Forum menu
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 (sic[s]k[/s])
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
[quote=ernie_lynch ]And when things go tits up after "independence" it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.
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 [b]with all that this entails.[/b] Hence the embarrassing elephant in the room for yS, [b]their core argument remains that we are better together[/b]. The choice of a currency union as the preferred option, [b]with all that THIS entails [/b](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.
bearing in mind that is a play on the term little englander,Every pro independence little Scotlander
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 [i]genuinely[/i] 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 -[b] I want to live in a democracy, and at the moment I don't[/b].
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!
Which is the least worst option?
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.
If only (genuinely) that were true. WMD will simply still be there but you will have no control over them whatsoever (DA, DT). YS is also committed to spending EXACTLY the same % of GDP on other means of killing people. Different brand, but it still smells like coffee.
why this bothers you so much
To coin a phrase, hello (tap, tap) is this thing on? These changes and the irresponsible threats that go with them have implications for all of us. Please don't forget that in its confusion, yS is asking rUK to backstop the economy without having control over the ludicrous fiscal plans laid out in the BoD (not to mention other unfunded liabilities, policies and fairy tales). It takes an extreme level of arrogant insularity, to believe that we should not be bothered and I am sure that you can be accused of neither Ben. The answer, on reflection, is obvious....
As I said earlier in the thread, I think there's less transparency than you think.And we don't live in a democracy, you just think we do.
I've dealt with ineffecitive Ministers who rely so heavily on their civil service team that you negotiate with the civil servant and the Minister rubber stamps it. I can't find the link at present but I think it was last week there was a debate about the Committee system, which is supposed to be the backbone of Holyrood transparency, being bypassed.
You may have a point about Blair kona. Look at what he said in his memoirs:
The Scots were notoriously prickly about the whole business.I always thought it extraordinary: I was born in Scotland, my parents were raised there, we had lived there, I had been to school there, yet somehow – and this is the problem which nationalist sentiment unleashed – they (notice the ‘they’) contrived to make me feel alien.
Language has to be used carefully. They were incredibly sensitive to the fear that the Scottish Parliament would turn out to be a local council (which it never was). The Scottish media were a PhD dissertation about chippiness all unto themselves. They could spot a slight that to the naked eye was invisible. Once I gave an interview on why the Parliament should have tax-raising powers, in which I said: ‘If even a parish council can, why shouldn’t the Scottish Parliament?’ – which led to the headline ‘Blair compares parliament to parish council’, which even by their standards was quite some misinterpretations.
😉
You really want to live in a democracy?
Death penalty?
EU membership?
Immigration?
Maybe have a look at the polling on those issues and consider why it is that we don't live in a democracy, and if you would really prefer it if you did?
my [i]suspicion [/i] Ben is that what you really want is to limit democracy to those things where you think people will agree with you, and not to the issues you find more problematic...
You really want to live in a democracy?Death penalty?
EU membership?
Immigration?Maybe have a look at the polling on those issues and consider why it is that we don't live in a democracy, and if you would really prefer it if you did...
my suspicion Ben is that what you really want is to limit democracy to those things where you think people will agree with you, and not to the issues you find more problematic...
If you can pull some polling information that show Scots are in favour of the death penalty and want stricter immigration then I'll be impressed. Same for EU Membership, otherwise there wouldn't be such a big deal being made about it.
[b]My suspicion [/b]is that you know fine well that a iScotland would have a more democratic government so are attacking Ben rather than the issue at hand.
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/stephen-mcginty-the-death-penalty-debate-1-3050259 ]Scotsman article[/url] Can't find a poll offhand, but page 1 of google search shows a Scottish newpaper article expressing the concern, so presumably the journalist had a basis for it.
The thread momentarily went quite good for a bit there, good work from all the usual suspects to make it terrible again.
(devo max would increase the influence of Scottish voters far more than any false independence) There will be no revolution.
Correct, however it isn't on the table, nor will a no vote be met with anything other than Scotland being squeezed till the pips squeak. So therefore independence would at least give us a CHANCE to shape our own future. If this ref was on devo max THM would be wasting his bandwidth opposing it as it would be a landslide,but it isn't. A no vote by even the narrowest margin will not be seen as a suggestion to implement change(devo max) to remove the strength of the nationalists,it will mean a sucession of cuts (as history has previously shown us) as a punishment for daring to vote in a SG with an agenda. I would disagree with your summary of a post yes vote society,we have a fairly middle of the road mob in charge.Our fight against the bedroom tax is an example of a slightly softer attitude towards social care,prescriptions would be another.
Has the page layout gone wrong for everyone else or is it just me?
Yup, it's borked....As I type this I can hear the rising tide of a pupil shouting his potty mouthed head off as he is brought to my door....see ya!
The Scottish polling is clearly in favour of the Death penalty, against EU membership, and anti immigration!
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-sometimes-the-death-penalty-is-the-most-approriat
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/what-are-your-views-on-immigration-to-the-uk
So, you really want more Democracy? How about a referendum on those issues eh?
I thought not! 😉
Hmm, my attempt to use italics seems to have broken the page formatting. Sorry.
The Scottish polling is clearly in favour of the Death penalty, against EU membership, and anti immigration!http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-sometimes-the-death-penalty-is-the-most-approriat
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/what-are-your-views-on-immigration-to-the-ukSo, you really want more Democracy? How about a referendum on those issues eh?
I thought not!
Well, there you go. I'm either very out of touch with my fellow Scots or the polls graphics on the website aren't telling the whole story.
One thing that jumps out is that agreeing that *sometimes* the death penalty is the best option is very different from 'do you agree we should bring back the death penalty' and the immigration question relates to the UK, not an iScotland.
Tbh though, if a party want's to bring those policies into their manifesto because that's what the people want, they should do it. That's what it's about, eh?
. If this ref was on devo max THM would be wasting his bandwidth opposing it.
Hear, hear ducks. Sadly when I suggested a long time ago, that devo max might the the best solution for Scotland, I was accused on here of arrogantly telling the Scots what they should do!!! It's a funny old place STW but at least you have now squared the circle this time - a fittingly "positive" contribution.
Perhaps now you will see why I also suggest that having a vote on something that most people believe has a MUCH better alternative (and which in turn (ie the alternative) is supported (to the extent that anything factual can) by the BoD and the arguments put forward by yS AND is not (as?) detrimental to either Scotland or rUK) is, while democratic, little more than an expensive vanity project.
You may have a point about Blair kona
I'm not sure if his claim that Scots were trying to make him feel alien as Prime Minister is really true, but if any were, perhaps it's because...he hadn't lived, studied or worked there for 30 years, and didn't represent a Scottish constituency.
Perhaps the more interesting question is why so many English people want to make him feel alien...
Hear, hear ducks. Sadly when I suggested a long time ago, that devo max might the the best solution for Scotland, I was accused on here of arrogantly telling the Scots what they should do
That probably got lost in some of your more flowery rhetoric.
For the record, I favour devo max as another step away from the UK,as I am a nationalist. A few years of Devo max would be enough to a)decide whether that made being part of a wider fed UK work for us. b)if it didn't be more prepared to stand on our own two feet,without impacting as much on the rUK. I said early on this thread that the best stroke rUK made was making it all or nothing.It would have seemed an obvious transition, Devolution,Devo max,full independence. If we get a yes vote it will be a painful decade. A close no/yes vote will not resolve anything,and it didn't have to be this way. In the event of a yes vote the horse trading will probably leave us with a version of devo max and a pile of bad feeling on both sides.
Its brilliant to see ernie and THM try and twist this debate about how you are waiting to hear of arguments - yes you are floating voters just waiting to be persuaded?
Re democracy as Ben claims it would take some pretty amusing posting to claim that Scotland wanted this current govt or that historically [ over the last 50 years] they do not regularly get govts thatt they did not vote for. Its a fairlydcredible point to make that they want an iS so they get a government that represents their views and that UK does not achieve this
When this point is made - lets call it a fact as this is what it is- the No campaign get all shitty
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.
THM reply 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.
Its not that the arguments are not out there it is when they are presented to you you give childish replies to them - in much the same way you do when I ask for information about why a currency is not an asset. Its certainly a novel pedagogical approach you have there.
Instead of doing this perhaps you could explain how scotlands democratic choice is reflected in ALL UK elections including this one. [b]Perhaps you could tell them how a govt they do not elect reigning over them is democratic and how fortunate they are to have their views ignored and get the govt that another country voted for?[/b]
You cannot hence you do this sort of guff instead-
So THM explain why Scottish democracy is best served by having governments they do not vote for - its a tricky one that is it not THM - I wish you luck in attempting it but I expect ignorance will be your tactic here as clearly an iS will get the govt scotland chooses and the UK does not ALWAYS deliver this- Yes that would be the envy of the world ...chuckles
Its brilliant to see ernie and THM try and twist this debate about how you are waiting to hear of arguments - yes you are floating voters just waiting to be persuaded?
I have no idea about THM but I have always been opposed to the break up of the UK (I support radical federalism though) My mind is firmly made up about that.
I am however perfectly prepared to listen to someone who presents a powerful argument for Scottish independence, and if it's convincing and persuasive enough I am also perfectly prepared to change my mind.
Why would that be a concept which is difficult for you to understand ? I do try my best to tailor my politics to suit what I perceive to be factually correct, there's really no point in supporting theories which you don't believe in.
EDIT : RE : "there's really no point in supporting theories which you don't believe in" the exception for that of course is when conclusions are democratically arrived at, then the decisions of the majority override personal individual opinions and I am perfectly happy to support policies/theories which I don't necessarily agree with or believe in. Democracy isn't always painless 🙂
I am however perfectly prepared to listen to someone who presents a powerful argument for Scottish independence, and if it's convincing and persuasive enough I am also perfectly prepared to change my mind.
AS could say the same thing in reverse it would be just as believable as you and THM 😉
That is not a dig to be clear the same is true for me on many issues as well.
If them getting a govt they choose is not a good enough reason then I doubt the others will work either.
Also a fan of fedaralism FWIW
I said early on this thread that the best stroke rUK made was making it all or nothing.
+1
Which makes the argument that AS is the most "astute/best" etc politician in the UK slightly far of the mark IMO. As "I also said earlier" it would actually be quite funny if the consequences for us all were not so serious. One day, all of these guys will remember that they are civil rather than self servants.
If we get a yes vote it will be a painful decade.
Indeed it will. I am glad you admitted it though. If we say these obvious things we get accused of being negative!
ernie_lynch - Member
...I am however perfectly prepared to listen to someone who presents a powerful argument for Scottish independence, and if it's convincing and persuasive enough I am also perfectly prepared to change my mind...
Why do you think the question of democracy for the Scots needs powerful arguments?
Surely the concept of democracy stands on its own feet?
The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote.
Having a more local government may not seem like perfect solution to you, but to us it is certainly a much less worse solution, and one where we can more easily affect the views of whatever administration we choose, especially as we have proportional representation.
A Devo Max solution would have probably been an outstanding success. We would still be in the UK, and most people would have been happy with that.
There is a suspicion that the reason it was not on the table was because the UK govt does not want Scotland to have more say in its internal affairs and was relying on scaring enough people so that the full independence option failed.
teamhurtmore - Member
Which makes the argument that AS is the most "astute/best" etc politician in the UK slightly far of the mark IMO...
If AS is stupid, it is because he's a carrier of a powerful virus.
It seems to infect his opponents with far more serious effects than it has on him. 🙂
Indeed it will. I am glad you admitted it though. If we say these obvious things we get accused of being negative!
I think most of are big enough ans astute enough to know that despite everyone's best efforts (if that's indeed what we get) there will be a fairly length period of transition, including before and after the split. We're all hopeful and indeed some of us confident that after than when things have settled a bit things will be better for the majority of us.
May I also say that it's often not what you say THM, but how you say it.
One day, all of these guys will remember that they are civil rather than self servants.
One day you will realise that your opinion of AS is not everyone elses opinion. he is serving the people who elected him. Have you seen what the SNP stood for?is he delivering it? Its not even a decent attack is it THM? you would not pass a student who said this in an exam paper. he is delivering on his mandate and rather well it is just that his people are not pro Union england dwellers.
Anyway could you explain why Scotland getting the govt they choose is not a compelling reason to vote for independence? Why its great democracy that they get one they dont vote for?
Your halcyon view of the UK union is at least, on this specfic issue, as distorted as his view of the aftermath . Like him you just dodge and ignore a tough question [ he calls england bullies you call me a troll] with rabble rousing rhetoric
IMHO you know you are on dodgy ground explain how that is good or not a compelling reason hence the evasion.
Imagine what you would say were AS to do this ?
I always thought it was hilarious how that turned on it's head. Referendum is annouced, yes/no question, the idea was touted that there should be a 3rd, the nationalist jumped onto supporting it(imo in the knowledge that people would say black is white). the uk government say black is white, hey presto, we get a yes no vote.A Devo Max solution would have probably been an outstanding success. We would still be in the UK, and most people would have been happy with that.There is a suspicion that the reason it was not on the table was because the UK govt does not want Scotland to have more say in its internal affairs and was relying on scaring enough people so that the full independence option failed.
It was utter brilliance from the nationalists imo. A 3rd question would have destroyed any thought of an IS actually happening.
One day, all of these guys will remember that they are civil rather than self servants.
Salmond is not a civil servant and he's not supposed to be. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Excellent spot KB, you are correct. What I should have said is:
one day all of these guys will remember that they are public not self servants
one day all of these guys will remember that they are public not self servants
He is serving the public who elected him and delivering on the party's manifesto promise. Sounds fair to me.
[quote=whatnobeer ]One thing that jumps out is that agreeing that *sometimes* the death penalty is the best option is very different from 'do you agree we should bring back the death penalty'
Are you suggesting that the people in that poll are stupid? Because that's the only possibility I can see for people thinking that the death penalty is sometimes the most appropriate sentence, but that we shouldn't have the death penalty.
The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote.
Where does that argument stop though?
you only need to look at the Scottish parliament election results for 2011
[img] 
[/img]
Where is the political representation for those in the blue bits? Can they not rightfully claim that their vote does not have any value because its outnumbered by Labour and the SNP? How about them up in the Orange bits? Are they being denied democracy?
Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what [u]you[/u] want?
Are you suggesting that the people in that poll are stupid? Because that's the only possibility I can see for people thinking that the death penalty is sometimes the most appropriate sentence, but that we shouldn't have the death penalty.
No, but can you not see that they're different questions?
If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing, but as you can't ever get that situation then no, I wouldn't want a death penalty.
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.
I can't believe people are naive enough to think this is the case. iScotland isn't suddenly going to become some hippy dippy place, it will still have a military, it will certainly train alongside rUKs military and they will support and fight together. I'm pretty certain that even if an iScotland had existed 15 years ago their troops would have been committed to Afghanistan and Iraq.
No, but can you not see that they're different questions?If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing, but as you can't ever get that situation then no, I wouldn't want a death penalty.
So, you'd have no problem with putting it to a referendum I take it?
So, you'd have no problem with putting it to a referendum I take it?
No problem at all if it was in a party manifesto. The people get what the people want. That how it works.
Where is the political representation for those in the blue bits? Can they not rightfully claim that their vote does not have any value because its outnumbered by Labour and the SNP? How about them up in the Orange bits? Are they being denied democracy?Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what you want?
We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.
FFS, If "all of these guys" were evenly vaguely delivering on what they promised, half the threads on the chat forum would be redundant. Farrage will claim that he is representing people, and he is. And thanks to the beauty of freedom of speech, he is able to demonstrate how ridiculous many of his comments are, and how inaccurate the supposed facts that he uses to supported them are as well. Ditto with the deceitful one. And people should be free to point out the absurdities as they see fit.
So we recently had the debate between Clegg and Farage that was supposedly based on the facts not the people. It was perhaps fitting, that both chose to adopt a relatively "liberal" interpretation of facts!
Given his excellent academic background, perhaps I expect too much from AS? He certainly does disappoint though and pretty much on a daily basis in this context. As Duckman said, you need stamina not to be worn down by it.
[quote=whatnobeer ]No, but can you not see that they're different questions?
Maybe, but only a pedant would suggest you can have one without the other.
If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing
Well clearly you have a different view on the death penalty than I (and a lot of people opposed to it) do then. You're a man of the people.
Sorry, is that if a referendum on the death sentence was in a party manifesto, or if the death sentence was in a party manifesto?
Why try and impose party political qualifications on your precious Democracy - how about the Swiss method, where a significant petition launches a right to a binding referendum?
Thats real Democracy! Why would you be afraid of it?
(I think I know why 😉 )
FFS, If "all of these guys" were evenly vaguely delivering on what they promised, half the threads on the chat forum would be redundant. Farrage will claim that he is representing people, and he is. And thanks to the beauty of freedom of speech, he is able to demonstrate how ridiculous many of his comments are, and how inaccurate the supposed facts that he uses to supported them are as well. Ditto with the deceitful one. And people should be free to point out the absurdities as they see fit.
You're doing it again THM. Comparing Farrage and AS is a weak attempt to discredit him. As is your constant use of your pet name for him. It does you no favours. Can you not see that there's a huge difference between a party that makes clear its aims in its manifesto then works to deliver it manifesto once elected? Especially given that fact that AS has a mandate for the agenda he is pushing.
Well clearly you have a different view on the death penalty than I (and a lot of people opposed to it) do then. You're a man of the people.
Meh, it was a hypothetical. Personally I'm opposed to ever killing other humans, but if a party was to put that in their manifesto, get elected then put out a referendum on the issue that's just them doing their job. I'd vote against but that's not the point.
Sorry, is that if a referendum on the death sentence was in a party manifesto, or if the death sentence was in a party manifesto?Why try and impose party political qualifications on your precious Democracy - how about the Swiss method, where a significant petition launches a right to a binding referendum?
Thats real Democracy! Why would you be afraid of it?
(I think I know why )
Either I guess. I wouldn't vote for anyone pushing it, but that's just me.
Personally I don't find the Swiss model all that helpful. It may seem a good idea, but turnouts tend to be low and at a guess I would assume having referenda on everything would add significant cost and expense to governing the country.