The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Ah, now I see why you've de-personalised it. Smart move.

If I say the SNP, you'll say I'm personalising it, and that the Scottish people are not the SNP (despite the SNP being the Scottish people's govt). This thread is full of those sorts of comments by you and others.

If I say the Scottish Govt, you come out with that bollocks above.

Anyone might think that you'll throw back any (wait for it, here comes your fav word ) whatabouty you can think of to divert things from a discussion on the facts.

[eFestivals]

One more time. Its a policy based on residency, not ethnicity.

you do know that in UK law, racism is applicable to both ethnicity and nationality, don't you?

The SNP have merely used a convenient legal loophole to sow divisions, because division is their total offering. Divide and rule - and you're getting ruled if you vote yes.

By Murdoch. Alex has already sold your soul.

[eFestivals]

You are amongst friends here - it really is demeaning the argument to start accusing anyone of racism.

The UK govt gives Scotland £2k per-person more, on the basis that some in Scotland demand to be treated in a special manner to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

Scotland uses some of that extra to pay for free uni for Scottish students while excluding others on the UK on the basis that they're not those wonderful Scottish people who are faultless in every detail.

Guess what the rest of the UK could do if Scotland wasn't Thatcherite demanding everything for itself?

Divide and rule, and you've been ruled.

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

you do know that in UK law, racism is applicable to both ethnicity and nationality, don't you?

The SNP have merely used a convenient legal loophole to sow divisions, because division is their total offering. Divide and rule - and you're getting ruled if you vote yes.

By Murdoch. Alex has already sold your soul.

Ethnicity & nationality are both different from residency.

[LJS]

The UK govt gives Scotland £2k per-person more, on the basis that some in Scotland demand to be treated in a special manner to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

Scotland uses some of that extra to pay for free uni for Scottish students while excluding others on the UK on the basis that they're not those wonderful Scottish people who are faultless in every detail.

Guess what the rest of the UK could do if Scotland wasn't Thatcherite demanding everything for itself?

Divide and rule, and you've been ruled.

As previously stated, under the Barnett formula Scotland has received higher per capita cash allocation than England. Funnily enough, it's only since devolution when Scotland also got control over how some of it was spent that we noticed any benefits.

Funny that.

[eFestivals]

The whole question of whether Scotland will be able to continue to apply its current policy within the EU after Independence is a complex one & as ever, other opinions are available.

EU rules say that you cannot discriminate against other member states.

Because there's no similar UK law, Scotland has been able to work the Thatcherites dream of "it's all mine", and then uses that Thatcherite dream to sow division for (only) the the purpose of their own empowerment. Not yours, theirs.

So which opinion do you go with? The racist one, or the fair and sharey one?

I would dearly like Scotland to continue to offer free Uni education to its citizens & I don't really see why we should provide this free to residents of rUK which does not offer the same.

The UK's version of democracy said that the UK should pay fees. That includes Scotland.

But Scotland says we don't like democracy, we'll do non-democracy and claim to be more democratic.

Democracy is accepting the result of the democratic process. If you feel the democratic process should be different you campaign to change to the democratic process, not ignore the democratic process. Scotland rejected a change to the democratic process no differently to the rest of the UK 9and wih little difference of opinion to the rest of the UK).

(of course, a different choice of change would have been better - and more democratic. But that's by-the-by, because Scotland is not interested any more than the rest of the UK)

And the UK funds the Scottish freebie that is not given to the UK. But you just ignore that part of things, eh?

In a strictly practical sense, there would be a serious risk of a Flood (well a big trickle- I don't want to be alarmist here) of Tuition free refugees.

So what will you do post-indy when you have to change the rules to fit EU law?

Whichever way the change goes, iScotland will have to get real.

Are yes-ers ready to get real? Not by the look of your words.

Of course it would all be up to the incoming Scottish government in 2016 - which judging by what you & Russy are saying is likely to be a Tory/Ukip coalition

Russy is as likely to be right as you are about Scotland wanting indy, going by the current polls.

[eFestivals]

Ethnicity & nationality are both different from residency.

yeah, you just keep telling yourself that the divisions that the SNP sow with racism are about uniting people.

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As previously stated, under the Barnett formula Scotland has received higher per capita cash allocation than England. Funnily enough, it's only since devolution when Scotland also got control over how some of it was spent that we noticed any benefits.

Funny that.

Should Scotland get more? Nope*.

Is that me being hateful to Scotland? Or is that me being fair to everyone?

For the answer apply to a different place depending where you live, because the truth about fairness is a political and geographical construct.

Unless you're scottish, then fairness is what the SNP say.

What's that? You don't support the SNP? And yet you've just said you do - in their racism.

(* not extra enough to fund extras).

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Should Scotland get more? Nope*.

Is that me being hateful to Scotland? Or is that me being fair to everyone?

For the answer apply to a different place depending where you live, because the truth about fairness is a political and geographical construct.

Unless you're scottish, then fairness is what the SNP say.

What's that? You don't support the SNP? And yet you've just said you do - in their racism.

(* not extra enough to fund extras).

Does every English region get the same? No they don't. Wales & n.I. get more too

[LJS]

Why are you banging on about racism?

You don't listen to anything anyone says do you?

[eFestivals]

Does every English region get the same? No they don't. Wales & n.I. get more too

Yep, that horrible nasty England that you want to believe financially shafts Scotland doesn't shaft Scotland (or Wales, or NI) at all. Funny that, eh?

Instead, it gives Scotland so much money that Scotland has the ability to operate an anti-UK racist policy with the UK's money.

The purpose of the SG's racist policy (really: the SNP's racist policy) is to highlight division to help create the division that's necessary for its ultimate goal.

Divide and rule, and it's you that gets ruled. By Rupert.

[eFestivals]

Why are you banging on about racism?

You don't listen to anything anyone says do you?

Discriminating against people on the basis of where they're from is.... what?

[eFestivals]

PS: if people from Scotland were being discriminated against in law by the UK parliament, what might you and the other 5.5M people of Scotland say?

[LJS]

PS: if people from Scotland were being discriminated against in law by the UK parliament, what might you and the other 5.5M people of Scotland say?

I'd say you are losing touch with reality.

[eFestivals]

I'd say you are losing touch with reality.

Sorry, the SG is beyond reproach, because it's so obviously 100% perfect. Or alternatively, it's not.

But as far as you're concerned it's the former, as you're unable to see anything bad or wrong about anything it does.

Even tho it does things that are very clearly wrong.

[eFestivals]

I'd say you are losing touch with reality.

So it would be realistic to say that despite having a privileged financial position Scotland never moans about being treated badly by the UK? :lol:

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

So it would be realistic to say that despite having a privileged financial position Scotland never moans about being treated badly by the UK? :lol:

I can't speak for Scotland.

I do think Scotland's interests have not been best served by successive Westminster governments.

As you are well aware, I do not believe England, the English or Westminster bear any sort of grudge against Scotland or Scots.

I certainly would not be childish enough to start bandying around offensive terms such as racism.

[kaosmark2]

I do think Scotland's interests have not been best served by successive Westminster governments.

I think England's haven't either.

[eFestivals]

I do think Scotland's interests have not been best served by successive Westminster governments.

that's sod all to do with what I asked.

I pointed out that if Scotland was being penalised just on the basis that it was Scotland, then trhe din from the north would be deafening.

But when the Scottish Govt does that to the rest of UK, there's nothing racist about it. Hmmmm, OK.

As you are well aware, I do not believe England, the English or Westminster bear any sort of grudge against Scotland or Scots.

That's very clearly stated, thanks.

I certainly would not be childish enough to start bandying around offensive terms such as racism.

Then please do explain how it's not racist* to discriminate against people on the basis of where they're from.

(* using the UK legal definition of ethnicity or nationality).

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think England's haven't either.

Ditto.

It's a shame that half of Scotland is no longer doing democracy. If it did then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary for many in Scotland to say that being anti-democratic is the democratic thing to do.

[eFestivals]

I see Alex has said (to be shouted very loudly) "it'll rain money if you vote yes".

And to be whispered very quietly ".... in 15 years time if I'm as perfect as I like to think I am".

[eFestivals]

Whoops, i missed an important bit - Alex saying that he'll boost the working age population.

Unless he's planning a shagging spree of his own, I'm guessing that'll be via increased immigration (something that 75% of Scots are totally against).

And so we're back to Alex saying that his plans for iScotland include border posts between iScotland and the rUK.

It's either that, or it's very unlikely he'll succeed in boosting the working age population by anything significant.

Edited May 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I just think this idea that Scotland are suffering Westminster's evils more than the rest of us is bollocks. Apart from the home county nimbys, everyone across the UK has been screwed over to some degree. Scotland isn't special.

[eFestivals]

I just think this idea that Scotland are suffering Westminster's evils more than the rest of us is bollocks. Apart from the home county nimbys, everyone across the UK has been screwed over to some degree. Scotland isn't special.

Yup. I think - within what UK govts do (wasting billions on nukes, liking The City too much, etc, etc) - they actually do a pretty fair job at spreading the available money or resources around to where it's most-needed.

Their worst crime is being far too slow to react but they do seem to get there eventually - the run-down places of my younger years are rarely the same places that you might hear of today.

-----

Having mentioned Alex's 15 year bribe dream, I guess I should mention the bollocks from the other side too.

I've found the following (on a BBC page) as the explaination...

Lower UK borrowing +£47

Set-up costs and net effects of Work and Pensions policies avoided +£261

Costs of ageing absorbed across UK +£163

Long term oil decline absorbed across UK +£130

Lower Scottish onshore tax revenues absorbed +£207

Higher public spending in Scotland +£981

Oil revenues shared across UK, rather than geographically -£389

Total added costs: £1,789

Total gain: £389

Net downside: £1,400

Instead of that meaningless bollocks of a "UK dividend", why haven't they said what it really is? (the answer is of course they'v been listening, and are trying to turn a negative into a positive).

Cos what it really is is the (UK govt's) projected extra costs vs benefits of an independent Scotland - worse off by £1,400 under independence, or taken the other way £1,400 better off sticking with the Union.

(the guessing at those numbers isn't likely to be any better than Alex's guesses).

[eFestivals]

I just saw this in the Guardian's comments, and I think it sums things up pretty nicely....

He basically said vote for an independent scotland, or to stay in the union, because it's what you believe in, not because of some goodies being dangled in front of you by either side. Then, live with the consequences, because you believed in what you chose, not because you thought it would get you somewhere in a narrow, short term way, and I agree with that.

I can't see what other meaningful basis there is to decide with, because the future is always a leap into the unknown.

(but if you're believing Alex, all hail the god Jam ).