Scottish Independence

[Mibbes Aye]

I wasnt sniping at your views on the council tax I was flippantly commenting on the volume of them.

If it wasn't such a damning indictment of Salmond and what his government think of the genuinely poor, do you think I would have mentioned it once?

[degenerated]

Just so we are clear.

The SNP wanted to scrap the council tax.

The UK government said this would mean they stop giving people a rebate on their council tax, basically because the SNP had scrapped it.

You've hyperlinked an article which basically reiterates the two sentences above.
Read the whole article rather than just the quotes from Labour.

Interestingly this money was not going to be withheld if labours alternative to council tax was implemented.

[Mibbes Aye]

I prefer pragmatist but hypocrite will do if you like! He's going to Westminster because he wants a role but recognises the need to give Sturgeon space. The sovereign will (remember) said stick with WM and I'm no abstentionist so somebody has to represent us there.

Hold on, so far on this thread the Yessers have been telling me it's a corrupt, manipulative and venal abomination.

And now the guy who led your campaign, who spoke for your dreams, is wanting to jump back on the gravy train?

The crunching of gears as folk go into reverse is excruciating.

[Mibbes Aye]

Read the whole article rather than just the quotes from Labour.

Interestingly this money was not going to be withheld if labours alternative to council tax was implemented.

Did the SNP proposal add up?

That's a rhetorical question as we both know it didn't and that's why they didn't put it to a vote.

[degenerated]

Did the SNP proposal add up?

That's a rhetorical question as we both know it didn't and that's why they didn't put it to a vote.
That aside the snp won a majority with the freeze as part of their manifesto. So the settled will of the people decided it whether or not you or I like it.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't. I sniped at you for bogging down an argument about the constitution with an essentially irrelevant policy issue unconnected to the indyref.

MonDieu4 and I were talking about the cuts that have happened and will continue to happen in public spending. That's as critical a part of any discussion about independence as anything I can think of, including any finer points about constitutional law.

I believe you're smarter than to really think it's 'irrelevant'. For so many reasons, even if we were in a time of budget surpluses, it touches upon critical issues around governance, power and fiscal responsibility.

The SNP put it at the forefront of their manifestos because they saw it as popular but in political terms it's deserving of being big-ticket because of what it says about how the nation is governed and where power and accountability lies.

[Mibbes Aye]

That aside the snp won a majority with the freeze as part of their manifesto. So the settled will of the people decided it whether or not you or I like it.

Just so we are clear, you came on to this thread saying Labour had scuppered the SNP plans for a local income tax.

But the SNP government never put that to a vote and their sums didn't add up because they wanted to scrap a tax but keep the rebate Westminster provided for it.

Accurate reflection of what you posted and what actually happened?

[Mibbes Aye]

That aside the snp won a majority with the freeze as part of their manifesto. So the settled will of the people decided it whether or not you or I like it.

And another thing, what's your point here?

We shouldn't hold governments accountable for what they do?

Should I assume you have accepted anything any governing party had in their manifesto as incontrovertible and unchallengeable?

Are you secretly a wannabee totalitarian? :greengrin

[Just Alf]

Hold on, so far on this thread the Yessers have been telling me it's a corrupt, manipulative and venal abomination.

And now the guy who led your campaign, who spoke for your dreams, is wanting to jump back on the gravy train?

The crunching of gears as folk go into reverse is excruciating.

Been keeping an eye on this thread with a wee bit interest... (It seems to be stuck in a loop a bit :-( )......

However, on this particular issue.... Are you saying that the SNP should ignore the majority and not have anything to do with Westminster? What is the alternative you think they should follow instead?

[ronaldo7]

He's coming back, and they're *****ting themselves. Nice of the BBC to have a balanced panel.:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2WC5bkmnMwY

[Peevemor]

So Salmond, if elected, is going to hide in the shadows and give Sturgeon the foreground? That's what you're saying.

Why is he even going to Westminster then? Didn't you disown it? Isn't it a corrupt and venal institution by your terms?

Someone's being a hypocrite here and they're someone who voted Yes in September.

Even during the build up to the referendum Salmond left a lot of space for Sturgeon and seemed happy enough for her to take a good share of the limelight. Salmond has now passed the Holyrood reins to Nicola Sturgeon while he takes the road South to head up a potentially very powerful parliamentary SNP. Personally I think things are shaping up quite nicely.

[Mibbes Aye]

Been keeping an eye on this thread with a wee bit interest... (It seems to be stuck in a loop a bit :-( )......

However, on this particular issue.... Are you saying that the SNP should ignore the majority and not have anything to do with Westminster? What is the alternative you think they should follow instead?

Not in the slightest.

[Mibbes Aye]

Even during the build up to the referendum Salmond left a lot of space for Sturgeon and seemed happy enough for her to take a good share of the limelight. Salmond has now passed the Holyrood reins to Nicola Sturgeon while he takes the road South to head up a potentially very powerful parliamentary SNP. Personally I think things are shaping up quite nicely.

I think he's said he wouldn't want to lead the parliamentary group.

Anyway, the likes of you were describing Westminster as a corrupt, venal, self-serving elite. Having failed to secure the will of the Scottish people should we assume that the man you trusted to lead us to our destiny is actually just wanting to get his snout in the trough?

You can't have it both ways :greengrin

[Mikey09]

He's coming back, and they're *****ting themselves. Nice of the BBC to have a balanced panel.:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2WC5bkmnMwY


Tim Stanley.... The Pricks Prick.

[Peevemor]

I think he's said he wouldn't want to lead the parliamentary group.

Anyway, the likes of you were describing Westminster as a corrupt, venal, self-serving elite. Having failed to secure the will of the Scottish people should we assume that the man you trusted to lead us to our destiny is actually just wanting to get his snout in the trough?

You can't have it both ways :greengrin

You know fine that the SNP may well have a fair bit of clout at Westminster following the next general election and I for one am pleased that Salmond will probably be there to gain the maximum benefit for Scotland. Better on the inside pissing out and all that...

[Moulin Yarns]

I think he's said he wouldn't want to lead the parliamentary group.

Anyway, the likes of you were describing Westminster as a corrupt, venal, self-serving elite. Having failed to secure the will of the Scottish people should we assume that the man you trusted to lead us to our destiny is actually just wanting to get his snout in the trough?

You can't have it both ways :greengrin

Snout in the trough and Alex Salmond? Really?

The man who has donated his £42.5k annual pension to charity

[Bristolhibby]

I think he's said he wouldn't want to lead the parliamentary group.

Anyway, the likes of you were describing Westminster as a corrupt, venal, self-serving elite. Having failed to secure the will of the Scottish people should we assume that the man you trusted to lead us to our destiny is actually just wanting to get his snout in the trough?

You can't have it both ways :greengrin

You can have it both ways though. 55% of voters wanted it both ways. scots need representation in Westminster.

Using your logic would mean the SNP abstaining from any UK General Elections? An odd tactic for any political party.

You play the game in front of you.

J

[Hibrandenburg]

:faf:

Oh my sides!

:faf:

After all the petty mudslinging about how bad and out of touch 'Westminster' supposedly is, the failed leader of the Yes campaign is only going and trying to rejoin it, according to breaking news on the BBC.

:faf:

So come on Yes folks - there's a massive inconsistency in your arguments here. Whom amongst you is right, and whom amongst you is wrong, and why?

What a palaver!

:faf:

You wanted the YES campaigners to move on, he's moved on. What's your problem?

There's fights to be fought that need to be fought in Westminster, you voted for this, again what's your problem?

You wanted Scotland to remain under Westminster rule, Salmond is going to stand for a seat in the house you chose for us, isn't that what you wanted?

[lucky]

Snout in the trough and Alex Salmond? Really?

The man who has donated his £42.5k annual pension to charity

He's donating his FM pension until the general election when he will have his FM pension, MSP salary and potentially his MP salary plus expenses

[marinello59]

He's donating his FM pension until the general election when he will have his FM pension, MSP salary and potentially his MP salary plus expenses

Effectively he is donating it towards good works in his own constituency. If only every MP had access to taxpayers money to spend as they see fit amongst the people who vote for them. Of course he could just refuse to accept the extra salary.

[degenerated]

He's donating his FM pension until the general election when he will have his FM pension, MSP salary and potentially his MP salary plus expenses
He said as long as he was receiving his salary he would donate his pension to his trust for good causes. He has also stated he would do the same with his mps salary.
http://news.sky.com/story/1387365/alex-salmond-will-donate-pay-if-elected-as-mp

Be interesting to see if his expenses are on the scale of the serial troughers in Labour like Murphy, Alexander, Curran etc

[Beefster]

Be interesting to see if his expenses are on the scale of the serial troughers in Labour like Murphy, Alexander, Curran etc

If past history is anything to go by, yes. Salmond wasn't really any better or worse than the vast majority of the MPs.

[ronaldo7]

I wonder if Gordon Brown will put his pension to charity, or will he continue to accumulate funds into his office.:whistle:

http://order-order.com/2014/04/04/new-figures-show-gordon-and-sarah-brown-office-booming/

[marinello59]

He said as long as he was receiving his salary he would donate his pension to his trust for good causes. He has also stated he would do the same with his mps salary.
http://news.sky.com/story/1387365/alex-salmond-will-donate-pay-if-elected-as-mp

Be interesting to see if his expenses are on the scale of the serial troughers in Labour like Murphy, Alexander, Curran etc

An unfortunate turn of phrase given Salmond's previous with his food expenses. :greengrin
They're all as bad as each other, it doesn't matter what party they belong to.

[degenerated]

An unfortunate turn of phrase given Salmond's previous with his food expenses. :greengrin
They're all as bad as each other, it doesn't matter what party they belong to.
Absolutely, a reason why this has always had a certain resonance :greengrin

http://youtu.be/x0ddOmzQlgY

[ronaldo7]

Which Red Tory will we be getting on Saturday then? My cash is on Murphy, closely followed by Findlay with Boyack bringing up her rear.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/scottish-labour-leadership-contest-general-election/29853

[lord bunberry]

Which Red Tory will we be getting on Saturday then? My cash is on Murphy, closely followed by Findlay with Boyack bringing up her rear.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/scottish-labour-leadership-contest-general-election/29853

I hope it's murphy, he's just what the branch office doesn't need

[marinello59]

Is this thread still about Independence or is it just party loyalists bickering now? :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Is this thread still about Independence or is it just party loyalists bickering now? :greengrin

Just pooling and sharing resources bud:aok: Everyone want the best of both worlds eh.:wink:

Now, how are they LabConDem cuts coming along.

[marinello59]

Just pooling and sharing resources bud:aok: Everyone want the best of both worlds eh.:wink:

Now, how are they LabConDem cuts coming along.

I don't have the faintest idea what this post means.:greengrin

[Beefster]

Now, how are they LabConDem cuts coming along.

I must live in a parallel universe where the SNP are making cuts too. I'm definitely living in one where they utterly failed on their pledge to cut P1-3 class sizes.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with a lot/most of what Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems do (or are proposing) but this thing of only focussing on what the parties other than the one you like do is guff. It's one of the reasons that I'm not a member of or wedded to any particular party - IMHO it makes you ignore their failings.

[ronaldo7]

I must live in a parallel universe where the SNP are making cuts too. I'm definitely living in one where they utterly failed on their pledge to cut P1-3 class sizes.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with a lot/most of what Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems do (or are proposing) but this thing of only focussing on what the parties other than the one you like do is guff. It's one of the reasons that I'm not a member of or wedded to any particular party - IMHO it makes you ignore their failings.

I hope you live long and prosper in your parallel universe.

Just to be clear, I utterly abhor the what the Labour party have become having been a long term Labour voter. They really have become the new right in politics, with the Tories and Ukip being far right. If it's ok with you, I will continue to raise my concerns about what's happening in my world. I've had my cereal thanks. I won't be going back into my box, and I've moved on thanks.:aok:

On the subject of the SNP, you're right, they have failed on the policy of the class sizes, but then again I didn't raise that in my post. I was asking who we'd be getting to run the branch office in Scotland.

In other news, more job losses for the people of Kinloss, as the one and only Rescue and co-ordination centre in the UK is re-located to Englandshire.

http://news.stv.tv/north/303106-mod-plans-to-close-kinloss-rescue-coordination-centre-in-moray/

[ronaldo7]

Who had Souter, Walsh and Racliffe on their side. The reality the people of Scotland voted no. Just because the Tories got something right for once does not make Labour bad. I campaigned for a no vote but never once saw a Tory involved. This is no longer about independence its a bitter SNP led attack to try and kill off the Labour Party which is failing. Forget the polls a by election on Thursday in mid lothian gave Lab another victory

http://m.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/news/local-news/breaking-news-labour-s-kenny-young-wins-midlothian-east-by-election-1-3619025


For some balance, there were 2 other Council by elections on Thursday.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/snp-candidate-claims-victory-aberdeenshire-4712889

SNP - 1159 votes
Labour - 140 votes

An Independent candidate won in Kirkwall, and I can' find the other candidates.

Another win for the Nationalist party, with the Unionists parties lagging far behind. The Lib dems particularly bad at this by-election.

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/news/2014/dec/south-kintyre-election-results-11th-december-2014

And more...

http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/News/SNPs-Reid-wins-Elgin-North-by-election-12122014.htm

[hibs0666]

The Scottish Government (aka SNP) was forecasting an average oil price of $113 to 2017/2018 in its white paper.

Slack global demand is resulting in the price of Brent oil falling to $62, with very little sign of supply and demand coming back into kilter any time soon.

Thank goodness we are part of a bigger economy that is less exposed to this than an independent Scotland. I won't be asking the SNP economists for too many more oil price predictions either.

[marinello59]

The Scottish Government (aka SNP) was forecasting an average oil price of $113 to 2017/2018 in its white paper.

Slack global demand is resulting in the price of Brent oil falling to $62, with very little sign of supply and demand coming back into kilter any time soon.

Thank goodness we are part of a bigger economy that is less exposed to this than an independent Scotland. I won't be asking the SNP economists for too many more oil price predictions either.

Job cuts are happening in Aberdeen already, worrying times. With so many aging assets the North Sea is particularly vulnerable to a fall in oil price.
At least it has stopped some of the ludicrous FB posts that were made during and after the referendum. The secret oilfield never materialised and the price has crashed, try blaming that on somebody who happened to vote differently from yourself. Both sides over egged the pudding when it came to North Sea Oil, the truth was always in the middle somewhere.

[Moulin Yarns]

Job cuts are happening in Aberdeen already, worrying times. With so many aging assets the North Sea is particularly vulnerable to a fall in oil price.
At least it has stopped some of the ludicrous FB posts that were made during and after the referendum. The secret oilfield never materialised and the price has crashed, try blaming that on somebody who happened to vote differently from yourself. Both sides over egged the pudding when it came to North Sea Oil, the truth was always in the middle somewhere.

I was at a Christmas party last night and two of the company I was in are so well connected to the oil industry they have frequent flyer benefits to Houston. Part of our conversation turned to the North Sea oil potential and their view is the UK oil and gas extraction is currently borderline economically feasible. It costs so much more to extract from continental shelf reserves when compared with middle east. One of the guys manages the rig maintenance, the other is a partner in an exploration technology company, and they both said the same, that it is more beneficial to slow extraction rates until the barrel price rises by about 20% than continue to extract at the same rate.

We also discussed the renewables industry which we all agreed was well placed to further make the north sea extraction less economically viable.

[over the line]

I was at a Christmas party last night and two of the company I was in are so well connected to the oil industry they have frequent flyer benefits to Houston. Part of our conversation turned to the North Sea oil potential and their view is the UK oil and gas extraction is currently borderline economically feasible. It costs so much more to extract from continental shelf reserves when compared with middle east. One of the guys manages the rig maintenance, the other is a partner in an exploration technology company, and they both said the same, that it is more beneficial to slow extraction rates until the barrel price rises by about 20% than continue to extract at the same rate.

We also discussed the renewables industry which we all agreed was well placed to further make the north sea extraction less economically viable.

The drop in oil price does show the folly of the SNP economic policy doesn't it? This would have made a huge dent in an IS's budget wouldn't it? I realise there would still be no IS at present, even with a Yes vote, but you see what I mean. An newly formed IS would have been especially badly affected by this kind of price drop IMO. I bet you are glad it was a No vote now aren't you? ;):)

One plus side to the fall in demand for oil, is that the refineries have gone a bit slack, making the air in Ellesmere Port that bit sweeter at the mo!!! :D

[Moulin Yarns]

The drop in oil price does show the folly of the SNP economic policy doesn't it? This would have made a huge dent in an IS's budget wouldn't it? I realise there would still be no IS at present, even with a Yes vote, but you see what I mean. An newly formed IS would have been especially badly affected by this kind of price drop IMO. I bet you are glad it was a No vote now aren't you? ;):)

One plus side to the fall in demand for oil, is that the refineries have gone a bit slack, making the air in Ellesmere Port that bit sweeter at the mo!!! :D

Except David Cameron, and others in the NO camp, agreed that Scotland was well placed economically to go it alone, and that any North Sea revenues were in fact the cherry on the top of the cake and not essential for the Independent Scotland to flourish.

As I believe more in the value of renewables, I don't know why I'm defending the need for oil, but there you go. I'm glad the Ellsemere air is more breathable.

When do they start Fracking under your house? :wink:

[over the line]

Except David Cameron, and others in the NO camp, agreed that Scotland was well placed economically to go it alone, and that any North Sea revenues were in fact the cherry on the top of the cake and not essential for the Independent Scotland to flourish.

As I believe more in the value of renewables, I don't know why I'm defending the need for oil, but there you go. I'm glad the Ellsemere air is more breathable.

When do they start Fracking under your house? :wink:

I'm not sure they will Frack too close to mine, as it might disturb all the nuclear waste from Urenco, that is stored under ground! :)

[Moulin Yarns]

This is well worth reading.

http://ponsonbypost.com/index.php/comment/6-how-the-bbc-stole-the-referendum

:agree:

[hibs0666]

This is well worth reading.

http://ponsonbypost.com/index.php/comment/6-how-the-bbc-stole-the-referendum

:agree:

I'm sure there will be another chapter entitled 'Why the SNP grass-roots strategy failed' unless of course the book is intended to be a hatchet job.

However I am sure that there will be an audience for this kind of stuff.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm sure there will be another chapter entitled 'Why the SNP grass-roots strategy failed' unless of course the book is intended to be a hatchet job.

However I am sure that there will be an audience for this kind of stuff.

There appears to be some compelling evidence in the first chapter, but then why should you believe it when you don't want to believe anything the SNP say about oil. :wink:

[hibs0666]

There appears to be some compelling evidence in the first chapter, but then why should you believe it when you don't want to believe anything the SNP say about oil. :wink:

I'm sure subsequent chapters will deal with why the grass-roots campaigning strategy failed and why the independence proposal failed to convince the majority of voters. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

There appears to be some compelling evidence in the first chapter, but then why should you believe it when you don't want to believe anything the SNP say about oil. :wink:

Actually, it appears you were correct to disbelieve the SNP on their oil projections.


"The Scottish government claims that there still exists £1.5 trillion of oil to be extracted from the North Sea. However a recent study, based on OECD figures, suggested that improvements in technology meant that there could be as much as £4 trillion of oil and gas left in Scottish waters."




I'm sure subsequent chapters will deal with why the grass-roots campaigning strategy failed and why the independence proposal failed to convince the majority of voters. :wink:

As you haven't read the first chapter, you won't know that the proposal did convince the majority of voters which is why the vow was suddenly devised. Remember, the SNP were happy for a second question to be included on further powers to be devolved, but the Better Together camp wanted a straight yes/no question. When the polls were showing a victory for Yes they through everything behind further powers, even though they rejected them originally.

[hibs0666]

As you haven't read the first chapter, you won't know that the proposal did convince the majority of voters which is why the vow was suddenly devised. Remember, the SNP were happy for a second question to be included on further powers to be devolved, but the Better Together camp wanted a straight yes/no question. When the polls were showing a victory for Yes they through everything behind further powers, even though they rejected them originally.

Sorry, the proposals did not convince or else we would be implementing a route to independence. If the independence proposal was so compelling how come a few last-minute concessions were enough to turn an apparently yes majority into a clear no majority?

[Moulin Yarns]

Sorry, the proposals did not convince or else we would be implementing a route to independence. If the independence proposal was so compelling how come a few last-minute concessions were enough to turn an apparently yes majority into a clear no majority?


Because of the all out media war on Independence?

[hibs0666]

Because of the all out media war on Independence?

Nope.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nope.

In your opinion.

Because of the all out media war on Independence and project fear peddling lies about pensions and foreign nationals for a start.

[hibs0666]

In your opinion.

Because of the all out media war on Independence and project fear peddling lies about pensions and foreign nationals for a start.

In your opinion.

[Moulin Yarns]

In your opinion.

Actually no.

Go and look at what was said about pensions by the better together camp, then look at what pensions UK expats in Spain get, and tell me they didn't lie.

Meanwhile the SNP appears to be in meltdown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30496244

:wink:

[hibs0666]

Actually no.

Go and look at what was said about pensions by the better together camp, then look at what pensions UK expats in Spain get, and tell me they didn't lie.

Meanwhile the SNP appears to be in meltdown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30496244

:wink:

Still your opinion. Personally I think that people can think for themselves.

[Moulin Yarns]

Still your opinion. Personally I think that people can think for themselves.

If you bothered to do your research you would find it is more than just my opinion. Pensioners were lied to, they trusted the BBC and the Daily Record, yet you think it is opinion.

I'll leave you to your delusions of grandeur while I move on.

It is funny how much the supporters of the No Better Together Thanks campaign seem to enjoy winding up the supporters of the Yes campaign, a bit like gloating, in my opinion, of course.

Goodbye, rather than waste time on someone not willing to enter debate, instead resorting to petty point scoring, I'm away to campaign for a more equal society and an end to the reliance on charity for people in this country.

[johnbc70]

If you bothered to do your research you would find it is more than just my opinion. Pensioners were lied to, they trusted the BBC and the Daily Record, yet you think it is opinion.

I'll leave you to your delusions of grandeur while I move on.

It is funny how much the supporters of the No Better Together Thanks campaign seem to enjoy winding up the supporters of the Yes campaign, a bit like gloating, in my opinion, of course.

Goodbye, rather than waste time on someone not willing to enter debate, instead resorting to petty point scoring, I'm away to campaign for a more equal society and an end to the reliance on charity for people in this country.

I am sure we did this before but is there any real evidence that pensioners were lied to, can you point me to this proof?

[Peevemor]

I am sure we did this before but is there any real evidence that pensioners were lied to, can you point me to this proof?


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-scottish-referendum-independence-4171949

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-topic/pensions/

[Moulin Yarns]

I am sure we did this before but is there any real evidence that pensioners were lied to, can you point me to this proof?

I tried, but unfortunately the Better together websites are now shut down, presumably to protect the information from prying eyes.

The media reported it though, as Peevemor has linked to some of the stories.

The basic premise was you would lose your pension immediately, ignoring the fact that all UK citizens wherever they are living, so long as the paid into the national pension scheme would be paid their pension benefits as if they were still resident.

Think of all the expats on the costa del sol which proves this to be the case.

[johnbc70]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-scottish-referendum-independence-4171949

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-topic/pensions/

So where is the actual lie?

I mean an actual lie like your pension will not be paid if you vote Yes or similar. You have linked to articles that have risks, warnings and opinions of individuals, no actual lies unless you can point one out to me as I missed it.

[johnbc70]

I tried, but unfortunately the Better together websites are now shut down, presumably to protect the information from prying eyes.

The media reported it though, as Peevemor has linked to some of the stories.

The basic premise was you would lose your pension immediately, ignoring the fact that all UK citizens wherever they are living, so long as the paid into the national pension scheme would be paid their pension benefits as if they were still resident.

Think of all the expats on the costa del sol which proves this to be the case.

With respect that's a load of nonsense. Nobody in any position of influence said you would lose your pension immediately if you voted Yes, so again a total myth.

[Moulin Yarns]

With respect that's a load of nonsense. Nobody in any position of influence said you would lose your pension immediately if you voted Yes, so again a total myth.


Straight from the BT Pension Factsheet -

On state pensions "Scottish pensioners have a right to know what sort of state pension they are going to get, how much it will be, whether or not it will go up each year, whether their occupational pensions are safe."


FACT - A UK pensioner in Spain enjoys the same benefits as a UK pensioner in Salford or Stenhousemuir, so the BT quote is misleading, they were in a position to say as much, but never did.

THE COST OF SETTING UP A NEW SYSTEM – If we vote to leave the UK, then we would need to set up – and pay for – a separate Scottish pensions regulator, a separate Scottish financial services compensation scheme, a separate National Employers Savings Trust for workplace pensions and a separate Payment Protection Fund (PPF) to protect workers when their company folds. Again, the SNP have not said how much replicating all these existing UK bodies would cost us or where the money would come from.

FACT - The Scottish Government was already setting up the new Scottish Exchequer as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, so there would be no, or little additional cost.

In other words, 2 lies about Pensions on official BT publications.

[Beefster]

Straight from the BT Pension Factsheet -

On state pensions "Scottish pensioners have a right to know what sort of state pension they are going to get, how much it will be, whether or not it will go up each year, whether their occupational pensions are safe."


FACT - A UK pensioner in Spain enjoys the same benefits as a UK pensioner in Salford or Stenhousemuir, so the BT quote is misleading, they were in a position to say as much, but never did.

THE COST OF SETTING UP A NEW SYSTEM – If we vote to leave the UK, then we would need to set up – and pay for – a separate Scottish pensions regulator, a separate Scottish financial services compensation scheme, a separate National Employers Savings Trust for workplace pensions and a separate Payment Protection Fund (PPF) to protect workers when their company folds. Again, the SNP have not said how much replicating all these existing UK bodies would cost us or where the money would come from.

FACT - The Scottish Government was already setting up the new Scottish Exchequer as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, so there would be no, or little additional cost.

In other words, 2 lies about Pensions on official BT publications.




I'm coming at this 'cold' but in what way is an Exchequer the same as a pensions regulator, compensation scheme and protection fund? I worked on implementing the 2006 "pension simplification" changes within a large organisation and there was huge cost in implementing the changes for government and organisations, despite the UK Exchequer being in existence.

[hibs0666]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-scottish-referendum-independence-4171949

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-topic/pensions/

Where are the lies?

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

[QUOTE=hibs0666;4250117]Where are the lies?[/QUOTE

Westminster

[Peevemor]

Where are the lies?

Lies? Maybe not, but definitely economical with the truth.

Scaremongering? Totally!

[hibs0666]

Lies? Maybe not, but definitely economical with the truth.

Scaremongering? Totally!

What is the problem with identifying the risks and dependencies of the proposed solution? Were people just supposed to roll over and let Salmond tickle their belly (what a horrible thought) every time the Scottish Government made an assertion?

[Peevemor]

What is the problem with identifying the risks and dependencies of the proposed solution? Were people just supposed to roll over and let Salmond tickle their belly (what a horrible thought) every time the Scottish Government made an assertion?

Eh? They warn that an iScotland could face a pension black hole. Did they say that the same goes for the UK as it stands? Did they say that if you made pension contributions to the treasury, then the treasury would eventually have to pay out? Did they say that the same applied to private schemes? The SNP tried to but couldn't get any decent media coverage.

[hibs0666]

The SNP tried to but couldn't get any decent media coverage.

Could the poor souls not get their points across during the live TV debates - the most viewed media events of the entire campaign?

[Peevemor]

Could the poor souls not get their points across during the live TV debates - the most viewed media events of the entire campaign?

How many live TV debates were there? How many biased news and current affairs programmes were broadcast (including some very dodgy editing of interviews)? How many newspapers were plastering scare stories across their front pages? Anyone who thinks that the bulk of the media weren't wholly biased and inaccurate in their pre referendum coverage is a blinkered fool.

[degenerated]

Lies? Maybe not, but definitely economical with the truth.

Scaremongering? Totally!
The Labour & unionist party helpfully collated the scaremongering headlines and stuck it through everyone's door.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/16/08f727dc6c63756dbdc6749b48b7d704.jpg

[johnbc70]

Straight from the BT Pension Factsheet -

On state pensions "Scottish pensioners have a right to know what sort of state pension they are going to get, how much it will be, whether or not it will go up each year, whether their occupational pensions are safe."


FACT - A UK pensioner in Spain enjoys the same benefits as a UK pensioner in Salford or Stenhousemuir, so the BT quote is misleading, they were in a position to say as much, but never did.

THE COST OF SETTING UP A NEW SYSTEM – If we vote to leave the UK, then we would need to set up – and pay for – a separate Scottish pensions regulator, a separate Scottish financial services compensation scheme, a separate National Employers Savings Trust for workplace pensions and a separate Payment Protection Fund (PPF) to protect workers when their company folds. Again, the SNP have not said how much replicating all these existing UK bodies would cost us or where the money would come from.

FACT - The Scottish Government was already setting up the new Scottish Exchequer as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, so there would be no, or little additional cost.

In other words, 2 lies about Pensions on official BT publications.




You said pensioners were told they would immediately lose their pension if they voted Yes. I am still waiting to see who said this? Or is it another myth.

What you copied is again not lies but opinions and points of view, just because you disagree does not make it a lie.

[johnbc70]

The Labour & unionist party helpfully collated the scaremongering headlines and stuck it through everyone's door.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/16/08f727dc6c63756dbdc6749b48b7d704.jpg

Not through everyone's door as I never got it. Looking at that leaflet why does it not have any Better Togethet or political party branding on it. If it was an official publication then I am sure it would have and possible by law would have to. Where is it from?

[degenerated]

Not through everyone's door as I never got it. Looking at that leaflet why does it not have any Better Togethet or political party branding on it. If it was an official publication then I am sure it would have and possible by law would have to. Where is it from?
It had Scottish Labour on the other side of it, and one certainly came through my door. Perhaps as a confirmed loyalist/unionist they didn't feel the need to bombard you with their junk mail.

[marinello59]

So where is the actual lie?

I mean an actual lie like your pension will not be paid if you vote Yes or similar. You have linked to articles that have risks, warnings and opinions of individuals, no actual lies unless you can point one out to me as I missed it.

There was no lie. There were different opinions offered by both sides who put their own spin on things. And despite history being re-written here both sides had ample opportunity to get their message over.

[Moulin Yarns]

You said pensioners were told they would immediately lose their pension if they voted Yes. I am still waiting to see who said this? Or is it another myth.

What you copied is again not lies but opinions and points of view, just because you disagree does not make it a lie.

Both taken straight from BT published literature.

[Just Alf]

This was all discussed a few thousand posts ago? :confused:

And for the record, I said then, that my in-laws had been told by a labour door stepper that their pensions were on the line in the event of a YES.... This was instrumental on them voting NO.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/27/nigel-farage-named-briton-of-the-year-by-the-times-5000495/?ito=facebook

Brings a wee tear to my British eyes. Proud, so proud!

[Moulin Yarns]

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/27/nigel-farage-named-briton-of-the-year-by-the-times-5000495/?ito=facebook

Brings a wee tear to my British eyes. Proud, so proud!

Angela Merkel voted person of the year.

I don't suppose anyone has a clue what the biggest political event of the year was?

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ed-miliband-banned-from-referendum-rally-speech-1-3645476



Labour leader Ed Miliband has been branded an electoral "liability" after reports emerged that he was blocked from speaking in an eve-of-referendum rally earlier this year.



:hilarious

[Hibrandenburg]

Happy "Shat it Day" everyone.

[johnbc70]

Happy "Shat it Day" everyone.

That's the spirit, bound to win over the undecided that way. You should campaign on that premise, maybe add in selfish cowards as well?

[Hibrandenburg]

That's the spirit, bound to win over the undecided that way. You should campaign on that premise, maybe add in selfish cowards as well?

That's the spirit, stifle any attempt at self depreciating humour. :rolleyes:

[marinello59]

Happy "Shat it Day" everyone.

As a life long supporter of Independnce can I just say well done on posting something that will only strengthen the No vote. We are supposed to be winning people over.

[Hibrandenburg]

As a life long supporter of Independnce can I just say well done on posting something that will only strengthen the No vote. We are supposed to be winning people over.

Not your humour either then.

[johnbc70]

That's the spirit, stifle any attempt at self depreciating humour. :rolleyes:

OK fair enough but have seen similar comments not made in humour on here.

[Beefster]

That's the spirit, stifle any attempt at self depreciating humour. :rolleyes:

After Brexit, I’m pretty sure I’d vote for independence as long as we got back into the EU. It’s a means to an end. This type of stuff makes me instinctively dislike the independence movement though.

PS You weren’t being self deprecating.

[Hibrandenburg]

After Brexit, I’m pretty sure I’d vote for independence as long as we got back into the EU. It’s a means to an end. This type of stuff makes me instinctively dislike the independence movement though.

PS You weren’t being self deprecating.

I'm glad to hear that you would consider voting yes this time round. If nothing else that's more evidence that Brexit might have been the last straw for some.

P.S. I was being self depreciating in a national way. It's something we Scots do well. Bit like Ewan McGregor's rant about our relationship with England in Train Spotting.

[IGRIGI]

Happy "Shat it Day" everyone.

The only solace I take is the Scottish born vote was 52% for yes.

[G B Young]

Voted no last time along with the majority and Brexit would have no bearing on my vote should there ever be another independence referendum.

The only thing that would see me consider voting yes would be if there was a genuine threat that we could otherwise be governed by Corbyn's Labour.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not your humour either then.

Maybe you have been in Germany too long, and their famous sense of humour has stuck with you...

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe you have been in Germany too long, and their famous sense of humour has stuck with you...

I take it this is German humour too:

"*It's ***** being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The **** of the ****ing Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just ****ers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by ****ers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete ********s. It's a ***** state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any ****ing difference!"

[McD]

The only solace I take is the Scottish born vote was 52% for yes.


Another inclusive comment.... haven’t we been told continuously that an independent Scotland would be a socially accepting and open society? But I’m guessing that’s only if they agree with you. :rolleyes:

I'm sure there was likely non Scottish people voted Yes as well as you

[Pretty Boy]

Another day, another triumph for 'civic nationalism'.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I take it this is German humour too:

"*It's ***** being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The **** of the ****ing Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just ****ers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by ****ers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete ********s. It's a ***** state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any ****ing difference!"

No, but that was funny 😁

It was also a line said by a drunk junkie in the middle of coming of junk, not exactly Voltaire!

[Hibrandenburg]

No, but that was funny 😁

It was also a line said by a drunk junkie in the middle of coming of junk, not exactly Voltaire!

Humour can be hit n miss, I remember you posting that you have difficulty picking up on humour in this forum, therefore I'm not too devastated by you missing it here. Either that or I'll put it down to me being a junked up (flu) alcoholic in the middle of coming off whisky.

[IGRIGI]

Another inclusive comment.... haven’t we been told continuously that an independent Scotland would be a socially accepting and open society? But I’m guessing that’s only if they agree with you. :rolleyes:

I'm sure there was likely non Scottish people voted Yes as well as you

What a triggering from a statement of fact 😂.

Where did I state people aren't welcomed if they voted no?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Humour can be hit n miss, I remember you posting that you have difficulty picking up on humour in this forum, therefore I'm not too devastated by you missing it here. Either that or I'll put it down to me being a junked up (flu) alcoholic in the middle of coming off whisky.

😁

[JeMeSouviens]

After Brexit, I’m pretty sure I’d vote for independence as long as we got back into the EU. It’s a means to an end. This type of stuff makes me instinctively dislike the independence movement though.

PS You weren’t being self deprecating.

No, he was being self depreciating, can't you read? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Another inclusive comment.... haven’t we been told continuously that an independent Scotland would be a socially accepting and open society? But I’m guessing that’s only if they agree with you. :rolleyes:

I'm sure there was likely non Scottish people voted Yes as well as you

I'm not particularly sure why the indy movement is expected to own every random throwaway comment from anonymous online posters everywhere? Is it a dark day for Better Together and the British Union every time an ******** Hun* posts something stupid on twitter?

But anyway, the principle that every resident of Scotland has an equal stake in the future of our country, independent or otherwise, is long established and non-negotiable.


* by which I do mean "Rangers/Sevco fan" - the correlation between ill thought out pish from a Unionist bias and twitter handles with "rfc" "goingfor55" or variants thereof is overwhelming.

[McD]

What a triggering from a statement of fact 😂.

Where did I state people aren't welcomed if they voted no?


When you felt the need to separate the “Scottish born” from any other group, it comes across as quite patronising, as if you are implying that No voters are/were not Scottish born, and therefore either immigrant (including other home nations) or not true Scots people.

It also reads rightly or wrongly, that you aren’t particularly tolerant of views and opinions that don’t align with your own.

[McD]

I'm not particularly sure why the indy movement is expected to own every random throwaway comment from anonymous online posters everywhere? Is it a dark day for Better Together and the British Union every time an ******** Hun* posts something stupid on twitter?

But anyway, the principle that every resident of Scotland has an equal stake in the future of our country, independent or otherwise, is long established and non-negotiable.


* by which I do mean "Rangers/Sevco fan" - the correlation between ill thought out pish from a Unionist bias and twitter handles with "rfc" "goingfor55" or variants thereof is overwhelming.


All excellent points JMS, I agree with all of what you’ve said here :aok:

my point earlier was more of a direct reply to the individual poster, to highlight their comment not really being reflective of what the Indy movement have described, which I could have done a better job of putting across in a less argumentative way myself :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

All excellent points JMS, I agree with all of what you’ve said here :aok:

my point earlier was more of a direct reply to the individual poster, to highlight their comment not really being reflective of what the Indy movement have described, which I could have done a better job of putting across in a less argumentative way myself :greengrin

Fair play, I didn’t like the post you replied too either.

[pacoluna]

As a life long supporter of Independnce can I just say well done on posting something that will only strengthen the No vote. We are supposed to be winning people over.

For a "long supporter of independence" the only debates or you've had regarding the matter on this forum are with yes voters. :confused:

The same during the elections the only people you seemed to debate with were SNP voters included myself.

[marinello59]

For a "long supporter of independence" the only debates or you've had regarding the matter on this forum are with yes voters. :confused:

The same during the elections the only people you seemed to debate with were SNP voters included myself.

Have you found a single post where I have argued against Independence? It is possible to support Independence without being an SNP voter or even defining yourself as a nationalist.

[pacoluna]

Have you found a single post where I have argued against Independence? It is possible to support Independence without being an SNP voter or even defining yourself as a nationalist.

No but I would argue that your input and comments regarding the topic are just as constructive as those your are questioning on this. I'm all for constructive criticism regarding fellow yes supporters but I find yours very excessive with no real balanced positive input.

[Moulin Yarns]

Have you found a single post where I have argued against Independence? It is possible to support Independence without being an SNP voter or even defining yourself as a nationalist.

Hear, hear! :agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

Have you found a single post where I have argued against Independence? It is possible to support Independence without being an SNP voter or even defining yourself as a nationalist.

I tick both boxes but still get labelled as a Nationalist because I want Scotland to have the ability to decide on all matters regarding Scotland, to be fair that can be interpreted as a definition of nationalism, but if it makes me a Nat then it makes you one too. :greengrin

[marinello59]

I tick both boxes but still get labelled as a Nationalist because I want Scotland to have the ability to decide on all matters regarding Scotland, to be fair that can be interpreted as a definition of nationalism, but if it makes me a Nat then it makes you one too. :greengrin

Aye, possibly. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I tick both boxes but still get labelled as a Nationalist because I want Scotland to have the ability to decide on all matters regarding Scotland, to be fair that can be interpreted as a definition of nationalism, but if it makes me a Nat then it makes you one too. :greengrin

There are 2 distinct meanings of the word, see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nationalist

Happily for Unionists, this gives them the chance to tar everyone who supports Scottish independence as a racist, xenophobic bigot. A chance they invariably take. :rolleyes:

[marinello59]

No but I would argue that your input and comments regarding the topic are just as constructive as those your are questioning on this. I'm all for constructive criticism regarding fellow yes supporters but I find yours very excessive with no real balanced positive input.

As balanced as your views on parties other than the SNP maybe?

[Bristolhibby]

There are 2 distinct meanings of the word, see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nationalist

Happily for Unionists, this gives them the chance to tar everyone who supports Scottish independence as a racist, xenophobic bigot. A chance they invariably take. :rolleyes:

English/British nationalism does seem a tad more, how should I say, intolerant, compared to Scottish Nationalism.

On a similar vein linking Scottish Nationalism to National Socialism of 1930s Germany is bonkers.

J

[pacoluna]

As balanced as your views on parties other than the SNP maybe?

I don't see the comparison.

[marinello59]

I don't see the comparison.

You wouldn’t.

[Smartie]

I have a deep mistrust of nationalism, yet I think under any definition of the word I would have to be classed as a nationalist.

I don't think I'm alone either.

[pacoluna]

You wouldn’t.

It would make more sense if I was criticizing the SNP given your comparison.

[One Day Soon]

Have you found a single post where I have argued against Independence? It is possible to support Independence without being an SNP voter or even defining yourself as a nationalist.


I can't see how someone can possibly not be a nationalist if they support independence. They may also be a Socialist or a Conservative - though that too would be a debatable point depending on your perspective on what defines those doctrines - but supporting independence seems to me the defining characteristic of being a nationalist.

In other news the 'shat it' comment, intended as humour or not, is pretty offensive to anyone who voted No or didn't vote.

What difference does being Scots born make?

[Hibrandenburg]

I can't see how someone can possibly not be a nationalist if they support independence. They may also be a Socialist or a Conservative - though that too would be a debatable point depending on your perspective on what defines those doctrines - but supporting independence seems to me the defining characteristic of being a nationalist.

In other news the 'shat it' comment, intended as humour or not, is pretty offensive to anyone who voted No or didn't vote.

What difference does being Scots born make?

Paragraph 1: Just because you fail to fathom that there are diverse types of nationalism doesn't mean there aren't and your continual attempts to put them all in one box together with the kind that blighted Europe in the 1930's and 40's is truly insulting to the ordinary folks who just wish to take ownership of their fate.

Paragraph 2: I didn't vote, a lot of my family and friends didn't vote. Have I insulted my family, friends and myself, maybe but we're neither too precious to be bothered by a joke nor am I overly concerned about your bogus indignity.

Paragraph 3: That one baffled me too.

[JeMeSouviens]

I can't see how someone can possibly not be a nationalist if they support independence. They may also be a Socialist or a Conservative - though that too would be a debatable point depending on your perspective on what defines those doctrines - but supporting independence seems to me the defining characteristic of being a nationalist.

In other news the 'shat it' comment, intended as humour or not, is pretty offensive to anyone who voted No or didn't vote.

What difference does being Scots born make?

The traditional meaning of nationalist implies exceptionalism: the idea that Scots are special because of their ethnicity or place of birth. It is quite possible to support independence while thinking that Scots* are just people like any other people anywhere else. What makes Scots uniquely qualified to run Scotland is that we live here, suffer the things that need fixed and will live with the consequences of decisions we take.

Which is not to say that there aren't things that are better decided and co-ordinated among a larger group of us and our neighbours, but we have the EU for that. Imo, decisions should be taken at as local a level as makes sense.

* in this sentence and the following, Scots == residents of Scotland

[Bristolhibby]

The traditional meaning of nationalist implies exceptionalism: the idea that Scots are special because of their ethnicity or place of birth. It is quite possible to support independence while thinking that Scots* are just people like any other people anywhere else. What makes Scots uniquely qualified to run Scotland is that we live here, suffer the things that need fixed and will live with the consequences of decisions we take.

Which is not to say that there aren't things that are better decided and co-ordinated among a larger group of us and our neighbours, but we have the EU for that. Imo, decisions should be taken at as local a level as makes sense.

* in this sentence and the following, Scots == residents of Scotland

Great post. This isn’t about being superior. It’s about ownership and decision making.

J

[Hibrandenburg]

The traditional meaning of nationalist implies exceptionalism: the idea that Scots are special because of their ethnicity or place of birth. It is quite possible to support independence while thinking that Scots* are just people like any other people anywhere else. What makes Scots uniquely qualified to run Scotland is that we live here, suffer the things that need fixed and will live with the consequences of decisions we take.

Which is not to say that there aren't things that are better decided and co-ordinated among a larger group of us and our neighbours, but we have the EU for that. Imo, decisions should be taken at as local a level as makes sense.

* in this sentence and the following, Scots == residents of Scotland

:agree:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The traditional meaning of nationalist implies exceptionalism: the idea that Scots are special because of their ethnicity or place of birth. It is quite possible to support independence while thinking that Scots* are just people like any other people anywhere else. What makes Scots uniquely qualified to run Scotland is that we live here, suffer the things that need fixed and will live with the consequences of decisions we take.

Which is not to say that there aren't things that are better decided and co-ordinated among a larger group of us and our neighbours, but we have the EU for that. Imo, decisions should be taken at as local a level as makes sense.

* in this sentence and the following, Scots == residents of Scotland

That's my reading of the term too - nobody but the utter deranged would equate modern, nationalism of the type espoused by the SNP as anything like the nationalism of the 30s.

However, i do think there is an element of Scottish exceptionalisn in modern nationalism, particularly among those who became/discovered/were persuaded by nationalism in the last couple of years.

The use of the word 'Tory' has I think become the 'other that nationalism always required, that group whose values and actions you define yourself against. I would also argue that for some, Tories and English have become synonymous.

Of course I take the point that Tories aren't an ethnic group etc and so it is not the same as Jews era in the 30s, but it does imo talk to a belief that has become prevalent more recently that somehow us Scots are better, more moral, more inclusive, progressive etc than our English counterparts.

There is also a belief among some - exemplified by the 'shat it' comment- that indy supporters have some moral superiority than those who, for whatever reason, didn't.

But just as the Labour party will always have an extreme wing of hard-core lefties (if they haven't fallen out over some technical point of academic doctrine), the Tories will always have a hard right, Brexit, Churchill and roast beef wing of British nationalists, so will the SNP always have a wing of hard-core Scottish nationalists, or others motivated more out of opposition to something.

The same will be true of all political parties. Except the lib dems.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's my reading of the term too - nobody but the utter deranged would equate modern, nationalism of the type espoused by the SNP as anything like the nationalism of the 30s.

However, i do think there is an element of Scottish exceptionalisn in modern nationalism, particularly among those who became/discovered/were persuaded by nationalism in the last couple of years.

The use of the word 'Tory' has I think become the 'other that nationalism always required, that group whose values and actions you define yourself against. I would also argue that for some, Tories and English have become synonymous.

Of course I take the point that Tories aren't an ethnic group etc and so it is not the same as Jews era in the 30s, but it does imo talk to a belief that has become prevalent more recently that somehow us Scots are better, more moral, more inclusive, progressive etc than our English counterparts.

There is also a belief among some - exemplified by the 'shat it' comment- that indy supporters have some moral superiority than those who, for whatever reason, didn't.

But just as the Labour party will always have an extreme wing of hard-core lefties (if they haven't fallen out over some technical point of academic doctrine), the Tories will always have a hard right, Brexit, Churchill and roast beef wing of British nationalists, so will the SNP always have a wing of hard-core Scottish nationalists, or others motivated more out of opposition to something.

The same will be true of all political parties. Except the lib dems.

I agree. There's still a few of the very old school anti-English types around as well. It's possible to be a nationalist (in the sense of supporting independence) without any exceptionalism was my point, not that they're mutually exclusive.

And our Tories are just as bad as England's Tories. Thankfully there's fewer of them.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I agree. There's still a few of the very old school anti-English types around as well. It's possible to be a nationalist (in the sense of supporting independence) without any exceptionalism was my point, not that they're mutually exclusive.

And our Tories are just as bad as England's Tories. Thankfully there's fewer of them.

Yeah agree on both, definitely fewer, and some are even the SNP too... 😈😁

[Hibrandenburg]

There is also a belief among some - exemplified by the 'shat it' comment- that indy supporters have some moral superiority than those who, for whatever reason, didn't.

Shame you had to spoil an othwise decent post by this pseudo psychological interpretation of a joke. You'll always have some idiots that believe their ideology is superior to their perceived opponents but I'd wager that many more of those who support independence do so because they feel subjugated rather than superior. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Shame you had to spoil an othwise decent post by this pseudo psychological interpretation of a joke. You'll always have some idiots that believe their ideology is superior to their perceived opponents but I'd wager that many more of those who support independence do so because they feel subjugated rather than superior. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

Fair enough! Although you conceded above that all sides habe these people, which is kinda the point I was trying to make...they exist on all sides as I said, but shouldn't necessarily be seen as THE voice of their side.

Also I didn't intend it to be psychological, more based on my experience. That comment was just an example of the mindset I was talking about. Even if it was a joke, it is an attitude that does exist.

[Hibrandenburg]

Fair doos! But I'm glad to say I've never come across anyone in my circle of friends who believe they're superior because of their political beliefs, doesn't mean they don't exist though. Now religious beliefs 😈 But that's a subject for another thread.

[One Day Soon]

Paragraph 1: Just because you fail to fathom that there are diverse types of nationalism doesn't mean there aren't and your continual attempts to put them all in one box together with the kind that blighted Europe in the 1930's and 40's is truly insulting to the ordinary folks who just wish to take ownership of their fate.

Paragraph 2: I didn't vote, a lot of my family and friends didn't vote. Have I insulted my family, friends and myself, maybe but we're neither too precious to be bothered by a joke nor am I overly concerned about your bogus indignity.

Paragraph 3: That one baffled me too.



Para 1: I'm not debating whether there are 'diverse types of nationalism'. Neither am I trying to put them into a box with anything else. I simply said that supporting independence is the definition of being a nationalist. Not sure quite why you're so knicker twisted about that.

Para 2: If it was a joke it was, in both senses, a **** one and if I'd thought it was a joke I'd have been less bothered certainly but you can probably understand why someone might be pissed off about being labelled as having 'shat it'.

Para 3: Doubt we'll get a sensible explanation of that one.

[One Day Soon]

The traditional meaning of nationalist implies exceptionalism: the idea that Scots are special because of their ethnicity or place of birth. It is quite possible to support independence while thinking that Scots* are just people like any other people anywhere else. What makes Scots uniquely qualified to run Scotland is that we live here, suffer the things that need fixed and will live with the consequences of decisions we take.

Which is not to say that there aren't things that are better decided and co-ordinated among a larger group of us and our neighbours, but we have the EU for that. Imo, decisions should be taken at as local a level as makes sense.

* in this sentence and the following, Scots == residents of Scotland

I agree with all of this, the only point of difference is that I am just as happy pooling sovereignty and decision making at UK level as I am doing it at EU level.

[johnbc70]

I agree with all of this, the only point of difference is that I am just as happy pooling sovereignty and decision making at UK level as I am doing it at EU level.

Something at a UK level is far more 'local' than at EU level.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Fair doos! But I'm glad to say I've never come across anyone in my circle of friends who believe they're superior because of their political beliefs, doesn't mean they don't exist though. Now religious beliefs 😈 But that's a subject for another thread.

Indeed it is!👍

[WeeRussell]

Para 1: I'm not debating whether there are 'diverse types of nationalism'. Neither am I trying to put them into a box with anything else. I simply said that supporting independence is the definition of being a nationalist. Not sure quite why you're so knicker twisted about that.

Para 2: If it was a joke it was, in both senses, a **** one and if I'd thought it was a joke I'd have been less bothered certainly but you can probably understand why someone might be pissed off about being labelled as having 'shat it'.

Para 3: Doubt we'll get a sensible explanation of that one.

What about those that voted YES as an only way to stop being governed by tories? Or potentially as a means to staying in the EU?

There are a number of people who voted no to independence first time round but have admitted to changing should they get the opportunity again, based purely on the way things have worked out and not because their political stance has changed at all. Do they automatically become nationalists?

[lord bunberry]

What about those that voted YES as an only way to stop being governed by tories? Or potentially as a means to staying in the EU?

There are a number of people who voted no to independence first time round but have admitted to changing should they get the opportunity again, based purely on the way things have worked out and not because their political stance has changed at all. Do they automatically become nationalists?
I’ve heard so many EU nationals say they voted no as they wanted us to remain in the EU. They mostly all say they’d vote yes in a second referendum. I wouldn’t call them nationalists.

[RyeSloan]

What about those that voted YES as an only way to stop being governed by tories? Or potentially as a means to staying in the EU?

There are a number of people who voted no to independence first time round but have admitted to changing should they get the opportunity again, based purely on the way things have worked out and not because their political stance has changed at all. Do they automatically become nationalists?

Probably. In the same way you are labelled a Yoon or a Unionist or a BritNat if you don’t happen to fancy independence.

Nationalism to me is a classic divide and conquer. Separate all those against it into one group, label them, then relentlessly attack them. The SNP has embodied that approach in the last few years. It’s ugly and divisive yet will always get spun as them being the good guys (inclusive, outward looking etc.) and the others as the bad guys (looking after themselves, Tories whatever) when actually it suits them nicely to create the false dichotomy and reap the rewards of the division they sow.

But hey it’s a means to an end so who cares huh?

[WeeRussell]

Probably. In the same way you are labelled a Yoon or a Unionist or a BritNat if you don’t happen to fancy independence.

Nationalism to me is a classic divide and conquer. Separate all those against it into one group, label them, then relentlessly attack them. The SNP has embodied that approach in the last few years. It’s ugly and divisive yet will always get spun as them being the good guys (inclusive, outward looking etc.) and the others as the bad guys (looking after themselves, Tories whatever) when actually it suits them nicely to create the false dichotomy and reap the rewards of the division they sow.

But hey it’s a means to an end so who cares huh?

So, no then?

[norhfc]

Interesting to see where the poll stands at the moment, Indie on the up on all the polls Ive seen recently. The way Brexit is being handled I can see the trend continuing. This time it wont be a vote on the status quo, the case for Indie grows by the day.

[Callum_62]

Get it done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

I agree with all of this, the only point of difference is that I am just as happy pooling sovereignty and decision making at UK level as I am doing it at EU level.

Within the Uk, the decision-making on the big issues, such as who runs the country and whether or not we stay in the EU, is not pooled, certainly not from Scotland’s perspective. We get what we’re given. You’re fine with that, and that’s cool, but the democratic case for the UK is no stronger than that for the EU.

[lord bunberry]

Within the Uk, the decision-making on the big issues, such as who runs the country and whether or not we stay in the EU, are not pooled, certainly not from Scotland’s perspective. We get what we’re given. You’re fine with that, and that’s cool, but the democratic case for the UK is no stronger than that for the EU.
Well said. We have in Scotland a very limited say on the big decisions that affect us all. The only way that will change is independence or a hung parliament where we can bribe the prospective government to listen to us. I know which scenario I prefer.

[Mibbes Aye]

Within the Uk, the decision-making on the big issues, such as who runs the country and whether or not we stay in the EU, are not pooled, certainly not from Scotland’s perspective. We get what we’re given. You’re fine with that, and that’s cool, but the democratic case for the UK is no stronger than that for the EU.


Well said. We have in Scotland a very limited say on the big decisions that affect us all. The only way that will change is independence or a hung parliament where we can bribe the prospective government to listen to us. I know which scenario I prefer.

We have been here a million times before.

There are two ways of arguing for independence.

One is to stoke resentment and blame somebody else for all our ills. Hence “...we get what we’re given” or “we” have no say. It doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, as we have been over on here again and again, but it strikes a chord with folk who want to blame something, someone or anyone for anything. It’s someone else’s fault (in this case Westminster/perfidious Albion/Tories or just the English in general)

Funnily, the language echoes that of the Brexiteers - “we don’t have a say”, “we should be able to control our destiny”.

Why is that, I wonder? Are perhaps our nationalist brethren more united than they think? Farage and Sturgeon, united by a bond to stop themselves being done over by some perceived ‘big brother’, whether it be Westminster or Brussels? What unites them is the rage and ingrievance. One wonders whether that says more about them than it does about their argument.

And of course the second way of arguing for independence is the positive line, to make a case for what some on here have called ‘civic nationalism’. I think there have been a couple of refutals of that concept and no clear argument back about how it stands up. Hopefully they are in the post.

[Just Alf]

We have been here a million times before.

There are two ways of arguing for independence.

One is to stoke resentment and blame somebody else for all our ills. Hence “...we get what we’re given” or “we” have no say. It doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, as we have been over on here again and again, but it strikes a chord with folk who want to blame something, someone or anyone for anything. It’s someone else’s fault (in this case Westminster/perfidious Albion/Tories or just the English in general)

Funnily, the language echoes that of the Brexiteers - “we don’t have a say”, “we should be able to control our destiny”.

Why is that, I wonder? Are perhaps our nationalist brethren more united than they think? Farage and Sturgeon, united by a bond to stop themselves being done over by some perceived ‘big brother’, whether it be Westminster or Brussels? What unites them is the rage and ingrievance. One wonders whether that says more about them than it does about their argument.

And of course the second way of arguing for independence is the positive line, to make a case for what some on here have called ‘civic nationalism’. I think there have been a couple of refutals of that concept and no clear argument back about how it stands up. Hopefully they are in the post.Don't want to repeat myself...

What you say does make a lot of sense but you do need to include the whole picture... See my post on the Brexit thread.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

We have been here a million times before.

There are two ways of arguing for independence.

One is to stoke resentment and blame somebody else for all our ills. Hence “...we get what we’re given” or “we” have no say. It doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, as we have been over on here again and again, but it strikes a chord with folk who want to blame something, someone or anyone for anything. It’s someone else’s fault (in this case Westminster/perfidious Albion/Tories or just the English in general)

Funnily, the language echoes that of the Brexiteers - “we don’t have a say”, “we should be able to control our destiny”.

Why is that, I wonder? Are perhaps our nationalist brethren more united than they think? Farage and Sturgeon, united by a bond to stop themselves being done over by some perceived ‘big brother’, whether it be Westminster or Brussels? What unites them is the rage and ingrievance. One wonders whether that says more about them than it does about their argument.

And of course the second way of arguing for independence is the positive line, to make a case for what some on here have called ‘civic nationalism’. I think there have been a couple of refutals of that concept and no clear argument back about how it stands up. Hopefully they are in the post.

An independent Scotland in the EU would not have had to had the bedroom tax inflicted upon it, Westminster forced it upon us and we have to mitigate it from our pocket money.

Scottish soldiers wouldn't be ordered by the EU to take part in illegal wars if we decided not to participate, Westminster decided otherwise and off they went.

Scotland didn't want GM crops but Westminster decided otherwise, the EU has no powers to dictate local agricultural policy.

Nuclear weapons are something the Scottish electorate don't want on their doorstep but we were told by westminster "tough" you're having them, the EU would have no powers to force Scotland to accept them on our soil.

The list is endless but I'm sure your happy with them all because it makes no difference whether it's London or Brussels who dictate what we have to do. But the fact is that true power of autonomy in the EU is much more devolved that it has ever been in the UK.

Your continuous efforts to equate the Scottish drive for self determination to 30's nationalism (Sorry ODS I mixed up my posters) is embarrassingly laughable.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

An independent Scotland in the EU would not have had to had the bedroom tax inflicted upon it, Westminster forced it upon us and we have to mitigate it from our pocket money.

Scottish soldiers wouldn't be ordered by the EU to take part in illegal wars if we decided not to participate, Westminster decided otherwise and off they went.

Scotland didn't want GM crops but Westminster decided otherwise, the EU has no powers to dictate local agricultural policy.

Nuclear weapons are something the Scottish electorate don't want on their doorstep but we were told by westminster "tough" you're having them, the EU would have no powers to force Scotland to accept them on our soil.

The list is endless but I'm sure your happy with them all because it makes no difference whether it's London or Brussels who dictate what we have to do. But the fact is that true power of autonomy in the EU is much more devolved that it has ever been in the UK.

Your continuous efforts to equate the Scottish drive for self determination to 30's nationalism (Sorry ODS I mixed up my posters) is embarrassingly laughable.

I'm not sure that you are qualified to talk for all of us!

Anyway, by your own civic nationalist definition, you are German aren't you? It seems a bit arrogant of someone who doesn't even live here nor defines themselves even as scottish to decide what 'we' all want and don't want.

I don't remember ever being asked about nuclear weapons, GM crops or the bedroom tax. And obviously you forget that Westminster is also Scotland's parliament, and we have elected representatives there that 'we' voted for.

Very poor post imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't remember ever being asked about nuclear weapons, GM crops or the bedroom tax.

Thanks for making my point.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Thanks for making my point.

I also wasn't asked about income tax rises, merging of police forces, a dubious energy policy, and fairly unsuccessful education policies.

It's how democracy works, we don't all get asked our opinions on every issue.

But then you know that fine, you just like stoking the sense of grievance from afar.

[Glory Lurker]

Maybes Aye, man. You quote my post then just fire off on a rant that bears no resemblance to what I said or, more importantly, to what my principles are. You need to be able to discuss the independence question without jumping in the tired old-Labour, anti-SNP trench. The world has moved on, you know.

[Callum_62]

Ive lived overseas for a good portion of my life, so have been somewhat removed from UK politics and life to a certain degree

Its simple for me though - how many governments have Scotland voted for that actually were in power in Westminster?

Scotland has always leaned far more left than England, but due to geography we are basically tagged onto whatever they decide

I cant understand why anyone wouldn't want to change that

[Hibrandenburg]

I also wasn't asked about income tax rises, merging of police forces, a dubious energy policy, and fairly unsuccessful education policies.

It's how democracy works, we don't all get asked our opinions on every issue.

But then you know that fine, you just like the sense of grievance.

Not at all. I'd much rather have no grievances. But I know that's impossible, the pill would just be much easier to swallow if the decision was called by those who are effected and not those who profit from it.

For what it's worth I'm a big fan of decentralisation, unfortunately that will never happen in a union that is designed to hold all the aces in London.

[Mibbes Aye]

An independent Scotland in the EU would not have had to had the bedroom tax inflicted upon it, Westminster forced it upon us and we have to mitigate it from our pocket money.

Scottish soldiers wouldn't be ordered by the EU to take part in illegal wars if we decided not to participate, Westminster decided otherwise and off they went.

Scotland didn't want GM crops but Westminster decided otherwise, the EU has no powers to dictate local agricultural policy.

Nuclear weapons are something the Scottish electorate don't want on their doorstep but we were told by westminster "tough" you're having them, the EU would have no powers to force Scotland to accept them on our soil.

The list is endless but I'm sure your happy with them all because it makes no difference whether it's London or Brussels who dictate what we have to do. But the fact is that true power of autonomy in the EU is much more devolved that it has ever been in the UK.

Your continuous efforts to equate the Scottish drive for self determination to 30's nationalism (Sorry ODS I mixed up my posters) is embarrassingly laughable.

It’s late, I’ll respond to your last paragraph only. You’ve been driving this trope for a while and it’s really not true. I’m quite capable of arguing a case against Scottish nationalism without suggesting it replicates the corporate nationalism of the 1930s. Feel free to show otherwise or indeed answer any of my questions about a rational case for nationalism in the 21st century.

While we are here though, you’ve had to defend yourself against a few posts about your supposedly self-deprecating humour in relation to the referendum result.

I remember those days well and particularly the bitterness and vitriol with which you greeted the result. You and one or two other posters in particular.

Feel free to resurrect those threads if you like.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ive lived overseas for a good portion of my life, so have been somewhat removed from UK politics and life to a certain degree

Its simple for me though - how many governments have Scotland voted for that actually were in power in Westminster?

Scotland has always leaned far more left than England, but due to geography we are basically tagged onto whatever they decide

I cant understand why anyone wouldn't want to change that

Its a decent question but a complicated answer.

There are parts of England that have been solidly Labour for decades. Much of what we would define as socialism and co-operativsm has sprung from the north of England.

Yet there have been more Etonian PMs than Labour PMs.

England isn’t one entity and for that matter neither is Scotland. Not that long ago that the Lowlands and Highlands were essentially two different countries.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not at all. I'd much rather have no grievances. But I know that's impossible, the pill would just be much easier to swallow if the decision was called by those who are effected and not those who profit from it.

For what it's worth I'm a big fan of decentralisation, unfortunately that will never happen in a union that is designed to hold all the aces in London.

But that issue was settled, and the Scottish people decided they were happy to be part of the larger polity of the UK, well aware that sometimes means being a diluted voice as part of our larger country.

And I'm afraid decentralisation has happened three times in the last 20 odd years, with three separate Scotland Acts. I know it's not far enough for you, and for many others, but pretending it hasn't happened to suit your inaccurate narrative doesn't change those facts.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its a decent question but a complicated answer.

There are parts of England that have been solidly Labour for decades. Much of what we would define as socialism and co-operativsm has sprung from the north of England.

Yet there have been more Etonian PMs than Labour PMs.

England isn’t one entity and for that matter neither is Scotland. Not that long ago that the Lowlands and Highlands were essentially two different countries.

I have to say I find it quite insulting when people talk about what 'Scotland' does or doesn't want, as if minority views don't count a jot.

Which is ironically one of the grievances about the structure of the UK.

[Hibrandenburg]

But that issue was settled, and the Scottish people decided they were happy to be part of the larger polity of the UK, well aware that sometimes means being a diluted voice as part of our larger country.

And I'm afraid decentralisation has happened three times in the last 20 odd years, with three separate Scotland Acts. I know it's not far enough for you, and for many others, but pretending it hasn't happened to suit your inaccurate narrative doesn't change those facts.

Decentralisation will only work within the UK if ALL regions receive devolved powers. Otherwise Westminster/the Home Counties will always hold all the aces.

[Callum_62]

I have to say I find it quite insulting when people talk about what 'Scotland' does or doesn't want, as if minority views don't count a jot.

Which is ironically one of the grievances about the structure of the UK.

insulting in what way? im not sure what your getting at. Do you mean insulting when people claim Scotland votes one way and gets another (when obviously some people in Scotland vote that very way?)

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybes Aye, man. You quote my post then just fire off on a rant that bears no resemblance to what I said or, more importantly, to what my principles are. You need to be able to discuss the independence question without jumping in the tired old-Labour, anti-SNP trench. The world has moved on, you know.

Sorry you didn’t feel I did your post justice and in fairness I very much focused on the sentence about “...We get what we are given”.

My response to that would be that on the big, day-to-day issues that really impact on people and their families, it all occurs pretty much locally anyway.

Yes, a no-deal Brexit for example, will have an impact (personally I don’t think we will see a no-deal, but who knows).

The reality is though, that if your streets are free of anti-social behaviour, if your bins get collected and the streetlights work, if your drive to work is better or worse for traffic restrictions, if your kids are being schooled in a decent building by enough qualified teachers, if you can get a GP appointment when you need one, if you get seen in hospital when you break an arm or have a pain in your abdomen, if you get the treatment you need in a timely fashion, if your parents or grandparents are treated with dignity and respect when they need care, whether at home or in a care home.......

These things are all dealt with already at a level below Westminster or Holyrood. The agencies who deal with them answer to one or both of those bodies but essentially they are doing it already.

And to be honest, there are examples of every party doing things that support that, all around the country so it’s not really an anti-SNP thing. If you are interested in that then there’s scope for a thread about their scorecard whilst in government. I will happily post about the positives as much as about any perceived negatives.

[Mibbes Aye]

I have to say I find it quite insulting when people talk about what 'Scotland' does or doesn't want, as if minority views don't count a jot.

Which is ironically one of the grievances about the structure of the UK.

:agree:

‘Scots’ and ‘Scotland’, as terms or narratives, have become words owned by people who don’t speak for any kind of majority I can recognise?

[Glory Lurker]

Maybes Aye. I'm not quoting your response because it's a lengthy exercise in ignoring what I said. I was responding to a comment about pooling decision making. By every measure, Scotland's preference of UK government only applies when England votes for it too. Scotland is leaving the EU despite a huge majority not to.

I am guessing that you don't care for the nations stuff. Fair enough, but what I struggle with is that your argument entails the legal entity that is Scotland should just shut up. Shouldn't the rest of the UK do what we want sometimes?

[stoneyburn hibs]

I have to say I find it quite insulting when people talk about what 'Scotland' does or doesn't want, as if minority views don't count a jot.

Which is ironically one of the grievances about the structure of the UK.

Except you're on a "politics" thread. A sub forum of a football club.

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybes Aye. I'm not quoting your response because it's a lengthy exercise in ignoring what I said. I was responding to a comment about pooling decision making. By every measure, Scotland's preference of UK government only applies when England votes for it too. Scotland is leaving the EU despite a huge majority not to.

I am guessing that you don't care for the nations stuff. Fair enough, but what I struggle with is that your argument entails the legal entity that is Scotland should just shut up. Shouldn't the rest of the UK do what we want sometimes?


“...By every measure”

That stands true of everywhere doesn’t it?

The Highlands and Islands regularly returned Libs and Lib Dems with no supposed influence until 2010.

Darlington voted solidly Labour for years yet had to put up with Tory governments.

Beaconsfield votes Tories in bucketload yet had to put up with three Labour terms (ironic because Tony Blair fought his first election there in an unwinnable Conservative seat).

It’s the nature of parliamentary democracy. Do you think all the people who voted Labour, Tory or Lib Dem in Scotland at the Holyrood elections are happy with an SNP administration and its decisions ???

[ronaldo7]

Maybes Aye. I'm not quoting your response because it's a lengthy exercise in ignoring what I said. I was responding to a comment about pooling decision making. By every measure, Scotland's preference of UK government only applies when England votes for it too. Scotland is leaving the EU despite a huge majority not to.

I am guessing that you don't care for the nations stuff. Fair enough, but what I struggle with is that your argument entails the legal entity that is Scotland should just shut up. Shouldn't the rest of the UK do what we want sometimes?

59 Scottish constituent MP's, against over 500 English constituent ones.

What's not to understand.

[Callum_62]

“...By every measure”

That stands true of everywhere doesn’t it?

The Highlands and Islands regularly returned Libs and Lib Dems with no supposed influence until 2010.

Darlington voted solidly Labour for years yet had to put up with Tory governments.

Beaconsfield votes Tories in bucketload yet had to put up with three Labour terms (ironic because Tony Blair fought his first election there in an unwinnable Conservative seat).

It’s the nature of parliamentary democracy. Do you think all the people who voted Labour, Tory or Lib Dem in Scotland at the Holyrood elections are happy with an SNP administration and its decisions ???

I mean ofcourse you could take it down to local neibourhood level if you want

Fact is 100% of scotland could vote one way or with one party - and it could mean absolutely nothing to the end result

Again, its something il never understand people accepting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Ive lived overseas for a good portion of my life, so have been somewhat removed from UK politics and life to a certain degree

Its simple for me though - how many governments have Scotland voted for that actually were in power in Westminster?

Scotland has always leaned far more left than England, but due to geography we are basically tagged onto whatever they decide

I cant understand why anyone wouldn't want to change that

Good post.

Scotland gets, what England votes for, whether that's, labour or Tory.

If memory serves me correctly, we've only voted Tory for 6 years in the last 70, but had then foisted on us for over 40 years.

[Pretty Boy]

It's one of the myths of our time that Scotland has always been some left leaning socialist utopia.

In 1970 32% of the Scottish electorate voted Tory(with a solitary SNP MP elected)

1974 was 32% in February and 25% in March

1979 was 31%

1983 was 28% (and that was after a full term of Thatcher)

1987 was 24%

1992 was 25% (poll tax and all)

1997 was the famous whitewash but there was still a 17.5% vote share

2001 and 2005 were about the 15% mark with 2010 up to 17%

2015 and 2017 was about 15% and 28% respectively.

In the same period the SNP has gained over 25% of the vote only 4 times. Admittedly the SNP were more right leaning in days gone by than the centrist/psuedo left entity they have become so they were probably competing with the Tories for votes in a number of areas. There are swathes of England that have rejected the Tories far more comprehensively than Scotland over the last few decades.

[Hibrandenburg]

Read it tomorrow and come back to me if you still think that.

Nope, still reads like you comparing some posters on here with wife beaters and child abusers. Not your best post.

[Callum_62]

It's one of the myths of our time that Scotland has always been some left leaning socialist utopia.

In 1970 32% of the Scottish electorate voted Tory(with a solitary SNP MP elected)

1974 was 32% in February and 25% in March

1979 was 31%

1983 was 28% (and that was after a full term of Thatcher)

1987 was 24%

1992 was 25% (poll tax and all)

1997 was the famous whitewash but there was still a 17.5% vote share

2001 and 2005 were about the 15% mark with 2010 up to 17%

2015 and 2017 was about 15% and 28% respectively.

In the same period the SNP has gained over 25% of the vote only 4 times. Admittedly the SNP were more right leaning in days gone by than the centrist/psuedo left entity they have become so they were probably competing with the Tories for votes in a number of areas. There are swathes of England that have rejected the Tories far more comprehensively than Scotland over the last few decades.

To be fair all they results point to, at best 1/3 voting tory (or to the right)

Thats landslide territory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

Good post.

Scotland gets, what England votes for, whether that's, labour or Tory.

If memory serves me correctly, we've only voted Tory for 6 years in the last 70, but had then foisted on us for over 40 years.

Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the Scottish elections get the party they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the council election get the party they voted? Did all the Scottish voters in the Brexit referendum get the result they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the European elections get the party they wanted? No, no, no and no again.

How would you solve this clearly awful situation in an independent Scotland if people did not get the party they voted for in power?

[Callum_62]

Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the Scottish elections get the party they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the council election get the party they voted? Did all the Scottish voters in the Brexit referendum get the result they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the European elections get the party they wanted? No, no, no and no again.

How would you solve this clearly awful situation in an independent Scotland where people did not get the party they voted for in power?

You are right, voting in any form will almost certainly not be 100% one way

For me though, the fact you can be 'overruled' by another countries electorate is just silly

2/3 of Scotland voted to remain for example and it meant nothing

I believe all of our MPs in Westminster voted against bombing Syria - again no point

[johnbc70]

You are right, voting in any form will almost certainly not be 100% one way

For me though, the fact you can be 'overruled' by another countries electorate is just silly

2/3 of Scotland voted to remain for example and it meant nothing

I believe all of our MPs in Westminster voted against bombing Syria - again no point

What if in an Independant Scotland there was a really important piece of legislation I really believed in, but the Glasgow MSPs voted against it . Would you not feel even more aggrieved that it was people in your own country who 'overruled' you? Or is that kind of over ruling acceptable?

[Beefster]

Ive lived overseas for a good portion of my life, so have been somewhat removed from UK politics and life to a certain degree

Its simple for me though - how many governments have Scotland voted for that actually were in power in Westminster?

Scotland has always leaned far more left than England, but due to geography we are basically tagged onto whatever they decide

I cant understand why anyone wouldn't want to change that

That doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny either.

Firstly, 50% of the last six governments have been voted for by a majority of Scots. This has really only become a debating point since most of us started voting for the SNP, a party that doesn’t stand in the remainder of the UK.

Secondly, how many Scottish governments has Orkney and Shetland voted for that ended up actually in power? Zero. Presumably, all nationalists subsequently support their self-determination movement? If you take any large collection of people and divide it up, you can then make the case for ‘x, y and z didn’t get exactly what they wanted’.

[Pretty Boy]

To be fair all they results point to, at best 1/3 voting tory (or to the right)

Thats landslide territory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd argue it points to the fact that in any democracy a sizeable percentage of the electorate doesn't get what it wanted.

It's far from a uniquely Scottish issue.

[theonlywayisup]

Until someone publishes the divorce settlement, it's a no for me.

Independence could cripple this country or it could free us to become a strong independent nation.

With Brexit we've seen claim and counter claim, both parties providing half truths and mis-information to support their claims.

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to take a chance on my country's future and that of my children and their children on a gut feel, no matter how strong you believe your case to be.

[Pretty Boy]

Until someone publishes the divorce settlement, it's a no for me.

Independence could cripple this country or it could free us to become a strong independent nation.

With Brexit we've seen claim and counter claim, both parties providing half truths and mis-information to support their claims.

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to take a chance on my country's future and that of my children and their children on a gut feel, no matter how strong you believe your case to be.

I voted Yes but I take your point.

I read the white paper and whilst it read like a very appealing party manifesto it didn't really answer the big questions that any fence sitters may have had. Those answers it did give had a lot of supposition attached.

Of course Better Together ran with that and launched 'Project Fear'. It was the obvious tactic really. For a yes vote next time around, if there is a next time, the plan laid out has to be far more comprehensive and far less focussed on what will ultimately become policy decisions for an independent parliament.

[ronaldo7]

Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the Scottish elections get the party they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the council election get the party they voted? Did all the Scottish voters in the Brexit referendum get the result they wanted? Did all the Scottish voters who voted in the European elections get the party they wanted? No, no, no and no again.

How would you solve this clearly awful situation in an independent Scotland if people did not get the party they voted for in power?

When we voted in the Scottish elections, people got the result they voted for. It wasn't subverted by another countries vote. Not so, in other elections.

[Smartie]

I voted Yes but I take your point.

I read the white paper and whilst it read like a very appealing party manifesto it didn't really answer the big questions that any fence sitters may have had. Those answers it did give had a lot of supposition attached.

Of course Better Together ran with that and launched 'Project Fear'. It was the obvious tactic really. For a yes vote next time around, if there is a next time, the plan laid out has to be far more comprehensive and far less focussed on what will ultimately become policy decisions for an independent parliament.

I disagree.

The problem with the white paper was that it contained detail that could be fairly contested.

If they are serious about winning a yes vote the next time then it should be drivel written on buses about the NHS and over-emotional nonsense about taking our country back, as that seems to do the trick these days.

[Glory Lurker]

The posts along lines of "does [locality in Scotland] get what it wants" are strange and suggest unionists don't actually understand, or don't care for, what the union actually is.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You are right, voting in any form will almost certainly not be 100% one way

For me though, the fact you can be 'overruled' by another countries electorate is just silly

2/3 of Scotland voted to remain for example and it meant nothing

I believe all of our MPs in Westminster voted against bombing Syria - again no point

But that's the point, in political terms we are NOT another country - we voted to stay part of a larger state, of 60 million people. So in those instances you cite, Scots were voting not as Scots in a separate country, but as brits in a much larger country.

Now I get that situation is anathema to some, but it is what Scotland voted for, and until such times as there is a other vote, it is the settled will of the Scottish people.

We CHOSE to forego 100% sovereignty for the advantages of being part of a larger entity. It's the same argument as the EU, just to a different degree.

So it is disingenuous to talk about Scotland voting a certain way, because in a .UK wide election, Scotland effectively doesn't exist in that sense, any more than Northumberland, Yorkshire or the north west exists.

This situation may be unpalatable to a large minority of Scots, but this situation would continue to exist in an indy Scotland where the highlands and islands would get who 'the central belt' voted for, and we would often get who Glasgow voted for. I'm no longer sure that would be a preferable situation.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Until someone publishes the divorce settlement, it's a no for me.

Independence could cripple this country or it could free us to become a strong independent nation.

With Brexit we've seen claim and counter claim, both parties providing half truths and mis-information to support their claims.

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to take a chance on my country's future and that of my children and their children on a gut feel, no matter how strong you believe your case to be.

This is exactly where I am. It may be good, but it's no longer worth another decade of economic stasis plus all the other disruption. None of that is worth swapping one bunch of self interested twats in London for another bunch in Edinburgh.

[Callum_62]

But that's the point, in political terms we are NOT another country - we voted to stay part of a larger state, of 60 million people. So in those instances you cite, Scots were voting not as Scots in a separate country, but as brits in a much larger country.

Now I get that situation is anathema to some, but it is what Scotland voted for, and until such times as there is a other vote, it is the settled will of the Scottish people.

We CHOSE to forego 100% sovereignty for the advantages of being part of a larger entity. It's the same argument as the EU, just to a different degree.

So it is disingenuous to talk about Scotland voting a certain way, because in a .UK wide election, Scotland effectively doesn't exist in that sense, any more than Northumberland, Yorkshire or the north west exists.

This situation may be unpalatable to a large minority of Scots, but this situation would continue to exist in an indy Scotland where the highlands and islands would get who 'the central belt' voted for, and we would often get who Glasgow voted for. I'm no longer sure that would be a preferable situation.

Thats where we will differ then

Id much rather see a country decide its own fate than potentially be over ridden

Ofcourse, like everywhere in the world there will be elements within that country that dont agree with vote , but atleast its country specific. I differentiate between countries and counties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I disagree.

The problem with the white paper was that it contained detail that could be fairly contested.

If they are serious about winning a yes vote the next time then it should be drivel written on buses about the NHS and over-emotional nonsense about taking our country back, as that seems to do the trick these days.

If you don't think large parts of it were drivel, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[makaveli1875]

But that's the point, in political terms we are NOT another country - we voted to stay part of a larger state, of 60 million people. So in those instances you cite, Scots were voting not as Scots in a separate country, but as brits in a much larger country.

Now I get that situation is anathema to some, but it is what Scotland voted for, and until such times as there is a other vote, it is the settled will of the Scottish people.

We CHOSE to forego 100% sovereignty for the advantages of being part of a larger entity. It's the same argument as the EU, just to a different degree.

So it is disingenuous to talk about Scotland voting a certain way, because in a .UK wide election, Scotland effectively doesn't exist in that sense, any more than Northumberland, Yorkshire or the north west exists.

This situation may be unpalatable to a large minority of Scots, but this situation would continue to exist in an indy Scotland where the highlands and islands would get who 'the central belt' voted for, and we would often get who Glasgow voted for. I'm no longer sure that would be a preferable situation.

:top marksfar too much sense for the holy ground in that post

[bigwheel]

But that's the point, in political terms we are NOT another country - we voted to stay part of a larger state, of 60 million people. So in those instances you cite, Scots were voting not as Scots in a separate country, but as brits in a much larger country.

Now I get that situation is anathema to some, but it is what Scotland voted for, and until such times as there is a other vote, it is the settled will of the Scottish people.

We CHOSE to forego 100% sovereignty for the advantages of being part of a larger entity. It's the same argument as the EU, just to a different degree.

So it is disingenuous to talk about Scotland voting a certain way, because in a .UK wide election, Scotland effectively doesn't exist in that sense, any more than Northumberland, Yorkshire or the north west exists.

This situation may be unpalatable to a large minority of Scots, but this situation would continue to exist in an indy Scotland where the highlands and islands would get who 'the central belt' voted for, and we would often get who Glasgow voted for. I'm no longer sure that would be a preferable situation.

All very true and factual...and if you want to look at the vote as an unemotional transaction then fine - you are 100% correct .

I do feel you omit some key context which is key and divisive factors in Scotland now. Firstly, the fact that the vast majority of Scots voted differently from rest of the UK is an important point. It tells us that the Scots as a nation didn’t want this to happen . And gives a reason for such discussion and discomfort with the calamity which is brexit today. If there was a half decent plan, then perhaps people would be relaxing. There is not.

Also the whole case for NO...was based on staying not only in the union but as the only way to remain part of the EU. It’s not unreasonable for a lot of Scots to feel they were let down at best, misled perhaps even . So whilst all of your post is true, it is almost disregarding the context and emotional impact of these two elements.

[johnbc70]

Thats where we will differ then

Id much rather see a country decide its own fate than potentially be over ridden

Ofcourse, like everywhere in the world there will be elements within that country that dont agree with vote , but atleast its country specific. I differentiate between countries and counties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it's OK to be overruled by Scots (although many MSPs are not Scottish) but it not OK to be overruled by English, Welsh and Irish Mps (some of whom are Scots)

[Callum_62]

So it's OK to be overruled by Scots (although many MSPs are not Scottish) but it not OK to be overruled by English, Welsh and Irish Mps (some of whom are Scots)

The people of a country should decide

Im sure the English wouldn’t like it if we ended up in a political tie up with America and English votes became as worthwhile as Scottish votes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

The people of a country should decide

Im sure the English wouldn’t like it if we ended up in a political tie up with America and English votes became as worthwhile as Scottish votes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't remember the English having a referendum to decide if they wanted to be in a union with America. I do recall the people of Scotland having a referendum though deciding if they wanted to remain part of the UK. What did the people of Scotland decide in that?

Your biggest gripe seems to be the people of Scotland deciding whats right for them, did they not do just that in 2014?

[Callum_62]

I don't remember the English having a referendum to decide if they wanted to be in a union with America. I do recall the people of Scotland having a referendum though deciding if they wanted to remain part of the UK. What did the people of Scotland decide in that?

Your biggest gripe seems to be the people of Scotland deciding whats right for them, did they not do just that in 2014?

They did - mostly based on what 2/3 of us now voted against, and were promised at the time was the only way to guarantee our EU status.

I'll still never understand the physche of passing over power to a bigger group of people than your own country contains

Mind, I was overseas during the 2014 referendum so missed it at local level - but for me, i'l never understand not wanting to have full autonomous control over your countries destiny

[johnbc70]

They did - mostly based on what 2/3 of us now voted against, and were promised at the time was the only way to guarantee our EU status.

I'll still never understand the physche of passing over power to a bigger group of people than your own country contains

Mind, I was overseas during the 2014 referendum so missed it at local level - but for me, i'l never understand not wanting to have full autonomous control over your countries destiny

So your happy to pass some powers back to Brussels if Scotland rejoined the EU? How does that work in your world of having full control?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

All very true and factual...and if you want to look at the vote as an unemotional transaction then fine - you are 100% correct .

I do feel you omit some key context which is key and divisive factors in Scotland now. Firstly, the fact that the vast majority of Scots voted differently from rest of the UK is an important point. It tells us that the Scots as a nation didn’t want this to happen . And gives a reason for such discussion and discomfort with the calamity which is brexit today. If there was a half decent plan, then perhaps people would be relaxing. There is not.

Also the whole case for NO...was based on staying not only in the union but as the only way to remain part of the EU. It’s not unreasonable for a lot of Scots to feel they were let down at best, misled perhaps even . So whilst all of your post is true, it is almost disregarding the context and emotional impact of these two elements.

Fair points you make, and I agree that they are legitimate factors. But pouring inaccurate, overly emotive petrol on the flames of division and grievance, trying to make out that Scotland is some suppressed colonial victim where we are all disenfranchised under an English yoke is not helpful, imo.

I do think the Brexit argument is a legitimate one, but I think it has been overplayed by Sturgeon a bit.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a debate, or even another vote (personally I can't be bothered with another one, but that's just me!)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They did - mostly based on what 2/3 of us now voted against, and were promised at the time was the only way to guarantee our EU status.

I'll still never understand the physche of passing over power to a bigger group of people than your own country contains

Mind, I was overseas during the 2014 referendum so missed it at local level - but for me, i'l never understand not wanting to have full autonomous control over your countries destiny

To me, this is a much better way of articulating the argument for independence -there is an undeniable logic to it.

But as with most decisions in politics there are plusses and minuses. Whether we Scots would judge them the same second time around, well that remains to be seen.

[Beefster]

The posts along lines of "does [locality in Scotland] get what it wants" are strange and suggest unionists don't actually understand, or don't care for, what the union actually is.

A country is an arbitrary entity. At a high-level, it's really no different to a 'locality'.

I'd suggest the really strange posts are from people who don't actually understand that Scotland very recently democratically voted to remain part of a larger entity in the full knowledge that, for the UK Parliament, that means that our votes will be thrown in with three other countries. What part of the union are you referring to?

PS I'm not a unionist. I'm an internationalist. I've already explained on here that I'll vote for independence if it means being in the EU.

[Glory Lurker]

A country is an arbitrary entity. At a high-level, it's really no different to a 'locality'.

I'd suggest the really strange posts are from people who don't actually understand that Scotland very recently democratically voted to remain part of a larger entity in the full knowledge that, for the UK Parliament, that means that our votes will be thrown in with three other countries. What part of the union are you referring to?

PS I'm not a unionist. I'm an internationalist. I've already explained on here that I'll vote for independence if it means being in the EU.

Arbitrary entity or not, Scotland is a unitary legal unit. The UK is a union of legal units and it is entirely rational to analyse voting at that level. My point on this was in response to the Right Hon ODS's comment about pooling decision making. To me it's more appropriate to call it deferring decision making.

Only too aware of implications of 2014 :-( ! I'm not going to shut up about what I think is a demonstrable democratic deficit, though!

[bawheid]

Only too aware of implications of 2014 :-( ! I'm not going to shut up about what I think is a demonstrable democratic deficit, though!

This is the thing. Just because we had a vote in 2014 doesn’t mean that folks who believe Scotland should be an independent country should stop trying to persuade others to their point of view.

The whole “settled will of the people” thing is bollocks IMO. Things have hardly been settled since then!

[Moulin Yarns]

But that's the point, in political terms we are NOT another country - we voted to stay part of a larger state, of 60 million people. So in those instances you cite, Scots were voting not as Scots in a separate country, but as brits in a much larger country.

Now I get that situation is anathema to some, but it is what Scotland voted for, and until such times as there is a other vote, it is the settled will of the Scottish people.

We CHOSE to forego 100% sovereignty for the advantages of being part of a larger entity. It's the same argument as the EU, just to a different degree.

So it is disingenuous to talk about Scotland voting a certain way, because in a .UK wide election, Scotland effectively doesn't exist in that sense, any more than Northumberland, Yorkshire or the north west exists.

This situation may be unpalatable to a large minority of Scots, but this situation would continue to exist in an indy Scotland where the highlands and islands would get who 'the central belt' voted for, and we would often get who Glasgow voted for. I'm no longer sure that would be a preferable situation.

Fortunately the Scottish Parliamentary Elections are designed to prevent this. The Additional members system allows a proportionate representation so no single geographic area can dominate. It was designed to prevent a single party from winning a majority (FAIL)

[Pretty Boy]

This is the thing. Just because we had a vote in 2014 doesn’t mean that folks who believe Scotland should be an independent country should stop trying to persuade others to their point of view.

The whole “settled will of the people” thing is bollocks IMO. Things have hardly been settled since then!

So how often do we vote? If we vote again in say 18 months and it's no again do we go again in 5 years, 10 years? If we vote yes do we get a vote on the deal we leave with?

Fwiw I think the EU referendum was enough of a game changer to put another vote on the table but we can't keep having a referendum every few years just in case some people have changed their mind. If there's a collective majority will for independence it becomes an inevitability anyway. If nothing else the last few years have proven that constitutional obsession, from all sides, has had a negative impact in key areas.

[bawheid]

So how often do we vote? If we vote again in say 18 months and it's no again do we go again in 5 years, 10 years? If we vote yes do we get a vote on the deal we leave with?

Fwiw I think the EU referendum was enough of a game changer to put another vote on the table but we can't keep having a referendum every few years just in case some people have changed their mind. If there's a collective majority will for independence it becomes an inevitability anyway. If nothing else the last few years have proven that constitutional obsession, from all sides, has had a negative impact in key areas.

Yeah, I’m not necessarily advocating another vote though. I’m just pointing out that it’s pretty ridiculous expecting folk that believe in independence to just shut up about it because there was a vote four years ago.

The debate will continue and as you say, independence will only happen if enough people are persuaded by it.

[ronaldo7]

So how often do we vote? If we vote again in say 18 months and it's no again do we go again in 5 years, 10 years? If we vote yes do we get a vote on the deal we leave with?

Fwiw I think the EU referendum was enough of a game changer to put another vote on the table but we can't keep having a referendum every few years just in case some people have changed their mind. If there's a collective majority will for independence it becomes an inevitability anyway. If nothing else the last few years have proven that constitutional obsession, from all sides, has had a negative impact in key areas.

We have another vote when any political party have it in their manifesto, and win the election.

Something like the mandate given by the people to the SNP in 2016(although as a minority government this time).

[Pretty Boy]

We have another vote when any political party have it in their manifesto, and win the election.

Something like the mandate given by the people to the SNP in 2016(although as a minority government this time).

So we have a situation in which we go down the Northern Irish route of people primarily voting on a Nationalist/Unionist stance? Given the diffuculty in winning and maintaining a majority in Scotland that concerns me.

[johnbc70]

We have another vote when any political party have it in their manifesto, and win the election.

Something like the mandate given by the people to the SNP in 2016(although as a minority government this time).

Do you think Scotland would attract inward investment if we lived under a constant cloud of referendums to leave or stay part of the UK?

It is not outwith the realms of possibly that we could vote for Indy then after a few years it is not working out as expected, then a party gets voted in on the basis of having a third referendum, or fourth, fifth etc.

But your comfortable with that scenario playing out?

[ronaldo7]

Do you think Scotland would attract inward investment if we lived under a constant cloud of referendums to leave or stay part of the UK?

It is not outwith the realms of possibly that we could vote for Indy then after a few years it is not working out as expected, then a party gets voted in on the basis of having a third referendum, or fourth, fifth etc.

But your comfortable with that scenario playing out?

When we're independent, we won't want to go back. Just ask any independent nation who've removed the shackles of the British state.

Name me one that's wanted to go back.

You need to lift your head, and see what small independent nations can do, and some haven't even half the resources we've got.

[ronaldo7]

So we have a situation in which we go down the Northern Irish route of people primarily voting on a Nationalist/Unionist stance? Given the diffuculty in winning and maintaining a majority in Scotland that concerns me.

That's the rules we've been given to work with. An independent Scotland may decide to do things differently.

[Beefster]

When we're independent, we won't want to go back. Just ask any independent nation who've removed the shackles of the British state.

You're not seriously comparing Scotland's situation with those of former British colonies, are you?

[johnbc70]

When we're independent, we won't want to go back. Just ask any independent nation who've removed the shackles of the British state.

Name me one that's wanted to go back.

You need to lift your head, and see what small independent nations can do, and some haven't even half the resources we've got.

But you said any party that was elected with a promise to hold a referendum in their manifesto would be entitled to hold one. So it could happen and it's a situation you agree with. Your probably in the minority on that one, it would cause huge uncertainty and not encourage any investment into Scotland.

[ronaldo7]

You're not seriously comparing Scotland's situation with those of former British colonies, are you?

I'm asking him to name anyone wanting to go back under British rule, you know, countries like, India, or Ireland.

[ronaldo7]

But you said any party that was elected with a promise to hold a referendum in their manifesto would be entitled to hold one. So it could happen and it's a situation you agree with. Your probably in the minority on that one, it would cause huge uncertainty and not encourage any investment into Scotland.

Under our current constitutional arrangements.

They could change under a written Scottish constitution.

[Beefster]

I'm asking him to name anyone wanting to go back under British rule, you know, countries like, India, or Ireland.

Right. We're not 'under British rule' though. Unlike India or Ireland.

[ronaldo7]

Right. We're not 'under British rule' though. Unlike India or Ireland.

Still waiting for, just one. Maybe you can help him?

[johnbc70]

Still waiting for, just one. Maybe you can help him?

Your comparing apples with oranges.

To say India was in the same situation as Scotland is ludicrous. It fits nicely with your persecution complex though.

[lord bunberry]

So how often do we vote? If we vote again in say 18 months and it's no again do we go again in 5 years, 10 years? If we vote yes do we get a vote on the deal we leave with?

Fwiw I think the EU referendum was enough of a game changer to put another vote on the table but we can't keep having a referendum every few years just in case some people have changed their mind. If there's a collective majority will for independence it becomes an inevitability anyway. If nothing else the last few years have proven that constitutional obsession, from all sides, has had a negative impact in key areas.
We vote when there’s a compelling case to vote. From someone that supported independence I find your position hard to comprehend. The desire to be on the right side of history seems to have overtaken the dream of independence. Maybe I’m wrong

[Tornadoes70]

We vote when there’s a compelling case to vote. From someone that supported independence I find your position hard to comprehend. The desire to be on the right side of history seems to have overtaken the dream of independence. Maybe I’m wrong

You're snore boring folk into switching off from listening or reading about neverendums. The snp dreamers are morphing into becoming Lib Dems.

The snp are failing in so many areas of governance yet endlessly drone on about yet another separation vote. Bore off.

Mon Scottish Labour

[1875godsgift]

You're snore boring folk into switching off from listening or reading about neverendums. The snp dreamers are morphing into becoming Lib Dems.

The snp are failing in so many areas of governance yet endlessly drone on about yet another separation vote. Bore off.

Mon Scottish Labour

What a completely non-sensical post.

The Scottish people were lied to about our continued membership of the EU only being possible by voting no to independence.
The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

What part of that don't you understand?

And also, as an aside, if nationalism is such an anathema to you, what's with the 'mon Scottish Labour'?

Surely it should be '3 cheers for universal labour' or 'ra ra ra for global communism?

[Tornadoes70]

What a completely non-sensical post.

The Scottish people were lied to about our continued membership of the EU only being possible by voting no to independence.
The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

What part of that don't you understand?

And also, as an aside, if nationalism is such an anathema to you, what's with the 'mon Scottish Labour'?

Surely it should be '3 cheers for universal labour' or 'ra ra ra for global communism?

I could rip into this nonsense but I won't bother as its plain to see the snp brainwashed are too far gone to listen to reason.

Hopefully one day you'll wake up and realise your party lost the 2014 referendum and there is no neverendum.

Very boring and tiresome now and the sooner the snp are voted out the better it will be for everyone as they're a complete disaster.

Neverendums are a snorebore except for snp sore losers.

Mon Scottish Labour!!!

[Pretty Boy]

We vote when there’s a compelling case to vote. From someone that supported independence I find your position hard to comprehend. The desire to be on the right side of history seems to have overtaken the dream of independence. Maybe I’m wrong

It's nothing to do with wanting to be on the right side of history. It's a realisation that a constant cycle of debate about Scottish independence and membership of the EU is damaging to Scotland and the UK.

Independence isn't a dream for me, I voted yes based on the information to hand at the tkme; it's not an at all costs scenario in my case and frankly I'm fed up of everyday politics being on hold, across the UK, whilst we debate membership of whatever unions.

I've aaid previously if there's a consistent majority support for independence then it becomes inevitable.

[Callum_62]

It's nothing to do with wanting to be on the right side of history. It's a realisation that a constant cycle of debate about Scottish independence and membership of the EU is damaging to Scotland and the UK.

Indepemdece isn't a dream for me, O voted yes based on the information to hand at the tkme; it's not an at all costs scenario in my case and frankly I'm fed up of everyday politics being on hold, across the UK, whilst we debate membership of whatever unions.


As previously said- i was overseas for much of my life, so no particular brain washing has been achieved yet

It may be coincidence- but i hear the scottish conservatives banging on about independence constantly- infact the leaflet i got through my door before the snap general election by the SC simply stated - stop independence- not a thought or policy to be seen

I find uk politics and all its trimmings (fanzines dressed up as newspapers for example) absolutely bonkers. I come from a decade in NZ news & current affairs and i find the media here disgusting - which goes someway presumably, to explain why i see the uk as quite backward in many aspects of its society


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

As previously said- i was overseas for much of my life, so no particular brain washing has been achieved yet

It may be coincidence- but i hear the scottish conservatives banging on about independence constantly- infact the leaflet i got through my door before the snap general election by the SC simply stated - stop independence- not a thought or policy to be seen

I find uk politics and all its trimmings (fanzines dressed up as newspapers for example) absolutely bonkers. I come from a decade in NZ news & current affairs and i find the media here disgusting - which goes someway presumably, to explain why i see the uk as quite backward in many aspects of its society


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your 2nd paragraph pretty much sums up my problem with the current state of Scottish politics. The constitutional question is the only issue.

There are people on here who have openly admitted they would continue to vote SNP with no regard for policy as long as independence is on the table. That's quite frightening and I'm certain it will be mirrored on the other side as well.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What a completely non-sensical post.

The Scottish people were lied to about our continued membership of the EU only being possible by voting no to independence.
The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

What part of that don't you understand?

And also, as an aside, if nationalism is such an anathema to you, what's with the 'mon Scottish Labour'?

Surely it should be '3 cheers for universal labour' or 'ra ra ra for global communism?

It wasn't a lie, it was actually true at the time.

It was a piece of propaganda, political spin that subsequent events habe proved to be incorrect.

You know, like the 'once in a generation' promise or the economic forecasts based on oil prices that were way to optimistic in the white paper.

There needs to be less heat in the debate imo.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As previously said- i was overseas for much of my life, so no particular brain washing has been achieved yet

It may be coincidence- but i hear the scottish conservatives banging on about independence constantly- infact the leaflet i got through my door before the snap general election by the SC simply stated - stop independence- not a thought or policy to be seen

I find uk politics and all its trimmings (fanzines dressed up as newspapers for example) absolutely bonkers. I come from a decade in NZ news & current affairs and i find the media here disgusting - which goes someway presumably, to explain why i see the uk as quite backward in many aspects of its society


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's definitely not a coincidence, it's very deliberate (and so far pretty successfull) tactic on their part.

[Beefster]

Still waiting for, just one. Maybe you can help him?

I think we’ve determined that the question is based on a nonsense premise.

[johnbc70]

The Scottish people were lied to about our continued membership of the EU only being possible by voting no to independence.

Please get the facts right. How could someone be lied to about events that had yet to happen? The EU referendum had not been called and the result was not known.

Since then events have happened meaning we are leaving the EU but don't make out that there was some plan back in 2014 where people knew we were having an EU referendum and these people knew the result, because its not true.

You are more guilty of lying than them by stating this as fact.

[weecounty hibby]

You're snore boring folk into switching off from listening or reading about neverendums. The snp dreamers are morphing into becoming Lib Dems.

The snp are failing in so many areas of governance yet endlessly drone on about yet another separation vote. Bore off.

Mon Scottish Labour

Wow, imagine you of all people calling someone a bore. If only you understood irony.
You call the SNP dreamers for talking about independence. How is your dream of a utopian socialist world led by Corbyn and Leonard going? Every bit as big a dream as independence in Scotland. In fact I'd wager that independence is more likely. Unfortunately the global economics and the majority of people's own sense of me first will never see socialism as you keep banging on about as a real option. How many ordinary working people now own their own homes, have shares, own two and sometimes more cars per household? Thatcher was a complete bitch and I hated her but she did a good job of ensuring that real socialism will never take over in the UK again.

[Moulin Yarns]

[QUOTE=lgnsh70;5557142]I could rip into this nonsense but I won't bother as its plain to see the Labour Party brainwashed is too far gone to listen to reason.

Hopefully one day you'll wake up and realise your party are a busted flush.

Very boring and tiresome now and the sooner the Scottish Branch of Labour break away from London Rulethe better it will be for everyone as they're a complete disaster.



Mon Scottish Monster Raving Loonies!!![QUOTE]

FTFY

[pacoluna]

Final nail in the coffin today for labour in Scotland, fools.

[Moulin Yarns]

Final nail in the coffin today for labour in Scotland, fools.

Was that Dick Leonard? Not agreeing with his boss.

Pesky Scottish Labour.

[Mr Grieves]

So Labour will support the right to self determination for everybody...except Scotland

[Moulin Yarns]

So Labour will support the right to self determination for everybody...except Scotland

Mon Independent Scottish Labour 😉

[ronaldo7]

When we're independent, we won't want to go back. Just ask any independent nation who've removed the shackles of the British state.

Name me one that's wanted to go back.

You need to lift your head, and see what small independent nations can do, and some haven't even half the resources we've got.


You're not seriously comparing Scotland's situation with those of former British colonies, are you?


Still waiting for, just one. Maybe you can help him?

The bit in bold is what I asked him. Name me one country that's wanted to go back?

I'm not into apples or oranges, just saying that if we vote for Independence we won't be wanting to go back to being in a Union of unequal entities.

He seems to think we'd not be good enough to make a go of Independence, I think differently.

[ronaldo7]

Your comparing apples with oranges.

To say India was in the same situation as Scotland is ludicrous. It fits nicely with your persecution complex though.

You maybe into Oranges, I'm not ta.

I never said India or Ireland were like the same situation in Scotland, you said that. I gave you a couple of countries who don't want to go back to how things were in the past.

Are you going to stay in Scotland and make a go of it when we're Independent, or will you be hankering after the old ways?

[johnbc70]

You maybe into Oranges, I'm not ta.

I never said India or Ireland were like the same situation in Scotland, you said that. I gave you a couple of countries who don't want to go back to how things were in the past.

Are you going to stay in Scotland and make a go of it when we're Independent, or will you be hankering after the old ways?

Can you explain the oranges thing, don't understand?

You were the one who brought up India and Ireland not me, we then established it was a nonsense point.

[ronaldo7]

Can you explain the oranges thing, don't understand?

You were the one who brought up India and Ireland not me, we then established it was a nonsense point.

You mentioned apples and oranges.

I mentioned India and Ireland as examples of countries who don't wish to go back to the heady days of Empire, just like the other 58 I could have mentioned.

Why is it you think Scotland wouldn't make it on our own?

[johnbc70]

You mentioned apples and oranges.

I mentioned India and Ireland as examples of countries who don't wish to go back to the heady days of Empire, just like the other 58 I could have mentioned.

Why is it you think Scotland wouldn't make it on our own?
What does your into oranges mean though?

[JeMeSouviens]

Can you explain the oranges thing, don't understand?

You were the one who brought up India and Ireland not me, we then established it was a nonsense point.

Neither Ireland nor India are good analogies for Scotland (given both endured bloody partitions, we should be thankful). However, there is substance to the point. I can think of loads of current states that used to be parts of larger multi-national entities. I can't think of any that have even passingly entertained going back on their independence, whether obtained peacefully or otherwise.

Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Portugal - there's a bunch off the top of my head. All formerly in a state dominated by a larger neighbour. Can you think of any that having left such a condition, have tried to return?

[JeMeSouviens]

What does your into oranges mean though?

I suspect he's having a dig at you being a Conservative & Unionist supporter - a party with a long history of playing on Protestant sectarianism for electoral gain.

I also suspect you are well aware of this given your repeated, transparently obvious claim not to understand it. Well, either that or you're really, really thick.

[johnbc70]

I suspect he's having a dig at you being a Conservative & Unionist supporter - a party with a long history of playing on Protestant sectarianism for electoral gain.

I also suspect you are well aware of this given your repeated, transparently obvious claim not to understand it. Well, either that or you're really, really thick.

Thanks for answering for him, but being a Catholic supporting Hibs fan Orange is not a colour I am that 'into'.

[ronaldo7]

Thanks for answering for him, but being a Catholic supporting Hibs fan Orange is not a colour I am that 'into'.

Ah, that's why you're not a Labour supporter...You're a Catholic.:wink:

[Tomsk]

Neither Ireland nor India are good analogies for Scotland (given both endured bloody partitions, we should be thankful). However, there is substance to the point. I can think of loads of current states that used to be parts of larger multi-national entities. I can't think of any that have even passingly entertained going back on their independence, whether obtained peacefully or otherwise.

Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Portugal - there's a bunch off the top of my head. All formerly in a state dominated by a larger neighbour. Can you think of any that having left such a condition, have tried to return?

Equally there are literally hundreds of once independent states that are now parts of stable and prosperous unions and confederations where anyone advocating separation would be regarded as completely eccentric. To name a few: France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Australia, USA, South Africa, Brazil and India. There is nothing exceptional about the United Kingdom. In fact, being in a union of some sort is more common than not.

[johnbc70]

I can think of loads of current states that used to be parts of larger multi-national entities. I can't think of any that have even passingly entertained going back on their independence, whether obtained peacefully or otherwise.

Apart from the current debate about the UK who are leaving the muti-national entity that is the EU, who if there was another vote tomorrow would probably be quite happy to be back in the EU and give up that independence?

Come March 2019 when we are separated from that large muti-national entity would you glady entertain being part of that entity again?

[JeMeSouviens]

“Literally hundreds”? Really? What were the formerly independent countries that came together to form the usa, australia, india, brazil and south africa?

Anyway, I don’t really care, so forget I even bothered to get sucked into this line of argument.

[johnbc70]

Ok, it was B. You are really, really thick.

At least I don't resort to personal insults.

[Just Alf]

Apart from the current debate about the UK who are leaving the muti-national entity that is the EU, who if there was another vote tomorrow would probably be quite happy to be back in the EU and give up that independence?

Come March 2019 when we are separated from that large muti-national entity would you glady entertain being part of that entity again?

You're compare apples and oranges there (sorry couldn't resist! :wink: )

Seriously though, that's a flawed argument, the two entities have very different levels of control.

An independent Scotland within the EU would have significantly more control over itself compared to the levels of control it has within the UK.

That said, it would of course have also even more control if it was independent of both.

[johnbc70]

You're compare apples and oranges there (sorry couldn't resist! :wink: )

Seriously though, that's a flawed argument, the two entities have very different levels of control.

An independent Scotland within the EU would have significantly more control over itself compared to the levels of control it has within the UK.

That said, it would of course have also even more control if it was independent of both.

We were talking about being part of something bigger, leaving that, then never going back.

But I am clearly too thick to understand so will now bow out for a bit and leave it to the people with the higher intellectual capabilities.

I am off for an OJ.

[Tomsk]

“Literally hundreds”? Really? What were the formerly independent countries that came together to form the usa, australia, india, brazil and south africa?

Anyway, I don’t really care, so forget I even bothered to get sucked into this line of argument.

That's entirely your prerogative. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are states that are now part of the confederations that make up the USA, Australia, India, Brazil and South Africa that were once independent of the governmental structure of which they are now a part and now exist in harmony with the other constituent parts of their sovereignty without showing any manifest desire for partition. However, even if that wasn't the case in those parts of the world it doesn't alter the fact that unions and confederations across the world are commonplace both now and historically.

[RyeSloan]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;5558411]The bit in bold is what I asked him. Name me one country that's wanted to go back?

[QUOTE]

East Germany [emoji13]

[Just Alf]

We were talking about being part of something bigger, leaving that, then never going back.

But I am clearly too thick to understand so will now bow out for a bit and leave it to the people with the higher intellectual capabilities.

I am off for an OJ.

I was replying specifically to your post that I quoted.

And FWIW that other post you've mentioned was pretty poor.

[Bristolhibby]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;5558411]The bit in bold is what I asked him. Name me one country that's wanted to go back?

[QUOTE]

East Germany [emoji13]

Texas is legitimately one. However I don’t buy the United States as an example, they are all American. The 13 colonies didn’t have 13 separate wars of independence with the U.K.

J

[Just Alf]

[QUOTE=RyeSloan;5558619][QUOTE=ronaldo7;5558411]The bit in bold is what I asked him. Name me one country that's wanted to go back?



Texas is legitimately one. However I don’t buy the United States as an example, they are all American. The 13 colonies didn’t have 13 separate wars of independence with the U.K.

JAnd on my continuing theme... If Scotland had the autonomy within the UK that the US states have then I don't think the independence movement would even be a "thing"



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

At least I don't resort to personal insults.

Ok, sorry, that was uncalled for.

For the record, I don't really think you're that stupid but I do think you play dumb to point score to the gallery. And I am irritable and intolerant, my bad.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's entirely your prerogative. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are states that are now part of the confederations that make up the USA, Australia, India, Brazil and South Africa that were once independent of the governmental structure of which they are now a part and now exist in harmony with the other constituent parts of their sovereignty without showing any manifest desire for partition. However, even if that wasn't the case in those parts of the world it doesn't alter the fact that unions and confederations across the world are commonplace both now and historically.

Jeez, and you were my favourite womble as well. :boo hoo:

All those countries, USA, Australia, India, Brazil and South Africa, are nothing to do with smaller countries coming together in harmony and everything to do with colonial legacy. Of the others in your first post (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, etc) they are largely the product of the remnants of various European dynastic struggles reorganising themselves on ethnic and/or linguistic lines. Which is not to say that any of either example group don't have strong and thriving national identities now. That's why I don't really care about the history. It doesn't matter to a country's success how its borders were formed. What matters is that everybody (or at least most) that lives there now buys in, feels part of it and has a stake in its future.

[Tomsk]

Jeez, and you were my favourite womble as well. :boo hoo:

All those countries, USA, Australia, India, Brazil and South Africa, are nothing to do with smaller countries coming together in harmony and everything to do with colonial legacy. Of the others in your first post (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, etc) they are largely the product of the remnants of various European dynastic struggles reorganising themselves on ethnic and/or linguistic lines. Which is not to say that any of either example group don't have strong and thriving national identities now. That's why I don't really care about the history. It doesn't matter to a country's success how its borders were formed. What matters is that everybody (or at least most) that lives there now buys in, feels part of it and has a stake in its future.


That's all fine, but doesn't make much of a difference. What you care about or don't care about is entirely your concern. Fill your boots. But what you care about does not alter the facts. Statehood based on some bolted together ethnicity or contrived sense of culture is not the natural or only state of being. Unions and confederations are prevalent throughout the world and work successfully. I'm not suggesting it's the only way to do things. But it is a way things are done.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's all fine, but doesn't make much of a difference. What you care about or don't care about is entirely your concern. Fill your boots. But what you care about does not alter the facts. Statehood based on some bolted together ethnicity or contrived sense of culture is not the natural or only state of being. Unions and confederations are prevalent throughout the world and work successfully. I'm not suggesting it's the only way to do things. But it is a way things are done.

Yep, I think we more or less agree. So the question for those in charge of the British union is how do they go about fixing a part of their country where 45% voted to secede? Or do they not want to?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yep, I think we more or less agree. So the question for those in charge of the British union is how do they go about fixing a part of their country where 45% voted to secede? Or do they not want to?

That's a very good question, and one that I don't think the UK govt has a Scooby about how to even begin answering it.

I'm not even sure the Scottish unionist parties do. It's a really interesting question.

[Bristolhibby]

Yep, I think we more or less agree. So the question for those in charge of the British union is how do they go about fixing a part of their country where 45% voted to secede? Or do they not want to?

They don’t care. As long as that number is 50% -1 then don’t do a thing.

J

[Kavinho]

That's a very good question, and one that I don't think the UK govt has a Scooby about how to even begin answering it.

I'm not even sure the Scottish unionist parties do. It's a really interesting question.

They probably would be going about ensuring the minority partner voice is heard more loudly, if they were interested in lowering the 45% figure.

Unfortunately, there is no readable signage that shows this intention. If anything, there are clearer signs of the disdain being held for the minority partner.
The passing of the Scotland Act in Westminster where not one Scottish amendment was added to the bill, was the worst possible show of disdain from UK wide MPs.

It's childish and petty acts like that one, that pour fuel on the fire of independent minded Scottish MPs and constituents, and increase those held feelings of grievance.

[JeMeSouviens]

Didn't think this belonged in the Brexit thread. I was struck reading this in the Guardian by Martin Kettle:


More profoundly – much more profoundly – this vote was a wake-up call about the terminal sterility of a certain kind of Conservative vision. It’s a kind of Conservatism that is a confluence of two different traditions, and the Tory party is too respectful to both of them. On the one hand, there is a white establishment tradition, largely English rather than British in mentality, that has not come to terms with the loss of empire, dislikes foreigners, and which somehow equates Brexit with the restoration of British superiority and power. On the other, there are Thatcher’s children, often self-made, self-confident, petit bourgeois, anti-foreigner and anti-state, flirting with Ukip, beguiled by the Great in Great Britain and irreconcilable to any European engagement.

In one paragraph, a perfect summary of my main driver for Scottish independence, I just don't want to live in a country run by these people. And yes, sure, if we band together with decent folk in rUK we can keep them at bay for a few years at a time, but the UK will never turn into the sort of modern European social democracy I want. Scotland, with a clean slate, might. The only pragmatic way with a hope in hell of getting there.

Mibbes Aye, you are forever asking for a case to be made for independence. Well, there it is.

[Mibbes Aye]

Didn't think this belonged in the Brexit thread. I was struck reading this in the Guardian by Martin Kettle:



In one paragraph, a perfect summary of my main driver for Scottish independence, I just don't want to live in a country run by these people. And yes, sure, if we band together with decent folk in rUK we can keep them at bay for a few years at a time, but the UK will never turn into the sort of modern European social democracy I want. Scotland, with a clean slate, might. The only pragmatic way with a hope in hell of getting there.

Mibbes Aye, you are forever asking for a case to be made for independence. Well, there it is.

It won't surprise you to learn that I disagree :greengrin

I'll put aside that the piece was penned by Martin Kettle, for whom I have little or no respect as a journalist and writer, at least on politics (he writes passably on classical music)

More importantly, it feels like a false argument. Kettle has identified two cohorts and attempted to describe them but I question a couple of things. Firstly the cohorts he is describing reflect his age - he is talking about mindsets that were a lot more common thirty or forty years ago when he was cutting his teeth in journalism. He mus be pushing on for seventy now and I don't think he has kept track with how people's engagement with politics has become more dynamic and complex, especially in the last ten-fifteen years.

Critically, you say your case is you don't want to be ruled by 'these people'. But I don't think you are.

If you look at who 'rules' us from a 'face value' perspective, then you are talking about people who exercise executive power within government. And while they won't win any popularity contests with me or you, the truth is that the holders of the great offices of state (Hammond, Hunt, Javid) don't really fit into either of the categories Kettle talks about. We might dislike or despise them for various reasons but they are not nostalgic for the days of Empire, nor are they UKIP-flirters.

If you look at who 'rules' us from a power perspective, I would argue that there is far more vested interest in favour of 'Remain' than 'Leave'. Unfortunately 'Leave' wasn't considered a serious threat at the time of the referendum and this allowed reactionary populism to win the day. Nevertheless, the trouble the government has in stumbling towards a Brexit deal very much reflects the fact that business on the whole doesn't want it, organised labour (though the unions are a shadow of their previous selves) doesn't want it and to be honest, much of the established media and commentariat don't want it.

When you talk about a modern European social democracy I would invite you to compare and contrast the political landscape here in the UK with that on the continent. We don't have the spectre of far-right parties winning power or becoming power-brokers. We have decades of examples of progressive legislation however (and in fairness, some of that has been from Holyrood and some of that from the SNP administration).

I don't buy Kettle's case in itself and I certainly don't buy it as an argument for independence - Kettle's imagery of retired colonels in the Home Counties bemoaning the loss of Empire, and Apprentice-style wide boys who would shirk a profit if it meant dealing with Europe simply doesn't ring true.

[jonty]

Critically, you say your case is you don't want to be ruled by 'these people'. But I don't think you are.


Interestingly, I took that phrase as not that we were directly ruled by them, but indirectly, through their voting preferences.
ie UK gets what England votes for

[Tornadoes70]

Interestingly, I took that phrase as not that we were directly ruled by them, but indirectly, through their voting preferences.
ie UK gets what England votes for

If Scotland separates from the UK it would undoubtedly join the EU adopting all of its criteria whereby getting what the main player big guns Germany and France pressure the smaller ones into accepting what they vote for.

We do very well here in Scotland as part of the UK and I think Scotland plays a major part in developing the UK in spite of the nats.