The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

& yes they have similar methods of operation - they have candidates at elections - they deliver leaflets through my door, they put posters up stigmatising foreigners,& they say we should worry if foreigners move in next door.

Oh no, they don't do they?

you've not noticed the part of the 'yes' campaign that complains about the foreigners living next door?

You must be walking around with your eyes and ears shut.

[eFestivals]

Neil, do you see the SNP and Alex Salmond in general as relevant to the independence debate?

Worth noting that a "Yes" means you're a total moron.

Right, so Alex and the SNP haven'#t made the whole thing possible, then? :lol:

[LJS]

you've not noticed the part of the 'yes' campaign that complains about the foreigners living next door?

You must be walking around with your eyes and ears shut.

Excellent Neil, start the day talking Bollox as usual.

[eFestivals]

If you mean is the referendum a vote for Alex & the Snp then the answer is no.

Neil gets a bit confused about this sometimes.

Not at all.

Scotland has already voted the SNP into power.

Via voting the SNP into power, indy has become possible.

And if Scotland votes yes to indy, Scotland will throw out the man who made it all possible instead of glorying him as the father of the nation, to instead vote for people intrisically linked to the horrible Westminster that you'll have wanted to leave.

Yeah, that's what will happen.

It's seems to have passed Scotland by entirely, but the SNP are in power at this moment not because all voters for them support indy (polls said about 1/3 didn't), but because they're not those Westminster tainted-parties. That will apply exactly the same post-indy, but more-so because the attraction of those Westminster parties has slumped even further.

And funnily enough - deny it all you like - the same effect will be seen tomorrow, and yes-ers everywhere will misrepresent what's gone on there too.

However, I don't think you can say they are irrelevant to the debate. We wouldn't be having the vote if it wasn't for them & much of the debate is framed by their white paper. This is unfortunate as, again, we ate not voting for the white paper.

So the only thing you believe that Scotland is voting for is for Scotland to be run by Scotland?

And yet you've said a lot that's different to that in this thread, where you've said how Scotland is voting for a fairer society and other things.

Moving where decisions are made only moves where the decisions are made.

Still ... the upside of indy is that Scotland would be standing on its own two feet.

Unfortunately, what doesn't want to be accepted by yes-ers is that Scotland would be standing on its own two feet.

[eFestivals]

Excellent Neil, start the day talking Bollox as usual.

it's the only line that yes has, and it's constant.

If you've missed it, you've missed everything.

[eFestivals]

btw, you people in Scotland do know that the independence you're voting for is an independence where Liz owns every inch Scotland, don't you?

[kaosmark2]

btw, you people in Scotland do know that the independence you're voting for is an independence where Liz owns every inch Scotland, don't you?

Not much different to dozens of other countries across the globe.

[LJS]

Not at all.

Scotland has already voted the SNP into power.

Via voting the SNP into power, indy has become possible.

And if Scotland votes yes to indy, Scotland will throw out the man who made it all possible instead of glorying him as the father of the nation, to instead vote for people intrisically linked to the horrible Westminster that you'll have wanted to leave.

Yeah, that's what will happen.

It's seems to have passed Scotland by entirely, but the SNP are in power at this moment not because all voters for them support indy (polls said about 1/3 didn't), but because they're not those Westminster tainted-parties. That will apply exactly the same post-indy, but more-so because the attraction of those Westminster parties has slumped even further.

And funnily enough - deny it all you like - the same effect will be seen tomorrow, and yes-ers everywhere will misrepresent what's gone on there too.

So the only thing you believe that Scotland is voting for is for Scotland to be run by Scotland?

And yet you've said a lot that's different to that in this thread, where you've said how Scotland is voting for a fairer society and other things.

Moving where decisions are made only moves where the decisions are made.

Still ... the upside of indy is that Scotland would be standing on its own two feet.

Unfortunately, what doesn't want to be accepted by yes-ers is that Scotland would be standing on its own two feet.

I want Scotland to be run by Scotland because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, I believe there is more chance of achieving a fairer society. So independence is not entirely an end in itself (speaking for myself only, of course) I know & understand that you don't share that view. & I know & understand your reasons ....I just don't agree.

& I have always tried to get on well with my neighbours & would not expect that to change.

[eFestivals]

Not much different to dozens of other countries across the globe.

not dozens, but a handful. Including the UK.

Quite why any country wanting to be create a new independent structure would accept that I don't know.

Edited May 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I want Scotland to be run by Scotland because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, I believe there is more chance of achieving a fairer society.

and yet the promise in the white paper is more neoliberalism as more of the money is handed over to the richest - what you're voting to endorse.

There only rational presumption of iScotland being "a fairer society" is nothing different to the same promise made by anyone at Westminster.

So independence is not entirely an end in itself (speaking for myself only, of course) I know & understand that you don't share that view. & I know & understand your reasons ....I just don't agree.

they're fine principles, but no different to from Westminster you're relying on snakeoil salesmen to deliver it. And when Scotland's own snakeoil salesman will have already given the country to Rupert, how are *you* going to get it back?

Don't forget that if voting worked in the way you and me might like it to, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

& I have always tried to get on well with my neighbours & would not expect that to change.

threats made over things you have no right to (in international law, no less) is not being the good neighbour you believe yourself to be (cos don't forget, you'll be voting to endorse that).

But I guess, much like the SNP/yes are blaming foreigners for all Scotland's problems, these aspects have passed you by too.

Edited May 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

and yet the promise in the white paper is more neoliberalism as more of the money is handed over to the richest - what you're voting to endorse.

There only rational presumption of iScotland being "a fairer society" is nothing different to the same promise made by anyone at Westminster.

they're fine principles, but no different to from Westminster you're relying on snakeoil salesmen to deliver it. And when Scotland's own snakeoil salesman will have already given the country to Rupert, how are *you* going to get it back?

Don't forget that if voting worked in the way you and me might like it to, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

threats made over things you have no right to (in international law, no less) is not being the good neighbour you believe yourself to be (cos don't forget, you'll be voting to endorse that).

But I guess, much like the SNP/yes are blaming foreigners for all Scotland's problems, these aspects have passed you by too.

More Bollox.

How many times to I have to explain a yes vote is not a vote for Alex, the snp, or a cut in Corp tax.

I can make that choice in 2016 & 2021 & 2026 etc....

[eFestivals]

More Bollox.

How many times to I have to explain a yes vote is not a vote for Alex, the snp, or a cut in Corp tax.

I can make that choice in 2016 & 2021 & 2026 etc....

come back and tell me it's bollocks when Alex is unemployed in May 2016. Meanwhile I'll look forwards to you telling me just how wrong you were.

The problem of politicians is not corrected by voting for politicians, just as the problem of a stupid electorate is not cured by a stupid electorate.

Edited May 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

come back and tell me it's bollocks when Alex is unemployed in May 2016. Meanwhile I'll look forwards to you telling me just how wrong you were.

The problem of politicians is not corrected by voting for politicians, just as the problem of a stupid electorate is not cured by a stupid electorate.

I can't be wrong.

I've never said he wouldn't win merely that we will have a choice.

It would be crazy to oppose independence because you don't like the man who is likely to be the first leader.

[russycarps]

It would be crazy to oppose independence because you don't like the man who is likely to be the first leader.

by that logic, it would be crazy to leave the union because you dont like the current government

[eFestivals]

I can't be wrong.

I've never said he wouldn't win merely that we will have a choice.

It would be crazy to oppose independence because you don't like the man who is likely to be the first leader.

PMSL ... but you've constantly been saying that indy will improve things, and yet you're now admitting that you know it won't.

You'll find a post of mine very early in this thread (long before you joined in) where I say that Scotland is perfectly able to be independent, but that how successful it'll be will depend on the quality of the politicians and the electorate.

All this campaign is doing is proving that the quality is no better and so an indy Scotland will be no better.

And so the point is what, exactly?

As things stand currently (probably only temporarily, but we'll see) you'll actually be worse off than Westminster delivers you, because Westminster has managed to kick Rupert out for the moment - and yet he's already bought Scotland, tho your glorious leader forgot to tell you about that sale of your country and the price you'll pay for eternity.

[LJS]

by that logic, it would be crazy to leave the union because you dont like the current government

Correct. It would be.

[Buff124]

btw, you people in Scotland do know that the independence you're voting for is an independence where Liz owns every inch Scotland, don't you?

That calls for a QI alarm moment.

http://www.myinstants.com/instant/the-qi-alarm/

It appears that you misunderstand or fail to grasp the nature of 'sovereignty' as applied to Scotland ?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

Here's an article about sovereignty written from a Scottish perspective by arch neo-federalist Canon Kenyon Wright, co-founder of the Scottish Constitutional Convention - a body whose activities the SNP played no part in.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/canon-kenyon-wright/expressing-and-exercising-scottish-sovereignty

Edited May 21, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

PMSL ... but you've constantly been saying that indy will improve things, and yet you're now admitting that you know it won't.

2 incorrect statements in one sentence

1: "you've constantly been saying that indy will improve things" - I don't do certainty - I leave that to fools. I believe the best HOPE for a better future lies with independence. I am not certain of anything

2: " yet you're now admitting that you know it won't" : now I could see how you made the first mistake but I have certainly never "admitted" any such thing.

Now who comes along when you accuse me of saying things i haven't said...

you've missed him haven't you?

admit it!

[LJS]

btw, you people in Scotland do know that the independence you're voting for is an independence where Liz owns every inch Scotland, don't you?

& Canada & Australia

I think we can dismiss it as a wee bit of a technicality - like the way she has to approve legislation before it becomes law..

These are all "use 'em & lose 'em" powers

Personally I would ditch the Royal family but that's a battle I'll happily leave until further down the road.

Edited May 21, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

Here's an article about sovereignty written from a Scottish perspective by arch neo-federalist Canon Kenyon Wright, co-founder of the Scottish Constitutional Convention - a body whose activities the SNP played no part in.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/canon-kenyon-wright/expressing-and-exercising-scottish-sovereignty

furthermore....

Bear in mind the importance of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, or SCC, in securing a referendum on Devolution in 1979. The core of the SCC lay within the Labour movement. Its fair to say the SNP were on the fringes of the devolution process, and this at least in part led to the eventual hegemony of the gradualist wing of the party.

The current referendum is framed as a polarised choice -black or white, completely in or completely out - but that narrative ignores the decades of Left wing dominated debate on the rainbow of options that lie between Union and 'Independence'. Its a deliberate tactic, part of the 'exluded middle' strategy.

If the axis of the referendum debate shifts to the SCC narrrative, then it begins to acknowledge that no country in the world is truly independent; that it's more about what level of inter-dependence Scotland should have with the other members of the United Kingdom; and, critically, that the desired direction of travel is best maintained by a Yes majority in the referendum.

Why? Because it then provides a platform for negotiation which doesn't currently exist, and one which a No majority would not necessarily provide.

And pretty much all of the above doesn't really involve the SNP

Edited May 21, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

I have a question for Neil or any of the others who argue that Scotland would be better off remaining within the UK.

As you know, my politics are of the left with a tinge of green.

I have (in part) justified my Yes vote by saying that the "centre" ground in UK politics has moved so far to the right that there is now no mainstream UK party that could be described as in any way left wing. The whole Ukip phenomenon has shifted things even further to the right.

Leaving aside whether my aspirations for Scotland are realistic or not, persuade me there is a realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of any sort of even vaguely left wing party winning a UK election.

Edited May 21, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It appears that you misunderstand or fail to grasp the nature of 'sovereignty' as applied to Scotland ?

Nope, it appears that you misunderstand sovereignty as applied by Liz.

Liz owns every bit of dirt of the UK, Canada, Oz, and other places too.

When someone "buys" some land as freehold, they don't own it - Liz does. She merely allows the freeholder to hold that land for free.

Unless she wants it back.

That's what you're getting with indy too. Nothing of that changes.

[eFestivals]

I have a question for Neil or any of the others who argue that Scotland would be better off remaining within the UK.

it's not quite that I'm arguing.

It's more that Scotland is not gaining anything, but is losing some things.

If yes put forwards something worth voting for, I'd vote for it.

I have (in part) justified my Yes vote by saying that the "centre" ground in UK politics has moved so far to the right that there is now no mainstream UK party that could be described as in any way left wing. The whole Ukip phenomenon has shifted things even further to the right.

And the SNP are on that right too. Remember, they're the party to the right of the tories over the banks, and it doesn't get get more in favour of the moneyed than that!

Leaving aside whether my aspirations for Scotland are realistic or not, persuade me there is a realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of any sort of even vaguely left wing party winning a UK election.

Or alternatively, persuade me that you'll get anything different in Scotland.

What seems to have passed many people on Scotland by is that they've been voting just as much for the right as the rest of the UK.

[kaosmark2]

I have a question for Neil or any of the others who argue that Scotland would be better off remaining within the UK.

As you know, my politics are of the left with a tinge of green.

I have (in part) justified my Yes vote by saying that the "centre" ground in UK politics has moved so far to the right that there is now no mainstream UK party that could be described as in any way left wing. The whole Ukip phenomenon has shifted things even further to the right.

Leaving aside whether my aspirations for Scotland are realistic or not, persuade me there is a realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of any sort of even vaguely left wing party winning a UK election.

I do not believe any party left of (current) Labour will win a UK election in the next 20 years.

I also do not believe that any party left of Labour will win in an independent Scotland.

I also believe that the UKIP "phenomenon" remains utterly irrelevant, and at best they will start to rival the Greens in size. I don't think they have any chance of having any impact in Westminster.

And, if my last point is wrong, I believe the balance to UKIP's success will involve a number of left-leaning voters to be more prepared to vote Green over Labour/Libs as a product of the right vote being more split.