK, and not just for his own agenda.

Every act that Salmond makes will be only for the purpose of driving a bigger wedge between the UK and Scotland, for his own empowerment - not for the good of Scotland.

"Salmond won't even ask Westminster a question"

sorry what you on about here?

[eFestivals]

And how many people do you think read the white paper?

The white paper formed a very small part of the campaign.

But you said you had all these grass roots meeting where you discussed important things.

It didn't need people to read it, it needed WoS and the like to spread a selective version of it, which it did very well.

And so you had Alex saying in the white paper that all of the Trident money would be swallowed up by iScottish defence forces, and the you had WoS and its brainwashed thinking up a million different things the glorious iScotland would send the Trident money on.

For example.

It was all about the extra money even when the extra money clearly didn't exist! You lot didn't even listen to your own campaign.

[kaosmark2]

Lets just say there is no Option C.

You`ve got the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of the current Tory led Coalition who`s party have been in bed with the Tories throughout this govt ( and will shortly suffer at the polls for it ) against a guy held in high regard throughout the land.

Who do you think would bring the most to Westminster next year ? Serious question ( apart from the high regard bit ).

I'd probably edge towards Alexander on the grounds that Salmond is a self-serving manipulative power-hungry liar who's got in bed with Murdoch, while Alexander is a self-serving power-hungry liar who's got in bed with Cameron.

[kaosmark2]

The campaign was anything but about all the "riches" we would have. It's just convenient for you to portray it that way as that is easier to counter than the many other pro Indy points.

Incidentally, I am not claiming that the claim Scotland would gain financially played no part in the Yes campaign. You may recall that I was not a spokesman for the yes campaign & was quite prepared to criticize aspects of its tactics

Salmond's campaign was. The grass roots may have been different, but Salmond's campaign had a big emphasis on personal wealth.

[kaosmark2]

Since you mentioned UKIP. They won`t get a lot of votes up here either. Who`s faults that ?

The existence of another separatist party to split the right-wing isolationist vote.

[eFestivals]

"Salmond won't even ask Westminster a question"

sorry what you on about here?

He wouldn't ask Westminster to ask the EU what the EU's position would be towards an iScotland - the only "official" way of getting an answer from the EU.

He wouldn't ask Westminster if Holyrood had the devolved power to negate the 'bedroom tax', and by refusing to ask, imposed it on people in the meantime.

Two easy examples - where he was happy to take the piss out of the people of Scotland for his own political purposes.

[eFestivals]

Salmond's campaign was. The grass roots may have been different, but Salmond's campaign had a big emphasis on personal wealth.

It's a wonderful thing how 'the grass roots' can disown the official campaign, as I'm sure LJS will do in reply.

It reminds me of how Christians always say about a Christian caught in a criminal/immoral act "well he wasn't a real Christian".

But now I'm wondering what the grass roots meetings consisted of, if they paid no attention to the white paper? Was someone standing up and saying "iScotland can bring about world peace" to a room stood cheering and whoooping?

[LJS]

It's a wonderful thing how 'the grass roots' can disown the official campaign, as I'm sure LJS will do in reply.

It reminds me of how Christians always say about a Christian caught in a criminal/immoral act "well he wasn't a real Christian".

But now I'm wondering what the grass roots meetings consisted of, if they paid no attention to the white paper? Was someone standing up and saying "iScotland can bring about world peace" to a room stood cheering and whoooping?

Oh, they were just like mini Nuremberg rallies.

[eFestivals]

Oh, they were just like mini Nuremberg rallies.

- I wasn't quite meaning that.

I'd always thought they were all things to all comers, and that only ever seems to get confirmed.

That's what I meaning with the 'world peace' thing, wonderful grand statements about a wonderful future, but without consensus of how you might get there without falling into all of the same errors as everyone else makes.

But of course you had Scottish exceptionalism, so perhaps it was a little like Nuremberg after all.

[kaosmark2]

It's a wonderful thing how 'the grass roots' can disown the official campaign, as I'm sure LJS will do in reply.

It reminds me of how Christians always say about a Christian caught in a criminal/immoral act "well he wasn't a real Christian".

But now I'm wondering what the grass roots meetings consisted of, if they paid no attention to the white paper? Was someone standing up and saying "iScotland can bring about world peace" to a room stood cheering and whoooping?

The thing is, whatever went on at grassroots level, the person who would have been in charge of negotiating the terms and process of independence is Salmond.

[eFestivals]

The thing is, whatever went on at grassroots level, the person who would have been in charge of negotiating the terms and process of independence is Salmond.

Absolutely right. And everything of that would have been done before the people of iScotland got any further say, so their future would have been set via that.

Then again, Salmond didn't need to try and convince the already-enthusiastic. He could rely on their votes no matter what he said or did, so Salmond's efforts went on trying to win round middle-Scotland (a rather familiar pattern, there ).

Amusingly tho, the long established tartan tories rejected the SNP at a greater rate than trad Labour voters rejected Labour.

[LJS]

He wouldn't ask Westminster to ask the EU what the EU's position would be towards an iScotland - the only "official" way of getting an answer from the EU.

He wouldn't ask Westminster if Holyrood had the devolved power to negate the 'bedroom tax', and by refusing to ask, imposed it on people in the meantime.

Two easy examples - where he was happy to take the piss out of the people of Scotland for his own political purposes.

oh right, that'll be how the bedroom tax got sorted in Scotland then!

& of course Westminster did not need Salmond's permission to ask the EU - so if the UK was so certain of its position, why did it not ask the question?

[LJS]

The thing is, whatever went on at grassroots level, the person who would have been in charge of negotiating the terms and process of independence is Salmond.

Absolutely right. And everything of that would have been done before the people of iScotland got any further say, so their future would have been set via that.

Then again, Salmond didn't need to try and convince the already-enthusiastic. He could rely on their votes no matter what he said or did, so Salmond's efforts went on trying to win round middle-Scotland (a rather familiar pattern, there ).

Amusingly tho, the long established tartan tories rejected the SNP at a greater rate than trad Labour voters rejected Labour.

Although we live in a democracy, it is an imperfect democracy. So when I vote at a general election I have a realistic choice of 2 flavours of shite that have a chance of forming a government, & neither of which are particularly close to representing my views. i usually have at least one alternative which more closely reflect my views but has no chance of being elected.

Equally, in the Indyref - its not as if those of us who believed in Independence had an alternative. Vote no to Alec's indy & you can vote again next year. If you believed in Indy this was your chance.

Of course Alec is not the Pantomime villain you guys all make him out to be, but I won't bother going over that ground again - as it is very very well trodden. My point is Alec's Indy was the only one on offer - quite why anyone who believes in indy for the next hundred years or more would vote no because they don't like the man in charge at the start is beyond me, especially when they can sack him very shortly after the good ship Indy sets sail...

Please bear in mind when attacking eck that we all live in a country whose last 5 premiers have been Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron.

Are you really telling me Salmond is worst than that bunch?

[LJS]

- I wasn't quite meaning that.

I'd always thought they were all things to all comers, and that only ever seems to get confirmed.

That's what I meaning with the 'world peace' thing, wonderful grand statements about a wonderful future, but without consensus of how you might get there without falling into all of the same errors as everyone else makes.

But of course you had Scottish exceptionalism, so perhaps it was a little like Nuremberg after all.

Please desist with your Scottish exceptionalism nonsense - no one on this forum has ever espoused such a notion.

if you can remove your cynic's helmet for a moment, perhaps you could find time to celebrate the level of popular involvement in the political process.

[MichaelsBeard]

Although we live in a democracy, it is an imperfect democracy. So when I vote at a general election I have a realistic choice of 2 flavours of shite that have a chance of forming a government, & neither of which are particularly close to representing my views. i usually have at least one alternative which more closely reflect my views but has no chance of being elected.

Equally, in the Indyref - its not as if those of us who believed in Independence had an alternative. Vote no to Alec's indy & you can vote again next year. If you believed in Indy this was your chance.

Of course Alec is not the Pantomime villain you guys all make him out to be, but I won't bother going over that ground again - as it is very very well trodden. My point is Alec's Indy was the only one on offer - quite why anyone who believes in indy for the next hundred years or more would vote no because they don't like the man in charge at the start is beyond me, especially when they can sack him very shortly after the good ship Indy sets sail...

Please bear in mind when attacking eck that we all live in a country whose last 5 premiers have been Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron.

Are you really telling me Salmond is worst than that bunch?

Very much disagree with that. I voted no. Not because of a dislike of Salmond but because the plan he put forward, as proposed in the white paper - the doctorine we were being asked to put absolute, 'no turning back' faith in, didn't hold up to any scrutiny or even the most rudimentary arithmetic.

I 'believed' in Independence and I'm sure in theory the large majority of Scots do but to me and others it wasn't about courage, it's was about a plan - a viable one. And with all the questions and dubious claims the plan raised I couldn't possibly vote for independence on those terms.

I'm relieved the electorate had the foresight to see thru all the bullshit and I have no doubt at all that's why Scotland voted No.

Edited November 11, 2014 by MichaelsBeard

[MichaelsBeard]

.

Edited November 11, 2014 by MichaelsBeard

[eFestivals]

oh right, that'll be how the bedroom tax got sorted in Scotland then!

After Labour did the asking for Alex? Yep, that'll be when it got sorted.

It's the yes-ers who go on about how Labour had 'delayed' a Scottish reversal of the bedroom tax, but they always forget the bit where nothing happened by the hand of Alex until Labour had clarified the powers available to Holyrood.

& of course Westminster did not need Salmond's permission to ask the EU - so if the UK was so certain of its position, why did it not ask the question?

The UK had no reason to ask, it was not the UK's business.

Alex had reason to know, for YOUR benefit. He was making big claims, that it would have been sensible to know if they were true or not.

But instead he preferred to bullshit the people of Scotland with an invented position which did not match the text of the EU treaties, and kept his fingers crossed.

Tho he didn't need to keep his fingers crossed - not a soul on the yes side challenged anything of his claims. He was beyond critical comment, which says more about the sheep than the shepherd.

Edited November 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Please desist with your Scottish exceptionalism nonsense - no one on this forum has ever espoused such a notion.

But the yes campaign did. Didn't you notice?

Like it or not it was an important part of the indy campaign, because the claim was that iScotland would ride a wave of success that other countries do not - because those other countries are normal countries having normal successes.

if you can remove your cynic's helmet for a moment, perhaps you could find time to celebrate the level of popular involvement in the political process.

There's popular involvement in the idea of world peace too. It's hard to find anyone that's against it.

An aspiration doesn't not come to fruition merely because people want it. I know that's a bleedin' obvious thing to say, but it appears to be something you've missed.

[eFestivals]

Of course Alec is not the Pantomime villain you guys all make him out to be

PMSL.

And neither is he a beacon of truth and honesty.

He's a politician, manipulating the truth - bullshitting - to try and get people on side with his dream, where the goal is far more important than any damage that might happen as a consequences.

This is the point. Some people pointed out the damage that would come with Alex's dream fulfilment, whilst others held on to a hope that a 'left leaning' iScotland would do even more for the the middle-Scotlanders at the expense of the poorest, exactly as Alex had been doing.

, but I won't bother going over that ground again - as it is very very well trodden. My point is Alec's Indy was the only one on offer - quite why anyone who believes in indy for the next hundred years or more would vote no because they don't like the man in charge at the start is beyond me, especially when they can sack him very shortly after the good ship Indy sets sail...

Please bear in mind when attacking eck that we all live in a country whose last 5 premiers have been Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron.

Are you really telling me Salmond is worst than that bunch?

Yes.

You're complaining about the 10% cuts being driven thru by the tories.

Would you have smiled and cheered as A Good Thing another 10% of cuts at the hands of indy Alex? Because that's what you'd have got.

Those cuts were worth it to him. The only 'benefit' for Scotland Salmond was interested in was him ruling over you.