The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

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.

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.

Drifted beautifully from fact to opinion there, Neil you could hardly see the join.

[eFestivals]

Drifted beautifully from fact to opinion there, Neil you could hardly see the join.

It's a fact that he presented a false economic scenario, made a certain fact by the change in oil prices.

It's also a fact that Alex has granted extra privileges to the middle classes at the expense of the poor.

And if you know of a way that iScotland can stack up $50Bn+ worth of extra costs for free, Alex would love to hear from you because you'll win him his dream better than he's able to do.

But hey, anything critical is bias or opinion, only yes-ers have the facts, right?

[eFestivals]

So, LJS, you want facts and not opinions, so please indulge me and actually engage for once. Deal?

Let's keep to one simple thing: the draft constitution ("DIC") that Alex wrote (that he'd promised he'd never write, and which him writing broke commonly held modern democratic standards).

The DIC started with the grand words "In Scotland the people are sovereign". But what does that mean?

Question one: does that mean anything greater or different to a statement that anyone might make about the UK, that "in the UK the people are sovereign"?

If the DIC statement means something different, please give some facts for how and why.

[kaosmark2]

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?

It's not about the man in charge at the start, it's the man who negotiates what "independence" means. There's a big difference.

I believe in electoral reform. If we had a vote saying, "Do you want electoral reform?" I would vote yes. If we had a vote saying "Do you want PR/AV/STV/AV+/AMS?" I would vote yes. If we had a vote saying "Do you want Nick Clegg to determine the voting and electoral system for a time period of his choosing?" I would vote no. He might well choose a system I support, but I would not trust him with determining it, with negotiating the transfer, with defining the conditions.

Similarly, while I don't support Scottish independence as a matter of principle, I do sympathise with those who do, but feel Salmond's proposals shouldn't have been supported.

Another comparison, the EU. I do actually believe that the structure of the European parliament, Britain's role in it and the internal system should be reviewed and changed. If there was a vote under a tory government "Do you want Britain to renegotiate its terms of membership of the EU" I would vote no. Not because I don't believe in the goal, or the idea, but because I wouldn't trust Cameron to negotiate said terms, and in fact believe that he would make the situation worse.

[LJS]

So, LJS, you want facts and not opinions, so please indulge me and actually engage for once. Deal?

Let's keep to one simple thing: the draft constitution ("DIC") that Alex wrote (that he'd promised he'd never write, and which him writing broke commonly held modern democratic standards).

The DIC started with the grand words "In Scotland the people are sovereign". But what does that mean?

Question one: does that mean anything greater or different to a statement that anyone might make about the UK, that "in the UK the people are sovereign"?

If the DIC statement means something different, please give some facts for how and why.

Neil, we chewed over alec's dic at some length.

I know what you think. You know what I think.

It all boils down to the interpretation of the words draft & interim.

Unlike you, I have moved on.

Despite your constant insinuations to the contrary, you are well aware that I do not worship the ground on which the blessed salmond treads. He is a mere politician & has many of the faults of politicians. I happen to believe he is no worse than most other politicians. You appear to believe he is uniquely evil.

[eFestivals]

Neil, we chewed over alec's dic at some length.

Nope, we didn't. I said what I thought, and you told me i was wrong.

What you didn't ever do is say why you thought I was wrong, and how i was wrong.

So indulge me, don't run away from it (it doesn't matter now anyway), and address the questions.

If everything about you is as straight as you like to suggest, there's nothing here for you to lose, and me to prove a moron. What's not to like?

It all boils down to the interpretation of the words draft & interim.

A constitution that requires interpretation is not worth the paper it's written on. It's a legally binding document.

But here I am asking for your interpretation. What does "In Scotland the people are sovereign" mean in real practical terms - and specially against a similar claim for the UK.

What i'm wanting to know is: what difference does that claim create for iScotland that does not exist within the UK?

It's a simple question, that you have an answer for, surely? You hailed it on release day as a good thing.

So how is it a good thing? What extra does it bring to iScotloand?

Unlike you, I have moved on.

Well, no, you haven't. You still intend to vote separatist, with everything that implies.

So a constitution is what you're wanting, and your previous comments have said that sovereignty claim is a great thing.

But why is it? What extra does it bring to iScotland that's more than the UK has?

[kaosmark2]

Despite your constant insinuations to the contrary, you are well aware that I do not worship the ground on which the blessed salmond treads. He is a mere politician & has many of the faults of politicians. I happen to believe he is no worse than most other politicians. You appear to believe he is uniquely evil.

I think part of it is a subconsciously exaggerated reaction to those who do worship him. He received praise for quite an extended period, and when you're trying to make people aware of very real faults, and doing it constantly, those faults dominate in your mind more than usual.

I think he is, in one specific way, worse than most other politicians, namely that a significant number of people seem blind to his faults. It's like how many people seem to like Boris. I mean, in terms of raw malevolence and disdain towards the general public neither of them come close to Gove and Gideon, but popular politicians scare me.

[eFestivals]

I think part of it is a subconsciously exaggerated reaction to those who do worship him.

From me, it's not. It is a deliberately exaggerated reaction to those who will not hold him to account.

If LJS is as open to criticism of the indy plans as he suggests, then he should have no problem examining them properly to see if there's something within them to be exposed.

The fact that he avoids a debate of the substance says what...?

[kaosmark2]

From me, it's not. It is a deliberately exaggerated reaction to those who will not hold him to account.

If LJS is as open to criticism of the indy plans as he suggests, then he should have no problem examining them properly to see if there's something within them to be exposed.

The fact that he avoids a debate of the substance says what...?

OK yeah, sorry, didn't mean to come across as if I was speaking for you, I meant the wave of criticism in general.

I mentioned it soon before the referendum, but LJS seemed a lot more open earlier in the debate, with his view becoming more concrete pro-indy over time.

I just dislike the idea that people might well have made an irreversible key decision based on misinformation and deception, which is where my own distaste for Salmond comes from.

[LJS]

On the subject of Alec's DIC, here is what I said in June.

I feel no need to return to this ground again

There has been a (predictable) barrage of criticism of the proposed interim constitution from the likes of Brian Wilson & John McTiernan.

All of which seems to ignore the inconvenient fact that iSco will continue to be a democracy with an electoral system which makes any party winning an overall majority unlikely (the last election took place at a time which was particularly unfavourable for Labour & the LibDems the 2 significant rivals to the SNP)

So unless we are being asked to believe that the Great Alex will abolish elections & declare himself Supreme Lifetime Leader of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Salmondonia, he will not be able to get away with the alleged abuses & general dodginess of the PropInterCon. I hardly think that the voters of Scotland having shown unprecedented interest in the referendum campaign will suddenly lose all interest as soon as the vote is won.

Its just another example of politicians' default position of rubbishing whatever their opponents say.

My trip back to June also reminded me of Neil making claims that the DIC would result in disenfranchisement for a number of people. Interestingly, despite consistent challenges, he was unable to quote anything from the DIC to back up his claims.

[eFestivals]

On the subject of Alec's DIC, here is what I said in June.

all very good, and a very good way of avoiding the simple question I asked.

There's a reason why you duck the questions, and it's not because you're being straighforwards.

I feel no need to return to this ground again

you've yet to stand on that ground.

But bullshit instead of addressing the simple? You are Alex Salmond and i claim my three pounds fifty eight pence (it was five pounds, but the oil price has dropped ).

My trip back to June also reminded me of Neil making claims that the DIC would result in disenfranchisement for a number of people. Interestingly, despite consistent challenges, he was unable to quote anything from the DIC to back up his claims.

The DIC stated that (only) iScottish nationals would have the 'national' vote in an iScotland.

In the indyref, EU nationals got a vote.

I've told you this before which proves that disenfranchisement, but you just go pretending it's all new to you.

----

But anyway, to keep to the question asked: how are the people in iScotland more sovereign than the people of the UK?

Or was that line only empty, worthless, marketing guff?

Edited November 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The DIC stated that (only) iScottish nationals would have the 'national' vote in an iScotland.

In the indyref, EU nationals got a vote.

I've told you this before which proves that disenfranchisement, but you just go pretending it's all new to you.

You've stated it before but when challenged you were unable to quote from the DIC to back up your claim.

But I'm sure you'll be glad to correct that omission now.

[eFestivals]

You've stated it before but when challenged you were unable to quote from the DIC to back up your claim.

But I'm sure you'll be glad to correct that omission now.

My question was first.

You address my question and discussion around it, and then i'll address yours (again ).

Deal?

[LJS]

My question was first.

You address my question and discussion around it, and then i'll address yours (again ).

Deal?

I'll do even better - I'll answer both our questions - sort of best of both worlds!

I take it the question you want answered is :

"But here I am asking for your interpretation. What does "In Scotland the people are sovereign" mean in real practical terms - and specially against a similar claim for the UK.

What i'm wanting to know is: what difference does that claim create for iScotland that does not exist within the UK?

The answer is that the phrase is pretty meaningless but probably necessary. You can argue that the people are sovereign because they elect the government. Technically in the UK the queen is sovereign I believe but in practice power lies in the hands of the people once every 5 years. Now of course lots of other individuals & organisations wield loads of power in many different ways & it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the people are only a bit sovereign.

I haven't read a lot of constitutions but I am led to believe that some of the most repressive states have had wonderful constitutions. I think in practice a constitution is something you kind of have to have but once its there, you just carry on with business as usual.

As for my question to you: the DIC defines Scottish citizenship but as far as I can see says nothing about who gets to vote.

However at the same time as they published the DIC they also published some proposals for a new Scotland Act from which I quote:

In line with the Government’s policy of extending the franchise in all elections to those

aged over 16, as in the referendum, the current Scottish Parliament

franchise will continue except that it will be extended to include 16 and

17 year olds.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf

This would appear to indicate that no one was going to be disenfranchised.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Edited November 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I don't get where you get "necessary" from. The UK has no such formal statement, and has (*as good as, for this discussion) identical sovereignty.

(* the UK actually has greater sovereignty held by 'the people', because of greater [tho only just] checks and balances against the power of the executive than would have been the case within iScotland).

Meaningless is where you got it nailed. Marketing guff designed to fool the stupid, and not anything of any meaningful substance.

So why is Salmond trying to sell iScotland via meaningless guff, unless he's trying to hook in the stupid by mis-leading them?

I agree, it's something that necessary.

But grand empty statements are not. Exactly how 'the people' might exercise their sovereignty is detailed further within the DIC, and that grand statement adds nothing to any of it.

It's to be noted that within the DIC, it's categorically stipulated that all power is retained by politicians on behalf of the people - with no over-ride to the decision of politicians by the people.

It pretends that iScotland is giving more to it's people than they have within the UK, when no such thing is happening.

It's empty bullshit.

It does 'appear' so, yep.

But it also says that all existing (Westminster) legislation remains in force apart from where specific amendments are required to legally establish iScotland (and each of these are explicitly detailed within the DIC) - and where part of that existing legislation is what 'privileges' are held by citizens.

The main 'privilege' of UK citizenship is the right to vote for the national parliament (from which EU nationals, etc, are excluded).

The DIC more-strongly suggests that outcome than it does the granting of national votes to non-nationals. The current Scottish Parliament franchise (talked about in what you quote) specifically excludes non-nationals from national votes.

The DIC talks about how citizenship is defined, but makes no mention of what privileges - some or none - come with it. The only reasonable assumption within how the whole document is laid out (where specific legal changes are properly detailed) is that 'Westminster rules' apply.

-------

Ask yourself: do you think the citizens of any country are happy for any Tom, Dick or Harry to decide or influence their country's direction? Or might that be the specific job of just citizens?

Ask yourself: do you expect a citizen to have greater rights in a country than non-citizens?

If non-citizens have national votes in iScotland, how is a citizen differentiated from a non-citizen in real practical terms? What does one get that the other does not?

So cutting through all that verbiage, there is absolutely nothing in the DIC or anywhere else (except in your head) to suggest there were any plans to disenfranchise anyone.

Incidentally I do agree with you regarding checks & balances although the house of Lords is perhaps not the world's finest example. The problem at Holyrood is that no one ever thought any 1 party could win an overall majority - clearly running minority government involves its own checks & balances - incidentally this is not the SNP's fault - although you could argue they could have done something about it. But, living in the real world, when have politicians ever voted for less power for themselves?

& as regards "sov of the peeps"... how would that look in Neiladonia?

[eFestivals]

So cutting through all that verbiage, there is absolutely nothing in the DIC or anywhere else (except in your head) to suggest there were any plans to disenfranchise anyone.

Not true. It explicitly states that all 'Westminster' laws apply unless specifically stated otherwise that a new law will be put in place.

There is nothing specific about new rules for voting being put in place. So 'Westminster' laws apply.

I concede that the text is not clear - tho it's wise to take the view for something like this that if something is unclear, it's deliberately done that way.

After all, it would be shooting himself in the arse if Alex had said to EU nationals "vote for an indy Scotland, where you'll lose your power to vote". That was never going to be explicitly said if that's what was meant, was it?

Incidentally I do agree with you regarding checks & balances although the house of Lords is perhaps not the world's finest example.

you certainly won't have me arguing with that - tho I'm pleased to see that you're able to recognise it's still a check on the executive's power.

The problem at Holyrood is that no one ever thought any 1 party could win an overall majority - clearly running minority government involves its own checks & balances - incidentally this is not the SNP's fault - although you could argue they could have done something about it.

Holyrood was never meant as properly sovereign too - and so with Westminster above it, there's a restraint on it if/when necessary, as things stand.

The SNP could have 'announced' something for post-indy, yep - tho that's not something I'd have expected them to do to damage the power for themselves, or even for other reasons.

It tends to be the case that checks and balances come in for specific reasons, so it'll probably take a major failing in Holyrood processes for there to be the want of something better.

As far as it goes, the DIC is pretty reasonable in its aims in my eyes.

It's spoilt by the marketing tagline right at the start tho. It's designed for that to do the job for those who won't read further - which makes it's real purpose a con.

But, living in the real world, when have politicians ever voted for less power for themselves?

Precisely. The indyref was an attempt for Salmond to be voted more power for himself.

The true purpose was more power for himself, and not more power for Scotland. If that wasn't the case, he'd not have tried to bullshit the people of Scotland - cos the people do not gain power by being bullshitted.

& as regards "sov of the peeps"... how would that look in Neiladonia?

It would adhere to modern democratic standards, so would not be written by the executive to empower the executive - which is what Salmond initially said he'd adhere to.

Him writing his own powers is a big part of what offends me about it, alongside not a peep from Scotland about him doing so.

The other part that offends is that first line of empty bullshit, that is shown as meaningless by reading the whole thing.

But otherwise, it's in much the place where I'd expect it to be. It's interim, so designed for that purpose, and not a permanent purpose. That limits what anyone might attempt to do with it, because you wouldn't want to take it too far from what people are already used to, in the circumstances of an indyref.

Starting from a blank sheet of paper for an entirely new entity - such as the USA was able to do - I'd make far greater attempts to give 'the people' much more meaningful sovereignty over politicians, via rules of public disclosure, and regular referendums to specifically endorse laws that politicians pass, so that a vote into parliament isn't then a free-pass to pass any laws you fancy.

But for a DIC that's far more than is required, and for a continuing entity as Scotland would be, while I'd like such things as I detail above, it's probably the case that existing processes make that 'blank paper' approach difficult in practical terms - if for no other reason than it's a lot for people to get their heads around, because it's different to what they're used to.

Edited November 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Wonder if this will turn out to be " empty bullshit " ?.................

During the referendum campaign, the then Tory defence secretary Philip Hammond made it clear that a Yes vote would mean the ships would not be built in Scotland but a No vote meant the Clyde would get the contracts because the UK does not build complex warships abroad.

“The UK has not – except during the two world wars – ever placed orders for complex warships outside the UK, and I don’t anticipate that the UK would wish to do that in the future,” he said in November last year when Portsmouth was closed in favour of the Govan and Scotstoun yards on the Clyde.

He added: “I think there’s something there that people in Scotland need to think about very carefully.”

Then in August his successor Michael Fallon also confirmed the contracts were heading to the Clyde unless there was a Yes vote while announcing a £348 million contract for the Clyde.

He said: “UK warships are only built in UK shipyards.”

Mr Fallon went on: “This multi-million pound contract shows our commitment to investing in new ships for the Royal Navy and maintaining in the UK the expertise needed to build the warships of the future. It will benefit the dedicated workers of the Clyde, their families and the local economy in Glasgow.”

“This sort of investment by the UK Government is vital for the sustainment of shipbuilding in the city and the hundreds of specialist manufacturing and engineering roles that play an important role in providing war fighting capability for the Royal Navy.”

Edited November 12, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

Wonder if this will turn out to be " empty bullshit " ?.................

it was all true when the words were said - that the UK does not build warships abroad - and it appears to still be true, according to a story in today's Guardian (that I'd just seen the headline for before I read your post):-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/michael-fallon-royal-navy-frigate-clyde-scotland-shipyards-zambellas

Michael Fallon overrules Royal Navy head over Scotland’s shipyards

Defence secretary makes clear new frigate will be built on the Clyde after First Sea Lord suggests contract could go abroad

But of course, during the indyref, the truth was a biased lie being used to deny democracy.

[atomised]

http://www.sussex.police.uk/whats-happening/latest/news-stories/2014/11/13/no-offence-disclosed-in-lewes-bonfire-investigation

Meanwhile in Sussex common sense prevails

[Comfy Bean]

it was all true when the words were said - that the UK does not build warships abroad - and it appears to still be true, according to a story in today's Guardian (that I'd just seen the headline for before I read your post):-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/michael-fallon-royal-navy-frigate-clyde-scotland-shipyards-zambellas

But of course, during the indyref, the truth was a biased lie being used to deny democracy.

Neil, my point was that our Tory masters talk shite. I was not in any way blaming your good self so not sure why you feel the need to jump to their defence. As I said before, it`s been a good few weeks since your " team " won . The leader of scottish labour has walked along with her deputy and the Labour leader of better together. They were on side with the Tories as well but didn`t hang around to celebrate. They realised ( by 7am the morning after ) what they had done. I respect your reasons for picking the side you did. You knew who you were on board with. It`s done now and we will see what the immediate future holds. There is no need for you to still take things personally. My posts against the Tories are in no way aimed in your direction

[eFestivals]

Neil, my point was that our Tory masters talk shite.

so the yes-ers narrative goes, even when the all of the facts prove the "Tory masters" to be telling it straight.

You have to take the line that they talk shite, because there's people who voted 'no' on the basis of the facts that you won't accept. and you don't like that. It's so transparent, it's laughable.

You knew who you were on board with.

I did and I still do, and that was the Scottish people. You know, you.

You would have happily walked blindly into disaster. The blind bit you admit to, because you've said you didn't bother with facts and instead decided to believe what you intuitively thought were the facts. You didn't know what the fuck you were voting for or against.

At least LJS faced up to a little of the reality, by realising it wouldn't be all jam by paying some attention to the facts. Where I take issue with his view is in a different place, because he'd started out saying he'd vote yes to improve the lot of the poorest in Scotland, and ends up saying he's voting yes knowing those poorest would be severely shat upon by his choice.

Have a real plan, an honest plan, that really does aim to address poverty, and all buy into the consequences of your choice, and I'll be cheering indy on.

But yeah, just keep up the self-invented bollocks to maintain the myths, that anyone who voted no was a secret tory. It makes you look so very smart.

[LJS]

At least LJS faced up to a little of the reality, by realising it wouldn't be all jam by paying some attention to the facts. Where I take issue with his view is in a different place, because he'd started out saying he'd vote yes to improve the lot of the poorest in Scotland, and ends up saying he's voting yes knowing those poorest would be severely shat upon by his choice.

Just for the record. You are talking complete bollocks here, Neil. At no time did I say anything even vaguely resembling this!

[eFestivals]

Just for the record. You are talking complete bollocks here, Neil. At no time did I say anything even vaguely resembling this!

You started out saying you'd be voting yes to benefit the poor.

You finished admitting that they'd be a downturn as a result of going indie.

OK, I'm not working from your words about the poor not benefiting, but if you'd like to explain how they might have done in that downturn I'm all ears....?

[Comfy Bean]

You would have happily walked blindly into disaster. The blind bit you admit to, because you've said you didn't bother with facts and instead decided to believe what you intuitively thought were the facts. You didn't know what the fuck you were voting for or against...........

.........But yeah, just keep up the self-invented bollocks to maintain the myths, that anyone who voted no was a secret tory. It makes you look so very smart.

Neil, I have never ( as in never ever ) referred to anyone who voted no as " a secret tory ".

I have also never ( as in never ever ) claimed that I intuitively knew the facts.

I had a fair idea what I was voting for ie it was a referendum not an election and finally, from above, I see you are now stating as a matter of fact that we would have been walking into a " disaster ".

Anywayz, I read this earlier and found it quite interesting. A few things mentioned that we have blethered about on here and some good points recognising how Scottish Labour`s demise has played a big part in the improved fortunes of the SNP.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/nicola-sturgeon-snp-granita-moment-champany-inn