The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I posted 7 headlines. You quoted half of one in your reply. Care to comment on the other 6.5?

1. row with Sturgeon, so not about what he said, instead about the 'row'.

2. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

3. accurately reports what Khan said.

4. "Sadiq Khan 'not accusing SNP of being racists'" - so the opposite of your claim

5. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

6. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said. Says they were 'ill judged' (because we all know that Nats will lie about them) but not that what he said was inaccurate.

7. this reports it something like you claim, but which only shows the journalist up as spectacularly missing the whole point of what Khan said.

One out of 7. Not bad. It's an improvement.

[LJS]

And while Neil continues to pretend that all this racism malarkey is just another made up Snipper grievance (which requires him to repeatedly ignore the headlines I keep presenting to him) Robin Mcalpine  hits the ugly racist nail on the head.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10442/robin-mcalpine-unionists-theres-no-high-ground-gutter

 

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

1. row with Sturgeon, so not about what he said, instead about the 'row'.

2. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

3. accurately reports what Khan said.

4. "Sadiq Khan 'not accusing SNP of being racists'" - so the opposite of your claim

5. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

6. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said. Says they were 'ill judged' (because we all know that Nats will lie about them) but not that what he said was inaccurate.

7. this reports it something like you claim, but which only shows the journalist up as spectacularly missing the whole point of what Khan said.

One out of 7. Not bad. It's an improvement.

Is that a serious response?

 

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You don't even listen to yourself?

Cos it's from you I'm hearing how different Scotland is.

It is different in some respects. It votes different for example.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

When by every measure there's no meaningful difference. If there was and Scots really wanted to pay higher taxes to benefit themselves, they'd have voted for higher taxes to benefit themselves - and not for no tax rises.

There was no coherent offer of higher taxes for all. There was a coherent offer of higher taxes on the better off. I voted for it.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It only matters when people such as you claim Scots as so distinctly different that it's imperative they govern themselves.

A claim I have never made.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

What? PMSL

The whole basis of indy is that Scotland will be a better Scotland when run by Scots from Scotland.

Nup!

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If Scotland won't be better run by Scots from Scotland, care to tell me why it's so important that Scotland is run by Scots from Scotland?

It's not important that it is run by Scots.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So important that you're wanting to impoverish Scots in Scotland to achieve it, to damage people's material lives by far more than brexit will do?

Wrong again.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I see. Stating the facts of history about Scotland is fake news.

Well, Trump is Scottish after all

Indeed, it's all our fault.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

And while Neil continues to pretend that all this racism malarkey is just another made up Snipper grievance (which requires him to repeatedly ignore the headlines I keep presenting to him) Robin Mcalpine  hits the ugly racist nail on the head.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10442/robin-mcalpine-unionists-theres-no-high-ground-gutter

 

that makes a point that none of the other stuff you've presented so far does. All the other stuff has just been weak and wrong "he called us wacists".

It still tries to pretend a solidarity that indy is utterly against, tho. I can still remember all those people who used to defend Salmond's corp tax cutting in a race to the bottom. 

And that's because it's not about solidarity and common good, it's instead about your good.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Is that a serious response?

 

Yes. You claimed there was all the newspapers reacted to his words. Those headlines show the newspaper reaction is to the SNP and others screaming "he called us wacists".

It's classic diversionary tactics, because just like you they don't want a discussion on what Khan actually said.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

It is different in some respects. It votes different for example.

Hmmm. I can't disagree that it votes differently, but there's lots of different factors around that than you'd want to acknowledge. 

Cos social attitudes surveys get to show there's very little difference in those attitudes.

 

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, LJS said:

There was no coherent offer of higher taxes for all.

but if it was as wanted as the narrative of "we're all dead keen left wingers, honest" suggests, there would have been that coherent offer.

And there was no big out-cry because there wasn't that coherent offer.

There was a big of disappointment muttered that other people weren't being taxed more, but no actual desire to pay more taxes.

 

24 minutes ago, LJS said:

There was a coherent offer of higher taxes on the better off. I voted for it.

I'm sure the extra £50 quid a year is crippling all those mansion dwellers.

And yeah, another 'other' you found to blame it all on. No extras for yourself, just for them. And you voted for it. 

My point exactly.

[kaosmark2]

Labour politician makes typical comment about SNP:

"Just another politician, red tory, say what you actually mean"

Labour politician says what he actually means:

"So politically naive, they're not going to win over indy supporters by calling the politics of division divisive"

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

Nup!

so what's the point, then?

If Scotland will be just as shit afterwards, why bother?

You very definitely used to support indy because it would create a better Scotland because Scots cared more for each other than 'the others' and therefore the poor wouldn't be shafted.

But now you say it won't be a better place at all. I'm genuinely confused.

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, LJS said:

Wrong again.

but you're cheering the austerity that brings the economics of indy closer.

You *know* that indy will fuck over the wealth levels of Scots, and by more than brexit will the UK.

When you're hoping that the UK will do the fucking over to the benefit of indy, you might as well be the man with the axe yourself.

[eFestivals]

anyway, I reckon this row about Khan's words might have a small effect, tho most likely only for a little while. After all, such things are an extremely important part of a nationalists armoury.....

And that's that I reckon we won't hear Sturgeon talking about "English tories" for a little while.

And then she'll start again, because nationalism requires an 'other' to be the cause of all problems.

[eFestivals]

23 hours ago, LJS said:

Since Neil has retired from debating this subject, I shall limit myself to the odd wee link to assist with his education.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/scottish-nationalists-racist-uk-bigotry-sadiq-khan?CMP=twt_gu#comment-94107563

as you're recommending this article, I presume you now agree that the phrase 'blood & soil' isn't a nazi-specific reference after all.

[LJS]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as you're recommending this article, I presume you now agree that the phrase 'blood & soil' isn't a nazi-specific reference after all.

I never ever said it was a "Nazi-specific" reference. Indeed, I quite clearly stated, on more than one occasion, that the notion of "blood & soil" pre-dated the Nazis by many years.

What I did say and I stand by is that "blood & soil" is best known for its adoption by the Nazis. Anyone who uses it to describe an organisation  such as the SNP is suggesting some sort of similarity between the SNP & the Nazis.

It's possible that could be unintentional due to ignorance. In this area, I don't believe you are ignorant.

In this instance the writer uses the phrase when referring to Ukip & the front national. Although personally, I would recommend avoiding reference to the Nazis, I would certainly argue these 2 organisations are far closer to the Nazis than the SNP are.

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

1. row with Sturgeon, so not about what he said, instead about the 'row'.

Row with sturgeon. Why? because he was 

  likening Scottish nationalism to racism
 

No suggestion that the Nats had made up the racism link because it clearly states this as fact.

 

Quote

2. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

Correct. You see, I don't pick & choose my links to make my case - I posted the first results of a google search including those like this that neither support nor dettact from my case.

Quote

3. accurately reports what Khan said.

It does but it still deliberately puts  bigotry and racism in the headline. 

Quote

4. "Sadiq Khan 'not accusing SNP of being racists'" - so the opposite of your claim

Still gets racism in the headline

Quote

5. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said.

Right so why was there a row? was it because someone misinterpreted what he said? Was it the nats inventing another false grievance?

NO:it was because Khan was 

Claiming there is ‘no difference’ between Scottish nationalism and racism

Quote

6. mentions 'row', rather than (just) what he said. Says they were 'ill judged' (because we all know that Nats will lie about them) but not that what he said was inaccurate.

Again conveniently ignoring the part of the headline that states as fact the he was 

likening Scottish nationalism to racism

Quote

7. this reports it something like you claim, but which only shows the journalist up as spectacularly missing the whole point of what Khan said.

One out of 7. Not bad. It's an improvement.

Good try Neil, sadly you English comprehension & maths has let you down again. 4 out of 7 clearly stating that Khan had linked Scottish Nationalism with a couple more just sneaking in a hint of racism.

How did they all get it so wrong, Neil?

Edited March 2, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

anyway, I reckon this row about Khan's words might have a small effect, tho most likely only for a little while. After all, such things are an extremely important part of a nationalists armoury.....

And that's that I reckon we won't hear Sturgeon talking about "English tories" for a little while.

And then she'll start again, because nationalism requires an 'other' to be the cause of all problems.

I don't believe I have ever heard Sturgeon talk about "English Tories" 

I think you made it up.

Where I agree with you, however, is that, on their own, Khan's words will have a small effect. Where they might have a much larger effect is if, as I suspect, they presage a greater emphasis on tarring the yes side with the racist brush this time round. Why do I think that? Because the reporting of his words clearly suggests this was not some off the cuff intervention. The press had clearly been briefed, otherwise they would not have reported it with the near unanimity we saw.

As I have said, I think it is a dangerous tactic: committed Nats will hate it: committed Yoons will love it. Neither of these groups matter. what matters is the crucial third in  he middle who are not firmly committed either way. Will it persuade enough of them that voting Yes is somehow embracing prejudice & bigotry? Or will it be seen as a desperate attempt to smear honest well meaning yes voters? It seems to me to be a very high risk tactic for the No side.

What is more concerning, for me, is that it risks dragging the whole debate into the gutter and perhaps this is the real aim, Last time round, in spite of all the wildly exaggerated stories of vile cybernats, the debate was overwhelmingly passionate yet good-natured: and Yes won the debate (in the sense of increasing support throughout the campaign and mobilising most grass root activists.) 

Perhaps, more than anything else, the No side fears a similar sort of campaign this time round. 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, what Khan said *IS* spot on.

I for one am delighted that Khan popped up to tell us what is currently happening in Scottish politics.

Prior to his expert intervention, we had to rely on comments under newspaper articles.....or within puzzles 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I for one am delighted that Khan popped up to tell us what is currently happening in Scottish politics.

Prior to his expert intervention, we had to rely on comments under newspaper articles.....or within puzzles 

 

 

I assumed this was a spoof!

But it's not

https://www.theguardian.com/crosswords/cryptic/27133

from the ridiculous to the Subliminal!

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I never ever said it was a "Nazi-specific" reference. Indeed, I quite clearly stated, on more than one occasion, that the notion of "blood & soil" pre-dated the Nazis by many years.

What I did say and I stand by is that "blood & soil" is best known for its adoption by the Nazis. Anyone who uses it to describe an organisation  such as the SNP is suggesting some sort of similarity between the SNP & the Nazis.

utter utter bullshit.

That article - the one you recommended - uses it again UKIP, who are as much like the Nazis as the SNP.

And both UKIP and the SNP share more than you want to recognise. For both, sovereignty over-rides all other things, to the extent that damaging the nation is worthwhile in order to exercise sovereignty.

Oh, I forgot, breaking links with partners is bad and evil and fascist and racist-driven, unless it's your own team doing it.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

because he was 

  likening Scottish nationalism to racism

Oh, now you say he *ACTUALLY* did that, after spending the most of the last week saying he didn't really?

You'll have to show me where he did that, while not showing yourself up as thick as pigshit and unable to read or understand simple sentences.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Right so why was there a row?

because the likes of you are being deliberately obtuse - thick - and claiming something of his words that wasn't there.

He was talking about and comparing divisive politics, and listed those who use divisive politics.

Go on, tell me again how wanting to create a new division isn't divisive.

Why are the likes of you claiming something of his words that wasn't there? Because the last thing you want is a discussion on what he actually said because you know it can't be sensibly countered.

Edited March 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't believe I have ever heard Sturgeon talk about "English Tories" 

I think you made it up.

you need new non-xenophobic ears.

 

Quote

Where I agree with you, however, is that, on their own, Khan's words will have a small effect. Where they might have a much larger effect is if, as I suspect, they presage a greater emphasis on tarring the yes side with the racist brush this time round. Why do I think that? Because the reporting of his words clearly suggests this was not some off the cuff intervention. The press had clearly been briefed, otherwise they would not have reported it with the near unanimity we saw.

because it's not 100% standard to pre-release conference speeches? PMSL.

How do we know that Corbyn & McDonnell fucked over Clive Lewis? Because his speech was pre-released.

How do we know what May is going to say to the Scottish tories (is it today? Or tomorrow?). Because her speech has been pre-released.

100% standard.

Or an anti-Scottish conspiracy.

You decide.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

As I have said, I think it is a dangerous tactic: committed Nats will hate it: committed Yoons will love it.

because Nats willing accept any criticisms, right?

And of course, those Nats are open to an argument and persuasion by the facts, and that's why they're open to criticisms and discussions about the facts.

You lot can't even read a simple sentence without having to make up a lie about it - as this whole thing gets to show.

 

Quote

Neither of these groups matter. what matters is the crucial third in  he middle who are not firmly committed either way. Will it persuade enough of them that voting Yes is somehow embracing prejudice & bigotry? Or will it be seen as a desperate attempt to smear honest well meaning yes voters? It seems to me to be a very high risk tactic for the No side.

There's no such thing as a well-meaning yes voter. There's only the liars and the lied-to.

There's nothing well meaning about choosing to impoverish your countrymen while telling them you'll be doing the opposite.

Well-meaning only starts when you're prepared to accept and discuss facts.

 

Quote

What is more concerning, for me, is that it risks dragging the whole debate into the gutter and perhaps this is the real aim, Last time round, in spite of all the wildly exaggerated stories of vile cybernats, the debate was overwhelmingly passionate yet good-natured: and Yes won the debate (in the sense of increasing support throughout the campaign and mobilising most grass root activists.) 

yes, no one was called a quisling, 'the English' in Scotland weren't blamed for the loss, and the SNP weren't trying to win with lies bigger than Boris and Farage used for brexit.

Very good natured.

 

Quote

Perhaps, more than anything else, the No side fears a similar sort of campaign this time round. 

PMSL

This time round the no side outside of Scotland couldn't give a shit. If you're off, you're off - get the fuck on with it. There's a reason why you haven't and everyone knows why.

And there's still that financial plan to come. The SNP are at their peak, the only way is down once the SNP have to provide detail.

Edited March 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, now you say he *ACTUALLY* did that, after spending the most of the last week saying he didn't really?

Nice attempt at deflection, Neil. My point was very clearly not about what he said but about how it was reported & why it was reported that way. I'm still waiting for you to address that

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You'll have to show me where he did that, while not showing yourself up as thick as pigshit and unable to read or understand simple sentences.

you mean a sentence like this?  

" Good try Neil, sadly you English comprehension & maths has let you down again. 4 out of 7 clearly stating that Khan had linked Scottish Nationalism with a couple more just sneaking in a hint of racism."

Where i  say that the headlines were clearly stating that Khan had made the link. I was not stating that Khan had made the explicit link.

Now that I've explained that simple sentence to you, maybe you'll be able to reply.