Maybe just sectarian then.
Thats illegal too (in places) 🙂

[citation still required]
[the multiple of butthurt is not evidence]

[shouldn’t be hard]

[citation required]

seosamh77
So you stand by your accusation that I;
a) Hate Scottish people (which I guess could be construed as an accusation of racism).
b) Don’t live in Scotland myself.

Is that a fair summary?

Honestly, your refusal cut and paste any evidence of something so “evident” says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Hugs 🙂

EDIT:
PS .. do you think “the SNP” and “Scotland” are the same thing.
No .. Apparently you have no self perception.
Yes .. You are Nicola Sturgeon and I claim my 5 groats

seosamh77

eat the pudding, why do you want us to stay if you obviously hate us? It’s a very evident emotion in your posts…

Wow.. 🙂 Theres a whole parcel of assumptions and insults in there (are you a wizzard or just an ordinary telepath?)

Who is “us” in your comment?
Where is the hate, and against whom?
What do you assume my cultural heritage to be?
Where do you think I live?
Citations please rather than accusations of hatred out of your arse.

If you find any comment where I’ve said anything negative about Scottish people (rather than some vocal minority political opinions and political parties)? Please post here.

So good luck with that, and in case of error, maybe apologise?

[Follow up question: Am I a racialist now, or do I have to wait for next weeks exciting comments?]

gordimhor,
OK Based on the information provided I’ll let the NHS comment slide and assume you are correct about the follow up report.
I fully accept that after 10 years of SNP control things are no better in the NHS in Scotland than in England.

I note you haven’t provided anything further on the state of Education? (particularly as the SNP Education secretary seems to agree with me)

Maybe those who think that things are better under the SNP could list some of the legislation passed since the beginning of the current Scottish Parliament. Where doubtless they are using their new powers for the benefit of Scottish people?

badnewz
Not read the whole thread, but just though I’d mention that Dawkins being “at heart an attention seeker” may not necessarily be a disadvantage for the “Professor for Public Understanding of Science”.

I mean .. rather than a hermit or Trappist monk at least?

I’ve always found him (altho only met him once) to be at heart someone who is deeply interested in the findings and implications of scientific discovery and an enthusiastic and accurate communicator of those facts to the world.

But that was before I knew how many phones he had of course.

The economic argument for indy was always mince, and now its toast.

Still no answers about how having less money and more power will improve things (like health and welfare)? Apart from “it’ll be better because Scottish”.

I guess all those other small countries that have failed to grow their economies by 20% in a year or 2 just haven’t wanted it enough? Or will be watching iScotland for tips 🙂

Still blaming years of “Westminster neglect” for the state of NHS and education in Scotlands despite 10 years of SNP control, when things have gone backwards.

Don’t forget that this year Scotland is getting MORE money than last year, but still complains about how its still a cut since <insert year when it was better>.

Still hoping that indy can be funded with just a little discomfort (for others), when funding the shortfall in cash available after indy would need an 83% increase in income taxes*.

* N.B. I’m not saying that would be the path an iScotland would take to pay its bills, but maybe it’ll focus a few minds on just how big the Scottish deficit really is.

The worst Brexit economic predictions are nothing compared to the clear and immediate self harm that leaving the UK would do to Scotland.

So roll on project indy-fear. The economics doesn’t add up so it’ll be full on “Brexit” fear plus “Tory” fear and the “Hollyrood” fear has already started.

The grievance bus is warming up, free rides for everyone :O)

But remember not to suggest that a “grievance” is directed at anyone else in a negative way.
SNP grievances are not divisive and bitter like the nasty nationalist ones that led to brexit.
They are uplifting, inclusive and tolerant, because … magic I guess?

km79

There are many living the reality right now of being poor and vulnerable under a Tory government. Some of them are even driven to suicide because of it. Many others who are OK themselves can see these people and are willing to risk a bit of their own personal living standards in order to progress as a whole. Can anyone honestly say this would happen under a Tory government for the next 20 years or so? No, so what is the realistic alternative?

So how many years of indy before we can afford even the levels of support that have been leading to suicides?

Do you really think that a wee drop in living standards is all that it’ll take.

Please go and look at the graph I put up a few pages ago.

Lose 10Bn from 70Bn government spending and tell me how things would get better for the people you describe.

The Scottish government got an extra Bn this year from “Westmonster”. WHat have they done with that money to help the people you describe?

They have the cash and the power now, and they do nothing.

But they’ve actually convinced you that if they have more power and less cash things will get better?

Wow.

km79
Fair enough.
But thats not what the SNP accuse Labour of.
They accuse them of being on the “same platform” and imply that support on one issue implies many other things (about which they are non specific .. maybe tory cooties?).

Anyway I’m sure Nic has had her shots, so its all fine.

tj – I know that you aren’t SNP, but many are and I’m trying to point out the doublethink required in supporting a party that preaches social democracy alongside recommending a course that will lead to massive cuts in welfare an health budgets.

Its almost like people think that the phrase “massive austerity” is just a sequence of words. Maybe the average person just can’t imagine how bad things can get very quickly after huge economic and political upheaval? Greece (hate to bring it up again) has learned hard and fast how the world (even _inside_ the EU) works.

Who wants to play with people who think thats a price worth paying for their political aims?

EDIT: Maybe ask yourself. What level of potential economic pain and austerity would make the SNP think.
“Whew thats a bit much. Lets put independence on the back burner for a while and try to get the economy in a better shape”

Anyone want to hazard a realistic guess? I think we all know the answer.

So .. to sum up.

a) We won’t be like Greece because reasons (admittedly this is true to an extent because its warmer there).

b) Money doesn’t matter anyway (and by extension the NHS, social care and public services can be done without for a number of years). How this fits in with a left leaning political outlook is anyones guess.

c) Any discussion of potential negative results of Scottish independence can be chased away with the words “too poor, too wee, too feart, etc etc”. But cannot be answered with “too gullible, too blinkered, too easily led”.

d) Facts can be ignored at will because “we’re talking about the future … so no-one knows anything really”.
I can only assume that none of you have savings, house insurance or pensions because such things are only for those who think that the facts of today may be vaguely related to the events of tomorrow?.

e) And the really big one. Independent Scotland will be everything the SNP is:
Left wing, but low tax and business friendly,
Green, but oil based,
Anti nuclear, but a member of nato,
Pro european, but treated differently by europe than Greece.
In favour of local democracy, but concentrating power and control in the central belt.
Allegedly open for debate, but plays the man and not the ball almost every time.*

And so on and so forth. A smorgasbord of political non sequiturs for the hard of thinking.

*Perfect example was Swinney yesterday; criticised by labour and conservatives, he didn’t answer their points, but accused then of working together “in the way they did during the independence campaign”.
This always comes up as a grievance but carefully ignores the fact that Nic herself stood on the same platform as the conservatives during the Remain campaign (though maybe she was untainted because she brought her own flask and sandwiches?).

km79
10 years of full control.

10 YEARS

that is all.
definitely going now.

Yes km79 Curriculum for Excellence is great (titters).
Thats what everyone says

For example after the PISA results John Swinney said;

John Swinney, the Scottish Education Minister, said: “There is great strength in Scottish education but these results underline the case for radical reform of Scotland’s education system.

“The results undoubtedly make uncomfortable reading but they contain a plain message: we must continue to make the changes that are necessary to strengthen Scottish education.”

Did you see what he did there;
After 10 YEARS of SNP control of education there is an apparent need for “radical reform of Scotland’s education system”

I’ve just realised that people in this thread are putting a more positive spin on the economic argument for independence and the performance of Scotlands education system than Nichola Sturgeon and John Swinney feel able to.

This may be the perfect moment foretold by the prophets, where STWs ringpiece rushed skyward from its open mouth like the firing of the weapon in the final scenes of the Fifth Element.

I’m calling it a night and carrying that thought off with me. I may return in 10 pages to repeat myself.

As will we all.

TTFN :O)

NHS and Education facts as requested.
Education
scottish pisa results also here more pisa results
There are other international comparisons but Scotland has mostly withdrawn from them under the leadership of the woman I like to call “Judge me on my education record” Sturgeon.

NHS comparison here

And please stop shouting “too poor too wee” over and over like you’ve dropped something in your potty worth looking at.

Facts are facts.

Be honest (like some) and accept that Nationalism is its own reward for you.

Thats OK. It doesn’t have to be good value for money for YOU.

Just hope that it happens while you’re healthy, have no kids, and can pay your own way.

But other people are interested in the best FACTS available and whether the flag on its own will enable them to live in the way they’ve become accustomed to (with an NHS, social care, and a costly if ill managed education system etc.).

If there are good non-economic arguments for independence, start making them instead of pretending we’ll all be rich or no worse off. Even the SNP have moved off that ground.

If relative economic prosperity isn’t important then admit the truth and find something else, and I hope for your sake the argument amounts to more than flags and copies of braveheart.

EDIT: It is correct that independence would bring more powers.
But what have the SNP done with the powers they have? (beyond finding excuses not to use them)

seosamh77
As I said above I’m not arguing that Scotland COULD not be independent.

I’m arguing that based on the best figures available, produced by the SNP government themselves, it would be poorer for it, for a significant amount of time, additional flags notwithstanding.

If The figures added up differently in the way that many of you still hope and dream, then Nic would be shouting it from the rooftops.

But shes not.

From here itv news[/url]

Nicola Sturgeon has denied claims that Scotland’s deficit could be a barrier for the country remaining in the EU.

Speaking to ITV News on Friday, the First Minister insisted Scotland’s £14.8bn deficit should instead be blamed on the failures of the UK.

She said: “Yes we’ve got a deficit, most countries across the world have deficits.

“It’s a bit rich of politicians who are advocating we stay part of a system that’s left us with a deficit to argue that’s the best future.

“Do we carry on with the policies that have put us in this position and are threatening to make it worse, or do we take control over our economy and our own hands so that we can work our way out of these situations”.

The figure, which accounts for 9.5% of Scotland’s GDP, is far higher than the 3% limit EU rules stipulate new members have when they join – and higher than struggling EU member state Greece.

“I don’t think people really understand how offensive it is for people in Scotland – an economy that has renewables and life sciences, world leaders in food and drink and tourism – compared to Greece.”

Ignore the window dressing and spin about whose fault it is (despite the fact that she now has most of the powers that she would have as an independent country in the EU, and that the UKs overall deficit is tiny by comparison).

Concentrate on the fact that she doesn’t say “its complicated” or quote WoS.

Unlike many on here;
She accepts that the deficit is real
She accepts that its worse than Greece.
She argues that pointing that out is rude (Ha!)

It’s not “post-truth” in Scotland, its “rude-facts”.

But at least she accepts the truth of the financial situation;

Anyone else?

Edit .. We’ve had Wings and GERS denial .. 20 more points for the first to bring up whisky export tax :O)

Still waiting on your reference to those figures that are all over the place.. Presumably as it’s so obvious it won’t take long. [space reserved for citation]
As for the assertion that GERS is faulty because of X…
GERS is produced by the Scottish Government.. Why doesn’t Nic pop down the corridor to the people she employs and ask them to make the figures accurate. If she could do that why hasn’t she?

Removing 10Bn of obvious discrepancies would make the Scottish economy look great 🙂 No?

tjagain,
Then those figures shoiuld be available in a graph or table from a reputable government source?

[citation required]

tjagain
I look forward to your educational economic analysis with graphs and such.

For the avoidance of doubt, I know scotland can survive as an independent country, but even the SNP are no longer telling us that we would be the “n”th richest (that nonsense came from the convenient spike in oil prior to the 2014 vote).

Most people who are in favour of independence seem to think that that step would make Scotlands NHS, education system, social care etc etc “better”.

But the reality is that even today, with more money than they would realistically have for maybe the first 20 or 30 years of independence the Scottish Government has worse results than the English NHS, and far worse results in Education (where they have full control).

How will independence (and less money) make that better?

Will the first year of independence lead to more money for the NHS?
If not the first year, which year?

Where are the facts that say it will be “better” or is it flags all the way down?

duckman
I didn’t say “too poor”.

I showed the (scottish government) figures for a realistic first year of “freedom” and asked you what you would cut to cope.

If you think Scotland can afford it. Tell me how?

If you think losing the equivalent of the money needed to run the NHS (every year until the Scottish economy catches up) is a price worth paying, then just say that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

km79
Really? Thats all you have?

It’s not “money” its hospital beds, care home places, teachers, a social safety net for the poor and unemployed.

If you don’t give a “shite” about that then carry on, and I look forward to seeing the healing and restoring powers of wrapping yourself in a flag.

also @km79

We don’t need oil to become independent, there is much more to life than how much money is in the public purse.

If thats true, I assume you were fine with George Osbornes “Tory austerity” and said nothing against it?

Does it really not matter to you what pays for the NHS? Social care? Education?

Really?

Heres some homework.
What was the largest percentage cut in the worst year of Osbornes Tory austerity (actual cuts not scottish government predictions)?
What percentage is 10Bn (Scottish Deficit) of 68.4Bn (Scottish Spending)?

If one of those numbers raises your hackles (because Tory!);
and the other leaves you feeling fine (because SNP!),
Then you have problems.

tj ..no defecit!
Clearly you haven’t read the scottish governments own figures.
Which lead to this graph.

That 10Bn defecit (Proportionally greater than any EU country, even Greece) means that in year 1 Scotland would be 10Bn short, 20 in year 2 etc (even allowing for pretty miraculous growth in the economy).

So which bits of Scottish spending from the graph below would YOU not do in Year 1? NHS (11.2Bn) Half of social care (11.4Bn) Please let me know so that we can tell what bits of the new free scotland we can enjoy and which bits will be worth sacrificing for “freedom”
(or austerity doublemax which is what it would actually be).

I asked this before (which bits will we not pay for) and no-one actually answered. Strange when people seem so confident when just waving their hands.

Info from chokkablog

cranberry
Its not the subject (though I think both sides should pull their fingers out on this question), its the hypocrisy.

He refuses to fight for something himself because of “reasons”.

Then he congratulates others for putting up a fight on the same subject.

Corbyn tweeted last night that the Article 50 bill defeat for the government in the Lords was:

“Great news. The Government must now do the decent thing and guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK”

This .. from the man who refused to put up a fight in the Commons.

There are no words for the contempt I have for this man. A lucky dip of incoherent and inconsistent political buzz phrases stuffed in a flesh bag and leaking all over the floor.

As on any forum, some people on here will go a bit far in trying to justify their point of view now and again.

If we’re honest we all do it sometimes and to a certain extent its just banter and easily forgotten when the next argument comes along.

But you chewkw are one of the most consistently and wilfully mendacious people I have ever had the misfortune to come across.

Reading your drivel feels like its actually making me stupider by the letter, and I have a genuine anxiety for you that you actually believe it (which can’t be healthy in the long term).

Your dysfunctional relationship to truth and honesty means that the only doubt in my mind is whether you are “fractally wrong” (at every possible scale) or “not even wrong” through a failure to understand the question.

Most people agree that you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

But you don’t seem to know (or maybe care) what those words mean.

You are like an infant in a bath full of excrement throwing it at the walls and drinking it, but when people object, you demand that everyone else explains what you’re doing wrong in painful detail, including referenced facts and preliminary sketches.

Which you then ignore with a flourish containing more excrement.

I’ve known the word “troll” for years, but I never really understoood the full depth and meaning of the word before I read your writing. So thank you for expanding my breadth of experience, before I go off and reread the thread about that blocking script.

TTFN,

(PS. On topic because …. if you substitute “Trump” for “chewkw” this rant still works. Except that theres no available blocking script 🙂

Personally I love action movies but I thought this one was great in a different way.

In most movies “alien” just means “slightly strange but basically not something you’d be surprised to see in a documentary about insects”,

This movie trys to deal with the fact that genuine aliens from a completely different culture might be (like the universe); “not just queerer than we suppose; but queerer than we can suppose” -J. B. S. Haldane.

So I thought it was a thoughtful movie with a brilliant female lead. The pacing was excellent, and even when I worked out what might be going on (suspected fairly early things wern’t necessarily in chronological order) it made me want to watch it again with a new perspective rather than think it was a dumb idea because I’d worked out “something was going on”.

P.S. It feels like it should be unnecessary to say this, but If you’re watching a movie, theres probably _something_ going on, unless its a particularly bad movie.

Someone (no idea who) once said that you can’t reason someone out of an opinion or position that they didn’t reason themselves into.

Applies to politics a bit (see anyone who thinks Trump or Corbyn are “good leaders”) religion a lot and conspiracy theories even more so.

My theory is that in some areas peoples thought processes go slightly off kilter and if untruths or non facts go uncorrected its not just a bit of misinformation that needs to be corrected but a whole interlinked world view.

Which of course leads to Voltaire “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Frightening thought in these times.

milleboy – Member
Can anyone name one realistic musical? Sort of goes with the territory.

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

Who could forget!
Blame Canada,
Kyles Mom
and so many more…

tjagain – Member
80% of the press in this country is right to far right in its outlook. ONly the morning star is leftwing

Is that the morning star that celebrated the “liberation” of Aleppo a few weeks ago?

If thats an honest representation of what you consider left then I’ve just realised that I’m right wing for the first time in my life.

@thm Nichola said it mattered (when she hope brexit would happen and bring it about), but now it’s not so important, wonder why?

Was that through the introduction of the 50p rate like they said over and over? Oh, no then.

With all this use of the word “inevitable” you’d think there was some certainty about a new independence vote? But there really isn’t.

The polls say that the people in Scotland don’t want one, and that if it happened the SNP would probably lose.

Salmond is talking it up, because
a) he likes the limelight and
b) a failed attempt would get rid of Sturgeon and might possibly bring him back as leader (again).

The fact that the SNP couldn’t win independence in the face of;
-conservative government,
-economic turmoil,
-widely believed (although later proved wildy inaccurate) oil based economic powerhouse stories,
Should perhaps be an indicator that maybe the actual inhabitants of Scotland don’t want it?

Even the addition of Brexit and an even _more_ conservative government hasn’t moved the polls.

So why are we still talking about it?

Imagine if the energy put into this question could be harnessed into paying attention to what the SNP government is actually doing.
-Overseeing a massive decline in educational attainment (while withdrawing from international comparisons of educational attainment).
-Reducing the money available to help poorer students because Salmond wrote stuff on a rock.
-Money for health care appearing in two places in the scottish budget to make the SNP look good.
-Inept (or deliberate?) figures in the budget suggesting that money from Westminster is falling this year due to austerity when it is actually rising?
-Talking up the importance of 15% of exports to Europe and ignoring the 60% to the rest of the UK.

Even the document today has a caveat that says Sturgeon consulted her group of special brexit advisers (remember them) but nothing on whether they support what shes saying, and at least one has publicly said its all mince.

I live and work in Scotland, and as a leftie liberal theres not much choice when it comes to voting. Labour has imploded and gone alt-left, the Conservatives are Conservative, Lib Dems are reduced but coming back a little and then theres the SNP who talk left wing but do nothing to justify it.

Independence is a reasonable political position, and politicians will politik but the degree of doublethink, deceit and the “at any cost” attitude is really becoming too much.

Ohh that was long .. sorry.. 🙂

northwind

There doesn’t really seem to be anything to see through tbh. You’ve clarified your position that you don’t care what people want to be called. TBH you seem proud of that. You say a lot about equality and fairness and it still comes down to you not caring what the other person wants.

Whatever

In (deliberately) talking about how I would like the situation to be in future people seem to be making assumptions about how I would react today.

I have worked with transgender people in recent years and I use whatever pronoun they are comfortable with (admittedly they helpfully chose from a list of 2).

BUT if we are heading for 70 or 100 genders with different pronouns some of which change from day to day, (and which some suggest should be backed by legal force) then that seems like a situation asking for a simpler solution.

Making language more gender neutral seems (to me) like an easier and fairer path than making it infinitely gender plural.

Thats all.

Yes northwind ..
Based on everything I’ve said in this thread about the importance of equality, avoiding discrimination and suggesting what I think is the best way to resolve this issue in a fair and equitable way, I shouldn’t have bothered, because it can all be summed up as “I have an

inalienable right to be disrespectful to other human beings

You’ve seen right through me.

Congratulations.

Thats my argument destroyed by by clever discourse that is.

Put me in my place right enough.

@Rachel
If you read what I said, I’m against multiplying pronouns (ad infinitum) and in favour of making them neutral to get around the whole thing.

As I said to poah

I’m arguing _for_ the use a single pronoun to avoid confusion and offense, not for using current ones to offend people.

@jimjam, I was just pointing out that not every word you can use to refer to people in the english language contains gender information. So whats weird about suggesting that a few extra should be neutral?

I disagree that:

Until human beings stop being sexually dimorphic a single pronoun will only add confusion and offense.

The point would be to remove confusion and offense.

Then the only people who get offended would be the ones who think that pronouns are magic and make them special (on both sides).

@jimjam

Until human beings stop being sexually dimorphic a single pronoun will only add confusion and offense.

I didn’t say that thin skinned semi-professional offense takers wouldn’t be offended (In the same way that they probably are by “other people generally being different from me”), just that it was the best simplest solution.

Certainly better than identity politics bingo.

Did you get offended by the use of the word “you” at the beginning of this sentence?
It is /\ there if you missed it.

It was gender neutral ‘you’ know.

Did it feel bad?

EDIT: Sorry if ‘you’ were offended. I’ll try to find a little willy drawing to put in the middle of the ‘o’ to make it more gender specific for ‘you’ if that helps.

poah,
I’m arguing _for_ the use a single pronoun to avoid confusion and offense, not for using current ones to offend people.
So thanks but no thanks.

Carry on.
So whats wrong with equality exactly?

@northwind

Your “Am I allowed not to care” line was a response to me saying that we should use the term the individual would like us to use. So no, not clear at all, it looked and still looks like you were saying you don’t care what people prefer to be called.

For clarity, it’s true, I don’t care and you can’t make me 🙂

I have the right not to care what someones gender is (i.e. I treat everyone equally regardless of their gender, colour, racial origin or the relative length of their fingers and toes etc.).

On the same basis I should also have the right to not care what they want to be called (with the exception of their name), if that designation is specifically designed to draw attention to attributes I am otherwise free to ignore.

A single pronoun (which is what I’m arguing for) gives everyone their undisputed right to their gender (of whatever degree, type, permanence/impermanence, biological, material or imaginary), and me the right to verbally treat them in the same way as any other human being.

I don’t see that as a problem?

Do you?

For clarity, I obviously know that that situation (single pronoun) doesn’t exist at the moment, but its the best solution, and going from 2 to 1 is not going to be helped by a detours to 70 or 100.

@northwind

But that’s not the real situation so… We have to live in the real world and deal with real people. And that means that not caring would make you a prick.

Though maybe it’s not clear- I didn’t say you’re a prick. I said if you really don’t care about hurting people around you, you’re a prick. I very much doubt that’s you. (other people in the thread, well)

I thought it was clear. I do care about how people are treated by others, but I genuinely don’t care what gender someone chooses.

That doesn’t make me a prick, that makes me an egalatarian.

When you say we have to deal with the “real situation”, I know that the situation I advocate (a single pronoun for everyone) doesn’t currently exist, but I think its a lot more achievable as an aim than special pronouns for everyone, which (as I’ve said) is virtue signalling nonsense.

Basically, I’m proposing equality, and you’ve jumped to the conclusion that I’m being discriminatory? Thats not as unusual as it should be, but its still silly.

@northwind

eat_the_pudding – Member

Am I allowed not to care?

Of course you’re allowed not to care. There’s any number of ways in which we’re allowed to be pricks.

Allowed isn’t the question. Caring about the affect our actions have on other people is just basic human decency, we shouldn’t need to be coerced into good manners. [/quote]

Wow… overreaction much.

My attitude [if you bothered to read my previous comments] is that the perfect situation is one where the default position is that I don’t have to care about someones gender (nor they about mine).

Also that a gender neutral pronoun for everyone would be the simplest most consistent solution to the whole issue.

Care to explain how that makes me an uncaring prick? You disingenuous fartnozzle?