PDA

View Full Version : Mr Salmond's greatest achievement?



John Little
07-Feb-12, 10:09
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the referendum Scotland decides to stay in the Union? Suppose that the margin for doing so is a narrow one.

What then?

Does the SNP continue trying to persuade people in the hopes of having another referendum in another 10 or 20 years and winning?

It’s clear that a significant number of Scots want independence for its own sake.

It’s also clear that a lot of Scots vote SNP because the alternatives are so unattractive.


So what is the future of the UK?

It’s an uneasy thing to live in an unstable country; a country which may cease to exist, and overall I personally would sooner not prolong the agony of it; one way or another. If Scotland wants Independence then Scotland should have it and now.

However-

The United Kingdom has had a stable polity for 300 years now, with the occasional threat of revolution which came to nothing in the end; political instability is not attractive, nor continued uncertainty about the future.

I wonder if the Washington government these days would tolerate California holding a referendum and seceding from the Union? They would not have done so in 1865; times have changed.

Or if it would be acceptable on Capitol Hill to have a situation where at any time any of the 50 states could up sticks and leave?

For strength and purpose, instability is not desirable.

Yet with a narrow defeat in a referendum I cannot see the SNP accepting it for ever, which leaves the UK as a country likely to dissolve and inherently unstable.

Unless there is an alternative where secession becomes undesirable and irrelevant; some sort of federal system, constitionally embodied, with Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments, with a council for the whole based more centrally for the UK- Carlisle for example.

States have moved capitals for similar reasons before now.

Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.

It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.

That is a considerable triumph.

Phill
07-Feb-12, 10:43
Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.What has slumped down?


It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.In looking at the independence issues for, against, how etc. there are two positions to take and two different places to look at it from.
It is entirely possible that an independent Scotland would reap benefits for England, Wales & Northern Ireland from the electorates point of view.
Also, if Mr Salmond's campaign is unsuccessful, even by the slightest of margins, I suspect there may be quite a backlash from Westminster and a few 'establishment' movers and shakers.

I have thought that Mr Salmond in wanting to 'break up' the UK, could actually be giving the UK the kick up its arse it needs.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 10:47
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the referendum Scotland decides to stay in the Union? Suppose that the margin for doing so is a narrow one.

What then?

Does the SNP continue trying to persuade people in the hopes of having another referendum in another 10 or 20 years and winning?

It’s clear that a significant number of Scots want independence for its own sake.

It’s also clear that a lot of Scots vote SNP because the alternatives are so unattractive.


So what is the future of the UK?

It’s an uneasy thing to live in an unstable country; a country which may cease to exist, and overall I personally would sooner not prolong the agony of it; one way or another. If Scotland wants Independence then Scotland should have it and now.

However-

The United Kingdom has had a stable polity for 300 years now, with the occasional threat of revolution which came to nothing in the end; political instability is not attractive, nor continued uncertainty about the future.

I wonder if the Washington government these days would tolerate California holding a referendum and seceding from the Union? They would not have done so in 1865; times have changed.

Or if it would be acceptable on Capitol Hill to have a situation where at any time any of the 50 states could up sticks and leave?

For strength and purpose, instability is not desirable.

Yet with a narrow defeat in a referendum I cannot see the SNP accepting it for ever, which leaves the UK as a country likely to dissolve and inherently unstable.

Unless there is an alternative where secession becomes undesirable and irrelevant; some sort of federal system, constitionally embodied, with Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments, with a council for the whole based more centrally for the UK- Carlisle for example.

States have moved capitals for similar reasons before now.

Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.

It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.

That is a considerable triumph.

I'd assume that if full independence failed with a narrow margin then some form of full/maximum devolution indicated in a second question would have passed. As for holding another referendum, if the SNP put it in their manifesto for the next Scottish parliament elections, campaigned on it and won a majority then they could hold another referendum then. Right now the other parties are promising other things if the Scotland stays, more powers, devolution, more investment, etc. If those things don't appear which is pretty likely then the landscape will be different for a hypothetical second referendum. I recall similar promises being said in 1979, I can look out a quote or two if I must.

The distinction with the US is that they already have a federal system.

John Little
07-Feb-12, 10:47
What has slumped down is the image of the United Kingdom as 'United'. It is apparent that a large number of people in Scotland and Wales are no longer content with the Union as it stands.

We have slumped from being a politically stable entity into a state of uncertainty and potential dissolution.

But yes - Mr Salmond has certainly shaken the UK out of its comfort zone.

John Little
07-Feb-12, 10:49
The distinction with the US is that they already have a federal system.

I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

Phill
07-Feb-12, 10:59
The electorate being given an opportunity to vote on the future of their country a slump? When thinking about the Arab Spring, or even Syria right now. Quite stark contrasts I know.

But is it not showing democracy at its best? Even the Unionists, Westminster and the grubiment have a fantastic opportunity to be a beacon of light but in typical UK fashion its all the negatives that get rolled out.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 11:03
I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

I don't think we have a federal system de facto or not. As in similar to the US with states, state legislatures, an elected second chamber and a separate federal government. The US has a system where states with population alone can not bully people.

As for my other point here we go:

Nick Clegg says Scots will still get more devolution if they vote no (http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012/02/nick-clegg-says-scots-will-still-get-more-devolution-if-they-vote-no/#axzz1lgkYHA64)

Which reminds me of the 1979 referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979#Tax_issue):


The campaign for a "no" vote was much helped by an assurance by former Prime Minister Lord Home of the Hirsel that a future Conservative Government would introduce legislation which would meet the objections. This pledge, made by Lord Home in a personal capacity, was not honoured by the Conservatives when they came to power a few months later.

And then Lord Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home#Retirement):


In the Scottish devolution referendum... Douglas-Home had no authority to give such an assurance, and in fact, Margaret Thatcher's government introduced no Assembly at all for Scotland, instead repealing the legislation that resulted from the referendum.

History will repeat itself if we believe the promises and assurances and vote 'No'.

Nick Noble
07-Feb-12, 11:06
I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

We are "de facto" no where near being a federal system. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies are all subservient assemblies. A Federal system gives real autonomy, including tax and spending powers to the constituent states. The fact that power for a legal referendum rests with Westminster demonstrates this perfectly.

Scotland needs, wants, and deserves far greater powers than currently permitted, but should remain part of a new Federal UK.

John Little
07-Feb-12, 11:29
There is no one definition of Federalism; it comes in many forms.

It is fairly understandable to describe a system where 3 regions of a state have a devolved form of government, the whole being presided over by a central assembly with representatives from the component parts as in some way Federal.

That is a form of Federalism.

It is not, as you have pointed out, a very good one.

As to 'slump', I was not referring to people being given a choice in their future as a slump.

I'm British; the British state, a stable entity for so long, is no longer regarded as stable.

As I am British I see that, with some justification I think, as being a 'slump'. I do not like instability.

Therefore, if I am to be 'English' I would rather get on with it - then I will know where I am.

Phill
07-Feb-12, 12:02
But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 12:06
But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.

Phill
07-Feb-12, 12:11
Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.But tactically set, it's not really about consultation, it's about maximising the opportunity. And for that Westminster is slacking.

Nick Noble
07-Feb-12, 12:17
Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.

Just have to correct that slight inaccuracy. The manifesto said there would be a referendum.

Just because Alex keeps repeating the lie does not make it true, the first mention of "in the second half of the parliament" was by Alex Salmond 4 days before the election.

A small but distinct difference.


Trusting the People to Decide
Independence will only happen when people in Scotland vote
for it. That is why independence is your choice.
We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s
future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest
that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament.



http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_lowRes.pdf

gleeber
07-Feb-12, 12:52
This thread is just more of the same. I'm enjoying keeping up with it. My mate accused me yesterday of being a nationalist. Thats one of Alex Salmonds greatest achievments, not that I am by the way. My mates a staunch unionist like me but ive noticed a softening in his condemnations of poor Alex Salmond just recently. Thats another great achievment. Theres 2 and a half years to go and Ill tell you something. Alex salmonds doing a good job. Thats another achievment. How can someone whose so condemned by some on the org, be so popular amongst others? Ive noticed since I got interested in the debate that the unionists and especially the Tory unionists are demanding positive reasons for Scotland becomeing Independent. There's non actually if you have a closed mind.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 13:05
This thread is just more of the same. I'm enjoying keeping up with it. My mate accused me yesterday of being a nationalist. Thats one of Alex Salmonds greatest achievments, not that I am by the way. My mates a staunch unionist like me but ive noticed a softening in his condemnations of poor Alex Salmond just recently. Thats another great achievment. Theres 2 and a half years to go and Ill tell you something. Alex salmonds doing a good job. Thats another achievment. How can someone whose so condemned by some on the org, be so popular amongst others? Ive noticed since I got interested in the debate that the unionists and especially the Tory unionists are demanding positive reasons for Scotland becomeing Independent. There's non actually if you have a closed mind.

Interesting view point, conversely I've been looking for positive reasons for staying with the union but all I seem to find are supposed negatives and scare stories and some vague stuff about history, it's always been done that way, we'll be able to bully others/feel like a big man.

When both campaigns start in earnest it'll be quite intriguing.

John Little
07-Feb-12, 14:10
But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 15:18
I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

Though falling apart and an amicable separation are two different things.

squidge
07-Feb-12, 15:19
I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

If the state was about to fall apart but this is a considered democratic process and is not really falling apart as much as potentially deliberately separating. A considered decision is hardly falling apart

John Little
07-Feb-12, 17:09
I think that is probably a question of perception.

I'm trying very hard to see it from the point of view of world investors and our allies.

A lot of adjustment is going to be needed; not that this may be a bad thing.

The Security Council seat will almost certainly go, whatever its worth.

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 17:19
I think that is probably a question of perception.

I'm trying very hard to see it from the point of view of world investors and our allies.

A lot of adjustment is going to be needed; not that this may be a bad thing.

The Security Council seat will almost certainly go, whatever its worth.

Oh I agree, other countries will use Scottish independence as an excuse to re-evaluate the UK without Scotland or whatever it chooses to call itself and it'll probably lose the security council seat, despite the spin about Scotland having a lesser impact on the work they're worried about themselves. Is that really such a bad thing though it could help counter balance a lot of the imperialism guilt.

billmoseley
07-Feb-12, 19:03
just one question that i might have missed somewhere but here goes. what % of the population has to vote yes for it to be carried though my guess would be 65/35% in favour not 50/50

John Little
07-Feb-12, 20:24
Oh I agree, other countries will use Scottish independence as an excuse to re-evaluate the UK without Scotland or whatever it chooses to call itself and it'll probably lose the security council seat, despite the spin about Scotland having a lesser impact on the work they're worried about themselves. Is that really such a bad thing though it could help counter balance a lot of the imperialism guilt.

LOL! It may well do, but not in me for I have none!

As to the losing the seat, well we've been able to influence outcomes far in excess of our actual importance in the world for nearly 70 years after the end of WW2. And sometimes we have done it rather badly.

I am no fan of the UN, tho' I have a sneaking admiration for Dag Hammarskjold and would not weep if we were not in the SC. It's been used for too much hypocrisy in the past.

ducati
07-Feb-12, 20:27
Break up of the Union would certainly not be amicable. Just look at how emotionally charged the issue is now, I'm sure it will
be much more so come time to vote.

John Little
07-Feb-12, 20:36
What do you expect?

Blue Bonnets oe'r the border?

ducati
07-Feb-12, 20:42
No, but I can see a lot of petty vindictiveness either way. :eek:

RecQuery
07-Feb-12, 20:46
Break up of the Union would certainly not be amicable. Just look at how emotionally charged the issue is now, I'm sure it will
be much more so come time to vote.

I would hope that with a couple of exceptions this would go away or fade with time once everything has been settled and any negotiations completed. There would still be close trade and business links I would assume to help this along.

ducati
07-Feb-12, 20:50
I would hope that with a couple of exceptions this would go away or fade with time once everything has been settled and any negotiations completed. There would still be close trade and business links I would assume to help this along.


Well hypothetically, should the vote not go the way you and your friends would like, how will you feel? Well disposed to, and happy to co-operate with the rest of the UK?

whitechina
07-Feb-12, 21:05
The distinction with the US is that they already have a federal system.


Maybe there's a little trouble brewing there too...........

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89842/

Kenn
08-Feb-12, 00:36
Well I can say that Alex Salmond makes me laugh, he's a canny but not convincing orator and I hae me doots!

gleeber
08-Feb-12, 13:24
Break up of the Union would certainly not be amicable. Just look at how emotionally charged the issue is now, I'm sure it will
be much more so come time to vote.
It's no more emotive than PMQs and thats a good thing. It's an imortant issue and the SNP have worked hard to get the chance to decide it. That's an achievment.

gleeber
08-Feb-12, 13:31
No, but I can see a lot of petty vindictiveness either way. :eek:
You get that in all politics. The issues are much more important than the personalities .

gleeber
08-Feb-12, 13:33
Well I can say that Alex Salmond makes me laugh, he's a canny but not convincing orator and I hae me doots!
Its easy to caught up in that one. Most of my mates are staunch unionists and hae their doots about poor Alex but they are beginning to pay attention to the issues. Thats important.

golach
08-Feb-12, 15:01
Its easy to caught up in that one. Most of my mates are staunch unionists and hae their doots about poor Alex but they are beginning to pay attention to the issues. Thats important.

I think Eck has done to you, what he is very good at gleeber, he has pulled the wool over your eyes. I still do not trust him.

gleeber
08-Feb-12, 15:12
Ye see, I would say he's pulled the wool off my eyes. He's made me pay attention to the issue and although I have the same apprehensions about politicians as anyone, how else could it be in a democracy? If enough Scottish people have the confidence to build a new country let them get on with it and I'll help whether I voted for or agianst it.
Its important the issues are addressed and not the personalities. Fat chance I know. :roll:

billmoseley
08-Feb-12, 19:39
i wouldn,t be surprised if the vote never came because in the end the figures won't add up and it will die a death

Osbacky
08-Feb-12, 20:35
Being anti English racist two faced idiot and that comment from a fellow proud Scot!!

RecQuery
08-Feb-12, 21:16
Being anti English racist two faced idiot and that comment from a fellow proud Scot!!

I knew the insults had to come eventually, pity it was going so well.

At least no one said "covincing the world he doesn't exist"

John Little
08-Feb-12, 21:20
I'm not clear on who's insulting who...

Corrie 3
08-Feb-12, 21:33
Being anti English racist two faced idiot and that comment from a fellow proud Scot!!
At least when you copy and paste we can understand it!!!
What are you on about here? What exactly is an Anti English racist two faced idiot?

C3...........:eek::confused:roll:

Shabbychic
08-Feb-12, 22:24
Alex Salmond's greatest achievements:-

He lead the SNP party to a majority victory against a system meant to prevent it.
He has caused all the nations of the UK to re-evaluate and discuss their place within the union.
He has given the people of Scotland the chance of a referendum on Independence and their future.

How's that for starters?

Corrie 3
08-Feb-12, 22:34
Alex Salmond's greatest achievements:-

He lead the SNP party to a majority victory against a system meant to prevent it.
He has caused all the nations of the UK to re-evaluate and discuss their place within the union.
He has given the people of Scotland the chance of a referendum on Independence and their future.

How's that for starters?
Brilliant !! It's up to us now !!

Aaldtimer
08-Feb-12, 22:40
This? http://www.scotsman.com/news/expenses_row_engulfs_salmond_1_1352579 :lol:

ducati
08-Feb-12, 22:40
Alex Salmond's greatest achievements:-

He lead the SNP party to a majority victory against a system meant to prevent it.
He has caused all the nations of the UK to re-evaluate and discuss their place within the union.
He has given the people of Scotland the chance of a referendum on Independence and their future.

How's that for starters?

Actually, I see it as him dividing Scotland, (setting Scot against Scot, Orger against Orger :lol:). As only Nationalists wanted a referendum in the first place and they are in the minority. I think he will have a lot to answer for come the unrevolution:mad:

squidge
08-Feb-12, 22:56
As only Nationalists wanted a referendum in the first place and they are in the minority. I think he will have a lot to answer for come the unrevolution:mad:

I dont think that is right. There are many Unionists who are glad there is a referendum because they hope and beleive that it will settle the question and the Nationalists will lose the referendum. Also, It wasnt only Nationalists who voted for the SNP and allowed them to form a majority government, many Unionists did too and they voted in the full knowledge that a vote for the SNP meant they would hold a referendum. That was a compromise that they were willing to make.

DeHaviLand
08-Feb-12, 23:18
just one question that i might have missed somewhere but here goes. what % of the population has to vote yes for it to be carried though my guess would be 65/35% in favour not 50/50

I see no one answered your question Bill. In a true democracy, the majority rules, therefore a 51% vote for Independence would be enough, and rightly so.

Fly
09-Feb-12, 00:14
I see no one answered your question Bill. In a true democracy, the majority rules, therefore a 51% vote for Independence would be enough, and rightly so.

A 51% vote in a 50% turn out is not a mandate either for or against independence so there should be a minimum vote set of at least 70%.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 08:42
A 51% vote in a 50% turn out is not a mandate either for or against independence so there should be a minimum vote set of at least 70%.

Yes let's make this different from other referendums to again try and dismiss it. The consultation hasn't finished but I would say 51% of the turnout. If you can't be bothered to vote then who cares.

John Little
09-Feb-12, 09:18
Yes let's make this different from other referendums to again try and dismiss it. The consultation hasn't finished but I would say 51% of the turnout. If you can't be bothered to vote then who cares.

That would not be making the referendum different from others. There are many forms of referenda, and the rules vary considerably.

In some places it is not unusual for a constitution to require a 'super majority' of 2/3 of the entire electorate for a referendum to be valid.

I am sure that when a referendum does go ahead in 2014 it will be on terms acceptable to both the Scottish and UK governments because neither side can afford to have any doubts left in the matter as to validity.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 09:32
That would not be making the referendum different from others. There are many forms of referenda, and the rules vary considerably.

In some places it is not unusual for a constitution to require a 'super majority' of 2/3 of the entire electorate for a referendum to be valid.

I am sure that when a referendum does go ahead in 2014 it will be on terms acceptable to both the Scottish and UK governments because neither side can afford to have any doubts left in the matter as to validity.

So we can decide national elections with 34% of the vote both in turnout and those that ultimately 'win' but not referendums?

John Little
09-Feb-12, 09:38
So we can decide national elections with 34% of the vote both in turnout and those that ultimately 'win' but not referendums?

That is correct.

And of course it is a debt we owe to Mr Salmond that if the UK survives as it stands, then he has thrown all of this into hard relief. It might actually make people think about the stupid aspects of our constitution and the iniquity it brings - like FPTP.

Or the fact that there is no UK Senate to offset the political dominance of England.

golach
09-Feb-12, 09:49
This? http://www.scotsman.com/news/expenses_row_engulfs_salmond_1_1352579 :lol:

Aaldtimer, just shows you Eck is a corrupt as any Tory or Labour MP, and he dares to call himself the "Right Honourable", I cannot trust that man.

Phill
09-Feb-12, 10:14
I think the key thing for all parties is to ensure a good turnout, and secondly the arguments for / against. It would only go on to further problems if an 'unpopular' decision was made by a handful of people by the slimmest of margins.
It's more an issue of getting the uninterested interested without boring them and switching them off.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 10:24
I think the key thing for all parties is to ensure a good turnout, and secondly the arguments for / against. It would only go on to further problems if an 'unpopular' decision was made by a handful of people by the slimmest of margins. It's more an issue of getting the uninterested interested without boring them and switching them off.

I agree, though some people just dismiss politics and care more about soap operas or reality TV and no matter what you try you just can't gain their interest. Some are on the electoral roll and some aren't but for they really aren't functionally part of the electorate. Also we run the risk or motivating people that really have no knowledge of the issue. I don't know if that's good thing or a bad thing.

Phill
09-Feb-12, 10:49
Also we run the risk or motivating people that really have no knowledge of the issue.
True, but part of the motivation has to be the information.

But what does worry me is there are a huge amount of people who are ignorant of various issues and believe whatever the headline is on whichever piece of tabloid shite they may read, and then go off and vote based purely on what lies they read that morning.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 10:53
True, but part of the motivation has to be the information.

But what does worry me is there are a huge amount of people who are ignorant of various issues and believe whatever the headline is on whichever piece of tabloid shite they may read, and then go off and vote based purely on what lies they read that morning.

Same, I think that sort of happened with the FPTP/AV referendum.

ducati
09-Feb-12, 12:19
Same, I think that sort of happened with the FPTP/AV referendum.

Bit arrogant, if a vote doesn't go the way you think it should, it is because everyone else is stupid?

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 12:35
Bit arrogant, if a vote doesn't go the way you think it should, it is because everyone else is stupid?

I mean more like the blatant lies in campaigns and papers. To lose fairly is one thing to lose because the other side is dishonest or the media gets involved and blatantly lie is something different. I can provide examples, lots and lots of examples.

ducati
09-Feb-12, 14:28
I mean more like the blatant lies in campaigns and papers. To lose fairly is one thing to lose because the other side is dishonest or the media gets involved and blatantly lie is something different. I can provide examples, lots and lots of examples.

And you can see through this, but nobody else can?

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 15:41
And you can see through this, but nobody else can?

Not me and others (you're constantly trying to portray me in a certain light aren't you) hence the rebuttals and evidence revealing them to be blatant lies, doesn't matter though. The lies did what they were supposed do and got people to vote no.

golach
09-Feb-12, 16:05
Not me and others (you're constantly trying to portray me in a certain light aren't you) hence the rebuttals and evidence revealing them to be blatant lies, doesn't matter though. The lies did what they were supposed do and got people to vote no.

There posts the Herr Goebbels of the Org, [disgust]

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 16:59
There posts the Herr Goebbels of the Org, [disgust]

Evidently making a throw away off topic statement about a previous referendum campaign is now sufficient enough to be compared to a propaganda master. Perhaps I should start my own fascist comparison bingo. And oh look a unionist using insults again.

gleeber
09-Feb-12, 17:13
Dont pay any attention to them Requery. A Tory and an ex nationalist with little or nothing to offer the debate apart from the personal jibes. If they were attending a political meeting in a village hall somewhere, both of them would be turfed out by the scruff of the neck. You've done well up until now to talk issues. If all else fails just love them and have more respect for your elders. :lol:

teddybear1873
09-Feb-12, 17:14
If you take a closer look, Scottish National Party is an anagram of "Oh nasty tartan politics" and Alex Salmond is an anagram of "all mad, no sex"

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 17:24
If you take a closer look, Scottish National Party is an anagram of "Oh nasty tartan politics" and Alex Salmond is an anagram of "all mad, no sex"


David Cameron -> Darn mad voice. I am odd, craven.
David Cameron, Conservative" -> Corrosive, avid advancement.

It's good job we don't decide things on anagrams.

Corrie 3
09-Feb-12, 17:28
There posts the Herr Goebbels of the Org, [disgust]
No need for insults Golach......is that the best you can do?
Insulting decent honest posters doesn't make you look good at all, give it a rest or come up with something constructive and stop trying to be clever !!

C3...........[disgust][disgust]

ducati
09-Feb-12, 17:30
Dont pay any attention to them Requery. A Tory and an ex nationalist with little or nothing to offer the debate apart from the personal jibes. If they were attending a political meeting in a village hall somewhere, both of them would be turfed out by the scruff of the neck. You've done well up until now to talk issues. If all else fails just love them and have more respect for your elders. :lol:

Oi! I just don't like being called stupid! Do you?

golach
09-Feb-12, 17:30
A Tory and an ex nationalist with little or nothing to offer the debate apart from the personal jibes. If they were attending a political meeting in a village hall somewhere, both of them would be turfed out by the scruff of the neck. You've done well up until now to talk issues. If all else fails just love them and have more respect for your elders. :lol:
I openly admit to being a former Tartan Tory, does that make me a bad person? I think not. That means I am not a sheep and am not blindly following Eck and his Cronies, I can think for myself. Because I refuse to believe Recqery and his SNP propoganda does not mean I am wrong. And gleeber, I dinna care a hoot for getting respect from Recquery!!!!

golach
09-Feb-12, 17:36
Evidently making a throw away off topic statement about a previous referendum campaign is now sufficient enough to be compared to a propaganda master. Perhaps I should start my own fascist comparison bingo. And oh look a unionist using insults again.

And that post come from a person who states that he is Quote (Argumentative, opinionated and always right. )Unquote

golach
09-Feb-12, 17:43
No need for insults Golach......is that the best you can do?
Insulting decent honest posters doesn't make you look good at all, give it a rest or come up with something constructive and stop trying to be clever !!C3...........[disgust][disgust]
So its ok for Your Eck to say this openly "Mr Salmond used the term “Gauleiter” – the name for a regional Nazi party leader – to describe BBC political adviser Ric Bailey " but when I do its an insult! Do decent honest posters on here all have to be supporters of Eck........Aye Right!!!!!

John Little
09-Feb-12, 18:18
Pistols at dawn gentlemen?

If history teaches us one thing about this sort of debate it is surely that tin hats and trenches will not make for agreement.

Alec Salmond comes from a respectable line of descent in Nationalism in Britain. He occupies a position that reminds me of Daniel O Connell or Charles Stewart Parnell. It also strikes me that he could be the nearest thing to Lloyd George that I have seen in my lifetime; he began as a nationalist voice and ended his career in the Commons as PM.

Should the referendum leave Scotland within the UK, Salmond certainly has the political astuteness to be a big player in Westminster if he formed an alliance with one of the centre left parties.

So if Scotland stays in the UK I wonder if he would be content to remain a big fish in Scotland's pond or look for a larger canvas on which to paint? I can think of no smoother operator who, if he played it well, would have more clout.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 18:47
Oi! I just don't like being called stupid! Do you?

When did I call you stupid? I merely replied to Phill's post (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?169188-Mr-Salmond-s-greatest-achievement&p=927324#post927324) about dodgy tabloid and campaign tactics with what I believed to be a relevant example. I didn't say that everyone who held the opinions championed by the tabloids and campaign was stupid merely that some people could be swayed by them. Phill also made sure that his post couldn't be mistaken as a generalisation.


And that post come from a person who states that he is Quote (Argumentative, opinionated and always right. )Unquote

Yes, because online biographies on forums are always correct and indicative of a persons actual character. Someone would never be facetious or try to inject some humour into them.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 18:53
Getting back on topic: He's trying to shake the guys hand to congratulate him. How can that photo possibly be used as the photo for this article -

http://i.imgur.com/vFJpi.jpg

John Little
09-Feb-12, 21:32
I would not sweat it. The views of one hack are of little consequence in the matter over all.

He does tap into one Nationalist shibboleth which deserves a kicking - the idea that you are not a patriot if you do not support independence.

There is no monopoly of truth on this matter and each person must decide for themselves.

In the end the will of the Scottish nation will be heard, for one way or another.

People are not quite so stupid as some on both sides think- though many are...

In the end it will be the truest test of democracy on this generation and will be lived with by generations to come.

Mr Salmond's burden is a heavy one. Let us hope that it is not mere hubris.

RecQuery
09-Feb-12, 21:42
I would not sweat it. The views of one hack are of little consequence in the matter over all.

He does tap into one Nationalist shibboleth which deserves a kicking - the idea that you are not a patriot if you do not support independence.

There is no monopoly of truth on this matter and each person must decide for themselves.

In the end the will of the Scottish nation will be heard, for one way or another.

People are not quite so stupid as some on both sides think- though many are...

In the end it will be the truest test of democracy on this generation and will be lived with by generations to come.

Mr Salmond's burden is a heavy one. Let us hope that it is not mere hubris.

I do wonder if anyone will push the maximum devolution option. Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories all seem to be for remaining a full part of the UK - this is despite what Labour and the Lib Dems have said in their literature in the past - and the SNP seem to be pushing for full independence and I'm not sure if they intend to do anything with a devo-max campaign.

Ideally I'd like the SNP to push full independence but with devo-max as backup. Regardless I'm wondering if anyone is going to champion it.

Nick Noble
09-Feb-12, 21:52
I do wonder if anyone will push the maximum devolution option. Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories all seem to be for remaining a full part of the UK - this is despite what Labour and the Lib Dems have said in their literature in the past - and the SNP seem to be pushing for full independence and I'm not sure if they intend to do anything with a devo-max campaign.

Ideally I'd like the SNP to push full independence but with devo-max as backup. Regardless I'm wondering if anyone is going to champion it.

I doubt you will find anyone willing to play to the SNP's tune between now and a referendum on independence. There needs to be a clear debate regarding independence, not a blurry one about independence or devo max or independence lite or whatever other scheme anyone can come up with to muddy the waters.

But don't worry other parties are thinking very hard and working very hard to have a sensible offering to put to the elctorate once the distraction that is a three year independence debate is out of the way.

Any option other than independence means remaining a full part of the UK, you cannot be semi-detached. However the powers that are devolved to any particular area of the UK can be as varied as the people of those areas want. Scotland wants, ad should have far more fiscal freedom than they do now, and the option to develop our own patterns of welfare, health care etc without being dictated to by Westminster. However I cannot see any benefit in developing our own military, our own foreign service, being a seperate member of the EU etc.

Phill
10-Feb-12, 00:55
When did I call you stupid? He didn't call you stoopid Duke, peeps from your neck of the woods ain't smart enough to be stoopid!! :Razz


I didn't say that everyone who held the opinions championed by the tabloids and campaign was stupid merely that some people could be swayed by them.
Without rambling... I have worked with, known, drank with and by other means known people who, for whatever reason cannot or are unable to see past what is delivered to them.
They are not stupid, they are not thick. But for various reasons they are ignorant of a wider viewpoint and accept what is billboarded in bullet point fashion.
And they are swayed by this.
I know people who I could literally tell how to vote, I don't want that, I want them to think about the options and then vote for themselves.






Ideally I'd like the SNP to push full independence but with devo-max as backup.


However I cannot see any benefit in developing our own military, our own foreign service, being a seperate member of the EU etc.
Sorry boys. I feel it's Independence or nothing. We can't be cherry picking the best bits and then expect someone else to pick up the tab for the bits we don't want. Scotland stands up and is a separate nation or Scotland is part of the UK, otherwise Scotland will be guilty of the Scottish / British sports person mentality but on a massively hypocritically global scale.


I can think of no smoother operator who, if he played it well, would have more clout.Like him or loath him, Mr Salmond is a smooth operator and and has Westminster on the backfoot.

ducati
10-Feb-12, 09:45
He didn't call you stoopid Duke, peeps from your neck of the woods ain't smart enough to be stoopid!! :Razz




The implication was if you didn't vote for AV and are going to vote no to independence or vote Conservative, then you are taken in by the lies and spin. Only people of recquery's ilk should be allowed to vote because they are savvy enough.

Personally, I disagree. :Razz

John Little
10-Feb-12, 12:33
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm

Enjoy...

ducati
11-Feb-12, 09:01
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm

Enjoy...

Thanks, I did. What a nutter .

John Little
11-Feb-12, 09:16
LOL. I went to hear Chomsky speak a few years ago.

He's quiet and understated, widely respected, author of dozens of books and pamphlets, a respected academic and philosopher.

And to you, a nutter.

ducati
11-Feb-12, 09:21
LOL. I went to hear Chomsky speak a few years ago.

He's quiet and understated, widely respected, author of dozens of books and pamphlets, a respected academic and philosopher.

And to you, a nutter.

Well, perhaps a bit harsh but certainly a conspiracy theorist even if well respected, unshakeable dark world view, paranoid and establishment phobic, what else do you want?

Your PM Box is full BTW.

John Little
11-Feb-12, 11:21
I tend to think of Chomsky as a healthy sceptic. If he is a conspiracy theorist then we must not mistakenly think that there are no conspiracies. Chomsky's awareness of this idea was framed very much by the Pentagon Papers and by Watergate.

As for me, if Blair and Bush did not have a WMD conspiracy then I'm a Dutchman's uncle.

Thank you - I have attended to my inbox.