The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I think most of us have avoided cutting & pasting campaign material.

I know I have made a point of not doing so.

Mainly because it doesn't really help.

But if you think it does, I'm sure I can find lots of stuff to clutter up this thread with.

So I'll not bother addressing some of the comedy names on the list you posted.

[kaosmark2]

Gosh, what a helpful & constructive post.

Moreso than most of what viberunner's said in this thread.

[kaosmark2]

I think most of us have avoided cutting & pasting campaign material.

I know I have made a point of not doing so.

Mainly because it doesn't really help.

But if you think it does, I'm sure I can find lots of stuff to clutter up this thread with.

So I'll not bother addressing some of the comedy names on the list you posted.

I was more using it because it seemed relevant to the argument at the time around Salmond's logic and debate tactics. I think a lot of the "experts" in that list aren't worth listening to, but it is actually a fairly accurate (if dismissive) portrayal. He doesn't actually use counterarguments, he just says "no, it won't be like that". And some of what's been posted here (from everyone) has got like that.

[LJS]

Neil,

looking for a bit of clarity on this one from you

Scotland is £15Bn down in all of the years since 1980 on the SG's own numbers. You know, really the 'subsidy junkies' that some people insultingly call you (and you'll note I never have).

This seems to go a bit further than some of your previous claims.

Can you link me to your sources please?

Oh, & I dare say you may not have used the phrase "subsidy junkies"

but you did say

The Barnet Formula that gives Scotland too much money so that it can afford to do its discrimatory policies isn't a fair burden onto the poor of England either, tho that doesn't seem to bother you.

doesn't sound too dissimilar to me.

Frankly subsidy junkies is probably kinder than what you have said - you are subsidising our racism!!!

Edited July 4, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

yeah massive part...

Labour 44 seats 41.6% of vote

Conservative 22 seats 31.4% of vote

By your definition, I have a massive part too !!!!

so what you're saying is that Scotland voted for Thatcher at a not-much-different level to the rest of the UK.

Thanks for clearing up that Scotland played a massive part, and that Scotland likes to pretend differently.

[eFestivals]

Absolutely correct the debate is based upon a word scam. & the word is "region"

Scotland is not a region of the UK

Scotland is a nation!

I refer you to the name of this nation - a name that excludes both of the words 'England' and 'Scotland' - and then back again to your own scam on words.

the Treaty of Union is not a Treaty between "regions". it is a treaty between nations.

which then in union become a single nation.

And I believe it does not remove nationhood from Scotland.

then your belief is contrary to the facts as written down.

so when & how exactly did our nationhood disappear?

In the hope that the truth of the matter might lessen the feeling of victimhood that's coming from you....

At exactly the same time as England's.

And as for your constant repeating of the bedroom republic shite, no one on here has ever complained they don't get the government they individually vote for, we complain that collectively as a Nation we do not get the government we vote for .

I complain at every election, where I do worse at getting represented than Scotland ever has done.

If I was petty and small minded enough to belief that my vote should always be the winning vote, I'd declare a bedroom republic too.

You consistently ignore this & repeatedly try to lure us into Neil's bedroom.

Or alternatively, you're already in Alex's bedroom and his hand is on your knee.

How far up your leg are you going to let that hand wander?

Yet another simplistic argument to avoid addressing the issues. Like shouting racism, trying to make out it is all a vote for St Alex, like treating it as a general election where we are voting for policies.

You are voting for policies.

If yes win, you've voted for:-

1. a CU, and higher taxes in Scotland to be paid to England at any moment that England demands it.

2. EU membership, despite that being against the majority will of the people of Scotland.

3. a nuclear-free Scotland forever, without the people ever having their say on the issue.

4. all power handed to politicians in Scotland, with the people 100% reliant on those politicians for whether any of it ever comes back.

5. increased immigration, against the wishes of the people of Scotland.

But you don't think you're voting for any of these, despite Alex making it 100% clear that you are.

People like you won't listen to what 'no' says, but you are also not listening what 'yes' says.

Your vote will be more meaningful if you know what you'[re voting for, rather than making clear that you don't know.

You have some valid points - around currency & financial uncertainty. for example. But you undermine your own arguments, in the same way as BT do, by you scattergun & frequently illogical attacks on every argument for independence.

If you want less scatter-gun and more debate of substance, you and ever other Scot has to be willing to enagage in debate.

You know, the very thing you won't do. I've never yet had an answer from anyone in Scotland to the simple question "What is a currency?" The only answer you'll ever give is "mine as well as yours".

Well, if that's true, state your willingness to bail out London banks, as will be absolutely required on demand - for me as well as you. If you want the benefits, you also share the cost.

And then there was only silence.....

Edited July 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil,

looking for a bit of clarity on this one from you

This seems to go a bit further than some of your previous claims.

Can you link me to your sources please?

The only source, everything you need to prove me right is there:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

Oh, & I dare say you may not have used the phrase "subsidy junkies"

but you did say

doesn't sound too dissimilar to me.

and the reason it doesn't sound dissimilar is because your ability to discern anything from simple words is poor (you've yet to realise that the people are not sovereign, cos Alex specifically states they're not - for example).

Scotland is able to afford more services than England is - not because Scotland is doing anything better than anywhere else in rUK, but because rUK is allocating too much money to Scotland in comparision to elsewhere.

The benefits felt in Scotland is (with everything else being equal) at the expense of the poor in England.

These are 100% absolute facts.

Frankly subsidy junkies is probably kinder than what you have said - you are subsidising our racism!!!

That's absolutely true - tho it's also a claim made far more by yes-ers towards rUK, if you've cared to notice.

Those yes-ers always forget about the £10Bn that the UK has to borrow each year right now for Scotland to operate as it does, tho.

You know, borrowed by Englishmen in England to benefit the Scots, rather than let them rot on the basis of their own resources only - something which yes-ers wish that London was doing to the people of Scotland, so that their myth might actually fit the facts.

[eFestivals]

There's a great piece by matey who runs YouGov, making clear why he thinks the methodology of some pollsters is a crock of shite.

(In case you're not aware, matey writes analysis pieces from polling data all the time, and not just about Scotland).

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/

Meanwhile, there's a joke piece on newsnet Scotland about that article:-

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9406-yougovs-great-wall-of-secrecy-bluster-and-evasion

(That article should really be titled "paranoia hits new heights in Scotland yet again" ).

To cut thru the crap and get to the truth of things, just check the historical results of the final-week polls of these polling companies, and what the actual voting has turned out to be. Which polling companies have been the most accurate, and which have been the least accurate?

(I shouldn't need to make any links to anything about that, because anyone following the debate will already know.)

[LJS]

so what you're saying is that Scotland voted for Thatcher at a not-much-different level to the rest of the UK.

Thanks for clearing up that Scotland played a massive part, and that Scotland likes to pretend differently.

do they not teach maths in English schools?

[viberunner]

or you're suggesting Neil personally did that.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Dude is a secret spiv with all of Scotland's oil cash.

[eFestivals]

I didn't say "more Scots voted for Thatcher than they did anyone else".

I said they played a big part - which they did. Scotland like to pretend otherwise.

Talking of rewriting history, I stumbled across this earlier:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland

Another example of how Alex isn't shy of lying to the people of Scotland to try and fool them into supporting him.

[LJS]

I refer you to the name of this nation - a name that excludes both of the words 'England' and 'Scotland' - and then back again to your own scam on words.

which then in union become a single nation.

then your belief is contrary to the facts as written down.

In the hope that the truth of the matter might lessen the feeling of victimhood that's coming from you....

At exactly the same time as England's.

I complain at every election, where I do worse at getting represented than Scotland ever has done.

If I was petty and small minded enough to belief that my vote should always be the winning vote, I'd declare a bedroom republic too.

Or alternatively, you're already in Alex's bedroom and his hand is on your knee.

How far up your leg are you going to let that hand wander?

You are voting for policies.

If yes win, you've voted for:-

1. a CU, and higher taxes in Scotland to be paid to England at any moment that England demands it.

2. EU membership, despite that being against the majority will of the people of Scotland.

3. a nuclear-free Scotland forever, without the people ever having their say on the issue.

4. all power handed to politicians in Scotland, with the people 100% reliant on those politicians for whether any of it ever comes back.

5. increased immigration, against the wishes of the people of Scotland.

But you don't think you're voting for any of these, despite Alex making it 100% clear that you are.

People like you won't listen to what 'no' says, but you are also not listening what 'yes' says.

Your vote will be more meaningful if you know what you'[re voting for, rather than making clear that you don't know.

If you want less scatter-gun and more debate of substance, you and ever other Scot has to be willing to enagage in debate.

You know, the very thing you won't do. I've never yet had an answer from anyone in Scotland to the simple question "What is a currency?" The only answer you'll ever give is "mine as well as yours".

Well, if that's true, state your willingness to bail out London banks, as will be absolutely required on demand - for me as well as you. If you want the benefits, you also share the cost.

And then there was only silence.....

We'll need to agree to differ on whether Scotland is a nation or not - neither of us are likely to budge on it & few even on the No side dispute it but feel free to hold to your view. I'll hold to mine ... thanks very much.

Unless you are suggesting we turn into Switzerland the majority of policy decision will continue to be made by elected politicians as they are now - it's how democracy works - It'y how the UK has trident missiles although no one has ever asked us if we would like them or not. To varying degrees all the examples you have given can be changed when we change government.

As far as the banks are concerned we have discussed this at length in the past - If you can't remember - go look it up. Funnily enough we did not agree on that either.

[LJS]

There's a great piece by matey who runs YouGov, making clear why he thinks the methodology of some pollsters is a crock of shite.

(In case you're not aware, matey writes analysis pieces from polling data all the time, and not just about Scotland).

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/

Meanwhile, there's a joke piece on newsnet Scotland about that article:-

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9406-yougovs-great-wall-of-secrecy-bluster-and-evasion

(That article should really be titled "paranoia hits new heights in Scotland yet again" ).

To cut thru the crap and get to the truth of things, just check the historical results of the final-week polls of these polling companies, and what the actual voting has turned out to be. Which polling companies have been the most accurate, and which have been the least accurate?

(I shouldn't need to make any links to anything about that, because anyone following the debate will already know.)

yeah read them both as well as Survation's response - seems fairly reasonable to question why YouGov are weighting their results in a different way from everyone else but you think of that as a jokey piece, suppose it depends on your sense of humour.

[LJS]

I didn't say "more Scots voted for Thatcher than they did anyone else".

I said they played a big part - which they did. Scotland like to pretend otherwise.

Talking of rewriting history, I stumbled across this earlier:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland

Another example of how Alex isn't shy of lying to the people of Scotland to try and fool them into supporting him.

i give up on the Thatcher thing if your definition of a massive part in Thatcher's victory is getting under a third of the votes & under a third of the seats then you are correct - we played a massive part.

And as for politicians having said things in the past that they don't hold to now, I think you can probably find examples of this for most if not all of them - like Alistair Darling agreeing a currency union would make sense.

[eFestivals]

Darling didn't agree to what yes lie about.

Find the full interview and not the lies version that yes presented to you.

[eFestivals]

We'll need to agree to differ on whether Scotland is a nation or not - neither of us are likely to budge on it & few even on the No side dispute it but feel free to hold to your view. I'll hold to mine ... thanks very much.

I've no particular problem with either version, but I am able to see how the view of Scotland as a nation is used to self-justify the independence debate.

And yet, at the end of the day, it's just a very ancient and arbitrary line in the sand that means fuck all, that someone once drew for their benefit - and not yours or anyone else in Scotland.

Alex has been very clever with its use over the last 30-ish years, to bring about where we find ourselves now. But it doesn't mean anything outside of his own desire to gain more powers for himself (and not for the use of those powers for the people of Scotland - else he'd be using the powers he already has).

Unless you are suggesting we turn into Switzerland the majority of policy decision will continue to be made by elected politicians as they are now - it's how democracy works - It'y how the UK has trident missiles although no one has ever asked us if we would like them or not. To varying degrees all the examples you have given can be changed when we change government.

What I am doing is trying to make you aware that the claim "the people are sovereign" is meaningless guff. In Salmond's constitution, the people's sovereignty is expressed by one method only - their GE vote. That's 100% identical to what the UK currently gives you.

And yet Salmond holds up that line of guff as something meaningful, something extra that independence gives you.

There are no extra protections for anything of the constitution. They can be changed at the will of politicians without reference back to 'the people' - 100% identical to how Westminster operates.

Even the constitution itself is not a work of 'the people', not even a work of a number of the main parties. It is the work solely of the SNP in isolation, and designed for the SNP's benefit (and not yours).

Salmond is aware enough of modern democractic standards to have previ9ously claimed he'd do no such thing as write your constitution for you, but suddenly he pulls a completed document out of his draw.

And those 'sovereign' people in Scotland? They mutter not a single word of disapproval.

As far as the banks are concerned we have discussed this at length in the past - If you can't remember - go look it up. Funnily enough we did not agree on that either.

The BoE is lender of last resort.

If, within a CU, any bank within Scotland or rUK goes bust, the BoE will bail it out - which means in reality that the money of taxpayers bails it out.

Within a CU, that's the taxpayers of both England and Scotland, no matter in which country the failed bank might reside.

So, that means that, if there's a CU, and if ('when' is the real truth of the matter) a London bank fails, the people of Scotland will have to pay higher taxes to bail out London banks.

Are you and every other person in Scotland willing to do that for London banks?

[LJS]

Darling didn't agree to what yes lie about.

Find the full interview and not the lies version that yes presented to you.

can't be bothered frankly - my point is politicians are people so they change their minds from time to time and say things that they'd rather they hadn't.

I've changed my mind about independence - so if I was in the public eye you woudl be able to find things I've said that support stating in the UK & that I no longer agree with.

[eFestivals]

yeah read them both as well as Survation's response - seems fairly reasonable to question why YouGov are weighting their results in a different way from everyone else but you think of that as a jokey piece, suppose it depends on your sense of humour.

It's not a reasonable question to ask why YouGov are doing it differently, unless you know that the Survation method is better. Do you know it's better?

Any smart polling company will weight their results for how they believe will give the most accurate results, and not for any other reason.

Matey at YouGov makes a point of stating that he doesn't believe Survation are deliberately trying to skew the results, he's merely pointing out the different methodologies used, and where the differences with that show up.

Why the fuck would one of the UK's better established polling companies be trying to get their own results wrong, as you're suggesting with your "reasonable" question above?

There's different methods, which gives different results. That gets to mean that one will prove be more accurate* than others against what happens on indyref day.

(* for each of the polling companies final-week polls)

We can revisit these words on results-day if you like.

In the meantime, all we have to go on for which is the better method is by looking at how accurate each has been in the past - and what matey says holds up against those facts of the past.

[eFestivals]

my point is politicians are people so they change their minds from time to time and say things that they'd rather they hadn't.

absolutely right.

But you keep putting aside the pertinent fact that it's perfectly possible for a Scotsman in Scotland to screw up Scotland much more than Westminster ever might.

can't be bothered frankly

.... so you make an assertion, get told it's wrong against the facts, but then can't be bothered to check about what are the actual facts .... and here's betting you'll continue to believe the lie that yes have put there, and mug yourself of making an intelligent decision against the facts.

What you've done there is the very thing that sums up so much of the yes side.

Vote yes if you want to, but at least make sure you know what you're voting for and against.

I've changed my mind about independence - so if I was in the public eye you woudl be able to find things I've said that support stating in the UK & that I no longer agree with.

The mind changing isn't the point.

It's the refusal to accept that decisions have consequences, and that the consequences are not always jam-from-the-sky.

In 2007, Salmond presented a perfect banking future for Scotland. You now accept this perfect banking future would have been a disaster for Scotland.

In 2008 Salmond presented a perfect 'arc of prosperity' economic future for Scotland. You now accept that the 'arc of prosperity' would have been a disaster for Scotland.

In 2014, Salmond presents a perfect indy future for Scotland, and you believe this will all come true.

[LJS]

Quite a reasonable article by Robert peston...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28159326

[eFestivals]

Quite a reasonable article by Robert peston...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28159326

it'll be interesting to see what the reaction is to the programme of Peston's that's to be broadcast tonight - particularly in light of all the claims from yes in Scotland of BBC bias.

(I don't get to see TV in Scotland, so I can't comment on how it is up there, but I'm not see any 'bias' in the BBC's reporting. What I am seeing is lots of the normal lazy journalism that's driven by press releases - and given that yes don't say much more than "bluster and bullying" there's not a lot for the lazy to report from that.)

Edited July 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

it'll be interesting to see what the reaction is to the programme of Peston's that's to be broadcast tonight - particularly in light of all the claims from yes in Scotland of BBC bias.

(I don't get to see TV in Scotland, so I can't comment on how it is up there, but I'm not see any 'bias' in the BBC's reporting. What I am seeing is lots of the normal lazy journalism that's driven by press releases - and given that yes don't say much more than "bluster and bullying" there's not a lot for the lazy to report from that.)

Media bias is hard to prove. This guy did a study of BBC & stv news coverage for a year. I do of course appreciate that it is well night impossible to be totally objective about these things...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report

[eFestivals]

Media bias is hard to prove. This guy did a study of BBC & stv news coverage for a year. I do of course appreciate that it is well night impossible to be totally objective about these things...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report

The thing is, while the indyref is a very important subject in itself, a lot about it isn't news. The yes side have had nothing new to say for months, so there's little to report from that side.

Whereas, for instance, if a company says in its yearly report (as it should do if it feels indy might be detrimental to its business) that it (say) might relocate to rUK if there's a yes, then that *IS* news.

From the other side of that, if a company reports that it's unconcerned by the issue, that's not news - or at least it's not as big news, just on the basis that it would be a report of "nothing happening here" compared to the "something happening here" of the inverse.

I thought I'd have a lot of stuff to catch up on when I got back from Glasto, but ended up being surprised just how little there was. In the last few days the absence of any news at all in the normal places i look has had me touring the Scottish newspaper sites AND the likes of WoS and BC and BFS. And I still ended up bored, because there's nothing new being said.

What's so surprising about the lack of news is that the pause is being used for nothing at all. Yes-ers could and should and would be taking Salmond to task for the constitution if there's a rebirth of democratic participation in Scotland, but there is only silence; To bring a bit more clarity to the debate, Salmond could be providing you with the SG's own estimates of the set-up costs, but he's not because none of you are asking him for it. Etc, etc, etc.

It seems like yes-ers are happy with everything, and all that remains is to mark their x.

[kaosmark2]

The yes side have had nothing new to say for months, so there's little to report from that side.

Being fair, neither have the no side.

[LJS]

Pretty reasonable programme from Robert peston last night I thought. I could take issue with some bits of course but overall pretty fair.

There were a few contributions from a chap from the IFS which as you would expect highlighted some of the potential negatives for iScotland. However, when asked at the end how he would vote if he had a vote, he said he wouldn't base his decision on financial considerations as Scotland would be unlikely to be significantly better or worse off.