Apology accepted, ducks, in the manner it was offered.

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc…

Most governments have a fairly clear vision about the direction they wish to take, they don’t need a crystal ball to do that. And this gives the electorate a reasonable idea of the policies which they can expect from a government.

So yes, there are plenty of examples of governments operating in a manner which gives the electorate a fairly clear understanding of the policies they will pursue.

The Yes Campaign, presumably to avoid too much awkward scrutiny, are using the tactic of “never mind the detail just trust us”. Or more specifically “trust Alex Salmond” it would appear.

Why anyone would trust a political movement without a clear manifesto is beyond my understanding. Although UKIP appear to be having considerable success with a simular strategy of putting posturing before policies, so it obviously works and people are prepared to place blind trust in politicians.

And they say no one trusts politicians anymore.

And they say no one trusts politicians anymore.

They seem to trust them to solve all their problems before they get elected and then once their elected, trust them to screw everything up.

You can accuse AS of many things but he has clearly put fwd his vision for the future and what an iS will look like. It is far easier to argue that this wont happen rather than he has not put it out there.

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

Why anyone would trust a political movement without a clear manifesto is beyond my understanding.

I think it’s was the two appropriate sweetners that yS threw in with the BoD (the manifesto) that may have swung it. To deal with the vision (sick)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disney-Classics–Ltd–Various-Artists/dp/B00FE1UNFC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396361035&sr=8-1&keywords=disney+classics+cd

And to deal with the unpleasant aftermath

http://www.gaviscon.co.uk/?gclid=CLiWweK6v70CFeKWtAodWQkADw

Although UKIP appear to be having considerable success with a simular strategy of putting posturing before policies, so it obviously works and people

Careful Ernie, that kind of comment doesn’t go down too well on here.

Alex Salmond’s vision for an independent Scotland is anything but clear, unless of course you think promising a land of milk and honey gives a clear unambiguous understanding of what policies an independent Scotland will follow.

Still, as you point out, it’s not Alex Salmond’s fault……it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster. No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after “independence” it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

Ob- was referring to the whole of the the Uk as the discussion was in the context of the union at that point.
Mind you, with most of the nhs in England being privatised, I mean, opened to market forces, the likelyhood is that nhs spending in England will drop, leading to a corresponding cut in the barnett grant relating to health.
People talk about the uncertainty of independence (of which there is a lot) but what about the uncerrainty of further austerity cuts, Eu referendums etc..?

Still, as you point out, it’s not Alex Salmond’s fault……it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster. No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after “independence” it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

Who said that on this thread?

Maybe I misunderstood the sentiments behind this comment.

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

I wonder which will come first, Scottish people stopping blaming England for all their woes, or British people stopping blaming Thatcher for all their woes?

I wonder which will come first, Scottish people stopping blaming England for all their woes, or British people stopping blaming Thatcher for all their woes?

The world WILL stop spinning before either! 😆

I blame Thatcher for the whole who to blame thing…

I thought it was all the fault of the last Labour government that got us in this mess ?

Maybe I misunderstood the sentiments behind this comment.

Clearly! 🙄

The subtleties of the English language, eh ? It always confuses me.

I took this to mean that the lack of detail from the Yes campaign was due to rUK refusing to negotiate :

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

But I can tell from your rolling eyes that I got it completely wrong. Can you help me out and explain what JY meant ?

“Negotiate” is a complete (and convenient) red herring (although not a lie like currency = assets). We are not in a negotiation stage. We are in the run up to a referendum. The reasonable assumption to make is that governments should provide facts and arguments (preferably with pros and cons) about the choices we have to make.

Despite regular protestations to the contrary, this is exactly what the UK government has done. Since 2013, fifteen seperate documents that can be analysed and scrutinised are freely available to those who can be bothered to look. In addition to the fairy tales, the Scottish gov has done the same thing.

From the UK Gov we have

This series brings together all Scotland analysis programme documents, helping to inform the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future.

Ahead of the Scottish independence referendum, to inform the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future, the UK government is undertaking a programme of analysis on Scotland’s place in the UK and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK. The work will provide people in Scotland with the facts and figures that are currently unknown or taken for granted, and explain how the UK in its current form works.

Again, contrary to oft-stated opinion, and as illustrated by my early post, this analysis is generally characterised by positive statements on why the union works well and will continue to do so. In fact, the message is decidedly more positive that that published by yS (fairy tales aside). Funny that!

TBF, to the Scottish Gov and the Fiscal Commision, they have some good reports too, notable by the fact that you will not see any reference to a currency being an asset. Funny that too – look what happens when lawyers check what you say first?

IMO neither government is impartial.

^^^ OH FFS the one you agree with is impartial and honest and made of politicians of integrity whose words you can believe and the other side are bullies, liars and sellers of fairy tales, negative, doom sayers etc …… has this thread taught you nothing?

Alex Salmond’s vision for an independent Scotland is anything but clear, unless of course you think promising a land of milk and honey gives a clear unambiguous understanding of what policies an independent Scotland will follow.

I think it is clear but unrealistic, no different from any other manifesto at an election IMHO. To be fair it may be more unrealistic than is typical.

Still, as you point out, it’s not Alex Salmond’s fault……it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster

IIRC rUK is not just england but its good to see the english will still think what is left of the UK can accurately be called England 😛 I said it about one issue it was not a general point. You could counter it with proof that the UK would negotiate and the fault lies elsewhere or you could do this instead.
.

No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after “independence” it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

I am sure he will try and spin it as such and portray them as bullies as I am sure rUK will with them. Both sides will act like politicians I would imagine.

The third “funny” is the lengths that both governments go to explain exactly why the UK (unlike Europe) satisfies the criteria of a successful and optimal currency area with all that this entails. Hence the embarrassing elephant in the room for yS, their core argument remains that we are better together. The choice of a currency union as the preferred option, with all that THIS entails (but the deceitful one ignores), is the most obvious admission of this fundamental point. The rUK does not need to add anything else, it’s all there in black and white.

But the electorate neither care nor understand the economics as much as you do. I think the NO campaign also need to focus on other issues as so few people get economics.

DO you have a google link for currency not being an asset as I have tried looking and found nothing helpful.

IIRC rUK is not just england but its good to see the english will still think what is left of the UK can accurately be called England

Oh come on, every “pro-independence” little Scotlander knows that the big bad guys are the English, not the Welsh.

Although they will of course screw things up for the Welsh if they get the opportunity to engage in a race to the bottom with ruk. As Salmond intends.

IMO neither government is impartial.

Of course not, which is why both need to be read with a discerning eye.

Still helps when independent technocrats help out. Funny that they (eg Gov of the BOE) also make no reference to a currency (not) being an asset. Why would they? It’s a non-question. You might as well ask, is a stumpjumper a type of Australian marsupial?

Plaid Cymru are appropriately singing from the same hymn sheet – better together. I reckon that excuses the slip ( 😉 ) Ernie.

ernie_lynch – Member
Oh come on, every “pro-independence” little Scotlander knows that the big bad guys are the English, not the Welsh….

I think you’d be surprised at how little anti-English sentiment there is.

Now anti the Westminster system of govt is a different matter…

The governor of the Bank of England is not impartial either as the Bank of England is an arm of UK government. It is wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitors Dept.
From wiki

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.[6][7][8][9]

The governor is among the small political and economic elite who do very well under the status quo (edit)

THM I am happy to admit my ignorance here, do you really think that helped me understand?

The B of E is relatively independent compared to a politician but it is still the Bank of the govt [ even if it is at arms length] The govt appoint him iirc but I dont know enough of him to know how independent or otherwise his view is

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.

It’s a Scotsman what done that.

They come down here interfering with our financial arrangements….

C’mon Gordi, you are reaching kaesae standards with that line of argument.

ernie_lynch – Member
It’s a Scotsman what done that.

They come down here interfering with our financial arrangements….

They did. But we’re so generous you can have the whole pack of them. Brown, Blair, Darling et al…

Don’t you want them ? Don’t you like Scottish politicians ?

Scottish independence if it comes is going to be a rude awakening for you.

Every pro independence little Scotlander

bearing in mind that is a play on the term little englander,
It would seem you are trying to insert anti English sentiment into this thread, when there hasn’t been any.All the inflammatory remarks on this thread came early in from the likes of Winston dog and rebel12,and believe you me,they weren’t anti-English.Neither of them had THM’s stamina mind. 🙂 NOTE SMILEY
As for giving us words of wisdom about our rude awakening and our politicians, maybe want to get your own house in order first.

Oh Christ on a bicycle. We’re back to “your politicians” are arse holes too and “you’re anti English” are we.

As for giving us words of wisdom about our rude awakening and our politicians, maybe want to get your own house in order first.

Thanks for describing my comment as words of wisdom, you’re too kind, but it was epicyclo who referred to “Brown, Blair, Darling et al…” I assume the connection between them is that they are all allegedly Scottish. If he’s got a problem with politicians based on their Scottishness and we “can have the whole pack of them” then it doesn’t take a particularly wise person to figure out Scottish independence if it should come is going to be a rude awakening for him.

And as for me allegedly trying to insert anti English sentiment into this thread it’s very clear that the case for Scottish so-called independence is being based on purely petty emotive nationalism, which is hardly surprising as no real tangible advantages can reasonably be offered.

I expect anti-Westminster not anti-English polemics, in the same way as I don’t expect BNP type nationalists to publicly be critical of black people. And they’re not. In fact they get very upset if you accuse them of being racist which using your logic presumably means that they can’t be. But I accuse them of being racist anyway – I believe in calling a spade a spade 🙂

EDIT : Btw I genuinely want to hear a powerful argument for Scottish independence, I really do, and not least because many supporting such a course of action are left-wing even by my definition of the term. But all I can find is an argument based essentially on petty emotive and meaningless nationalism, which is hugely disappointing.

And as for me allegedly trying to insert anti English sentiment into this thread it’s very clear that the case for Scottish so-called independence is being based on purely petty emotive nationalism, which is hardly surprising as no real tangible advantages can reasonably be offered.

Real tangible advantages? Being able to live in a democracy is a pretty big advantage.

The Westminster system is broken. First-past-the-post means that one party can get overall control on a minority of the vote. The whip system means MPs often don’t vote the way their constituents want them to. There’s an unelected upper house stuffed full of political cronies. Therefore voter turnout in elections is low and getting lower – even Tony Blair, at the height of his popularity in a landslide election, only got 1-in-5 people to vote for him – and look what he managed to do with that power.

Now those issues affect everyone in the UK – Scotland is especially badly hit as, while the rest of the UK has broadly moved rightwards politically, Scotland has stayed more on the left. So often we end up with governments that very few people in Scotland voted for – the famous thing about Scotland having more pandas than Tory MPs.

So independence is simple – I want to live in a democracy, and at the moment I don’t.

ernie_lynch – Member
…but it was epicyclo who referred to “Brown, Blair, Darling et al…” I assume the connection between them is that they are all allegedly Scottish. If he’s got a problem with politicians based on their Scottishness and we “can have the whole pack of them” then it doesn’t take a particularly wise person to figure out Scottish independence if it should come is going to be a rude awakening for him…

Your logic is more twisted than barbed wire…

But I accuse them of being racist anyway – I believe in calling a spade a spade

Slightly, risqué choice of phrase there Ernie!

Do you “really” believe that they are going to be surprised? We have all seen how discredited the deadly trio of Blair, Brown and Darling have become (although the latter is trying to re-invent himself as learned statesman). But these guys remain head and shoulders (quality wise – and that is saying something) when compared to the local alternatives. Did you watch the toe-curling debate between Sturgeon and Lamont? Or Lamont’s cringing attempts to explain tax policy – a core labour policy. And these are the Scottish MPs who are at the top of their games??? La creme de la creme or the skimmed milk of the skimmed milk. Proof that being “local” does not equate to being better.

As you say, we all await a powerful argument for Scottish independence with genuine interest and some frustration that after a political career devoted to the cause, supposedly the best politician in the UK (sic) cannot lay out answers to basic questions, preferring instead to hide behind lies and the Three Bs. This has been going on for so long (hence as ducks pointed out, the stamina required) that no one can be surprised surely? Instead yS present a powerful NO argument with the desire to keep Westminster in control of the principle levers of power. You couldn’t make it up.

bencooper – Member
Real tangible advantages? Being able to live in a democracy is a pretty big advantage**..So independence is simple – I want to live in a democracy, and at the moment I don’t.

I am sure that such a comment would be “well-received” (???) by those living in truly undemocratic states.

** yes it is, we are all very fortunate.

As you say, we all await a powerful argument for Scottish independence with genuine interest

Hello? (tap, tap) Is this thing on?

There are lots of good powerful arguments for independence, you just haven’t heard them – or are more likely wilfully ignoring them. Here’s another – with independence, we can get rid of those horrific weapons of mass destruction, and spend the money on helping people not trying to kill them.

And we don’t live in a democracy, you just think we do. We’re not bad on some things – independent judiciary, mostly independent press – but on other things we’re not doing particularly well.

What interests me, though, is why this bothers you so much? You seem to have a visceral hatred of the idea of Scottish independence – is keeping some of the land and 9% of the population really all that important to you? Is it an image thing?

So independence is simple – I want to live in a democracy, and at the moment I don’t.

To go from a situation of no democracy to a situation of living within a democracy, which is of course an admirable goal to aim for, would require a revolution to take place. Do you honestly think that an independent Scotland will have undergone a revolution ? That all power will have changed hands ? That the people of Scotland will suddenly feel they are living in a new society ? Dream on.

For most people it will not cause one iota of change, their lives will be exactly as it was before, other than the probable slow erosion of their living standards. Power and wealth will remain in the hands of the same people and their politicians will be as disappointing as they are now. They will in fact have even less influence in decisions which effect their lives (devo max would increase the influence of Scottish voters far more than any false independence) There will be no revolution.

So don’t vote for independence because life is bad and it’s always going to get worse? Nice positive message, there.

This is the reason that voter registration in Scotland is at an all-time high – people who rarely saw the point in voting see the point now.

But we’re so generous you can have the whole pack of them. Brown, Blair, Darling et al…

Just as a point of order, Tony Blair lived for longer in Adelaide than he did in Scotland. While he lived in Durham, he went to boarding secondary school in term time in Scotland until about 1970 (which is to say, 44 years ago) and since then, he’s been an English student, an English lawyer, an English MP and a London-based Middle East peace envoy (cough) and statesman.

I think at this point you’re going to have to cough and mark him on the English side of the ledger!