The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Just for the record, my opposition to trident is nothing to do with my support for independence. I have opposed the UK "deterrent" for the best part of 40 years. I have marched past faslane & was at one time pretty active in CND. Which of course means I was opposed equally to cruise missiles at greenham common.

[kaosmark2]

Just for the record, my opposition to trident is nothing to do with my support for independence. I have opposed the UK "deterrent" for the best part of 40 years. I have marched past faslane & was at one time pretty active in CND. Which of course means I was opposed equally to cruise missiles at greenham common.

I'm glad to hear it.

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether Salmond passionately believes against nukes, or is just opposing them for the political angle. Clearly some politicians genuinely support the idea of nukes, but I do wonder how many just insist on maintaining them because they're afraid of the voter response to denying them.

[eFestivals]

Just for the record, my opposition to trident is nothing to do with my support for independence. I have opposed the UK "deterrent" for the best part of 40 years. I have marched past faslane & was at one time pretty active in CND. Which of course means I was opposed equally to cruise missiles at greenham common.

It's probably the case with all of us (or perhaps just most of us) posting in this thread that we're against nukes.

BUT .... that shouldn't stop us from being able to recognise the general views of others in the country.

I'd say that the variance between two polls at 'WST' is quite telling. To the question "If Scotland became independent, should it continue to host Trident or not?", 41% said yes and only 36% said no.

Either Scots are wanting rent for hosting them to prop-up the iScottish economy, or Scots are not anti-nuke. Take your pick.

Meanwhile, if the question of Trident is asked around the money it costs, people are clearly against it - but i'd say that's more to do with thoughts about how that money might be used otherwise, without any reference to what is lost by that choice (a big part of the UK's defence strategy, plus Scotland's biggest employment site).... and the Scots answering that question are probably thinking all that money would fall into Scottish pockets.

Edited December 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether Salmond passionately believes against nukes, or is just opposing them for the political angle. Clearly some politicians genuinely support the idea of nukes, but I do wonder how many just insist on maintaining them because they're afraid of the voter response to denying them.

I'd say that what Salmond might think doesn't come into it.

Like every stance he takes, it's about having a line to fragment support for other parties in support of his one and only goal.

He's quite happy to keep Scots in the dark on extremely important issues (iCurrency, EU, and more), or to blatantly lie to the Scottish people in support of his goal. Why would nukes be any different?

Edited December 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: there's also the delusion - as posted here more than once - that iScotland would get a massive financial windfall by being nuke free.

Yet when indy-supporting nats are not even listening to their own indy party you know there's plenty of nat voices that should be ignored on the basis of their own stupidity.

[kaosmark2]

here is the 2015 UK General election result

LABOUR 300

TORY 256

SNP 29

LIB DEM 10

UKIP 6

GREEN 3

DUP 8

SINN FEIN 5

SDLP 4

PLAID CYMRU 3

I know you made these numbers up to prove a point, but the SNP will not get a 23-seat swing towards them. I also reckon you're overegging how well UKIP will do, they'll almost exclusively get seats for Tory-defectors.

I know the Lib Dems have had a massive loss in popular support, but I'd be quite surprised if they ended up with as few as 10 MPs. They've fluctuated between 55-65 for quite a while and I'll be shocked if they go below 40. Most of their MPs tend to have long-term support amongst their constituents, and I suspect that while they'll be dramatic headline-grabbing specific seat losses (hopefully inc. Clegg), most of their backbenchers will retain the local support. A big fall in national support doesn't necessarily translate to swing of seats, and I think most people underestimate how well they'll do.

[LJS]

It's probably the case with all of us (or perhaps just most of us) posting in this thread that we're against nukes.

BUT .... that shouldn't stop us from being able to recognise the general views of others in the country.

I'd say that the variance between two polls at 'WST' is quite telling. To the question "If Scotland became independent, should it continue to host Trident or not?", 41% said yes and only 36% said no.

Either Scots are wanting rent for hosting them to prop-up the iScottish economy, or Scots are not anti-nuke. Take your pick.

Meanwhile, if the question of Trident is asked around the money it costs, people are clearly against it - but i'd say that's more to do with thoughts about how that money might be used otherwise, without any reference to what is lost by that choice (a big part of the UK's defence strategy, plus Scotland's biggest employment site).... and the Scots answering that question are probably thinking all that money would fall into Scottish pockets.

I don't really Cate what others think, I am opposed to nukes on principle.

There have been lots of polls showing folk in favour of hanging, that makes not a jot of difference to my views.

[kaosmark2]

It's probably the case with all of us (or perhaps just most of us) posting in this thread that we're against nukes.

BUT .... that shouldn't stop us from being able to recognise the general views of others in the country.

I'd say that the variance between two polls at 'WST' is quite telling. To the question "If Scotland became independent, should it continue to host Trident or not?", 41% said yes and only 36% said no.

Either Scots are wanting rent for hosting them to prop-up the iScottish economy, or Scots are not anti-nuke. Take your pick.

Meanwhile, if the question of Trident is asked around the money it costs, people are clearly against it - but i'd say that's more to do with thoughts about how that money might be used otherwise, without any reference to what is lost by that choice (a big part of the UK's defence strategy, plus Scotland's biggest employment site).... and the Scots answering that question are probably thinking all that money would fall into Scottish pockets.

Yup.

I accept the arguments for nukes, but IMO the only reason we would need such a deterrent, is if we're trying to be a major player in terms of international politics - ie. bullying other countries - and having a second-strike capacity helps support us punching above the strength of our population and economy.

We are trying to have such influence, but I think that is a major mistake, the Scandanavian countries and Canada are who we should be trying to emulate, not the US. We have the 6th highest military spend in the world, why the hell do we need that? It's all about this mentality of us having once had a globe-spanning empire and trying to still act significant, which is not only a ridiculous attitude to have, but also incredibly damaging to our public services.

[kaosmark2]

I don't really Cate what others think, I am opposed to nukes on principle.

There have been lots of polls showing folk in favour of hanging, that makes not a jot of difference to my views.

People being stupid is fairly common. It shouldn't make a difference to your views, but it should make a difference to how you approach negotiations or arguments related to furthering them.

[eFestivals]

I don't really Cate what others think, I am opposed to nukes on principle.

There have been lots of polls showing folk in favour of hanging, that makes not a jot of difference to my views.

I'm opposed to nukes on principle too - but for that principle to ever come into effect it's going to take recognition of the views of others. They won't change their minds by ignoring all they think.

[russycarps]

I thought we were talking about the opinion of scots in general, rather than LJS personal views.

The yes voters seem to think scots are different from the rest of the uk in that they oppose trident. Another part of the "scots are special" lie put out there by salmond.

Acceptance that scots are no better or worse than anyone from any other region of the uk is a concept the yes voters have difficulty with.

[kaosmark2]

Acceptance that scots are no better or worse than anyone from any other region of the uk is a concept the yes voters have difficulty with.

While I agree with this, accepting that the British are no better or worse than people from other countries is something lots of people also have trouble with.

[russycarps]

While I agree with this, accepting that the British are no better or worse than people from other countries is something lots of people also have trouble with.

Definitely agree. Which is something that should make certain scots feel very uncomfortable.

[LJS]

Definitely agree. Which is something that should make certain scots feel very uncomfortable.

But not me, cos I never ever said Scots are better (even though we are)*

*joke

[kaosmark2]

You know who is better than us? The Belgians. Chilled out multi-lingual friendly people who make amazing food and beer. I say Yes to Brussels.

Edited December 9, 2014 by kaosmark2

[russycarps]

You know who is better than us? The Belgians. Chilled out multi-lingual friendly people who make amazing food and beer. I say Yes to Brussels.

Yep they are a great bunch.....provided you like slavery, mutilation, torture and genocide...

http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/when-you-kill-ten-million-africans-you-arent-called-hitler/

[kaosmark2]

Yep they are a great bunch.....provided you like slavery, mutilation, torture and genocide...

http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/when-you-kill-ten-million-africans-you-arent-called-hitler/

Well we have all those things in our history. I'm talking about now.

[TheGayTent]

In my experience, Belgium is an extremely divided country. Much more so than the UK.

[eFestivals]

In my experience, Belgium is an extremely divided country. Much more so than the UK.

Yep, it was one of the EU countries that tended to get named as likely to block an iScotland's EU entry, as a way of discouraging its own separatists.

[Comfy Bean]

Think we might all agree ( for once ) that today`s announcement is an opportunity missed for Labour in Scotland to make some sort of a fresh start..............

OR....does anyone think Jim is the man to return Labour to their roots ?

GREENS COMMENT ON MURPHY ELECTION

Saturday, December 13th, 2014

Responding the Labour leadership result, the Greens have welcomed Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale to their roles, while pointing to the surge in their own membership, with 1 in 10 Scottish Greens now former Labour members.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“I congratulate Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale on their election. Neil and Sarah are also due great credit for offering Scottish Labour some more radical options.

By electing Jim Murphy though, Scottish Labour have made a choice that confirms them as a pro-Trident, pro-austerity party, still Blairite so long after Blair, and this will dismay many. I find it hard to see how that agenda can connect with Scotland’s newly politicised voters.”

- See more at: http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/greens-comment-on-murphy-election/#sthash.gTkIVAtH.dpuf

[eFestivals]

I've been loving all the comments by those who would never again vote Labour, who say this is the death of Labour. They're all the same voices that said 'yes' would win the indyref by a landslide.

Meanwhile, the Scottish myth that a 10+% - and growing - deficit in Scotland can go on forever remains strong.

[LJS]

I've been loving all the comments by those who would never again vote Labour, who say this is the death of Labour. They're all the same voices that said 'yes' would win the indyref by a landslide.

Meanwhile, the Scottish myth that a 10+% - and growing - deficit in Scotland can go on forever remains strong.

I didn't hear many predicting a landslide.

As for the death of labour - they are already in intensive care in Scotland, consistently trailing the SNP by 20 points or more in the polls. So the question is more "Can Jim Eggman Murphy breathe some life into them?" You would expect some sort of bounce from his election but you have to ask whether someone who has consistently positioned himself on the right of the party is the man to persuade voters to return to Scottish Labour. Also, as he was a very high profile & outspoken member of the No campaign, will he be able to bring back into the fold those labour supporters who voted yes in September?

I don't know the answer to these questions & I certainly don't know who they could have voted in as their leader who would be better placed. I shall be watching with interest.

[eFestivals]

I didn't hear many predicting a landslide.

plenty did, tho they were the more nutty types. Hence my comment about more of the same from them.

As for the death of labour - they are already in intensive care in Scotland, consistently trailing the SNP by 20 points or more in the polls. So the question is more "Can Jim Eggman Murphy breathe some life into them?" You would expect some sort of bounce from his election but you have to ask whether someone who has consistently positioned himself on the right of the party is the man to persuade voters to return to Scottish Labour. Also, as he was a very high profile & outspoken member of the No campaign, will he be able to bring back into the fold those labour supporters who voted yes in September?

Because being on the no side made them tories, right? All of the righteous were voting yes.

That's the fatal flaw in the idea you've put forwards. One day that's going to have to be faced up to, or you'll get a 'solution' where nothing has been faced up to - which would be much like Alex's empty dream.

I don't know the answer to these questions & I certainly don't know who they could have voted in as their leader who would be better placed. I shall be watching with interest.

From what you've posted - and is the standard view of peeps like you (the nutters I've mentioned ) - there's no one that would be better placed, because it's about the leader of the Labour party who you now hate forever regardless of policy.

They sided with the no side, and that was unacceptable to the righteous.

Being righteous is about taking from the poor to give to the middle classes. That's what you you explicitly have been supporting, and is the new Scottish 'left' (or Thatcherites, as the left wingers in England call them ).

The only reason Scotland can't recognise Thatcherites is because they didn't accept them year ago, but they've snuck in amongst you anyway and now you can't recognise them.

It's everything the Labour Party have been doing anyway for 20 years.

Edited December 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

plenty did, tho they were the more nutty types. Hence my comment about more of the same from them.

Because being on the no side made them tories, right? All of the righteous were voting yes.

never said that or anything like that, & it is completely irrelevant to the observation I was making.

That's the fatal flaw in the idea you've put forwards. One day that's going to have to be faced up to, or you'll get a 'solution' where nothing has been faced up to - which would be much like Alex's empty dream.

no! it's the fatal flaw in the idea you invented & then pretended I'd put forwards

From what you've posted - and is the standard view of peeps like you (the nutters I've mentioned ) - there's no one that would be better placed, because it's about the leader of the Labour party who you now hate forever regardless of policy.

I don't hate the Labour Party as you well know. I am disappointed & disillusioned with them & I hope one day they will rediscover their principles: when they do, they will, in all probability, get my vote.

They sided with the no side, and that was unacceptable to the righteous.

Bollocks!

Being righteous is about taking from the poor to give to the middle classes. That's what you you explicitly have been supporting, and is the new Scottish 'left' (or Thatcherites, as the left wingers in England call them ).

The only reason Scotland can't recognise Thatcherites is because they didn't accept them year ago, but they've snuck in amongst you anyway and now you can't recognise them.

It's everything the Labour Party have been doing anyway for 20 years.

Oh we're now Thatcherites are we?

We used to just be NeoCons.

Edited December 14, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Also, as he was a very high profile & outspoken member of the No campaign,

yes LJS, the righteous yes-ers condemning anyone who was no is nothing of the point you're making.

We used to just be NeoCons.

I've not called you neo-cons (aside from a sleeping mistype, which was clarified as a mistake at that time).

But hey, don't let that stop you making it up.

Oh we're now Thatcherites are we?

You're condemning Labour for acting in support of middle class privileges just as Thatcher did.

Meanwhile you support a party that acts in support of middle class privileges just as Thatcher did.

I'd be tragic if it wasn't so funny, that people are daft enough to think that it's left-wing to be a Thatcherite.

It's just like the UKIPpers who think UKIP are to the left of the tories.