The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you're not sure where i've got my facts from, and then link to the article that I got my facts from.

It's probably wise to actually read more than the headline. I think I've said this to you before.

 

Thanks for clarifying that it was you not your source who did the fact twisting.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thanks for clarifying that it was you not your source who did the fact twisting.

The SNP haven't taken money from Heathrow Airport, to back England at the expense of Scotland?

The SNP haven't taken money to interfere with a non-Scottish issue?

The SNP haven't instructed their delegates that they can't support Oxfam?

Please do tell me which of those true facts has been twisted.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't taken money from Heathrow Airport, to back England at the expense of Scotland?

Have they? I don't know. Neither do you.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't taken money to interfere with a non-Scottish issue?

Have they? I don't know. Neither do you.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't instructed their delegates that they can't support Oxfam?

That is correct. They have not instructed their delegates that they can't support oxfam.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Please do tell me which of those true facts has been twisted.

I can't because there were no true facts there.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Have they? I don't know. Neither do you.

Have they? I don't know. Neither do you.

That is correct. They have not instructed their delegates that they can't support oxfam.

I can't because there were no true facts there.

I know they've taken money from Heathrow. I know Heathrow is not in Scotland and would only be giving the SNP their money for the SNPs votes in Westminster.

The SNP have instructed their conference delegates that they cannot support Oxfam while at conference.

Those are the facts, and they're fuck all to do with doing the best for Scotland. They're doing the worst for Scotland.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I know they've taken money from Heathrow. I know Heathrow is not in Scotland and would only be giving the SNP their money for the SNPs votes in Westminster.

As far as I am aware, the only money Heathrow has given the SNP is to buy a space at their conference. Lots of organisations do the same at all party conferences. Sadly to get to lots of places in the world us poor  Scots need to go via London (or Paris or Amsterdam etc) it is perfectly legitimate for the SNP to have a view on where a new runway is built.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP have instructed their conference delegates that they cannot support Oxfam while at conference.

No they haven't.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Those are the facts, and they're fuck all to do with doing the best for Scotland. They're doing the worst for Scotland.

Bollocks.

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

As far as I am aware, the only money Heathrow has given the SNP is to buy a space at their conference. Lots of organisations do the same at all party conferences. Sadly to get to lots of places in the world us poor  Scots need to go via London (or Paris or Amsterdam etc) it is perfectly legitimate for the SNP to have a view on where a new runway is built.

No they haven't.

Bollocks.

I know parties taking money from businesses - to lobby - is the norm, but Heathrow lobbying the SNP can only be about buying SNP votes at Westminster.

And if the SNPs votes about that weren't for sale they'd have told them to naff off.

Nothing about that is anything about what's best for Scotland, its about what's best for SNP finances.

And banning delegates from supporting Oxfam when at conference is about Stalinist control, ensuring delegates aren't allowed to think for themselves.

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I know parties taking money from businesses - to lobby - is the norm, but Heathrow lobbying the SNP can only be about buying SNP votes at Westminster.

 

As usual you are putting 2 & 2 together & getting 6.

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

And if the SNPs votes about that weren't for sale they'd have told them to naff off.

Nothing about that is anything about what's best for Scotland, its about what's best for SNP finances.

And banning delegates from supporting Oxfam when at conference is about Stalinist control, ensuring delegates aren't allowed to think for themselves.

 

They didn't ban anyone from anything. What they did do was hike up the prices for a stall at their conference so much that it deterred a lot of organisations form buying one. So The Common Weal organised an alternative across the road from the SNP conference: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9173/campaigners-unveil-festival-ideas-coincide-snp-party-conference-glasgow

The SNP appealed (not instructed or banned) to those attending the conference to support stuff on the official fringe. Personally I think they were wrong to do so but to portray this as "banning delegates from supporting Oxfam" is just crazy. 

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

As usual you are putting 2 & 2 together & getting 6.

Oh, FFS .... the alternative would be that Heathrow just fancied a day out and to give Sturgeon some money.

Heathrow were there to buy votes. Only the brain dead might dispute that.

By accepting their money and presence, that's the SNP saying their votes are for sale on this issue.

(And before you start, I don't view it any different when other parties do the same - but other parties don't have votes to interfere in countries they say they don't give a shit about).

18 hours ago, LJS said:

They didn't ban anyone from anything.

The SNP didn't issue a letter banning their delegates at conference from supporting groups such as Oxfam?

Of course they didn't.

Just because a letter isn't enforcement of a ban doesn't make it anything less than a ban. FFS.

[eFestivals]

On 14/10/2016 at 1:50 PM, LJS said:

55% if there is a hard brexit.

that's 55% in favour of another ref
(I know that's me saying what that's posted by you to mean).

Unfortunately for the likes of you, the gap between supporters of indy and not in that poll is even bigger than the 11% in 2014.

And of course the vast majority of that 55% are the people who want another ref brexit or no brexit, hard brexit or soft brexit. Like Sturgeon recommending indy as the solution to any and all problems, it's not really worth shit.

Better still, i see that Sturgeon and Swinney are still barring Scotland from the EU by refusing to consider meeting the same EU entry criteria that *EVERY* other new member has done since 1996.

With the sorts of UKIP tendencies all nicely laid out in the 2014 white paper I'm absolutely sure the EU will bend its entry rules for a EU-phobic new member, it's just what the EU needs post-brexit.

If you're heading for the EU then Scotland needs to embrace having the Euro and its own sovereign currency for a number of years prior to that. There's no way to get around those rules - rules that have stopped other applicants.

Would indy support hold up if it was clear you had to embrace the Euro? Even in a sterling crash I very much doubt it.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's 55% in favour of another ref
(I know that's me saying what that's posted by you to mean).

Unfortunately for the likes of you, the gap between supporters of indy and not in that poll is even bigger than the 11% in 2014.And of course the vast majority of that 55% are the people who want

brexit. Like Sturgeon recommending indy as the solution to any and all problems, it's not really worth shit.

I presume you are aware that they used  completely different question to every other poll ever, making any comparison completely invalid.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

I presume you are aware that they used  completely different question to every other poll ever, making any comparison completely invalid.

it's still a measure of opinion. It's not like anyone would have trouble with grasping anything that might be a bit vague in its wording, and its not like the real ref's question was considered only as that question; it was considered on everything that answering that question 'yes' would mean.

But anyway, getting into a real 2nd ref is likely to be a big game changer on the first, because some of the considerations will be hugely different to first time round - and in the main they're likely to lessen support for indy rather than increase it.

For example, they'll be an element of "sorry, but we can't promise as much as we did in 2014" about it all, for how well income parity & govt services with rUk will hold up, because it can't now be hidden behind some high oil revenues.

And because the premise of a 2nd ref will be "we're leaving the UK to join the EU", they'll be a focus on what that means - and it means embracing the Euro. For those who'd do anything for indy that's an easy acceptance, but for the not-insignificant number of waver-ers it's a reason why they might stick with the status quo.

Oh, and of course in the event of a hard brexit joining the EU single market will mean leaving the UK single market - and with four times difference in value, one is logically much better than the other in terms of the economy, jobs, etc.

I fully accept that there's other benefits with the EU, tho the other benefits are often the intangible ones and so a very hard sell against the certainty of voting yourself a pay cut (the pay cut is certain, what's not certain is by how much).

I'm still much where I was, in thinking Sturgeon will do all she can to avoid having one*, cos I don't think it's going to go well if it happens - but of course anything might happen to change things in favour of indy ... tho I cant really see what.

*just see last week: loads of big talk to keep the hardcore happy, but a lesser and weaker commitment to that 2nd ref via the legislative route each time she opens her mouth on that part.

[Comfy Bean]

My guess remains that we won't vote on this again until after the next tory general election victory.

I'm disappointed to hear that the snp banned delegates from supporting oxfam. This is the first I've heard or read about this. Neil, do you have a link?  and are we sure that they specifically banned supporters from donating to oxfam or indeed any other charity during the conference . You say they did this in writing? 

What about cnd?  Was anyone banned from supporting them during the conference weekend do we know? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

My guess remains that we won't vote on this again until after the next tory general election victory.

 

In which case Sturgeon would have accepted that remaining in the UK was best for Scotland - because she's promised to do what is best for Scotland.

As i pointed out a while ago, she's dug herself into a corner, where there's no glorious escape route whichever way things go.

She either has to say "indy isn't best", or she has to lose a referendum, or she has to win one and take Scotland down the pan as a consequence.

Which of those do you think she'd choose? I'm pretty sure it's the first one myself, and so are you it seems.

[Comfy Bean]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

In which case Sturgeon would have accepted that remaining in the UK was best for Scotland - because she's promised to do what is best for Scotland.

As i pointed out a while ago, she's dug herself into a corner, where there's no glorious escape route whichever way things go.

She either has to say "indy isn't best", or she has to lose a referendum, or she has to win one and take Scotland down the pan as a consequence.

Which of those do you think she'd choose? I'm pretty sure it's the first one myself, and so are you it seems.

I think there are more options for the future of Scotland than the 3 you describe. 

How's progress with the banned from supporting oxfam thing? 

Please be specific if possible. 

I have been consistent with my guess that our next vote won't be till after the next election that the tories will win. Doesn't mean I'm right of course but by then the affects of brexit will be clear as will be the prospect of life under a tory government that Scotland won't have voted for.

I still see scottish labours position on indy as being important in the next vote. Anything could happen with labour over the next few years so it would be daft to rule anything out with them.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think there are more options for the future of Scotland than the 3 you describe. 

Care to say what you think they are?

Do bear in mind I'm commenting on the time up-to brexit, where Sturgeon has said she'll do what's best for Scotland - and no ref means that indy is not best for Scotland.

 

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

How's progress with the banned from supporting oxfam thing? 

Please be specific if possible. 

Read back on this thread where you'll find a link to the proof and my words about that proof. Any failure in understanding of those things is all your own.
 

 

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have been consistent with my guess that our next vote won't be till after the next election that the tories will win. Doesn't mean I'm right of course but by then the affects of brexit will be clear as will be the prospect of life under a tory government that Scotland won't have voted for.

Yep, you've been consistent with that, but I was commenting on Sturgeon's own words and doubting the actions will match the words.

Funnily enough, that's also a bigger SNP theme, but we can leave that for another day.

 

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I still see scottish labours position on indy as being important in the next vote. Anything could happen with labour over the next few years so it would be daft to rule anything out with them.

I can't see Labour ever coming out with "workers of Scotland unite and you know that hard-done-by feeling? Well it's going to get a whole lot worse", can you?

Or "workers of Scotland unite and throw off the bonds of £9Bn a year extra from the Barnett formula"

But anything's possible with Corbyn in charge, I guess. He might prefer to encourage Scotland to go than have his failure to live up to his claim to win it back pointed out.

[Comfy Bean]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Care to say what you think they are?

Do bear in mind I'm commenting on the time up-to brexit, where Sturgeon has said she'll do what's best for Scotland - and no ref means that indy is not best for Scotland.

 

Read back on this thread where you'll find a link to the proof and my words about that proof. Any failure in understanding of those things is all your own.
 

 

Yep, you've been consistent with that, but I was commenting on Sturgeon's own words and doubting the actions will match the words.

Funnily enough, that's also a bigger SNP theme, but we can leave that for another day.

 

I can't see Labour ever coming out with "workers of Scotland unite and you know that hard-done-by feeling? Well it's going to get a whole lot worse", can you?

Or "workers of Scotland unite and throw off the bonds of £9Bn a year extra from the Barnett formula"

But anything's possible with Corbyn in charge, I guess. He might prefer to encourage Scotland to go than have his failure to live up to his claim to win it back pointed out.

You might be right about Corbyn. I just think Labours position is important whoever is is in charge.

I appreciate that you are talking about the run up to brexit but I disagree that not holding one during that period means NS doesn`t think indy is best for Scotland.

I`ll have a look back later at your link. As I said earlier, i haven`t seen or read anything from the SNP banning support for Oxfam and I`ll be disappointed if that is what they said. 

I`ve assumed that you are not being serious with your only 3 possible options for Scotland. The 3 you outlined are of course possibilities but there are others as you know. I`m sure that when indy comes, deep you won`t want to see Scotland go down the pan as we move into caves etc 

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I appreciate that you are talking about the run up to brexit but I disagree that not holding one during that period means NS doesn`t think indy is best for Scotland.

She's been banging on about protecting Scotland's EU rights, and how she'll do what is best for Scotland.

The moment actual brexit (a50 + 2 years) happens, those 'rights' have gone, lost into the ether.

To stand any chance of their retention via some kind of in-the-meantime fudge (and it is only a chance even then), Scotland would have had to have voted out before that final brexit.

She's spot on when she's indicated the vote she's currently threatening to hold would happen before that final brexit, as it's the only way Scotland might "stay" within the EU.

"stay" is in quotes, because formally it's unlikely to be that. It would be a mutually beneficial fudge of some kind, until Scotland because a formal EU member .... *IF* the EU was willing to make that fudge, of course. There's plenty of good reasons why they might not choose not to.

So, by the time of that final brexit, she will have done what is best for Scotland - cos she's said that's what she'll do.

The options open to her are sticking the UK because that's what best to do - think about it - or not sticking with the UK and holding a another indyref (which win or lose will have heavy and bad impact on her political career).

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`ve assumed that you are not being serious with your only 3 possible options for Scotland. The 3 you outlined are of course possibilities but there are others as you know. I`m sure that when indy comes, deep you won`t want to see Scotland go down the pan as we move into caves etc 

They're the options open until the final brexit for Sturgeon, from the corner she has boxed herself into by her own words. It's either go along with the UK's brexit and by implication that is the best for Scotland, or it's hold the ref she's said is 'very likely' (tho she does keep moving the goalposts on that, if you've noticed?).

And the 'down the pan' bit was meant figuratively.

If an independence vote were won, people would be angry because the independence Scotland had would not be independence as people have been told to expect. I'm not even necessarily saying that the choice of indy itself would be regretted, just that Sturgeon would be scorned for the lies. She wouldn't be 'the mother of the nation' she'd be a hated liar who'd knowingly hurt Scotland (think Thatcher, or Blair - but much more so).

(to be fair to her, most aren't her lies - but she's done nothing to put them down, and instead tried to use them to her advantage)

Edited October 17, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:00 AM, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't instructed their delegates that they can't support Oxfam?

 

Correct.

Elected SNP representatives did receive an email that included the following advice...

"As you’ll appreciate, events within the secure area as part of the official fringe are those paid for by chairites and commercial organisations who contribute greatly to the costs of the conference.

“Any event held outwith this are does not benefit the party, and your involvement in such events means that you are not available to support events on the official fringe during that time.”

They also highlighted the remainder of the year, outwith conference weekend, when elected representatives should be available to meet with third sector organisations.

 

It is a worry that they don`t appear to be able to spell charities but this is quite a distance from how you described it and the SNP didn`t specifically mention Oxfam, that was your good self ( below ).

 

The SNP didn't issue a letter banning their delegates at conference from supporting groups such as Oxfam?

Of course they didn't. 

Just because a letter isn't enforcement of a ban doesn't make it anything less than a ban. FFS.

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Correct.

I know. That's why I said it.

And their talking of money for that great Scottish issue of Heathrow Airport just shows how much they put Scotland first.

[LJS]

In all your chat about surgeon's dilemma, you fail to mention the possibility that she comes up with some sort of  scheme that offers Scotland some form of greater engagement with the single market than the rest of the UK. I know this seems improbable but I would argue it is not impossible. If such a plan goes ahead, she will be able to claim this as a victory and evidence that she really has been doing her job standing up for Scotland & not simply going for independence at all costs. 

If (much more likely) Treeza rejects her plan, she will still keep the standing up for Scotland bit & have the perfect excuse to go for a referendum.

Even if (probably most likely of all) it proves impossible to find a workable plan, she has lost nothing at all & still avoided the appearance of wanting Indy at all costs.

Unlike comfy I think the most likely outcome is an indyref sometime before we actually quit the EU.

Whether Nic wants it or not, it's hard to see how she can get out of it.

[lost]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

Whether Nic wants it or not, it's hard to see how she can get out of it.

I think she'll be fine. If she has no offer on the table to join the EU afterwards then that could be seen as making the reason for another ref pointless.

Only today, one of the people who helped create the euro has come out and said individual countries abilities to run large deficits is the greatest threat to the union continuing to exist. I can't really see anyway the 9.5% deficit could be brought down to the Lisbon treaty limits in time as would obviously be enforced. That's also before we start to mention countries like Spain, Italy and Belgium all saying they would block Scottish membership and so all need convincing.

[LJS]

40 minutes ago, lost said:

I think she'll be fine. If she has no offer on the table to join the EU afterwards then that could be seen as making the reason for another ref pointless.

I think that is the potential game changer - with some sort of guaranteed membership of the EU I think Yes are odds on to win. Without it things are much trickier. The problem for Nic is that she has to keep the SNP membership on board & a large proportion of them favour an indy ref tomorrow - if not sooner. The other side of this coin with one in fifty of the Scottish population being SNP members, this is a massive pool of potential campaigners which could have a massive impact in a new indy ref. Its hard to see who will provide the "boots on the ground for the No side next time. 

40 minutes ago, lost said:

Only today, one of the people who helped create the euro has come out and said individual countries abilities to run large deficits is the greatest threat to the union continuing to exist. I can't really see anyway the 9.5% deficit could be brought down to the Lisbon treaty limits in time as would obviously be enforced. That's also before we start to mention countries like Spain, Italy and Belgium all saying they would block Scottish membership and so all need convincing.

I think the truth is no one knows how this will pan out. Scotland technically does not have any budget deficit as it does not control its own budget - I guess we could have some kind of associate membership until our budget deficit (or surplus) is actually determined and until it reaches an agreed level.

There have certainly been more positive noises coming from a number of EU sources than last time round. Its fair to assume that some of the warnings last time were favours for Dave  - Treeza will not be able to call in the same favours,

[LJS]

here's a nice article from a man who has changed his mind about Scottish Independence

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/scottish-independence-is-_b_12512554.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

 

& here he is before the last indyref

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/scottish-independence-obscures-real-divide-_b_5714057.html?

[Comfy Bean]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:00 AM, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't taken money from Heathrow Airport, to back England at the expense of Scotland?

The SNP haven't taken money to interfere with a non-Scottish issue?

The SNP haven't instructed their delegates that they can't support Oxfam?

Please do tell me which of those true facts has been twisted.

Now we have established that the SNP did not in fact instruct the delegates to not support Oxfam, I`m not sure about this taking money at the weekend to support extra capacity around flights from / to London.

They have in the past supported Prestwick airport when you thought that the airport should be allowed to fail with the loss of 1000`s of jobs.

We also know that you are happy that Jocks contribute to the fancy trains as there will apparantly be a benefit to Scotland if you can get into London from Birmingham 15mins quicker.

I`ve attached an article from 2014 ( thats before last weekend ) that might get you thinking about how extra capacity into the hub that is London would help Scotland trade with the world and even our EU friends who we wish to remain part of 

Taking money from Heathrow to back England at the expense of Scotland is indeed a rather warped and funny way to look at it.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13170596.The_Highland_Line__why_proposals_to_increase_flights_from_Inverness_to_London_are_a_no_brainer/