PDA

View Full Version : What is the SNP?



Pages : [1] 2

John Little
13-Aug-12, 20:06
I could post this on another thread but I have sworn not to, so must start another.

I keep reading a lot of stuff about the SNP and what it offers, and after my last thread about Independence I have been doing a lot of thinking.

The arguments go this way and that over Scottish independence, but a lot of it is not all that relevant to the actual principle of the thing.

Scotland could go it alone.

There is no doubt on that score.

There would be adjustments, but it’s clear that a lot of Scottish prosperity, should they wish to continue with the same services they enjoy now, would depend on oil.

Howsoever, that is not the point either.

I have been born and brought up in a country called the UK.

As a citizen of the UK and of largely Scots descent, I’d be happier about this whole thing if the Scottish Nationalist Party changed its name.

Why?

Because it gives the wrong sense of what they are about.

Firstly, it is ‘Scottish’ only in that it based in Scotland. To qualify to vote in its referendum you only have to be resident in Scotland. So it’s a polyglot and multi-cultural organization, and not based on ‘nationality’ in any ethnic sense. Yet it taps into this ethnicity as well, appealing to an historic sense of grievance going back hundreds of years (despite the fact that it appears that many of its members do not have roots in Scotland that far back.)

So it tries to be both Scottish and ‘Nationalist’ – yet cannot define itself in the sense of nationality because many native born Scots living outside Scotland will have no say in the upcoming referendum.

Secondly, it is ‘Nationalist’ only in the sense of residency, and not of race. If it were of race, then it would run the danger of being tagged as being right wing and obsessed with ethnicity as its defining characteristic.

Yet among its most vocal supporters are people who are not of Scots descent; which is amazingly PC but leads to an examination of what they are about.

The thesis seems to be that “Scots” (by which they mean residents of Scotland) are currently living in some sort of condition which would be improved, of Scotland were independent. A Utopian vision of how things might be is dangled in front of people who are invited to don rosy specs and accept this offering as unquestionable truth. Recent posts on the Org have spoken of redistribution of wealth and land which are straight out of Marx. I wonder what the right wing of the SNP make of that?

It seems that the SNP offer something to everyone – and they might well deliver, if the oil price holds up.

Thirdly, is the SNP a party- or is it really two?

It is hard to deny the gut appeal of genuine Scottish Nationalists- for they have a case. The yearning to be a nation once again, running one’s own affairs from Edinburgh, sovereign and independent – I can relate to that and as a native born Scot then it would have a lot of romantic and emotional appeal to me. Geographically the case is not so good. Inverness might be 600 miles from ‘Westminster’ but Los Angeles is 3000 miles from Washington and it does not seem to bother them all that much.

But that’s not the main thrust of the case being made by the SNP. The main thrust is economic and that’s not a Nationalist argument – it’s a Secessionist one.

The main thrust invites people to vote for a better future, better roads (which must have been much better before 1707) etc etc etc.

In other words, for economic advantage.

Economic advantage over the rest of us UK citizens and over what exists now in Scotland... maybe.

The message seems to be ‘We don’t like things as they are, so we want to build a nice new estate with gates to keep out the hoi-polloi and do things our way. The current elite are not doing it right – so let’s have our own elite.


So – “Scottish Nationalist Party” seems a misnomer to me. If economics are the main reason for breaking up the UK, for a section of Britain to gain advantage at the expense of others, then that is not quite so laudable as appears.

It could even be seen as divisive, elitist and parochial.

Or selfish.


I would like to see what the SNP wants, rolled out across the whole of the UK. We all want better services, roads, schools etc but for a group to set up to break away from Britain on economic grounds implies that Cornwall, Yorkshire and other areas of the UK which might be economically viable, could do the same- and to me that makes little sense. Cornwall has its own flag, language and culture so it’s not impossible.

These things have nothing to do with Nationality.

They have to do with Class. The Haves and the Have -nots.

And it is not solely a Scottish concern but affects the whole UK. Not a reason to break up the UK, but to change the UK.


Which is why, for the first time in my life, I will be voting Labour next time round- because the UK deserves a better future than the Lib-Dems or the Tories can offer.

And I would rather not see my country, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, broken up.

ducati
13-Aug-12, 21:21
Interesting post John. I've just been rubbing shoulders with some English people :mad: and as soon as they find out where I live (and I'm obviously not Scots as you know) I get aggrieved semi-banter about independence and the SNP. The overwhelming feeling I come away with is of bitterness about the whole thing.

I can imagine a reverse scenario, where post independence (hypothetically cos I don't think it will happen) the rest of the UK will carry a grudge for the next 300 years. But joking aside, Scotland will be in a very difficult situation if the rest of the UK is not minded to be very accommodating and co-operative, certainly in the early years. And it is allegedly the voters that tell the government what to do and if they aint happy.........

maverick
13-Aug-12, 22:45
I think the SNP are playing Russian Roulette with Scotland, the whole issue of Independence is as clear as mud.
I have heard that some businesses that have considered coming to Scotland are postponing plans until the Independence issue is resolved. Ok I will accept that the current economic situation probably has a hand in this as well. Even though companies not willing to invest in Scotland because of the uncertainty of the Independence vote is not a good thing.
I am not saying that the SNP are all bad or that all the policies are totally wrong, as with every barrel of apples there will be a few bad ones.
On the issue of Independence, I feel that the SNP could do more harm than good.

theone
13-Aug-12, 23:11
I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.

Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.

The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

squidge
14-Aug-12, 10:31
Im shocked by that comment theone - I have been around and about SNP members for several years now and I do not believe that is true of the party - it may be true of individual members but I believe that they are few in numbers and not representative of the party as a whole.

Look around you – wherever you are just now, whether you are minded to be a yes voter or a no voter, look at those people who are Scottish Nationalists. Look at the people you work with, the people you live with, stand at the school gates with, the people you serve in a shop, restaurant or pub. Are they English or Scottish or from somewhere else? Does it matter? Do they care where you are from? I doubt it. Interested in your life and your story they may be… Plotting your imminent demise or some wicked racist atrocity, they are probably not. I never heard the saying “All Jock Tamson’s bairns” until I came to Scotland but there is a feeling in Scotland that you can be here and be Scots whether you are from here or elsewhere. Many, many people with Scottish parents or ancestors delight in their Scottishness. Most people coming to live here in Scotland from England or elsewhere feel at home, like this is their “place” and when asked where they are from will happily correct the assumption that they are from England with “ No I’m from Scotland”.

theone your Scotland may be a land full of English hating Nationalist bigots and those who would turn on their neighbours and friends but mine and most other people’s Scotland isn’t. When you walk the streets a wee bit, drink in the pubs a wee bit, drop in at some toddler groups or youth clubs or workplaces I will happily bet that you would find many of “Jock Tamson’s bairns” happily playing, living and working together. The referendum is not going to change that.

Corrie 3
14-Aug-12, 11:10
I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.


If the SNP were a racist party I doubt they would let anyone into the party who hasn't got full blown Scottish roots! Anyone is allowed to join the SNP whether you are brown, black, yellow, red or white in skin colour and no one is turned away purely on the fact of where they were born or where they come from.
John ask's what is the SNP, the SNP is a political party which is giving the the voters of Scotland a chance to get away from the mainstream parties which have got the stranglehold of power in the UK. How many people are fed up of power jumping from Labour to Tory and then back again? The SNP gives us a choice to get away from the main three parties, if you are happy having Labour and Tory rule swapping every few years then dont vote for the SNP, at the end of the day it's your choice.

C3..............:eek:

gerry4
14-Aug-12, 11:36
I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.

Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.

The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

What utter rubbish. I have voted SNP, I want Independence, and I was born in England with an English mother. I have 2 daughters, 2 step sons and 8 grandchildren. All of my kids were born in England. I am married to a Lancashire lass. How could I be said to be racist against the English?

I find your views offensive, bring the Nazi's into it. You do not have a grasp of what happened in Germany in the 30's & 40's then. I suggest you go away and find out before posting any more rubbish like this.

Secondly, Independence & supporting the SNP are not the same thing. Independence supporters are in all of the parties, Labour, LibDem's, Greens, Tory, etc. Once Independence happens who is to say which party/parties will be voted into power.

theone
14-Aug-12, 16:01
Im shocked by that comment theone - I have been around and about SNP members for several years now and I do not believe that is true of the party - it may be true of individual members but I believe that they are few in numbers and not representative of the party as a whole.

Maybe Squidge, and I know it would be foolish to think all members are the same, but I do have personal experience of one member who I know very well and their friends, and that is the experience I have of them.



Look around you – wherever you are just now, whether you are minded to be a yes voter or a no voter, look at those people who are Scottish Nationalists.

Just to clarify, I am not speaking about people who want independence, or even for people who vote for the party. I am speaking about my personal experience of people within the party.


The SNP gives us a choice to get away from the main three parties, if you are happy having Labour and Tory rule swapping every few years then dont vote for the SNP, at the end of the day it's your choice.


Of course. And believe it or not I do agree with many of their policies. Others must too or they wouldn't be in power! I just do not agree with their no.1 policy, their no.1 priority.


What utter rubbish. I have voted SNP, I want Independence, and I was born in England with an English mother. I have 2 daughters, 2 step sons and 8 grandchildren. All of my kids were born in England. I am married to a Lancashire lass. How could I be said to be racist against the English?

As above, I'm not speaking about people who vote SNP, I was speaking about the party and my experience of its members.


I find your views offensive, bring the Nazi's into it. You do not have a grasp of what happened in Germany in the 30's & 40's then. I suggest you go away and find out before posting any more rubbish like this.


You must be easily offended.

You have know idea of my knowledge of what happened in Germany. One way the Nazi's gained support was by highlighting how the people were being oppressed and could be better off. If you can't see a similarity there, then you are blind.

And before you get offended again, I am speaking about the political methods, not viewpoints.




Secondly, Independence & supporting the SNP are not the same thing. Independence supporters are in all of the parties, Labour, LibDem's, Greens, Tory, etc. Once Independence happens who is to say which party/parties will be voted into power.

Of course.

But Labour/Liberal and the Tories do no want independence. They do not think it is in our best interests. Yes, they could be voted into power in an independent Scotland, but that is, in effect, putting a party into power with one hand tied behind its back.

I don't doubt many members of the SNP would happily disappear from politics once their fundamental goal, the "one way street" of independence was granted. Leaving the whole population to suffer the consequences.

Rheghead
14-Aug-12, 17:49
The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

Now you come to mention it, I somehow remember the Nazis did actually include into their ranks all sorts of races, nationalities and creeds whether they be German, Ukrainian, Slavs and muslims. They fed into their multiculturalism in order to unite against certain undesirable ethnic types. In time, I have no doubt these would have gone the same way as the undesirables once they had solidified their grip on world power.

David Banks
14-Aug-12, 18:09
Well John, we all would like you to “be happier about this whole thing,” so please tell us what you would like the SNP to change its name to? By the way, I thought it was called the Scottish National Party. I wonder if you are trying to make some points by your use of the terms “Nationalist” and “Secessionist,” and I am just too thick to get it. In the case of the latter, are you suggesting something illegal is going on?

I see no problem with the referendum on Scottish independence being voted on only be residents of Scotland, as it comprises people who were born there and have chosen to stay, AND people who have chosen to move there. Although there may be arguments for allowing people of Scottish ancestry living abroad to vote, I could see such becoming very complicated to administer fairly.

On the question of whether or not it is a single party, again I don’t see the problem. Once the primary objective of independence is achieved, I would not be surprised if it dissolves into a variety of other parties.

I understand what seems to be your discomfort at the potential break-up of the UK. I felt a similar discomfort at the thought of the break-up of Canada, because (a) a separate Quebec would have cut off the provinces of Atlantic Canada from the rest of the country and (b) there are significant pockets of French-speaking people in every province, where I feared a backlash effect. However, the history of Scotland as a separate country does not compare to the presence of the French in Canada.

Where I must disagree with you is in your assertion that “The main thrust is economic.“ In fact, you may already have an inkling of the real reasons.

You say that you are “of largely Scots descent.” You would not say such a thing unless it conjured up some feeling, some meaning for you, which may be difficult to put into words.

Secondly, from what I remember of elections many years ago, England and Wales were predominantly conservative, and Scotland was predominantly NOT conservative. The will of the Scottish electorate was often swamped numerically. Scotland has always seemed to me to be politically much closer to Scandinavia - something Northern perhaps. You may have tapped into that way of thinking by telling us that you will vote Labour next time.

Why not establish a Scottish residence for just long enough to allow you to vote for independence? You will always be welcomed there.

John Little
14-Aug-12, 18:40
I think I would prefer something like 'The Secessionist Party of Scotland' which would be honest; because that is what it is.

If it is not defined by race or ethnicity but by the prospect of getting a better life - economic advantage- then its aims are exactly that. Economic.

I have not said anything about it being illegal - plainly it is not- but I say again,- I live in the UK.

If a sectional group wishes to break away from the UK for economic reasons, feeling that they can do better on their own, then I do not see that as Nationalist. How you can disagree that the SNP's main thrust is on the prospect of the economic advantages of independence, I do not know- a cursory glance at just about any discussion on independence would show you that.

So, a group, not defined by nationality or ethnicity wishes to secede from the UK.

For what they can get that is better.


I'd be happier if they dropped the pretence of Nationalism and just said - 'Hey guys - we have a real chance to grab loads of goodies for ourselves- so let's go for it.

Do it for freedom, for your history, for grievance, for oppression, for the right of Scots (whatever they are) to rule Scots - fine, You are a nationalist and the economics of it do not matter. I can dig that,

But do it to get a better life than the majority of the rest of the schmucks in the UK and you are just trying to get a better share of the pie for yourself.

So the 'Selfish Party' (which is a nickname for the Tories here) would be more accurate.

Independence is largely being sold on the strength of more pie.


And they dress it up as Nationalism..

oldmarine
14-Aug-12, 19:49
Ouch, my head hurts after reading all of that. I did learn something new. I am not a citizen of GB (including England & Scotland). I have traveled through both countries and worked a spell at Thurso designing and installing a satellite communications system. I had a preferance for the highlands of Scotland due to the fact that's where I spent most of my time. I will not get envolved with the political scene because it is none of my business. However, I will express my fondness for the Scottish & English people due to the fact that my country served with the countries of GB during that great war of WW2 of which I was a part.

piratelassie
15-Aug-12, 00:25
theone, Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .
I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.

Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.

The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

maverick
15-Aug-12, 00:41
theone, Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .I can,t imagine how anybody could be offended by making derogatory comments about the Nazi's, weren't they the most evil political party in history. After all we did not gas our Jews in Britain?

theone
15-Aug-12, 00:49
theone, Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .

Let's learn how to spell offensive and ignorant before we speak about education.

Do you see what I did there?

Oddquine
15-Aug-12, 02:08
Let's learn how to spell offensive and ignorant before we speak about education.

Do you see what I did there?

Yep....I saw what you did........engaged in your usual supercilious and ignorant (and somewhat trolling) attitude. But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.

Corrie 3
15-Aug-12, 02:54
But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.
It would appear that way, none more so than the ones on the .Org.
I never thought the day would come when I would have to put a Member on "Ignore" but because of the bitterness, backbiting, name calling and persecution I reluctantly have had to do so.
I refuse to be drawn into a situation where I get suspended ever again so "Ignore" seems to be the best way forward. No doubt this post will draw a snide reply from said member.

C3.................:eek::eek:

theone
15-Aug-12, 08:48
Yep....I saw what you did........engaged in your usual supercilious and ignorant (and somewhat trolling) attitude. But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.

There has to be an irony there.

John Little
15-Aug-12, 10:17
It’s an interesting knee jerk reaction that people get when they mention the N word.

A red mist comes over folk's eyes and they lash out, outraged, overcome with righteous indignation and they tower in wrath to smite the rash and cowering wretch that dared to even imply that they might share any characteristics at all with the hated N’s.

Articulate, educated and intelligent members of the SNP must be terminally embarrassed away from some of what is freely available on the internet. Despite constant denials, and the disciplining of dissidents who make homophobic remarks the comments that you come across quite a lot show quite a lot of ill feeling towards England.

It would be unwise to link to some of them of course because I would get banned, but anyone wishing to go to Youtube and search for “Independence for Scotland” who wishes to browse the comments underneath could see a few for themselves. On Facebook there’s a page for a Scot burning an English flag; that's on Youtube too.

The SNP may wish to move the hem of their garment away, but those things are still there.

Saying that it ain’t there don’t make it so.


Now as to the Nazis.

In the study of Propaganda the Nazis are quite fascinating, because they were very effective.
From having 12 members of the German Parliament in 1928, they had over 260 by 1933. This was achieved largely by Propaganda, so any party with a publicity department worth its salt would do well to study how they did this.

I won’t strain your patience by developing this, but if I were in charge of raising public awareness for the Tories, Lib-Dems or Labour, then I would study the Nazis and would be delighted if I could copy their success in Propaganda methods.

At least one supporter of Scottish Independence is using one of their most blatant methods.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-gordon-brown-warns-of-higher-taxes-or-more-public-spending-cuts-for-independent-scotland-1-2465581?commentspage=174#commentsSection


Scroll down to the bottom - click on just about any page...

John Little
15-Aug-12, 11:27
There is something that puzzles me.

Perhaps an SNP supporter can clear something up for me?

The SNP is committed to renewables and reducing carbon emissions as well as being anti-nuclear. So they fully support loads and loads of windmills being built all over the place.

Naturally, although Scotland sits on 600 years worth of coal, the SNP would not be in favour of developing that, because it is a polluting energy source.

The SNP is thus impeccably Green.

But how does that square with the position that it's Scotland's oil and that most of the UK's oil revenues would go to Scotland after independence?

Isn't oil a fossil fuel, gives off a lot of pollution and rich in greenhouse gases?

Why is one dirty pollutant a rich resource to be developed whilst another, very similar, is to be shunned and not used?

squidge
15-Aug-12, 15:27
Articulate, educated and intelligent members of the SNP must be terminally embarrassed away from some of what is freely available on the internet. Despite constant denials, and the disciplining of dissidents who make homophobic remarks the comments that you come across quite a lot show quite a lot of ill feeling towards England.

It would be unwise to link to some of them of course because I would get banned, but anyone wishing to go to Youtube and search for “Independence for Scotland” who wishes to browse the comments underneath could see a few for themselves. On Facebook there’s a page for a Scot burning an English flag; that's on Youtube too.

The SNP may wish to move the hem of their garment away, but those things are still there.

Saying that it ain’t there don’t make it so.
... At least one supporter of Scottish Independence is using one of their most blatant methods.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-gordon-brown-warns-of-higher-taxes-or-more-public-spending-cuts-for-independent-scotland-1-2465581?commentspage=174#commentsSection


Scroll down to the bottom - click on just about any page...


You suggest the spammer on your link above is a supporter of Scottish Independence when in fact that self same spammer appears on the Scotsmans report about the Women for Independence launch and also on another story I read last week the Ian Davidson Story, In fact if you google the name then you find he or she has spammed the Scotsman, Wings over Scotland, Newsnet Scotland and a variety of other websites across both sides of the argument. Not, i think a cybernat or a cyberbrit simply a pain in the neck!!!!!

The cybernumpties are around all over the net and are not simply a Nationalist invention despite what politicians and the media would like us to think. If you take a look at Wings over Scotland - a pro-indy blog - you will find an piece he did over the weekend which gives a flavour of the twitter postings from unionist supporters during hte closing ceremony of the Olympic Games. Haircurling!!!!! Jason Manford also this week wrote a piece which highlighted the appalling and unpleasant posts which were aimed at Gary Barlow for daring to sing at the Closing ceremony despite he and his wife suffering the agony of a stillborn baby recently. These make me shake my head in disbelief at the cruelty of folk. I read an article in the Highland News recently where the comments were so unpleasant and so wicked that they upset me for a week. I too have been on the end of unpleasant and upsetting comments as several of us "old hands" here at the org were a couple of years ago. Did I think that the comments were indicative of the people posting here on the Org? No I didnt - in fact I am sure some of those who were soooooooo unpleasant are still around but I dont for one minute think that they either meant it or would have carried out some of the suggestions they made.

I didnt like the facebook page where they burnt the flag but then there was one a couple of weeks ago where they burnt a dog! Go looking around the internet for extremists and you will find them. I took a meander through the Scottish Defence League pages in support of the Union and those pages which link from that group and it left me feeling like I needed a shower!!!!

If you want to look for it there is a page for cybernats on facebook. Go have a look - and compare it to what you have seen reported and indeed John, what you are suggesting is the way they behave - you might be surprised.

John Little
15-Aug-12, 15:41
I cannot see the Cybernats page because you have to join it to see it.

I take your point that the SNP is not composed of such, but trust that you would not deny that the rabid anti-English stuff does exist - in the same way that the rabid Unionist stuff exists. I have seen that too.

If The One has come across such people then I can quite understand why he might view the SNP as having a strong element of anti-Englishness to it.

Fact is that such people exist. They will vote for Independence.

Do you want their votes anyway?

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 15:55
It’s an interesting knee jerk reaction that people get when they mention the N word.

A red mist comes over folk's eyes and they lash out, outraged, overcome with righteous indignation and they tower in wrath to smite the rash and cowering wretch that dared to even imply that they might share any characteristics at all with the hated N’s.

Articulate, educated and intelligent members of the SNP must be terminally embarrassed away from some of what is freely available on the internet. Despite constant denials, and the disciplining of dissidents who make homophobic remarks the comments that you come across quite a lot show quite a lot of ill feeling towards England.

It would be unwise to link to some of them of course because I would get banned, but anyone wishing to go to Youtube and search for “Independence for Scotland” who wishes to browse the comments underneath could see a few for themselves. On Facebook there’s a page for a Scot burning an English flag; that's on Youtube too.

The SNP may wish to move the hem of their garment away, but those things are still there.



Saying that it ain’t there don’t make it so.


Now as to the Nazis.

In the study of Propaganda the Nazis are quite fascinating, because they were very effective.
From having 12 members of the German Parliament in 1928, they had over 260 by 1933. This was achieved largely by Propaganda, so any party with a publicity department worth its salt would do well to study how they did this.

I won’t strain your patience by developing this, but if I were in charge of raising public awareness for the Tories, Lib-Dems or Labour, then I would study the Nazis and would be delighted if I could copy their success in Propaganda methods.

At least one supporter of Scottish Independence is using one of their most blatant methods.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-gordon-brown-warns-of-higher-taxes-or-more-public-spending-cuts-for-independent-scotland-1-2465581?commentspage=174#commentsSection


Scroll down to the bottom - click on just about any page...

John, the rise of the NAZI party during the period you quote ie 1928 - 33 was not soley down to propoganda, in 1928 the NAZI's were really struggling, a minority party, as the German economy ( even allowing for the payment of war debts et c ) was on the rise so people dont knock the status quo.The 1929 world wide financial collapse which decimatted the German economy gave them a situation ( NAZI party ) which they played out best in a democratic system ie a situation where they could offer alternatives / scapegoats etc, and yes they were, by all recognisition, masters at propoganda as they ultimatley won the propoganda war and hence power through democratic elections, but the key point is if the economy didnt collapse they would never have gained majority as the circumstances needed for propogands would have been very weak. In terms of "propoganda" used re seperatism the SNP occupy the highground undoubtably, as no opposition as of yet has come forward with a coherent strategic arguement for the union. Unless of course you count the bull being sprouted at the back of the GB Olympics. What will be interesting is how the propoganda moves up to 2014....when it come down to it its all economics /money ( early doors the SNP have gained by having the money / donations to stage an early fight ) people can be and will be scared off seperatism by sensationalist economic arguements, so money, circumnstances and resulting propoganda will shape the battle and not solely propoganda

John Little
15-Aug-12, 16:04
Rob - I agree entirely, which is why I said 'largely propaganda'- you are right of course in that there were other over-riding factors, and the shape of the economy was probably the most important.

What I was thinking of was the use of Propaganda to build the "Folk Community" and the forging of Gleichschaltung as a prototype of what the SNP are about. I do not condemn them for it - it's what I would do in their place to build an argument against the Union.

Ultimately I do not think that there is much to be said for or against the Union; it does not oppress or repress, imprison, kill or torture, but the SNP wish to change the situation so they must manufacture reasons to destroy it in order to manufacture consent.

But the fact is that after a lot of thought I myself see the whole thing as a smash and grab- and you are totally correct to say that Propaganda will decide the battle.

Where is the truth in all of this?

squidge
15-Aug-12, 16:13
Then join it John - you can always unjoin - you are not signing your life away.

I am glad you have seen the unionist stuff too from your post above I would have thought you had only found the nationalist stuff as you seemed to be suggesting that the cybernumpties are peculiar to the pro independence supporters.

Such people pedalling the anti-english stuff do exist, you are right..... but it is in much smaller amount that we are led to believe. As for racist bigots and their vote all i can say is I ALWAYS ALWAYS challenge racist sentiments whenever and wherever I find it and do exactly that with any anti english stuff I find online. However people - even those expressing racist views = are still entitled to vote and will vote in whichever way they choose. Anti english people will vote for Independence, anti- jewish, anti pakistani and anti -black people Like those in the SDL will vote for the union - i got very grubby finding that out!!!!

As for the SNP, I am not an SNP member but my husband is and believe you me if there was any suggestion of racist undertones he would walk - he has an english wife and three english stepsons who he loves very much for whom he is a wonderful stepfather.

Amusingly the most recent nastiness I have had personally came from a unionist who said that as I was English I shouldnt have an opinion on Scottish Independence and should keep my "English" mouth shut. Scotland he said should be part of the union and I should just go away and make my children's dinner and tidy up the house (expletives and insulting words removed lol)!!!!! Racist and sexist in one post - i thought he did rather well?

weezer 316
15-Aug-12, 16:15
Good point theone. I have said on umpteen occasions nationlism and religion are the only way the nazis could get away with what they did. Nationalism is quite simply the act of not thinking, appealing to members of a certian people that because you are 'one of them' you not only want whats best but know whats best for 'us'. Its designed to bypass rational argument and facts. How anyone cant see it beyond me. The only way to miss it is to ignore it.

And aside from an accent and a fondness for Irn Bru not one nationalist, depite asking several times, has ever outlined what seperates Scotland and England bar a line on a map and a voice in their head

John Little
15-Aug-12, 16:25
Then join it John - you can always unjoin - you are not signing your life away.

I am glad you have seen the unionist stuff too from your post above I would have thought you had only found the nationalist stuff as you seemed to be suggesting that the cybernumpties are peculiar to the pro independence supporters.

Such people pedalling the anti-english stuff do exist, you are right..... but it is in much smaller amount that we are led to believe. As for racist bigots and their vote all i can say is I ALWAYS ALWAYS challenge racist sentiments whenever and wherever I find it and do exactly that with any anti english stuff I find online. However people - even those expressing racist views = are still entitled to vote and will vote in whichever way they choose. Anti english people will vote for Independence, anti- jewish, anti pakistani and anti -black people Like those in the SDL will vote for the union - i got very grubby finding that out!!!!

As for the SNP, I am not an SNP member but my husband is and believe you me if there was any suggestion of racist undertones he would walk - he has an english wife and three english stepsons who he loves very much for whom he is a wonderful stepfather.

Amusingly the most recent nastiness I have had personally came from a unionist who said that as I was English I shouldnt have an opinion on Scottish Independence and should keep my "English" mouth shut. Scotland he said should be part of the union and I should just go away and make my children's dinner and tidy up the house (expletives and insulting words removed lol)!!!!! Racist and sexist in one post - i thought he did rather well?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I had not seen the Unionist stuff. My concern was to place The One's comment into context because he or she faced a lot of rage for something based on his/her own experience which I thought unjustified. Those people do exist and if I had met such then the impression that I would have formed would have been identical to The One's.

I am glad that you have not met them; it cannot be a pleasant experience.

As to the Nazi comments, I think the meaning was misunderstood.

WWW.jc-schools.net (http://WWW.jc-schools.net/)/ppt/propaganda.ppt

Why will this link not work???

Aha! if the whole thing is copied into the address bar, then a powerpoint downloads on the workings of propaganda and its techniques.

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 16:33
John I would agree with you in terms of an "unsaid" agenda, peddled on the fringes not formally accepted by the mainstream party ( SNP ) yet allowed to fester away unchecked ie the building of an unofficial "folk community" united around some common basics that can be relyed on coje what may in a referendum ( pre supposes this minority actually would bother to vote lol lol ). Meanwhile the official party fights the strategic high ground in terms of the economy, as is, and their alterntaive vision...particulary the vision of "re building Scotlands manufacturing base ( appeals to nostalgia ) in "our" quest to be the Suadia Arabia of renewable energy. Salmon is a big game gambler and a giant amongst the pygmies of Scottish politics, however a cohereht campaign around :
1 Investment in Renewables hwo got what and how much
2 Actual jobs created from 1 above
3 Clearly defined growth trends from the industry themselves ( and not just from Salmom, or is part of the deal to allow speculative investment on the grounds that they the prevailking party control public access to this knowledge

Any rigourous examination of 1-3 above will hang Salmon out to dry, or have I missed the boom and expansion in renewables as affecting Caithness, and will people see through the smoke and mirrors by 2014, or will Salmons propoganda on "future" growth in re newables win the day ???

squidge
15-Aug-12, 16:42
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I had not seen the Unionist stuff. My concern was to place The One's comment into context because he or she faced a lot of rage for something based on his/her own experience which I thought unjustified. Those people do exist and if I had met such then the impression that I would have formed would have been identical to The One's.

I am glad that you have not met them; it cannot be a pleasant experience.

Oh I have met them John..... I have met several people whose anti english stance was directed at me.... I worked with a couple of people who soon got told to keep their opinions to themselves. I have come across people expressing anti english sentiments since moving to Scotland in 1997 - not many, and not often. It isnt a pleasant experience but I know that they are a minority in society as well as in the Pro Independence campaign and so it didnt send me screaming back to Rochdale making sweeping and unjustified comments about those racist Scots. These people are not indicative of the sort of people you find in Scotland and nor are they indicative of the sorts of people you find in the independence movement.

John Little
15-Aug-12, 16:44
Rob - clear analysis.

In the end, according to this- which seems realistic in all I have read- both Scotland and the rest of the UK will lose by a split.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524

The oil is a puzzler though. A new Scotland could depend heavily on oil.

A fossil fuel.

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 16:47
Oh I have met them John..... I have met several people whose anti english stance was directed at me.... I worked with a couple of people who soon got told to keep their opinions to themselves. I have come across people expressing anti english sentiments since moving to Scotland in 1997 - not many, and not often. It isnt a pleasant experience but I know that they are a minority in society as well as in the Pro Independence campaign and so it didnt send me screaming back to Rochdale making sweeping and unjustified comments about those racist Scots. These people are not indicative of the sort of people you find in Scotland and nor are they indicative of the sorts of people you find in the independence movement.

Yes this does go on, through a minority, and everyone knows it, buts as said above, are these the type of people who would actually vote ? or make a difference ?

John Little
15-Aug-12, 16:47
it didnt send me screaming back to Rochdale making sweeping and unjustified comments about those racist Scots. These people are not indicative of the sort of people you find in Scotland and nor are they indicative of the sorts of people you find in the independence movement.

I have never suggested that they are indicative of the sort of people you find in Scotland. My experiences in Scotland are all pleasant.

But if I had met such, then perhaps my comments would not be unjustified?

Maybe even understandable?

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 16:54
Forgot to mention the SNP are very organised as regards using blogging / public forums to promote their points / rebutt alternatives and general overall stirring,with the decline of print media this approach is inevitable but the SNIPS's seem very orgainsed and adapt at using on line media, an old "friend" of mine is an on line media facilitator ( on line propogandist ) and is paid to do this as part of his media work. Does anyone know the resources deployed by anti seperatist parties as a matter of interest ? ie how they are organised re promoting their cause ?

squidge
15-Aug-12, 16:55
I have never suggested that they are indicative of the sort of people you find in Scotland. My experiences in Scotland are all pleasant.

But if I had met such, then perhaps my comments would not be unjustified?

Maybe even understandable?

Absolutely if that is ALL you have met...... if that is your ONLY experience. If that is theone's only experience then I am happy to have her or him over for dinner at our house or along to a party we are having so they can meet some new people, both pro and against independence and see how ordinary people are discussing the issues in their everyday life... you too if you like lol

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 17:03
Rob - clear analysis.

In the end, according to this- which seems realistic in all I have read- both Scotland and the rest of the UK will lose by a split.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524

The oil is a puzzler though. A new Scotland could depend heavily on oil.

A fossil fuel.

SNP economic policy, the key driving strategic objective is for Scotland to become a world leader in renewable energy," The Saudi Arabia of Renewables " source, Master A Salmon, standard grade economics : e grade, obviously implying that Oil through time will decline and so will related activities, hence the need for renewable resources ( kicking nuclear into touch ) and how we will lead the world. This is the achillies tendon of the SNIP's, at the moment, apart from the debates on wind towers, nothing really of any significance is moving re wave / tidal energy, and what is interesting is any movement is dominated by non UK companies, by definition non scottish companies, or do you count Kawasaki, Mitsui, Seimens as UK / Scottish companies. In my view the SNIPS are very exposed on the renewables debate and this exposure must be deployed by alternative parties as thew garden is not rosy oil or no oil !!!!

John Little
15-Aug-12, 17:07
LOL! Were I up north then I would accept- I was in Governess last year. Always loved Governess when we visited when I was a kid. Had my first taste of mustard aged 7 in the station restaurant when waiting for the Thurso Flyer...

Who are 'ordinary people'?

'Ordinary people' to you are not necessarily 'ordinary people' in another context. I have no doubt that the folks at your house and in your discourse group would be nice and civilised.

I wonder if I'd meet the same types in a boozer in Cumbernauld?

John Little
15-Aug-12, 17:11
@ Rob.

Yes.

Right on the button.

Mr Salmond talks as if England, Wales and Ireland had no wind, or water, or were incapable of investing in such.

I have never understood why England should have to buy renewable energy from Scotland when she has wind, water and a long coastline of her own, and money to invest.

And of course at least 10 new build nuclear power stations.

I have a sneaky feeling that someone may have to buy power - but it won't be England...


And anyway - is there not a loss of power in transmission south.... apropos of Dounreay?

squidge
15-Aug-12, 17:14
Forgot to mention the SNP are very organised as regards using blogging / public forums to promote their points / rebutt alternatives and general overall stirring,with the decline of print media this approach is inevitable but the SNIPS's seem very orgainsed and adapt at using on line media, an old "friend" of mine is an on line media facilitator ( on line propogandist ) and is paid to do this as part of his media work. Does anyone know the resources deployed by anti seperatist parties as a matter of interest ? ie how they are organised re promoting their cause ?

The unionists do not seem to be that organised Rob. I moderate a couple of facebook pages and regularly blog. There are more cross party spaces appearing - Labour voters for Independence and Voters Alliance for Scottish Independence and the Women for Independence and Women for Scottish Independence groups to name a couple. I have had no indication that either the YES Campaign or the SNP are trying to drive any of the pages or blogs that I am involved in - in fact many are openly critical of the SNP itself. Whether tany of the other members are manipulating them on behalf of the SNP I wouldnt know but I dont see evidence of it.

AS for the unionists well you could have applied for this post http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/career_vacancy_0112PSGE.pdf. The government is opening a new office in Scotland to "bring significant depth and colour to analysis on the benefits of the UK". So maybe things will improve....

rob murray
15-Aug-12, 17:19
The unionists do not seem to be that organised Rob. I moderate a couple of facebook pages and regularly blog. There are more cross party spaces appearing - Labour voters for Independence and Voters Alliance for Scottish Independence and the Women for Independence and Women for Scottish Independence groups to name a couple. I have had no indication that either the YES Campaign or the SNP are trying to drive any of the pages or blogs that I am involved in - in fact many are openly critical of the SNP itself. Whether tany of the other members are manipulating them on behalf of the SNP I wouldnt know but I dont see evidence of it.

AS for the unionists well you could have applied for this post http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/career_vacancy_0112PSGE.pdf. The government is opening a new office in Scotland to "bring significant depth and colour to analysis on the benefits of the UK". So maybe things will improve....

Nah not for me Im afraid, just shows how late in the day "they" are leaving things ! For the record my preferance is for a devo max model, ie more devolved economic powers to a Scotland still remaining in the UK, the ineptitude of the UK government with their one stick for all approach plays totally into the hands of the SNIPS !!!!

squidge
15-Aug-12, 17:22
LOL! Were I up north then I would accept- I was in Inverness last year. Always loved Inverness when we visited when I was a kid. Had my first taste of mustard aged 7 in the station restaurant when waiting for the Thurso Flyer...

Who are 'ordinary people'?

'Ordinary people' to you are not necessarily 'ordinary people' in another context. I have no doubt that the folks at your house and in your discourse group would be nice and civilised.

I wonder if I'd meet the same types in a boozer in Cumbernauld?

A discourse group lol - they would just be my family and friends and they are just ordinary people - some a bit weird lol - reenactors, some working, some not. Some skilled and some unskilled - not many professionals though - no doctors, lawyers, social workers or accountants - Those I know dont live close enough to come for dinner although they tend to make the parties. Some young, some old. Builders, welders, students, single mums, young mums, old mums.IT people, a couple of managers, a couple of carers......Interestingly one or two from Cumbernauld..... I could even find a couple of uncivilised people for you if you like.

With reference to Cumbernauld,..... I replied to a post from ducati on here a while ago where he suggested that I would see more anti english sentiments in a pub in East kilbride..... at the point I replied on my iphone ( since lost sob) I was actually SITTING in a pub in East Kilbride having a discussion on Independence. We need to be wary of stereotypes accross both sides of the debate.

John Little
15-Aug-12, 17:25
Nah not for me Im afraid, just shows how late in the day "they" are leaving things ! For the record my preferance is for a devo max model, ie more devolved economic powers to a Scotland still remaining in the UK, the ineptitude of the UK government with their one stick for all approach plays totally into the hands of the SNIPS !!!!

As a first step I would agree with that. But the Union needs a total overhaul - that is clear. We need to be some sort of federal state, and England needs its own parliament.

Quite how you would correct for the imbalance of population in a federal authority would need close examination, and perhaps a confederation with a presiding Council would be best. The Swiss seem to do okay...

John Little
15-Aug-12, 17:31
@ Squidge.

There are no uncivilised Scots so you would have difficulty finding a couple.

That is according to the gentleman whose comments I was reading on Youtube this morning.
His opinions on the English were rather more... shall we say "pungent"?

theone
15-Aug-12, 17:43
My concern was to place The One's comment into context because he or she faced a lot of rage for something based on his/her own experience which I thought unjustified. Those people do exist and if I had met such then the impression that I would have formed would have been identical to The One's.

Thank you John. Although we don't always agree on every point, you can certainly be depended upon to create a reasoned balanced debate.

You are also absolutely correct with the knee jerk, red mist reaction to the comparison with the Nazi Party in Germany.


I find your views offensive, bring the Nazi's into it. You do not have a grasp of what happened in Germany in the 30's & 40's then. I suggest you go away and find out before posting any more rubbish like this.


theone, Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .

To both these people I make no apology. What I said was:



The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

Now, please, please tell me how you can POSSIBLY be offended by that statement? I attacked nobody. I never insulted anyone or their family. I never preached any hatred. Again, PLEASE tell me how that is offensive.

To piratelassie, I probably shouldn't have made a jibe about spelling, but you probably shouldn't have questioned my education, especially in such an ironic way. Tit for tat.


My comparison with the Nazi's are valid on many levels. It doesn't mean I'm accusing the SNP of gassing Jews or taking over Europe.

Rheghead sees the comparison with using popular policies against their ideals to gain power, a means to an end.

John touches on it with their support of oil against other "Green" credentials.

Weezer sees it.

Rob Murray mentions how the Nazi's benefitting poor economic conditions to gain popularity, as has been the case with the SNP.



Propoganda, spin, whatever you want to call it is what wins elections, and I believe the SNP are current masters of it, one because they have a political genius in Alex Salmond (I think even the other parties wish they had someone of his ability) whereas the Nazi's had the same in Hitler, and two because, at least on the independance question, the separatist SNP are all "singing from the same hymn sheet" whereas the unionists are working as separate parties.

Nazi. Nationalist Socialist. The SNP are both.


To the person adding me to their ignore list to prevent themselves being banned, don't break the rules and you won't be banned. Self control. I can't for a second imagine why anyone would want to post in a debating forum without listening to all sides of the debate, but hey, each to their own. I don't thhink that was too Snyde, was it?

Corrie 3
15-Aug-12, 17:55
To the person adding me to their ignore list to prevent themselves being banned, don't break the rules and you won't be banned. Self control. I can't for a second imagine why anyone would want to post in a debating forum without listening to all sides of the debate, but hey, each to their own. I don't thhink that was too Snyde, was it?
Spill the beans Theone, who has added you to their Ignore list?
I cant think for one minute who would do that as your posts are always truthful and honest.
I have recently added someone to my Ignore list but you will be pleased to know it wasn't you.....;)
Carry on the good work, you produce good posts.

C3................:)

theone
15-Aug-12, 18:05
Spill the beans Theone, who has added you to their Ignore list?
I cant think for one minute who would do that as your posts are always truthful and honest.
I have recently added someone to my Ignore list but you will be pleased to know it wasn't you.....;)
Carry on the good work, you produce good posts.

C3................:)

Sorry Corrie, I misread your post #17 as being your intent to ignore me.

I was a little surprised, I've always thought you better than that, and I'm glad it is not the case.

I've not been "on the ball" with .org politics, there's been too many toys coming out of prams towards me recently! ;-)


And thank you for the compliment, I enjoy a good debate with most, yourself included.

Corrie 3
15-Aug-12, 18:25
And thank you for the compliment, I enjoy a good debate with most, yourself included.
Thanks, that means a lot to me.

C3..........:)

bekisman
15-Aug-12, 20:08
Just popped in after a long(ish) absence and see the 'Independence for Scotland' twaddle still filling up countless threads, God how boring!
OK fine; have the romantic notion of a 'Free Scotland' - free from what? England ain't independent! Westminster? bloody hell that's stuffed with Scots, but it's good to see that 70% of Scottish folk realise it's a total irrelevance so it's 'bout time these Nationalist became more sophisticated and cosmopolitan - Good God, look at salmon, what an example to show the world..

The 'United Kingdom' has been a working and successful entity; warts and all for a very long time - since being baled out. These Nationalist (and yes I have experienced their racism)* are hell bent on a romantic idea, which in reality has as much chance as a chocolate fireguard..
Listen to the Unions on the Clyde, building the Royal Navy ships, whose source of income will evaporate, Wales is begging to accept the Faslane lot (nuclear and all)..
"Woman for Independence", what on earth is that supposed to mean? it's so amateur, Are women still classed as chattels? maybe the SNP sexist as well?
Anyway it ain't going to happen..

So with that I'll leave again and after all the waffle and indignation and the 'disgusted from Dunoon' twaddle has died down, I'll have another pop in a few months from now
(Free speech is great ain't it?)

*I wrote a letter to the Press & Journal about the Israeli and Palestinian problem. the day after it was published I received an abusive phone call from a prospective SNP Councillor for Aberdeen who 'ordered' me to stop writing to 'his' newspaper! what an ignorant prat. Yes I did write to Nicola Sturgeon who assumed me that this was not the norm..

whitechina
15-Aug-12, 21:27
Have a look at this guy's video.I've a feeling he might be supporter of the Nats.

http://youtu.be/gaX8WjRcifY

John Little
16-Aug-12, 08:07
Have a look at this guy's video.I've a feeling he might be supporter of the Nats.http://youtu.be/gaX8WjRcifY Whatever. His vote will count, the same as any other resident.

John Little
16-Aug-12, 17:33
Nobody has answered me on the oil thing and I am really really curious.

How does the SNP square up being a 'Green' party whilst at the same time placing such a dividend on the remaining oil which could fall to Scotland after independence?

A prospective coal fired power station at Hunterston has been ruthlessly chopped. So why not oil?


And the second question.

Who will buy all this renewable energy to fill the coffers of independent Scotland?

Corrie 3
16-Aug-12, 18:17
Nobody has answered me on the oil thing and I am really really curious.

How does the SNP square up being a 'Green' party whilst at the same time placing such a dividend on the remaining oil which could fall to Scotland after independence?

A prospective coal fired power station at Hunterston has been ruthlessly chopped. So why not oil?


And the second question.

Who will buy all this renewable energy to fill the coffers of independent Scotland?
I dont think anyone has asked that question yet John so I will put it to our local MSP and show you his answer.
A lot of people are saying "What about when the oil runs out"? I think they forget that when it runs out for Scotland it runs out for England and the rest of the UK as well. So can anyone tell me what the Westminster Govt is doing to prepare for the day when it dries up? As people are loathe to have wind turbines in England are they going to rely on Nuclear for their power?

C3............;)

John Little
16-Aug-12, 18:25
Well the Westminster government is commissioning 10 new nuclear power stations for a start - one not too far from here.

There's also wind turbines going up all over the place- like 'em or not.

And I believe there has also been a small expansion in the coal industry in the last year...

ducati
16-Aug-12, 18:32
Well the Westminster government is commissioning 10 new nuclear power stations for a start - one not too far from here.

There's also wind turbines going up all over the place- like 'em or not.

And I believe there has also been a small expansion in the coal industry in the last year...

Yes British Coal (Note) are alive and well and backed by a major UK property company that also owns things like Clydeports, Mersey Docks, The Manchester Ship Canal and some of the Medway ports. (Peel Holdings if you want to look them up.)

John Little
16-Aug-12, 19:13
I dont think anyone has asked that question yet John so I will put it to our local MSP and show you his answer. A lot of people are saying "What about when the oil runs out"? I think they forget that when it runs out for Scotland it runs out for England and the rest of the UK as well. So can anyone tell me what the Westminster Govt is doing to prepare for the day when it dries up? As people are loathe to have wind turbines in England are they going to rely on Nuclear for their power?C3............;)That would be Rob Gibson - it was he who made the announcement on Hunterston. His reply will be very interesting. Thank you!

weezer 316
16-Aug-12, 21:54
I dont think anyone has asked that question yet John so I will put it to our local MSP and show you his answer.
A lot of people are saying "What about when the oil runs out"? I think they forget that when it runs out for Scotland it runs out for England and the rest of the UK as well. So can anyone tell me what the Westminster Govt is doing to prepare for the day when it dries up? As people are loathe to have wind turbines in England are they going to rely on Nuclear for their power?

C3............;)

It has been asked. I remember John Swinney once saying in an article that is simpy a case of needs must, as it accounts for around 20% of the scottish tax take. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.

John Little
16-Aug-12, 21:57
It has been asked. I remember John Swinney once saying in an article that is simpy a case of needs must, as it accounts for around 20% of the scottish tax take. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.

So they'll cut cards with the devil when it suits them then?

John Little
17-Aug-12, 15:47
It is actually quite pleasing to see that the SNP are so flexible on a point of principle.

In Politics it is, and always has been, important to have no principles on which you are not prepared to be flexible. Lloyd George for example, had no principles whatsoever and merrily clawed his way to the top of the tree by blaming everyone else for anything that went wrong.

The mainstream parties are, of course, used to U turns, sudden changes of direction, playing it from day to day and making it up as they go along.

The SNP is prepared to compromise on fossil fuel because it is a high revenue earner and the cash would be very handy.
From being a republican party they now want to keep the monarch.
From wanting to join the Euro they now toy with the Pound.
Once they wanted to be a Socialist Party; now they are centre left and not quite as 'S' as they were.
Mr Murdoch was once cool and now he's not.
Once they wanted just Independence but now Devo Max will do.

This is most refreshing in its acceptance of real situations. In Politics, flexibility and adapting to circumstances is everything and it's good to know that the Secessionists can be just as fickle, changeable, arbitrary and unpredictable as everybody else.

I wonder if they will ever change their minds on Nuclear Power?

Or Coal?

I forgot - the Party Conference in October is to consider keeping an independent Scotland within NATO - after years of being dead agin it.

Does this mean that there may be a reversal of policy on Trident too, as NATO is a nuclear alliance?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9744000/9744177.stm

And are there any points of principle on which they will stand?

secrets in symmetry
18-Aug-12, 18:16
That's a great post John, but you've missed a couple more U turns by Wee Fat Eck's Selfish Numpties Party:

A few years ago, they wanted to take us out of the EU, then they became pro-EU and pro-EURO - before their recent anti-Euro U turn.

They were anti NATO for years, until a few weeks ago when they decided they wanted to join NATO.

It's interesting that you also realised they are the selfish party, and (in an older post) that their budget sums are based on oil tax revenue from 2008-09, which was the highest ever(?) at that time (at £11.9 billion IIRC) - as opposed to 1991-92, which was the lowest at just over £1 billion, again IIRC). Fiscal stability for a seceded Scotland that needs circa £10 billion of oil revenues to balance the budget? Aye right, Eck!

I vaguely remember someone quoting the oft-made claim that Scotland would be the sixth richest country in the world circa 6 years after independence. This assumed the seceded economy would expand at the rate Ireland "naturally" expanded in the 90s/00s - which is one of the most ridiculous claims that even the Selfish Party has ever made! The claim was originally made by some libertarian free-market nutter (from the Adam Smith Institute IIRC) whose assumptions about the "natural" expansion of the Irish economy were so absurd that they were essentially downright lies.

SNP fraudulent bean counting for a seceded Scotland is based on the current economies of the various parts of the UK - which is inconsistent with so many changes that would take place. Surprisingly, many economists make the same mistake.

As for the reasoning given for secession on the Women for Independence website, it was worse than even I expected! Vapid twaddle is too kind. These women surely have too much time on their hands - you might think they'd been in jail with nothing better to do. Wait a minute, Carolyn Leckie was in jail, although not at the same time as her old mentor Tommy Sheridan....

Corrie 3
18-Aug-12, 18:55
That's a great post John, but you've missed a couple more U turns by Wee Fat Eck's Selfish Numpties Party:

A few years ago, they wanted to take us out of the EU, then they became pro-EU and pro-EURO - before their recent anti-Euro U turn.

They were anti NATO for years, until a few weeks ago when they decided they wanted to join NATO.

It's interesting that you also realised they are the selfish party, and (in an older post) that their budget sums are based on oil tax revenue from 2008-09, which was the highest ever(?) at that time (at £11.9 billion IIRC) - as opposed to 1991-92, which was the lowest at just over £1 billion, again IIRC). Fiscal stability for a seceded Scotland that needs circa £10 billion of oil revenues to balance the budget? Aye right, Eck!

I vaguely remember someone quoting the oft-made claim that Scotland would be the sixth richest country in the world circa 6 years after independence. This assumed the seceded economy would expand at the rate Ireland "naturally" expanded in the 90s/00s - which is one of the most ridiculous claims that even the Selfish Party has ever made! The claim was originally made by some libertarian free-market nutter (from the Adam Smith Institute IIRC) whose assumptions about the "natural" expansion of the Irish economy were so absurd that they were essentially downright lies.

SNP fraudulent bean counting for a seceded Scotland is based on the current economies of the various parts of the UK - which is inconsistent with so many changes that would take place. Surprisingly, many economists make the same mistake.

As for the reasoning given for secession on the Women for Independence website, it was worse than even I expected! Vapid twaddle is too kind. These women surely have too much time on their hands - you might think they'd been in jail with nothing better to do. Wait a minute, Carolyn Leckie was in jail, although not at the same time as her old mentor Tommy Sheridan....
And the alternative is...................Stay as we are and be governed by the Tories who have already said we are a load of Idlers. No thanks, I am willing to take the risk for Home rule.
As for U-turns, there is nobody worse than the Tories for U-turns, and what has Tommy Sheridan got to do with the SNP?

C3..............:eek:

John Little
18-Aug-12, 19:11
And the alternative is...................Stay as we are and be governed by the Tories who have already said we are a load of Idlers. No thanks, I am willing to take the risk for Home rule.
As for U-turns, there is nobody worse than the Tories for U-turns, and what has Tommy Sheridan got to do with the SNP?

C3..............:eek:

The alternative is to remember the old adage that Unity is Strength and vote for a decent government in Westminster.
The alternative is to support a change in how the UK government is voted in and put FPTP into the dustbin of History where it belongs.

The alternative is to force a consultation programme on party leaders before they are allowed to form coalitions.
The alternative is, as Rob Murray has said, to devolve powers regionally and reform the Union root and branch.

The alternative is not to form a party of vultures, kill the UK and tear off pieces of the carcass because you think you can get the choicest chunks for yourself.

The alternative is to give Britain good government.

I make no apologies for being a Unionist now. I was undecided not so long ago and I must thank you for making me think.

I am British, and you propose to break up my country because you want more pie instead of sharing the pie.

oldmarine
18-Aug-12, 19:39
I don't hate the English, I just like the Scots better. I did have a problem with the Chinese Communists when I was sent to China in September 1945 to accept the Japanese surrender and the Communist China troops shot and killed my fellow Marines when they were just doing their assigned job. Since then I have learned to forgive them because they were just following their government's orders.

John Little
18-Aug-12, 19:44
Thank you Oldmarine - let us hope that shooting will never come into this debate.

As for me, though born in England most of my family originates from Scotland, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland; a small amount of it even originates from England. I have never considered myself as 'English' but always as British.

It is this debate which has made me wonder if I could ever see myself as English but I do not wave flags, support the England team or even have tatoos or a shaved head- so I doubt I could fit in.

I prefer to be British; a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I wonder how the government in Washington would react if California decided they wanted to secede from the Union? They have a pretty big economy I believe...

Would a man's loyalty be to California or to the USA?

Corrie 3
18-Aug-12, 19:57
I am British, and you propose to break up my country because you want more pie instead of sharing the pie.
You have that so, so wrong John, we dont want more pie, we just want our equal share and be able to be the one with the knife in our hand sometimes. There is no way the London Govt will allow this so the only way is to vote for Independence, that way we are in charge of our own destiny. If you are happy at being ruled by Tories who think we are all idle so and so's then so be it, I am not!
I wonder if your views would change if you were still living up here John?

C3...........;)

oldmarine
18-Aug-12, 20:05
Thank you Oldmarine - let us hope that shooting will never come into this debate.

As for me, though born in England most of my family originates from Scotland, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland; a small amount of it even originates from England. I have never considered myself as 'English' but always as British.

It is this debate which has made me wonder if I could ever see myself as English but I do not wave flags, support the England team or even have tatoos or a shaved head- so I doubt I could fit in.

I prefer to be British; a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I wonder how the government in Washington would react if California decided they wanted to secede from the Union? They have a pretty big economy I believe...

Would a man's loyalty be to California or to the USA?

John: The USA did have that problem when the South tried to leave. Abraham Lincoln solved that problem with the Civil War. I hope it never comes to that point again. As for California trying to secede, their debt is proportinate to the USA. I doubt they would want to do that. However, you have made a good point.

John Little
18-Aug-12, 20:09
You have that so, so wrong John, we dont want more pie, we just want our equal share and be able to be the one with the knife in our hand sometimes. There is no way the London Govt will allow this so the only way is to vote for Independence, that way we are in charge of our own destiny. If you are happy at being ruled by Tories who think we are all idle so and so's then so be it, I am not!
I wonder if your views would change if you were still living up here John?

C3...........;)

It's pie.

I've heard Salmond chortling about Scotland having the oil. Scotland having 'the lion's share' of the renewables; England will be over a barrel because they'll be short of energy and have to buy it from Scotland. England will have to buy Scotland's water etc etc etc.

You don't want an equal share; every post I see here from Nationalists is how they want a better future.

So you'll take the bulk of the oil, until now a UK asset and profit from it, while at the same time trumpeting your green credentials.

I have seen no Braveheart stuff from you; no going on about being oppressed by the English and no emotional appeal for FREEDOM.

So like most you are an economic refugee; you want what the rest of us all want but think you can get it by building a ghetto with a tartan wall round it. Despite the last two Prime Ministers and chancellors being Scottish and the present twerp 1st generation Scots.

You think Scotland does not have a big enough say in UK government?

Just think C3 - one of the benefits of independence- Blair, Brown, Darling, Reid would all be in the Scottish government instead. Maybe even Cameron, whose daddy lived in the big hoose outside Aberdeen.

Perhaps there's something in that eh?


(apologies to Mr Cameron - I had not realised that his father died in 2010; but he does keep his family private)

Corrie 3
18-Aug-12, 20:38
Oh come on John,
Blair, Brown, Reid, Cameron etc, may have Scottish roots but they have all been out to line their own pocket, and who can blame them? They dont give a Monkeys about the 18yr old Caithness lads who want to work but has little chance of doing so. Scottishness doesn't come into their lives, only their future and how many bucks they can make along the way come into it.
Sorry John, I am so sick of the British politics, time and time again we get taken for mugs, at least if we are wrong this time we only have ourselves to blame.
A new dawn, a new day......I am ready for the fight for an Independent Scotland.

C3...........:)

John Little
18-Aug-12, 20:45
Oh come on John,
Blair, Brown, Reid, Cameron etc, may have Scottish roots but they have all been out to line their own pocket, and who can blame them? They dont give a Monkeys about the 18yr old Caithness lads who want to work but has little chance of doing so. Scottishness doesn't come into their lives, only their future and how many bucks they can make along the way come into it.
Sorry John, I am so sick of the British politics, time and time again we get taken for mugs, at least if we are wrong this time we only have ourselves to blame.
A new dawn, a new day......I am ready for the fight for an Independent Scotland.

C3...........:)

Blair, Brown, Reid, Darling - did not just have Scottish roots - they are Scots.

And your 18 year old Scottish lad could be an 18 year old Yorkshire lad, or Dyfed lad, or Manx lad or... (insert whatever you wish)

But you do not care enough about those to fight for a decent Union government. Blow you Jack - I'm alright.



And yes - fine- you want to get taken for a mug again then go ahead. All you need to do is persuade enough people that the offers of more pie are real. Not a fight - a question of enough propaganda.

Only when you have broken up the British state there is no going back.

Corrie 3
18-Aug-12, 21:11
Only when you have broken up the British state there is no going back.
I know there is no going back John, thats why its such a big issue, if we fail then I dont know what will happen? And I do feel for the Yorkshire and Welsh Lad's who cant get a job but surely that is down to the Yorkshire and Welsh people to fight for. Sorry John but you are trying to make me feel guilty for trying to leave the UK and that is wrong, I am a part of Scotland, not the UK. We are a separate country, just like Belgium is joined onto France geographically we are only joined at Hadrians Wall. Belgium has survived all these years and there is no reason why we cant!

C3...................:eek:

John Little
18-Aug-12, 21:28
I am not trying to make you feel guilty.

My perception is different to yours - that is all. I see your position as selfish as regards the people of the country I live in, which is a very successful union of several nations.

If you can persuade enough people to your view then you will prevail, but I do not see what you are as Nationalist because your prime objectives are all economic secessionist.

But because you dress it up as Nationalism you have a chance to get it - an opportunity denied to Yorkshire.

You say you are a part of Scotland, not the UK. Yet Scotland is in the UK and plays a very important part in its governance, commerce, industry and overall success.

I have never said that Scotland could not make it alone - I know damn fine she could.

At a price.

That's why the 'Nationalist' debate hinges so much on economics. Persuade most of the people in Scotland that they will be better off independent then they will probably vote for you.

If they think they won't then they probably won't.

And if they find they've been conned for their votes with unashamed electoral bribery in the shape of more pie later, then what?

They end up with a highly principled government that never goes back on its promises, never goes back on its principles, never does U turns, never slightly mishandles tram systems, never uses fossil fuels, financially sound, defended by NATO, Euro as its currency.

Machiavelli wrote that the people deserve the government they get.
Go for it C3. Go for it.

Corrie 3
18-Aug-12, 21:40
Go for it C3. Go for it.
Thank you John, I will.............Lets all hope we can still be friends after it is all over....:)......I wonder what the .Org will look like in 10 years time.....:eek:

C3.............;)

squidge
18-Aug-12, 21:46
So John if you believe that Scotland should be independent because you believe that as a nation Scotland has the right to govern itself, If you believe that Scotland should be independent because it has a right to self determination does that make you a nationalist?

John Little
18-Aug-12, 21:54
1.......Scotland should be independent if the people of Scotland decide that they wish to be independent.

2.......Scotland has the right to self determination.

3.......Self-determination is not merely the process of voting - it is the end state for which people vote. Some people will vote for it because they are Nationalist and for classic Nationalist reasons. Most who vote for it will not do so because they feel 'oppressed' or want to be 'Free'- they will vote for economic reasons.

Or if you mean me? Then asserting the right to self- determination does not make you a Nationalist. It makes you a Democrat.

And the trouble with Democracy is that it relies on persuasion = Propaganda.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:03
Sorry, not you personally.

Ok lets try again..... If a person wants an independent Scotland because they believe that Scotland has a right to be independent, to elect a government in Scotland, for Scotland. To have the right to be an independent State - does THAT make them a nationalist. If they have believed that ALL their life?

I wonder what you think a nationalist is - you have said a lot about what is NOT nationalist so I am wondering what you thin a Nationalist is.

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:08
Sorry, not you personally. Ok lets try again..... If a person wants an independent Scotland because they believe that Scotland has a right to be independent, to elect a government in Scotland, for Scotland. To have the right to be an independent State - does THAT make them a nationalist. If they have believed that ALL their life?I wonder what you think a nationalist is - you have said a lot about what is NOT nationalist so I am wondering what you thin a Nationalist is.Yep - that's a Nationalist sure enough. Please note that hard cash does not figure in your definition.

whitechina
18-Aug-12, 22:08
And the alternative is...................Stay as we are and be governed by the Tories who have already said we are a load of Idlers. No thanks, I am willing to take the risk for Home rule.
As for U-turns, there is nobody worse than the Tories for U-turns, and what has Tommy Sheridan got to do with the SNP?

C3..............:eek:

Well,actually we're not governed by the Tories,we're governed by the SNP and Emperor Eck 1st.It never ceases to amaze me how many seperatists keep trying to resurrect the Tory bogey-man.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:16
So what if someone believes all that AND believes that Scotland will be better off?

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:18
So what if someone believes all that AND believes that Scotland will be better off?Nationalist.Without the Nat element, merely Secessionist.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:22
So what is Alex Salmond then?

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:24
You may tempt some people here.

Nationalist.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:29
I am not trying to tempt anyone John, Im just trying to understand where everyone fits into this.

So what am I then

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:32
Resident in Scotland, not Scottish but think things will be better if Scotland is independent. You tell me.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:34
I am that word i cant spell - seccestionist lol lol

Now is a seccestionaist bad and nationalist good or at least better

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:41
I am that word i cant spell - seccestionist lol lolNow is a seccestionaist bad and nationalist good or at least better

A Secessionist wishes to break up my country into its component nations so that he or she may gain by it. Themselves or their families. This process involves asset stripping and relocating to a section of the UK population who happen to be resident in Scotland but not necessarily Scots

.The true Nationalist would not care about the hard economics of it - they would just want independence, come what may. That would be the honest path, but they are constrained to make a positive economic case because most folk care about it.

To me, the Secessionist argument is not a moral one.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 22:47
Themselves or their families? - what about for the good of society as a whole? What about the argument that Scotland could create a better fairer society which could inspire and lead the way for other countries (namely England) to emulate?

ducati
18-Aug-12, 22:51
Themselves or their families? - what about for the good of society as a whole? What about the argument that Scotland could create a better fairer society which could inspire and lead the way for other countries (namely England) to emulate?

From the people I have been speaking to, should this disaster come to pass, it will be a cold day in hell when England pays any further attention to Scotland at all.:eek:

John Little
18-Aug-12, 22:51
Themselves or their families? - what about for the good of society as a whole? What about the argument that The United Kingdom could create a better fairer society which could inspire and lead the way for other countries to emulate?Why ghettoise the residents of Scotland?

squidge
18-Aug-12, 23:11
Why ghettoise the residents of Scotland?

Ghettoised means isolated, confined or restricted - there is no suggestion that Scots will be confined and restricted and no suggestion that people from other places will not be welcome in Scotland so ...... There is also implied that to influence others an Independent Scotland would be outward looking, contributing on a wider stage.

So..... What about for the good of society as a whole? What about the argument that Scotland could create a better fairer society which could inspire and lead the way for other countries to emulate? are these people immoral secceshionists too or nationalists.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 23:19
Well,actually we're not governed by the Tories,we're governed by the SNP and Emperor Eck 1st.It never ceases to amaze me how many seperatists keep trying to resurrect the Tory bogey-man.

Ach whitechina we dont need to resurrect him he is alive and well and giving out contracts to ATOS as he stalks the sick and disabled

John Little
18-Aug-12, 23:19
You wish to split Scotland away from the rest of the Uk. To gamble on the future of all parts of the UK. To build your own gated estate and live the good life.

The rest of us can only watch the seduction, powerless, while a demagogue spins his promises.How can the United Kingdom be Secessionist? They are not breaking away from anything. That would be you.

Now I am going to bed. Goodnight.

squidge
18-Aug-12, 23:33
This isnt about ME john, its about trying to understand where the line is..... What is nationalist.... which people on this thread dismiss as stupid romantic nonsense based on a history which has turned too many people's heads tartan and shortbread tins and something to be sneered at. And what is seccessionist which people dismiss as selfish and grabbing for the sake of their own pockets and something to be sneered at. Im trying to see whether there is an inbetween..... when does nationalism become seccessionism and when does sessessionism become nationalism.

All I am doing is trying to understand yours and others point of view and you still havent answered my question

What about for the good of society as a whole? What about the argument that Scotland could create a better fairer society which could inspire and lead the way for other countries to emulate? are these people immoral secceshionists too or nationalists.

John Little
19-Aug-12, 08:57
My 'You' is generic, applied to Nationalists generally and not to you specifically- language hath limitations.

I have not sneered at Nationalists; I have even stated that I can dig it.

Nationalism becomes Secessionism the moment that financial calculation comes into it, so that people who would never have thought of separatism suddenly begin to argue intensely about figures; not because of a yearning for self government but because of a rosy dream about 'gain'.

Would they still wish to secede without the 'renewables' ( which Rob Murray throws great doubts on)?
Or the great compromise over oil?
Or the idea that England will need water?

So out come the almost Churchillian glittering promises that when you are independent Scotland will emerge from the dark age into the broad sunlit upland pastures of a land flowing with milk and honey.

That's the promise, and the catch 22 is that you don't even have to deliver because when independence comes all you have to do is go red in the face and say 'Oops - sorry - got our figures wrong' and there's nothing to be done beyond a bit of name calling.
Beautiful - you can't lose (generic you).

Your question was not rhetorical then?

Scotland COULD (maybe) create a better, fairer society. It's easier when you are small.

I doubt very much if other countries would be inspired to emulate it save in some details. Britain pinched the idea of Labour Exchanges and National Insurance from the Kaiser's Germany but would not have wished to emulate their society.
The idea that countries emulate each other seems a little spurious.

I live in a country of 60 million. For 5 million (or a percentage of) to wish to break away, not particularly because they wish to run their own affairs but for gain does not seem moral, especially as 55 million of the body politic will have no say in it at all. Chortling that the foundation of the future independent economy will be founded on a fossil fuel which one affects to despise could be seen as hypocrisy.

None of this would be happening without the prospect of lucre. In my upbringing it smacks too much of selling out the UK for a mess of pottage, or 30 pieces of silver- or both.

Whatever else it's rank opportunism and the best advice I can give is 'Caveat emptor'.

fred
19-Aug-12, 10:59
I could post this on another thread but I have sworn not to, so must start another.


The SNP were formed in 1934 and were gradually gaining popularity when WWII broke out. In the early years of the war they believed, as did many others, that Germany would win and were hoping to do a deal with Hitler to form a puppet government for an Independent Scotland. Their leader, Douglas Young was imprisoned for attempting to subvert the British war effort and Arthur Donaldson, who went on to be leader in 1960, was arrested in 1941 after subversive literature and weapons were found at his home. He was running an organisation which helped Scots avoid conscription.

Due to Germany losing the war they were somewhat unpopular after that and didn't manage to get an MP into Westminster for long until after they found oil in the North Sea and greed reared it's ugly head.

After oil was found their popularity grew in leaps and bounds but after failing to get devolution in 1979 a group of them decided to take direct action. The plan was to ally the SNP with the Socialist parties then organise a campaign of mass civil disobedience, use the power of the unions. After it was leaked to the press that they had been invited to Ireland by the IRA the members of this group were expelled from the party but sequentially allowed back in and one of them, Alex Salmond, is now their leader.

I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

fred
19-Aug-12, 11:17
I could post this on another thread but I have sworn not to, so must start another.


The SNP were formed in 1934 and were gradually gaining popularity when WWII broke out. In the early years of the war they believed, as did many others, that Germany would win and were hoping to do a deal with Hitler to form a puppet government for an Independent Scotland. Their leader, Douglas Young was imprisoned for attempting to subvert the British war effort and Arthur Donaldson, who went on to be leader in 1960, was arrested in 1941 after subversive literature and weapons were found at his home. He was running an organisation which helped Scots avoid conscription.

Due to Germany losing the war they were somewhat unpopular after that and didn't manage to get an MP into Westminster for long until after they found oil in the North Sea and greed reared it's ugly head.

After oil was found their popularity grew in leaps and bounds but after failing to get devolution in 1979 a group of them decided to take direct action. The plan was to ally the SNP with the Socialist parties then organise a campaign of mass civil disobedience, use the power of the unions. After it was leaked to the press that they had been invited to Ireland by the IRA the members of this group were expelled from the party but sequentially allowed back in and one of them, Alex Salmond, is now their leader.

I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

squidge
19-Aug-12, 13:42
Blimey Fred.... where did YOU appear from!

theone
19-Aug-12, 13:54
I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

So, So true.

golach
19-Aug-12, 14:27
So true Fred, well done for high lighting the true side of Eck.

fred
19-Aug-12, 16:27
Blimey Fred.... where did YOU appear from!

I arrived here from a link to the thread on the main page.

Jerrico
19-Aug-12, 16:55
The SNP is playing a deadly game with Islam, Salmond seems intent on copying Trotskyite agitators who seek to prosper by sweeping young Muslims into their ranks on an ‘anti-imperialist’ agenda. To the chagrin of English revolutionaries, their sects are proving only a halfway-house for young Muslims who prefer a revolutionary cause based on global Islam. Will Scottish nationalism prove a more attractive long-term draw for idealistic young Scottish Muslims? At a conference in Manchester last August Tamimi told his audience that they should see themselves as Muslims in Europe, not European Muslims. He urged them to pledge allegiance to an international Islamic cause rather than offer their primary loyalty to the state which, arguably, gives them far more freedom and economic opportunity than most Muslims can find across the Middle East. My fear is that by reaching out to young Muslims on a simplistic anti-British agenda, all Salmond will succeed in doing is radicalising them and ensuring that the balance of power swings decisively towards militant voices in the Scottish Muslim community.

John Little
19-Aug-12, 18:57
First step; question the right of the Union to exist.

Second step; conjure up a vision of Shangri-La that appeals to the widest possible spectrum of the public, regardless of origin.

Third step; adjust your principles to manufacture the largest consensus.


Good Propaganda - someone really know what they are doing.



Fred; I agree with you - root and branch.

Thank you.

Corrie 3
19-Aug-12, 19:06
The SNP is playing a deadly game with Islam, Salmond seems intent on copying Trotskyite agitators who seek to prosper by sweeping young Muslims into their ranks on an ‘anti-imperialist’ agenda. To the chagrin of English revolutionaries, their sects are proving only a halfway-house for young Muslims who prefer a revolutionary cause based on global Islam. Will Scottish nationalism prove a more attractive long-term draw for idealistic young Scottish Muslims? At a conference in Manchester last August Tamimi told his audience that they should see themselves as Muslims in Europe, not European Muslims. He urged them to pledge allegiance to an international Islamic cause rather than offer their primary loyalty to the state which, arguably, gives them far more freedom and economic opportunity than most Muslims can find across the Middle East. My fear is that by reaching out to young Muslims on a simplistic anti-British agenda, all Salmond will succeed in doing is radicalising them and ensuring that the balance of power swings decisively towards militant voices in the Scottish Muslim community.
Wow, we in the SNP are used to scaremongering tactics, lies, deceit, in order to get us to vote against Independence but your post is the biggest load of unproven twaddle I have ever come across......Do you have any links or proof of what you are saying is the truth?

C3..........(shakes head in disbelief)!! :eek::eek:

John Little
19-Aug-12, 19:11
Wow, we in the SNP are used to scaremongering tactics, lies, deceit, in order to get us to vote against Independence but your post is the biggest load of unproven twaddle I have ever come across......Do you have any links or proof of what you are saying is the truth?

C3..........(shakes head in disbelief)!! :eek::eek:

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/alex-salmonds-ramadan-message-rich.html

Disbelief gets nowhere.

Investigation satisfies disbelief often.


BTW - it was the comments underneath that I found quite interesting.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/scotlandsradicals/

Interesting read.

Jerrico
19-Aug-12, 19:54
This is the remarkable story about the SNP pre WW2 connection to Adolf Hitler Nazi regime, SNP party member’s also had dealing with Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was in many ways as big a Nazi villain as Hitler himself, and to understand his influence on the Middle East is to understand the ongoing genocidal program against the Jews of Israel. Al-Husseini was a bridge figure in terms of transporting the Nazi genocide in Europe into the post-war Middle East. As the leader of Arab Palestine during the British Mandate period, Al-Husseini introduced violence against moderate Arabs as well as against Jews etc. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine in 1937 and subsequently went on the Nazi payroll as a Nazi agent. Also some Pre WW2 SNP members/traitors to Scotland was also on the Nazi payroll.

John Little
19-Aug-12, 20:24
Ah the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Thank you - I did not realise the link.

It's interesting in illustrating how the SNP has evolved and changed its shirt over the years. Nowadays they purport to be a left of centre party committed to a Scottish Social Democracy - except that their position on any given issue cannot seem to be guaranteed from year to year.

The Muslim thing is not surprising - Mr Salmond needs to court all voters resident in Scotland. They don't have to be Scots in origin- "New Scots" will do just as well just as long as they vote to break up the UK.

So in the end say 3 million people may vote for Scottish Independence and 57 million will stand agog and powerless as Scotland heads off for Salmondopia.

That's Democracy ain't it?

We need a UK written constitution and a new set-up as Rob Murray laid out.

fred
19-Aug-12, 20:29
SNP party member’s also had dealing with Haj Amin al-Husseini...

Yes but that SNP was the Syrian National Party not the Scottish one.

Corrie 3
19-Aug-12, 20:43
Yes but that SNP was the Syrian National Party not the Scottish one.
Well, this thread has deteriorated somewhat......Nazi's, Muslim's, Jew's and Arabs ...whatever next? Come on John, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now and that is not like you at all. Scoff all you like at the SNP but until someone gives me a realistic alternative then they will still get my vote!
(Dont tell me, Alex is sending out e-mails to Martians welcoming them to Scotland just to get their vote)!!!! lol.....:roll:

C3..............;)

John Little
19-Aug-12, 21:09
I think you are missing the point.

I find the history of the SNP interesting because I'm an historian. It's what I do and I have always found the past fascinating - thanks to the Miller Academy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/03/theobserver.uknews1


It's also interesting because it highlights just how much the SNP position has changed over the years. An interest in History is not 'scraping the barrel' though after Fred's post I would be interested in seeing Jerrico's sources.

The SNP are not a realistic alternative. They offer you a vision.

Maybe. If all goes well

And they stop shifting their position and compromising their principles.

Mr Salmond needs votes.

If there are Martians in Scotland he will be canvassing their votes and doing some electoral bribing- if he's got any sense.

fred
19-Aug-12, 22:24
Well, this thread has deteriorated somewhat......Nazi's, Muslim's, Jew's and Arabs ...whatever next?

Oh it gets worse, Alex Salmond was also an oil economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland.

I think the point is clear, throughout history and throughout the world there have always been psychopaths who will use man's natural tribal instinct to manipulate them and feed their thirst for wealth and power. Politicians would use the Union Flag to shrink wrap people's brains then send them off to kill people who never did anything to us in places they never heard of then use it as a shroud on their coffins when they came back for the benefit of BP and British Aerospace. People in the Muslim world do the same with the Koran, Hitler did it in Germany.

Now it's about time people wised up, tribal instincts served us well when we were hunter gatherers but we aren't hunter gatherers any more, evolution just hasn't had time to catch up with man's progress. We should be moving forwards to a world without borders not backwards to the 17th century, evolution not devolution.

theone
19-Aug-12, 22:46
We should be moving forwards to a world without borders not backwards to the 17th century, evolution not devolution.

Exactly. Togetherness, not separatism.

Together we are stronger. The whole is stronger than the sum of its parts etc etc.

The SNP seem to agree, at least on NATO. At least on the EU. At least with trade deals with China. They only seem to think being on our own is a good idea when it gets rid of England. Strange...................

Why limit their separatist ideals to Scotland and it's borders from a few hundred years ago? Why not take it further, and split the land up to its old clan lines? TRUE self governance for the people?

David Banks
20-Aug-12, 01:40
. . . because I'm an historian. It's what I do and I have always found the past fascinating - thanks to the Miller Academy.



. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

theone
20-Aug-12, 02:00
. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

I'd rather look to the future than dwell on the past, but your post does raise a question of if our "history" should play a part in the independance debate.

Lets go a few years later than the Darien Scheme and Act of Union. Let's go to Culloden. A battle in 1745 which saw supporters of a Catholic regime fighting supporters of Protestantism.

Nowadays, you'd be excused from thinking this was a battle between Scotland and England. Propaganda.

But the end would have been the same, Separation of Scotland from the UK.



Now, like back in 1745, if the people of Caithness and Sutherland, the Mackays, Gunns, Sinclairs and Sutherlands were to "fight against" the separists, as they did then, would we now be allowed to stay in the UK, or would we be forced into an independant Scotland?

I think we all know the anser. No.

How can a border agreed hundreds of years ago be considered a envalope of togetherness 300 years later? Nonsense.

John Little
20-Aug-12, 08:57
. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Ah David man- you have tempted me sorely and as ye sow, so shall ye reap. I was thinking a lot around that very question a few weeks ago and wrote down my own version of events- so find it underneath.

History is smoke and mirrors and finding a synthesis of what actually happened is difficult. All you can do is find an acceptable version of truth which fits in with your own ideas and available evidence. Which version is accepted generally is down to Propaganda and what it is convenient to believe. Any version may be flawed and all are subject to alteration at a moment's notice.

Subject to that, the underneath is my understanding - but as The One has pointed out, and Fred as well, it's not all that relevant to today, save as a propaganda device to garner support.

John Little
20-Aug-12, 09:02
The Union between England and Scotland came about for a variety of reasons, some being more important than others.

The first reason is that the Stuarts had always desired a union between Scotland and England from the time of James I and VI. The proposal was made then – by the Scots- but the English did not want it, seeing Scotland as a poor nation, and they had no desire to be tied to it. Throughout the C17th century this desire remained an aim of the Stuart dynasty. James VI of Scotland had always had to contend with a Scottish Parliament which was jealous of its liberties and which circumscribed his power. Yet in himself he believed himself to be King by divine right and that he should have absolute power in the same way as other European monarchs. This thought he passed to his son and Charles’ upholding of it led to the civil wars.

It was the Civil wars which created the conditions for Union, more than any other reason. It is estimated that 10% of the population of Great Britain died in the Civil wars, and when they were over there was fear and dread at the thought that they might return. The period following the Restoration of Charles II to the English throne in 1660 (he was already crowned King of Scots in 1650) saw unrest and uprisings of what Samuel Pepys called “fanatiques’ (republicans) in England and Covenanters in Scotland. When the Catholic James II became King in 1685 he had to face a rebellion from the Protestant Duke of Monmouth which included Scotsmen among its number, notably the famous Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, fighting, not for Scotland but for Protestanism. Clearly, even after the Restoration there were people in Britain who did not regard the question of government as settled. In Scotland particularly James Graham of Claverhouse (Bonnie Dundee) was an active military commander, particularly in the South West, ruthlessly putting down the armed insurrection of Covenanters who were against the monarchy and who were equally ruthless.

When William and Mary took over England, their negotiations did not include Scotland or its Parliament. Mary clearly regarded the throne of Scotland as hers by right of blood and succession as a Stuart; however it would have been wiser to consult the Scots. Considering the existence of James II and of his son, later styled James III, as well as Covenanters they had to face rebellions from both Jacobites and Covenanters. Nonetheless they were accepted as King and Queen of Scotland jointly by a Convention of the Estates of Scotland, and their writ ruled, if somewhat uneasily and marred by the atrocity of Glencoe. The problem was that they were childless. Mary died in 1694, and, by virtue of the fact that both she and William reigned, he continued as King of both countries.

William was regarded as the champion of Protestant Europe but was astute as a statesman; although he was involved in wars against France all his life and the limitation of French power was central to his aims, he did not wish to be at war against France and Spain at the same time- for the simple reason that he would lose. When some wealthy Scots set up a company to trade with Africa and the Indies, he was in favour at first, until it was pointed out that this infringed the East India Company’s Charter, so he withdrew his support.

These Scots decided that instead of going ahead with the company, they would instead plant a colony at Darien, on the isthmus of Panama. This was bound to be seen by Spain as an infringement of her rights as laid down in the old Treaty of Tordesillas where Spain and Portugal had divided the area between them – an arrangement sanctioned by the Pope. The Spanish had forces and a fleet based in the area, and the whole affair was predestined to failure.

William found that although he was King of Scotland, he could not stop this assertion of Scottish policy. The project went ahead, and, predictably, was soon in trouble. William did not help – which caused great anger in Scotland, which persists to this day- but he had never wanted it in the first place. It is hard to see what he could have done to rescue this scheme without bringing on a general war, which must, inevitably have ended in disaster for England and Holland and possible invasions in Ireland and Scotland.

It was apparent that the King may rule Scotland, but he could not control it. As he was childless, the question of the succession was a vexed one too. The Covenanters had been crushed, but Jacobites simmered in Scotland and posed a danger to England if there was foreign intervention. William did not have to solve these problems as his horse tripped over a molehill in 1702 as he was riding – he was thrown and killed.

Anne Stuart ruled in her own right and there was no real dispute about her right to do so. She was a genuine Stuart and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, a quiet and unassuming man, did as he was told and did not reign. Unfortunately all her 11 children died before attaining majority. The succession remained un-assured and with James III living in Paris, a return to invasion and Civil War threatened.

A proposal in the Scottish Parliament to have troops removed from Scotland and be replaced by a militia where all citizens were armed, alarmed the Queen and the English Parliament. Assertions by some in the Scottish Parliament that Scotland was not bound to accept the same monarch as England if Anne died childless led to fears of Scotland with a Catholic King in alliance with France. The British forces on the continent were winning great victories, but if the French attacked from the North then England was under threat from two sides. A tighter control of Scotland was necessary to the Stuart monarch and her parliament, and in the face of foreign threat or war, a federal arrangement would not answer, which is why Anne favoured an incorporating union of the two countries.

She also wished to ensure a Protestant succession so nominated Sophia of Hanover as her heir – a grand-daughter of James I. Sophia died, very old, 2 months before she would have become Queen, so the succession devolved to her eldest son George. Very diluted indeed but with Stuart in him.

If James III had not been Catholic…

fred
20-Aug-12, 09:15
Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?


The situation in 1707 wasn't all that different to things today.

Take the banking crisis. The rich and powerful elite took a gamble with money they didn't have hoping to make themselves even richer and more powerful. The bankers then went to the government demanding tax payers money to bail them out and the government gave it them on the promise they would lend it back to us, which they did not do. Instead they gave themselves 12% pay rises and huge bonuses claiming they had to do it or they would all leave the country and go live somewhere that would.

It was the Salmonds, Sauters and Goodwins of the early 1700s that sold out the people of Scotland to feed their thirst for wealth and power and it is the same people trying to do it again.

weezer 316
20-Aug-12, 14:49
I have just about managed to bite my toungue!

Corrie, go and live in Stroma. Please. Your inane ramblings about being shafted at every turn by torries/westminster who you lump together in some massive cabal, and then in a piece of superme irony complain they are doing the same vis a vis Scotsmen is not only tiresome and inacurate but obscures any real debate over the independence vote. I have asked you, and many others unpteen times what exactly divides us bar an accent and a fondness for irn bru and this is all you come up with.

Secondly, I would define nationlism as someone who makes a particular point of identifying themselves with a nation group and makes arguments on the strenght of that association. For example Hitler was convinced Germany couldnt survive if they lost the war, he almost had over identification with Germany. Alex isnt quite as bad but his argument, like most nationlists throughout time, relies on the "I am one of you" argument and "they" are not, therefore what i want is in your interests, as opposed to dealing with facts. That to me defines nationalism. Of course its nonsense but it fools people.


Thirdly, there is an argument to be made for independence. But the SNP ain't making it because the minutiae of policy aint their strongest card and they know it. There still exists deep resentment towards the tories over Maggie Thatcher 25 years ago and thats the strongest card they can play.

rob murray
20-Aug-12, 15:36
The SNP were formed in 1934 and were gradually gaining popularity when WWII broke out. In the early years of the war they believed, as did many others, that Germany would win and were hoping to do a deal with Hitler to form a puppet government for an Independent Scotland. Their leader, Douglas Young was imprisoned for attempting to subvert the British war effort and Arthur Donaldson, who went on to be leader in 1960, was arrested in 1941 after subversive literature and weapons were found at his home. He was running an organisation which helped Scots avoid conscription.

Due to Germany losing the war they were somewhat unpopular after that and didn't manage to get an MP into Westminster for long until after they found oil in the North Sea and greed reared it's ugly head.

After oil was found their popularity grew in leaps and bounds but after failing to get devolution in 1979 a group of them decided to take direct action. The plan was to ally the SNP with the Socialist parties then organise a campaign of mass civil disobedience, use the power of the unions. After it was leaked to the press that they had been invited to Ireland by the IRA the members of this group were expelled from the party but sequentially allowed back in and one of them, Alex Salmond, is now their leader.

I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

Brilliant, where did you get the stuff on pre war / war involvement on SNP, this is dynamite, I knew that ex British blackshirt fascists, prisoners of war in WW2 were recruited into the Waffen SS, as featured on a TV documentary, but if the mainstream parties want to hit Salmon for 6, they should fund a similar documentary...Roots of The SNP / dubious links etc...Dont know about your take on late 70's as the tartan tories as they voted against callaghan thus helping pass a vote of no confidence in the then Labour government..leading to Thatch.

John Little
20-Aug-12, 17:12
Interesting letter in today's Guardian from a gentleman in Inverness which I take the liberty to put here.

"So Pussy Riot get two years for singing a song disapproved by the authorities in a church. In Scotland recently the SNP regime passed a law allowing for five years imprisonment for singing a song disapproved by the authorities at a football match. So two years is really lenient."


Is this true?

fred
20-Aug-12, 18:35
Dont know about your take on late 70's as the tartan tories as they voted against callaghan thus helping pass a vote of no confidence in the then Labour government..leading to Thatch.

The SNP did yes, I was talking about the 79 Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79_Group).

gleeber
20-Aug-12, 21:25
So true Fred, well done for high lighting the true side of Eck.



Fred; I agree with you - root and branch.

Thank you.
Welcome back Fred.
your not back half an hour and you have already associated the SNP with the Nazis, Alex Salmond with the banking crash, called the world leaders psychopaths and to crown that your old mates Golach and John Little are crawling half way up your backside in appreciation of your efforts.
You couldna make it up.

fred
20-Aug-12, 21:51
Welcome back Fred.
your not back half an hour and you have already associated the SNP with the Nazis, Alex Salmond with the banking crash, called the world leaders psychopaths and to crown that your old mates Golach and John Little are crawling half way up your backside in appreciation of your efforts.
You couldna make it up.

It was the Darien Scheme I was associating with the banking crash, do you not see the similarities, the "parcel of rogues in a nation" are no different now than they were then.

http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/alex-salmond-backed-rbs-s-abn-disaster

John Little
21-Aug-12, 08:27
What is the measure of a man?

How do you know him if not by his words?

Agreeing with Fred's words is permitted by the rules of the boards.

I even agree with Golach.

rob murray
21-Aug-12, 08:55
Welcome back Fred.
your not back half an hour and you have already associated the SNP with the Nazis, Alex Salmond with the banking crash, called the world leaders psychopaths and to crown that your old mates Golach and John Little are crawling half way up your backside in appreciation of your efforts.
You couldna make it up.

I personally found Fred's post very very interesting, I did not know of SNP historic fascist undertones / associations and am extrememly interested in finding out more. A very enlightening post indeed !!!

secrets in symmetry
21-Aug-12, 09:11
The SNP were born with fascist leanings, Wee Fat Eck's wing had Trotskyist leanings in the 80s, now they're secessionist opportunists playing at being nationalists, socialists and libertarians at the same time. Once an extremist....

I wouldn't trust the Wee Fat One with a bus fare....

fred
21-Aug-12, 09:47
I personally found Fred's post very very interesting, I did not know of SNP historic fascist undertones / associations and am extrememly interested in finding out more. A very enlightening post indeed !!!

To be fair they weren't the only ones. In the early years of the war there were politicians on all sides looking to edge their bets so they could keep their power if Germany won, much as in France where half the government switched sides. Look at them defecting from the Syrian government in droves today.

My massage would be the same as which brand of psychopath was proposing the referendum.

pmcd
21-Aug-12, 09:48
Have you noticed that the Baboon of Brigadoon is now confronting the Catholic Church head on? And have you noticed that the SNP symbol is the Christian symbol toppled on its side? Surely this is worth some impotent frothing? Or is it another red herring on the way to oblivion? And why am I sounding like a BBC Newsreader? Shouldn't I be dispensing the truth, instead of asking hysterical questions? Surely we should be told?

rob murray
21-Aug-12, 10:01
To be fair they weren't the only ones. In the early years of the war there were politicians on all sides looking to edge their bets so they could keep their power if Germany won, much as in France where half the government switched sides. Look at them defecting from the Syrian government in droves today.

My massage would be the same as which brand of psychopath was proposing the referendum.

Pre war, post 1933, government policy was appeasement of Germany, during this period Churchill with some support stood alone against Germany and its historically accepted that there was still a strong appeasement movement in government which lasted towards the end of 1941, then all bets off total war based on unconditional surrender. So my question is how active were the SNIP's in the post 41 period ?

John Little
21-Aug-12, 10:27
Have you noticed that the Baboon of Brigadoon is now confronting the Catholic Church head on? And have you noticed that the SNP symbol is the Christian symbol toppled on its side? Surely this is worth some impotent frothing? Or is it another red herring on the way to oblivion? And why am I sounding like a BBC Newsreader? Shouldn't I be dispensing the truth, instead of asking hysterical questions? Surely we should be told?Better not. Questions need answers. Could be awkward.

rob murray
21-Aug-12, 10:29
Better not. Questions need answers. Could be awkward.

Well let him crack at it, he now has no chance of making serious head way into the west of scotland catholic vote

fred
21-Aug-12, 10:42
Pre war, post 1933, government policy was appeasement of Germany, during this period Churchill with some support stood alone against Germany and its historically accepted that there was still a strong appeasement movement in government which lasted towards the end of 1941, then all bets off total war based on unconditional surrender. So my question is how active were the SNIP's in the post 41 period ?

But within Scottish politics there were people on all sides looking to be ruler of an independent Scotland with German military aid. The right wing had Archibald Ramsay, Douglas Young was a member of the Labour Party as well as the SNP.

fred
21-Aug-12, 10:48
Have you noticed that the Baboon of Brigadoon is now confronting the Catholic Church head on? And have you noticed that the SNP symbol is the Christian symbol toppled on its side? Surely this is worth some impotent frothing? Or is it another red herring on the way to oblivion? And why am I sounding like a BBC Newsreader? Shouldn't I be dispensing the truth, instead of asking hysterical questions? Surely we should be told?

The SNP's top doner, Brian Souter, is a staunch Presbyterian, he financed a private postal ballot against ditching Clause 28.

rob murray
21-Aug-12, 10:58
But within Scottish politics there were people on all sides looking to be ruler of an independent Scotland with German military aid. The right wing had Archibald Ramsay, Douglas Young was a member of the Labour Party as well as the SNP.

Thanks for the names, any one else lurking in the cup board, I didnt even know of this so Im now intrigued enough to do some basic research, so thanks for wikipdeia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Young_(classicist) also looked up Ramsay, both powerful "nationalists, not fringe members that one could dismiss as nutters, but signifciant and nasty players !! Just goes to show

ducati
21-Aug-12, 11:42
Ah now we are starting to peel the scales from eyes. Too dangerous is the assurance that the SNP won't rule an independent Scotland. For all we know, the rest of the political spectrum will pack up and go home. Leaving us with Alex, president for life.

fred
21-Aug-12, 12:10
Ah now we are starting to peel the scales from eyes. Too dangerous is the assurance that the SNP won't rule an independent Scotland. For all we know, the rest of the political spectrum will pack up and go home. Leaving us with Alex, president for life.

I doubt it, he's probably got his sights on a seat on the board of one of the international oil companies that tell governments what to do.

John Little
21-Aug-12, 12:14
The SNP's top doner, Brian Souter, is a staunch Presbyterian, he financed a private postal ballot against ditching Clause 28. I am confused. Isn't Brian Souter about as right wing and Conservative as you can get? If that is so, then why is he funding a left of centre party?

fred
21-Aug-12, 12:58
I am confused. Isn't Brian Souter about as right wing and Conservative as you can get? If that is so, then why is he funding a left of centre party?

He who pays the piper...

The SNP said they would re-regulate the buses if they got to power, well they got to power but nothing has changed. It was conveniently dropped from their list of priorities following a half million quid donation from you know who.

John Little
21-Aug-12, 13:01
Lol! Why am I not surprised? Like Caesar they are all things to all men.

John Little
22-Aug-12, 11:24
I love this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlhsPEq6ass

It's so retro.

The music is excellent - of course.

And the image at the end is sublime.

fred
22-Aug-12, 12:01
The music is excellent - of course.


Vagner, most appropriate under the circumstances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/8659814/Hitler-and-Wagner.html

gleeber
22-Aug-12, 21:37
So true Fred, well done for high lighting the true side of Eck.


Fred; I agree with you - root and branch.

Thank you.



I personally found Fred's post very very interesting,


The SNP were born with fascist leanings, Wee Fat Eck's wing had Trotskyist leanings in the 80s, now they're secessionist opportunists playing at being nationalists, socialists and libertarians at the same time. Once an extremist....

I wouldn't trust the Wee Fat One with a bus fare....

Hoodwinked by a master hoodwinker. Fred can pull stories from a hat, and very often does.
I'm as unbiased an observer to this thread as your likely to get, or at least I thought I was.
The Nationalists have been associated with some of the worst regimes in human history and poor Alex Salmonds been the 21st century equivelant of being hung drawn and quartered. I can see Golach now, standing on the scaffold with a black hood over his head and his eyes shining red. There seems no sense in some of the argument put forward. Some of it seems almost pathological. How can you associate the modern SNP with the founding fathers of Scottish nationalism? Its like comparing John Little to Oliver Cromwell or SiS to Rasputin the monk.

fred
22-Aug-12, 22:04
Hoodwinked by a master hoodwinker. Fred can pull stories from a hat, and very often does.


Same old story, can't dispute the facts so try to discredit the person telling them.

Don't suppose you could point out where anything I have said was factually incorrect can you?

John Little
22-Aug-12, 22:13
I'm puzzled to see how Fred has 'hoodwinked' anyone. The past is interesting is it not? The origins of the SNP are interesting.

I was not disputing Fred's facts because they are readily available on the net.

They have shifted their position over the years many times have they not?

Mr Salmond himself has shifted his position many times - has he not?

They are Nationalist, Left of Centre, Libertarian - and accept money from a right wing millionaire- do they not?

The SNP did not spring fully armed as a centre left and Social Democratic Party.

They have a history- why ignore it?

They shift postion a lot - and may continue to do so.

But the bit that Fred said that I particularly agree with is this- and it's true of the UK government, and any other government I can think of. The ruling elites stack the deck in their favour - and a consideration of the history of the banking industry in the last few years makes me think it even more.

Different Boss - same Boss.


I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

gleeber
22-Aug-12, 22:13
Its propeganda Fred. If you throw mud it sticks. You associated the SNP with the nazis and whether its true or not doesnt matter. Thats the nature of propeganda. Then a nice subtle little sidekick mentioning Alex Salmond and the RSB and the banking crisis in the same sentence. Then the appropriateness of Wagner in an SNP spoof. Goebbals was a hoodwinker too. See what I did there?

gleeber
22-Aug-12, 22:18
If your dissatisfied with the system of government we have offer another one thats better, a bit like squidge has been doing, and if you have nothing better to offer dont knock what we have. Human affairs are complicated enough without associating modern day democratic parties with a bunch of ruthless racist thugs from the 1930s.

fred
22-Aug-12, 22:42
Its propeganda Fred. If you throw mud it sticks. You associated the SNP with the nazis and whether its true or not doesnt matter. Thats the nature of propeganda. Then a nice subtle little sidekick mentioning Alex Salmond and the RSB and the banking crisis in the same sentence. Then the appropriateness of Wagner in an SNP spoof. Goebbals was a hoodwinker too. See what I did there?

Yeh well if I don't agree with what someone says I argue with what they say, I don't attack the person, you don't see me going around posting Gleeber this or Gleeber that.

fred
22-Aug-12, 22:45
If your dissatisfied with the system of government we have offer another one thats better, a bit like squidge has been doing, and if you have nothing better to offer dont knock what we have. Human affairs are complicated enough without associating modern day democratic parties with a bunch of ruthless racist thugs from the 1930s.

Oh here we go again, don't tell me what to do Sunshine, I'll criticise what the hell I like and I don't need your permission.

Jeesus this place don't change.

gleeber
22-Aug-12, 22:46
Are you trying to tell me you can seperate the poster from the post? If a post is designed to hoodwink then the posters being a hoodwinker.

gleeber
22-Aug-12, 22:48
Oh here we go again, don't tell me what to do Sunshine, I'll criticise what the hell I like and I don't need your permission.

Jeesus this place don't change.
That one was aimed at John Little sunshine but you can claim it if it helps to feed your persecution complex.

John Little
22-Aug-12, 22:55
If your dissatisfied with the system of government we have offer another one thats better, a bit like squidge has been doing, and if you have nothing better to offer dont knock what we have. Human affairs are complicated enough without associating modern day democratic parties with a bunch of ruthless racist thugs from the 1930s.At me? The SNP offer a government.

You think it better?

QED.

I will knock them if I wish - thank you for the admonition. One of the reasons I started this thread was because I was getting fed up with the smug bashing of the Union that was going on fairly constantly and on every thread that could be turned that way. Sauce for the goose...

Today exists because of what is past. Sometimes ignoring it is... Convenient.

secrets in symmetry
22-Aug-12, 23:22
Oh here we go again, don't tell me what to do Sunshine, I'll criticise what the hell I like and I don't need your permission.
Jeesus this place don't change.Lol! Great retort, fred. :cool:

I don't think I've ever been hoodwinked by anyone on this forum. Ok, that's not quite true, I once misunderstood a humorous post, and I posted something really gullible in response to it, but I think (or hope) I fixed it before anyone noticed. Sadly, the person mentioned in the post I misunderstood died a few days ago.

Gleeber, if you're not going to be Archbishop of Canterbury, would you be the first Archbishop of Holyrood in Eck, Nick and Kenny's post-revolutionary Scotland's Church of the Poisoned Mind?

RecQuery
23-Aug-12, 08:00
At me? The SNP offer a government.

You think it better?

QED.

I will knock them if I wish - thank you for the admonition. One of the reasons I started this thread was because I was getting fed up with the smug bashing of the Union that was going on fairly constantly and on every thread that could be turned that way. Sauce for the goose...

Today exists because of what is past. Sometimes ignoring it is... Convenient.

I've tried to avoid this thread for obvious reasons but you might want to use the forum search function to see how much SNP bashing there has been on this forum.

John Little
23-Aug-12, 11:04
I know there is some SNP bashing and have no need to look for it.

Perhaps some of it is deserved?

There's a lot of Union bashing on the internet too. The UK government certainly deserves a lot of it.


Maybe we need something better than either side is offering?

A better choice than on the one hand, perpetuating an out of date and unequal system, and on the other hand, selling nostrums and snake oil to all and sundry to garner votes for the maybe?

RecQuery
23-Aug-12, 12:08
I know there is some SNP bashing and have no need to look for it.

Perhaps some of it is deserved?

There's a lot of Union bashing on the internet too. The UK government certainly deserves a lot of it.

Maybe we need something better than either side is offering?

A better choice than on the one hand, perpetuating an out of date and unequal system, and on the other hand, selling nostrums and snake oil to all and sundry to garner votes for the maybe?

Which pretty sounds like the pie-in-the-sky jam-tomorrow stuff the Bitter Together campaign is pushing. It's too late for a patch job or a quick fix.

John Little
23-Aug-12, 13:47
Too late?

In what sense?

weezer 316
23-Aug-12, 22:35
Christ almighty.

Recquery/corrie/any nationalist please please please please please please please please please I beg of you outline what is so bad we need to break the country up and how independence solves this please. Please. Its got so bad now I dont even care if i makes sense or not I just want an answer. Any answer will do. Its almost lijke you haven't an answer until Eck spouts one for you

Fred,

Interesting points but I am unsure how most of that relates to the current SNP and in particular the case they aint making for independence. Can you enlighten me?

Rheghead
23-Aug-12, 23:37
sleepwalking into division and acrimony.

squidge
24-Aug-12, 09:43
Maybe I shouldnt answer this as apparently I am not a nationalist just a lowly, selfish and avaricious seccessionist.

However I will give it a go. For me it is about Inequality and lack of care for the most vulnerable in society.

Although to be honest Weezer, for many like me, its really about what could be done better as an Independent country rather than what is so bad about the union.

I will say this again although I usually just get told my views are stupid, ignorant, vapid and that I am being conned but hey ho.....

The Priorities of the UK government are not those of the Scottish electorate. Independence will mean that the Scottish Electorate will get a government which they have voted for and which will focus on the priorities of Scotland. This means we have the opportunity to change our society in many ways which we dont have just now from our system of government to the welfare system, to the healthcare system, to the tax system.

As for the economy well, being able to collect our own revenue, borrow like every other country, raise and lower taxes like every other country and manage our own finances will mean that we have the opportunity to spend money in a way we want to and on the things we want to spend it on.

For a lot of people Independence is about creating a better place for us to live in and for our children to grow up in. Better in terms of more equal and fair and yes wealthier....but thats not about having more money in my bank account - wealth is about less poverty, better housing and better health for all the citizens of Scotland.

Nationalists also believe that Scotland is a country in its own right - it is and always was a "Nation" and believe that as such the people of Scotland have the right to be independent if they choose.

rob murray
24-Aug-12, 10:54
Maybe I shouldnt answer this as apparently I am not a nationalist just a lowly, selfish and avaricious seccessionist.

However I will give it a go. For me it is about Inequality and lack of care for the most vulnerable in society.

Although to be honest Weezer, for many like me, its really about what could be done better as an Independent country rather than what is so bad about the union.

I will say this again although I usually just get told my views are stupid, ignorant, vapid and that I am being conned but hey ho.....

The Priorities of the UK government are not those of the Scottish electorate. Independence will mean that the Scottish Electorate will get a government which they have voted for and which will focus on the priorities of Scotland. This means we have the opportunity to change our society in many ways which we dont have just now from our system of government to the welfare system, to the healthcare system, to the tax system.

As for the economy well, being able to collect our own revenue, borrow like every other country, raise and lower taxes like every other country and manage our own finances will mean that we have the opportunity to spend money in a way we want to and on the things we want to spend it on.

For a lot of people Independence is about creating a better place for us to live in and for our children to grow up in. Better in terms of more equal and fair and yes wealthier....but thats not about having more money in my bank account - wealth is about less poverty, better housing and better health for all the citizens of Scotland.

Nationalists also believe that Scotland is a country in its own right - it is and always was a "Nation" and believe that as such the people of Scotland have the right to be independent if they choose.

"The Priorities of the UK government are not those of the Scottish electorate" youve made an unarguable point beyond dispute here, look at the 80's..did Scotland vote conservative ? no....but it was still was entangled in the great failed monetarist experiment and resulting policies which flew in the face of the majority of non conservative voters. I still advocate stronger devolutionary powers with a regionalised focus as part of continued UK membership, a more palitable option ( for most I would imagine ) than all out seperatism.

weezer 316
24-Aug-12, 11:21
Maybe I shouldnt answer this as apparently I am not a nationalist just a lowly, selfish and avaricious seccessionist.

However I will give it a go. For me it is about Inequality and lack of care for the most vulnerable in society.

Although to be honest Weezer, for many like me, its really about what could be done better as an Independent country rather than what is so bad about the union.

I will say this again although I usually just get told my views are stupid, ignorant, vapid and that I am being conned but hey ho.....

The Priorities of the UK government are not those of the Scottish electorate. Independence will mean that the Scottish Electorate will get a government which they have voted for and which will focus on the priorities of Scotland. This means we have the opportunity to change our society in many ways which we dont have just now from our system of government to the welfare system, to the healthcare system, to the tax system.

As for the economy well, being able to collect our own revenue, borrow like every other country, raise and lower taxes like every other country and manage our own finances will mean that we have the opportunity to spend money in a way we want to and on the things we want to spend it on.

For a lot of people Independence is about creating a better place for us to live in and for our children to grow up in. Better in terms of more equal and fair and yes wealthier....but thats not about having more money in my bank account - wealth is about less poverty, better housing and better health for all the citizens of Scotland.

Nationalists also believe that Scotland is a country in its own right - it is and always was a "Nation" and believe that as such the people of Scotland have the right to be independent if they choose.

Right first answer I have had om this. Its raises a few points:

1: What of the 13 years of labour power after that, and the labour govt before Maggie? This country voted labour and seems to have paid the price for it. Would you agree pinning the fact the torries only get like 10-15% of the scottish vote at best is negated by the stretches where our vote matches the rest of the UK as it did under Labour? And if not, why not?

2: What are the priorities of the UK govt and what are the priorities of the Scottish electorate? I would say almost to a T they are the same. Can you provide any evidence to say otherwise? Namely the NHS, schools, balanced budget and dealing with the fallout from the Eurozone.

3: How do the nationalists aim to acheive fiscal and monetery independence upon political independence?

4: Are there concrete proposals for changes to the NHS, schools, tax rate etc that you are in favour of from an indeependent SNP or its it mroe a fuzzy "elected and decided in Scotland therefore its better" view you take?

rob murray
24-Aug-12, 11:55
Right first answer I have had om this. Its raises a few points:

1: What of the 13 years of labour power after that, and the labour govt before Maggie? This country voted labour and seems to have paid the price for it. Would you agree pinning the fact the torries only get like 10-15% of the scottish vote at best is negated by the stretches where our vote matches the rest of the UK as it did under Labour? And if not, why not?

2: What are the priorities of the UK govt and what are the priorities of the Scottish electorate? I would say almost to a T they are the same. Can you provide any evidence to say otherwise? Namely the NHS, schools, balanced budget and dealing with the fallout from the Eurozone.

3: How do the nationalists aim to acheive fiscal and monetery independence upon political independence?

4: Are there concrete proposals for changes to the NHS, schools, tax rate etc that you are in favour of from an indeependent SNP or its it mroe a fuzzy "elected and decided in Scotland therefore its better" view you take?

1: What of the 13 years of labour power after that, and the labour govt before Maggie? This country voted labour and seems to have paid the price for it.

What price ? The labour govts 1974 - 79 inherited stagflation caused by 1970 - 74 tory financial policies, the popular myth that Labour screwed the economy so we had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out loan, is just a myth, we didnt actually need the money ( treasury miscalculations ) and that which was granted was fully paid back during the 76 / 78 period, also inflation by 1979 was around 4 / 5% way down from what was inherited from he tories...( remember Tory inflation rates in the early 80's and then again in the early 90's and how bhigh interest rates were...15% ) so no bad news there. Labour 1997 - onwards...like every country in the free world very unwisely clawed bank banking regulations,and over relied on financial services for revenue, UK banking took liberties, further exasperrated by US financial difficulties leading to billions of bank debts. What have we got now...the age of austerity..which is not working...and never will, economies are fueled by demand ie people buying stuff, we have an inflationary gap and depressed aggregate demand...in short pepole arent buying pushing the economy down, poeple have to buy again or firms will continue to struggle, down sixe / lay poeple off. Interest rates are as low as ever but firms wont borrow because the confidence in consummer spending is at an all time low, banks themselves rarely lend...hence a liguidity trap and suppressed aggregare demand...clear role for government here...work it out !!

weezer 316
24-Aug-12, 12:33
What price?!?!

£1trn of debt, £100bn+ deficit every year that is only coming down very slowly. If your losing money during the good years, what chance the bad?

1970's - Millions of lost working days, power cuts, rubbish to being collected. Its stunk and I wasnt even there!!

Also, some raeading for you - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/imf-crisis.htm#Harold%20Wilson%27s%201974%20government

Intersting point in this paper - http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-128-60-cm-76-33.pdf

"If they failed to reach agreement with the IMF, the Government faced the risk of the exchange rate falling out of control,with reserves totally inadequate for the purpose of intervention, with implications for prices and unemployment which could break the partnership between the Government and the unions."

Seems to show the govt saying quite the opposite to what your saying. I know who I believe! Infact he then goes on to bemoan wages going up far quicker than prices and this in turn causing prices to shoot up and lays all of that at the feet of the unions....who they needed to get nto power!!!


Now as for the current labour caused problems, Im asking does the fact that we seem to have a govt we do vote in as often as one we dont not cancel itself out? And if not why not?

squidge
24-Aug-12, 12:41
Right first answer I have had om this. Its raises a few points:



Lol Weezer - its not the first time I have said these things - I have made these points time and again. If you are going to complain that no one is answering you then you need to make sure that you are reading the posts!!!!!

I havent time to answer your points just now Weezer - I am leaving to take part in The Bruce Festival At Dunfermline Abbey this weekend with the Historic Saltire Society. I wont be back until late on Sunday night but I will promise to answer them on my return. If you are in and around Dunfermline this weekend though pop along and I will answer them in person...... Ill be the one in the Wimple

See you guys!!!!

John Little
24-Aug-12, 13:47
I do not think that anyone has said that selfish Secessionists were "lowly". Certainly i never used such a word.

Most Politics is about self-interest - it could even be seen as realistic and laudable to look after your own - Jeremy Bentham would certainly have thought so.

I do think the SNP should fess up to it instead of dressing up economic secession in the clothes of romantic vision.

Positive selfishness is regarded as a moral position by many, including the Tories, and in the US, most Republicans; I do not share that view though there is no compulsion on your part to give my views any undue credence.

"For me it is about Inequality and lack of care for the most vulnerable in society."

This is a feeling not peculiar to the SNP I do assure you, but is felt across the Social Democratic spectrum within the UK as a whole.

"Although to be honest Weezer, for many like me, its really about what could be done better as an Independent country rather than what is so bad about the union."

So why do it better for 5 million when it could be done better for 60 million?

Or do you just want to give up on us? Because the residents of Scotland will be able to gain economic advantage by doing so? I do not propose to go over this ground again - I have said my piece.

I do not think anyone called you vapid; you posted a link to an article by one Carolyn Leckie- I thought it thin, woolly idealistic twaddle, and having read it again I still do and agreed with Yon Chiel. Your writing is actually a lot better than hers.

secrets in symmetry
24-Aug-12, 23:55
I do not think anyone called you vapid.Oh yes they did! :cool:

Oddquine
25-Aug-12, 08:21
Oh yes they did! :cool:

Trolling again? Sheesh, you don't half like the sight of your own pointless remarks, don't you?

Btw I'll get round to responding to http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?183443-Are-you-British-or-are-you-a-wimp&p=971669#post971669 at some stage.

Got a much better excuse than you for not being around for the last wee whilie on this subject in my case, the last long whilie in yours...and an even better one for not wanting to be sitting at the computer saving you having to engage one of your two braincells researching anything. Yah! Booh! Sucks to you...which appears to be the sum total of your "wisdom" on this (or any) subject isn't an argument or a discussion.......it simply illustrates your lack of either argument or discussion points..

But here's a challenge for you in the meantime.........give me your accurate figures to counteract my inaccurate ones.

I'll keep checking back.....and when you produce some.........I'll respond to them....or your interpretation of them. :roll:

John Little
25-Aug-12, 09:33
Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah .....Nyah....

rob murray
26-Aug-12, 13:26
[QUOTE=weezer 316;972115]What price?!?!

£1trn of debt, £100bn+ deficit every year that is only coming down very slowly. If your losing money during the good years, what chance the bad?

1970's - Millions of lost working days, power cuts, rubbish to being collected. Its stunk and I wasnt even there!!

Also, some raeading for you - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/imf-crisis.htm#Harold Wilson's 1974 government

Intersting point in this paper - http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-128-60-cm-76-33.pdf

"If they failed to reach agreement with the IMF, the Government faced the risk of the exchange rate falling out of control,with reserves totally inadequate for the purpose of intervention, with implications for prices and unemployment which could break the partnership between the Government and the unions."

Seems to show the govt saying quite the opposite to what your saying. I know who I believe! Infact he then goes on to bemoan wages going up far quicker than prices and this in turn causing prices to shoot up and lays all of that at the feet of the unions....who they needed to get nto power!!!


Now as for the current labour caused problems, Im asking does the fact that we seem to have a govt we do vote in as often as one we dont not cancel itself out? And if not why not?[/QUOTE

UK reserves and exchange rates were in a serious state which faced all post war governments, key reason is that the UK could not afford defence expenditure, rather than admit that the once great empire was a second division player, consensus govt policy was to act the big shot we could not afford levels of defence expenditure...thats what cased deficits...as for unions....they bot the hand that fed them re the demise of the social contrac in 79t. Oh and it was a Labour PM who ended post war consensus....that a government could spend its way out of trouble...Jim Callaghan..under whose leadership along with Dennis Healy Chancellor, ended double rate inflation. History shows that Callaghan was the first real moneteratist. What you refer to is wage push inflation, exess wages pushing up prices...I really think you need to study the labour goverement 74 - 79, as your are factually wrong on every account ok backed up by selctive propoganda. Large wage rises and union appeasement came from Heath. The bad medicine came from Callaghan and his only mistake was not to call an election in late 78. Oh nad newlabour paid of the outstanding war debts...long before predicted !

squidge
27-Aug-12, 22:19
Sorry folks this might be a bit lengthy.......
Right first answer I have had om this. Its raises a few points:

1: What of the 13 years of labour power after that, and the labour govt before Maggie? This country voted labour and seems to have paid the price for it. Would you agree pinning the fact the torries only get like 10-15% of the scottish vote at best is negated by the stretches where our vote matches the rest of the UK as it did under Labour? And if not, why not?

It think that the priorities since 1979 and the referendum on a devolved assembly have NOT reflected Scottish Priorities. Rob has answered the economic questions about the seventies much better than I am able. After the 79 referendum Scotland was promised more powers by the Conservative Government but they never materialised, the poll tax, the siting of trident, the lack of investment in Scotland's manufacturing industry, the coal strike all affected Scotland's economy and society. It affected many areas in England too however Scotland has always been a Nation in its own right - A clear and seperate country and therefore has the right to vote on its own future - hence the referendum. I think Scotland was let down under labour as well - they started well enough but failed on so many counts - there appears to be suggestions that the reason Scotland was "given a devolved parliament" was due to the Uk needing to meet some obligations on regional governance which threatened an embarassing conflict within the EU. I am not sure whether that is true however I do think that New labour cosied up to the media, big business and the rich, it gave private corporate power the way into public services. We still have MPs like Ian Davidson who sneer and curl their lips at a democratically elected government with a majority and behave like they are all powerful and more important.The labour party contributed to the corrosion of public standards and much more. Today the Labour party smacks of negativity and desperation - they cosy up to the Conservatives, favouring coalitions with them rather than standing strong on their labour party principles. We have councillors currying favour with the Orange order whilst threatening other labour party members with the job security of their disabled children. Donald Dewar and John Smith would be turning in their graves. Another paper from the influential local government body “Improvement Scotland” warns that a “prudent assumption would be for cash cuts of at least £1bn in Scotland” as a consequence of UK government spending reductions in two years’ time. Sending reductions based on priorities of a Westminster government not a Scottish government - spending cuts based on economic policies which the Scottish government have asked to be changed, altered, taken in another direction ... and not simply the Scottish government. Many other experts on the economy have lobbied for change too and yet the priorities of the Westminster government are pursued with no consideration of the priorities of the Scottish government... and therefore the electorate as we have a majority government.

I have also heard say by many on this board that the Scottish Government will mainly be interested in the areas of highest population - the central belt - as an excuse for not voting for Independence. I dont understand why people use this as an argument for rejecting Independence and yet are happy with being in a union where the government is mainly interested in London and the South East and so the chance of getting consideration for rural Scotland is nigh on impossible.



2: What are the priorities of the UK govt and what are the priorities of the Scottish electorate? I would say almost to a T they are the same. Can you provide any evidence to say otherwise? Namely the NHS, schools, balanced budget and dealing with the fallout from the Eurozone.

The devil is in the detail Weezer.... - Scottish priorities involve people rather than money.... so for example free higher education, Yes the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments both have education as a priority but in Scotland that is to provide a Free education for all Scottish Students at Scottish Universities, whilst in the rest of the UK it is not - fees of up to 9K a year are charged. The Scottish government has mentioned its desire to encourage teachers to be qualified to Masters level whereas the Westminster parliament is talking about letting unqualified people teach. Providing free personal care to the elderly is another example of important and people focused policies, as is the the Scottish Governments desire to mitigate the effect of Welfare cuts on the vulnerable by introducing the Welfare Reform (Future Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Look also at the way both governments are prioritising the NHS - different emphasis and methods. Despite Scottish priorities being different it is said that if we remain within the union, Scotland would face cash cuts of at least £1bn in Scotland” as a consequence of UK government spending reductions in two years’ time - spending reductions based on Uk priorities not Scottish priorities.


3: How do the nationalists aim to acheive fiscal and monetery independence upon political independence?

There will be many answers to that question, however I think that it is important to note that there will be different options for how this is acheived. The SNP is widely quoted on its stance on this with regards to keeping the pound and remaining in Europe. If there is a YES vote in the referendum then we will see a variety of options within the manifestos of the parties fighting the election. The political landscape will change and we will get the chance to vote for the party which offers us the best option for the issues which concern us as individuals and as a society. The referendum is about democracy - having the opportunity to decide on our own future and our own form of government whether that be a Union or an Independent Scotland. The elections after the referendum will be about policy. It IS hard though to seperate the two and especially if you are impatient for concrete answers.


4: Are there concrete proposals for changes to the NHS, schools, tax rate etc that you are in favour of from an indeependent SNP or its it mroe a fuzzy "elected and decided in Scotland therefore its better" view you take?

I personally am not tied to the SNP, I am not a member of the party and so I do not necessarily see the SNP and their policies as the answer to everything. General Opinion is that there will be a variety of options for change within all the parties that will be campaigning to lead Scotland into Independence. As I said above we wont see the detail until the manifestos are published. I would think for some parties this will be before the referendum but for others - the unionist parties for example - it will not be until, or unless there is a YES vote - so before the elections but after the referendum. The SNP has produced some information on what their policies will be as have the SDA and the Green Party too I think. I expect more will be forthcoming before 2014. I personally. will be voting (and perhaps lobbying and campaigning ) on a whole range of issues that are important to me. I feel that we need to change the way we do things across a whole range of services and policies and so I will be looking at ALL the parties and what they are suggesting and promising and making MY decision as to who I want to lead Scotland into Independence based on that.I will also be taking part in as many events as I can. Again - not particularly SNP based - The Electoral Reform Society have run some events and may run others, The YES campaign, Women for Independence, question time type events, local and national are good places to go to hear the arguments for and sometimes against Independence although the NO campaign dont seem to be co ordinating much in the way of considered debates. I would urge anyone to do the same.

You suggest that it is a Fuzzy "Elected and decided in Scotland" that I think makes things better. I do think that Scotland will be better served by an Independent Scottish government who put Scottish priorities at the heart of their policies. I also beleive actually that Independence will give Scotland a government which is accountable to the the electorate in a way which we havent had for a very long time - perhaps even since 1707 and that is probably what will actually make things better.

Dunfermline was great :)

maverick
27-Aug-12, 22:56
Dunfermline was great :)[/QUOTE] and you looked very fetching in your costume, field was a bit soggy though, oh and I hope you found your little boy ok, it was nice to see you again even though you didn,t recognise me...

squidge
27-Aug-12, 23:03
I did - I thought it was you!!!!!!

I wish you had said - I thought I was imagining things - it bugged me all day I kept thinking - nahhhhhh if it WAS him he would have let on!!!!! We found the wee man no bother lol - watching Scotland lose at the Battle of Methven and crying cos he wanted his daddy to win!!! He only had to wait til later lol

But Mav - you are a such a sweet talker - a wimple is the least fetching item of clothing EVER!

maverick
28-Aug-12, 07:59
I did - I thought it was you!!!!!!

I wish you had said - I thought I was imagining things - it bugged me all day I kept thinking - nahhhhhh if it WAS him he would have let on!!!!! We found the wee man no bother lol - watching Scotland lose at the Battle of Methven and crying cos he wanted his daddy to win!!! He only had to wait til later lol

But Mav - you are a such a sweet talker - a wimple is the least fetching item of clothing EVER! Squidge the event was brilliant, the comments for the battles were really funny and I mean that in a good way, the tents with all the exhibits I found to be very interesting, there was something for all age groups to see. Well done to all of you, and it was nice to see you again my friend.....

ducati
28-Aug-12, 08:23
Sorry folks this might be a bit lengthy.......

Dunfermline was great :)

Yes it was. And you keep saying the same things. You have an opinion and present it as fact. It is propaganda in my opinion. And a bit naughty because you completely ignore the fact that the UK, and the entire world and that very definately includes Scotland, is in deep deep doo doo financially. You say that naughty Westminster government is cutting spending in Scotland. Of course it is. It is cutting spending everywhere.

squidge
28-Aug-12, 08:36
Yes it was. And you keep saying the same things. You have an opinion and present it as fact. It is propaganda in my opinion. And a bit naughty because you completely ignore the fact that the UK, and the entire world and that very definately includes Scotland, is in deep deep doo doo financially. You say that naughty Westminster government is cutting spending in Scotland. Of course it is. It is cutting spending everywhere.

I Keep being asked the same questions!!!!! I I can only say the things that are MY opinion - I never pretend to speak for anyone else. These things are MY opinion and I present my opinion - my world view if you like as I see it. Yes - Ducati you are right - there is deep doo doo - im not sure I agree the whole world is in it - I understand Iceland have weathered their financial crisis a little better than the UK thought it would. As for the economy I did say if you bothered to read it ( although if you are so bored with my replies you maybe didnt) was that many experts as well as the Scottish Government have lobbied the government for change but they persist in their approach despite this and despite there being little sign of any recovery according to their priorites.

Were you at Dunfermline as well Ducati? Crikey are yous all so scared of me you dont let on?

ducati
28-Aug-12, 11:49
I Keep being asked the same questions!!!!! I I can only say the things that are MY opinion - I never pretend to speak for anyone else. These things are MY opinion and I present my opinion - my world view if you like as I see it. Yes - Ducati you are right - there is deep doo doo - im not sure I agree the whole world is in it - I understand Iceland have weathered their financial crisis a little better than the UK thought it would. As for the economy I did say if you bothered to read it ( although if you are so bored with my replies you maybe didnt) was that many experts as well as the Scottish Government have lobbied the government for change but they persist in their approach despite this and despite there being little sign of any recovery according to their priorites.

Were you at Dunfermline as well Ducati? Crikey are yous all so scared of me you dont let on?

Ha! if Iceland are doing so well they can pay back the billions they still owe to UK charities! You know, the ones having to lay off staff and reduce the work they can do.

Many experts are telling the Gov. to carry on exactly as they are to reduce the deficit. Experts on the org are divided :lol:

squidge
28-Aug-12, 13:06
Ha! if Iceland are doing so well they can pay back the billions they still owe to UK charities! You know, the ones having to lay off staff and reduce the work they can do.

Many experts are telling the Gov. to carry on exactly as they are to reduce the deficit. Experts on the org are divided :lol:

Ha???? If you look at the situation of Iceland now it appears to be undergoing a steady recovery, Iceland let the bloated, greedy banks go bust and refused to use taxpayers money to bail them out. They worked closely with the IMF to restructure their banking systems and they prosecuted heads of the failed banks, and even their own prime minister. They recognised that this was someone's FAULT and so they are making sure that they are held to account. Their GDP is set to increase by 2.5% this year. They have paid their IMF loan back ahead of schedule and whilst they are still clearly suffering some problems the outlook seems to be good and positive - which is a bit different from the UK. How positive is our outlook?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a0390dc-78c7-11e1-9f49-00144feab49a.html#axzz24qAOIpZx

you know Ducati you dismiss stuff with a one line quip but I havent yet seen you - or any other poster who is against independence - actually give a positive view of staying in the union.....Care to have a shot or do you think it will be dismissed as propaganda?

ducati
28-Aug-12, 13:23
Ha???? If you look at the situation of Iceland now it appears to be undergoing a steady recovery, Iceland let the bloated, greedy banks go bust and refused to use taxpayers money to bail them out. They worked closely with the IMF to restructure their banking systems and they prosecuted heads of the failed banks, and even their own prime minister. They recognised that this was someone's FAULT and so they are making sure that they are held to account. Their GDP is set to increase by 2.5% this year. They have paid their IMF loan back ahead of schedule and whilst they are still clearly suffering some problems the outlook seems to be good and positive - which is a bit different from the UK. How positive is our outlook?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a0390dc-78c7-11e1-9f49-00144feab49a.html#axzz24qAOIpZx

you know Ducati you dismiss stuff with a one line quip but I havent yet seen you - or any other poster who is against independence - actually give a positive view of staying in the union.....Care to have a shot or do you think it will be dismissed as propaganda?

Iceland- When are they going to pay back the money lost by the banks? If never then any recovery is false isn't it? The rest of the world took the responsibility to ensure the deposites of bank customers was safeguarded. What Iceland did was completely criminal and they should be held to account. Please don't hold them up as a shining light. That was the Mr Angry bit.

I don't feel the need to defend the Union. Anyone with any sense should know that the vote will be comprehensivly defeated, the SNP are a bunch of charlatans, and the population of Scotland will be saved from many years of misery.

That is why the other parties are not planning for independence. It ain't gonner happen!

squidge
28-Aug-12, 13:44
The politicians say that Iceland is committed to repaying the money owed to foreign governments. I think they are doing rather better than expected. they seem to be aware that there was criminal activity and that is why they are prosecuting those responsible.... including their former prime minister. I amnt holding them up as a shining light but as an example of different ways of approaching and resolving the financial crisis many countries find themselves in, despite the fact that George Osborne doesnt seem to think there is.

I didnt ask you to defend the union Ducati, I asked for positive view to staying in the union.... instead you did what seems to be the norm around here and that is to sidestep the issue, dismiss my opininons as "propoganda" and therefore not worth reading, question my intelligence yet again, sneer at the SNP and congratulate yourselves on your own superiority. Independence may not happen but it might and surely to goodness we can ask for the positive aspects of staying in the Union in future. What are they?

ducati
28-Aug-12, 14:19
The politicians say that Iceland is committed to repaying the money owed to foreign governments. I think they are doing rather better than expected. they seem to be aware that there was criminal activity and that is why they are prosecuting those responsible.... including their former prime minister. I amnt holding them up as a shining light but as an example of different ways of approaching and resolving the financial crisis many countries find themselves in, despite the fact that George Osborne doesnt seem to think there is.

I didnt ask you to defend the union Ducati, I asked for positive view to staying in the union.... instead you did what seems to be the norm around here and that is to sidestep the issue, dismiss my opininons as "propoganda" and therefore not worth reading, question my intelligence yet again, sneer at the SNP and congratulate yourselves on your own superiority. Independence may not happen but it might and surely to goodness we can ask for the positive aspects of staying in the Union in future. What are they


I didn't question your intelligence, poss. common sense.

You misunderstood my point about Icelandic banks. It’s not about money owed to Governments. Charities will not get the money back. As a result some are making redundancies some are closing. The Icelandic recovery does not exist until they pay it all back and there are no plans to do so.

Staying in the Union to me means keeping what I want to keep. :Razz

That means low Mortgage rate, low taxes, the possibility of making it in a world that doesn't despise success. The possibility of investing in the future and having a reasonable chance of getting a return. The benefit of a large economy that competes with the world on equal terms. I could go on and on but as I have said before. There is no point. I don't have a philosophical stance on this, others do.

squidge
29-Aug-12, 10:09
Thats a fair point about Iceland ducati and Thank you for your answers to the question I asked - i understand how we are coming at this from two different points of view and your answer illustrates that perfectly. I dont understand why you think independence will mean an end to all the things that you mention - except perhaps the large economy.... We could have all these and have the opportunity to change the stuff that needs to be changed - inequality, the welfare system, the system of government, the social care system ......

You know what though - there is nothing wrong with my common sense.... nor my intellect. I am however seriously lacking in a sense of humour with you guys just now and so im

a
w
a
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

(for a few days at least :Razz)

David Banks
03-Sep-12, 12:35
It's been quiet for a day or two on here.

So, has it been determined that, if a majority of Scots residents vote for independence, then that proves that a majority of Scots residents are greedy money-grubbers, and nothing more than that?

I mean, if you say it often enough, it must be true. Stay on "the talking points" everyone.

David Banks
03-Sep-12, 13:36
http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_forsyth_what_s_a_snollygoster_a_short_lesson_ in_political_speak.html

maverick
04-Sep-12, 05:03
The question was " what is the SNP"? well in my opinion like all political parties they are filled with polititians and we all know that polititians just cant be trusted...

golach
05-Sep-12, 23:50
The SNP have created a Minister responsible for ending the 300 year old union, disgusting to know that we all in Scotland are paying for this; taxpayers money being wasted yet again to fuel the agenda of separation from the United Kingdom. [disgust]

Rheghead
06-Sep-12, 01:59
The SNP have created a Minister responsible for ending the 300 year old union, disgusting to know that we all in Scotland are paying for this; taxpayers money being wasted yet again to fuel the agenda of separation from the United Kingdom. [disgust]

Agreed, funding for it should come out of SNP coffers.

squidge
06-Sep-12, 07:53
Nicola Sturgeon is now the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, replacing Alex Neil (Who is now the Health Secretary).

As part of her new job she will playing a key role in the Scottish Government’s programme for economic recovery. She will also take lead responsibility for Government Strategy and the Constitution (which includes preparations for the independence referendum). There is no "minister for independence".... There is however THIS job - did any of you apply?

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/career_vacancy_0112PSGE.pdf
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/career_vacancy_0112PSGE.pdf)
Thats a WHOLE job - at public expense and in fact a whole new office so probably more jobs too. Guess thats ok though cos its for the union.

This is a MASSIVE MASSIVE undertaking and very very serious. BOTH sides of the argument should have people at ministerial level scrutinising the issues and making sure that it is done properly. I would be astounded if they didnt.

changilass
06-Sep-12, 09:08
The fact that 'managing people' is a key competency, but 'appreciating people' isn't says it all lol.

Oddquine
09-Sep-12, 23:00
The fact that 'managing people' is a key competency, but 'appreciating people' isn't says it all lol.

Isn't that what politics is all about...managing people to fulfill the ideology of the party in power? No different in any Government made up of politicians...anywhere in the world,as far as I can see.

Rheghead
10-Sep-12, 06:38
Isn't that what politics is all about...managing people to fulfill the ideology of the party in power? No different in any Government made up of politicians...anywhere in the world,as far as I can see.

So your yardstick to compare the SNP are any ol' politicians from anywhere around the world?

gerry4
10-Sep-12, 10:34
The SNP have created a Minister responsible for ending the 300 year old union, disgusting to know that we all in Scotland are paying for this; taxpayers money being wasted yet again to fuel the agenda of separation from the United Kingdom. [disgust]

As has been mentioned there is not Minster for Independence. Nicola is doing that job as well as being a Minister, a bit like Osbourne. The current minster of state for Scotland was all in favour of abolishing that job and the LibDem's also wanted the Scottish Office abolished as they said its only function was to hold parties. Is the Scottish Office not a propaganda machine for the pro-Unionist parties as well as most other Departments in Westminster?

Let me also say that Independence is not just a thing that the SNP want but members of all of the main parties want it too, even Tory. I am a LibDem but have wanted independence most of my life & I am 60.

RecQuery
10-Sep-12, 12:52
Good lord this discussion is still ongoing. I think it's already been established that no opinions are going to be changed - on here - anyway by these sort of discussions. So I ask what's the point? If you just want to post your own opinions then get a blog or a Facebook page.

ducati
10-Sep-12, 15:43
So I ask what's the point?

It's fun. :lol:

squidge
10-Sep-12, 16:23
It's fun. :lol: yes it is lol

ducati
10-Sep-12, 20:27
Now, I've been watching the Scottish Parliament debate on the SNP's programme for the rest of the parliament. They were pulled up on various failures to deliver on a number of key promises and even ones where they had smugly criticised the Westminster parliament's performance. When pointed out that the woeful comparison was t'other way round they just a) laughed it off, b) ignored it or c) brushed it under the carpet. All the way through the debate I found myself grinding my teeth.

Nothing could have done more to convince me that I don't want these people having any influence over my life.

Oddquine
11-Sep-12, 00:31
Now, I've been watching the Scottish Parliament debate on the SNP's programme for the rest of the parliament. They were pulled up on various failures to deliver on a number of key promises and even ones where they had smugly criticised the Westminster parliament's performance. When pointed out that the woeful comparison was t'other way round they just a) laughed it off, b) ignored it or c) brushed it under the carpet. All the way through the debate I found myself grinding my teeth.

Nothing could have done more to convince me that I don't want these people having any influence over my life.

They already have, though. Hard luck, ducati.

Have you got a link to the actual remarks from the opposition parties on video or in the media on which you have based your opinion? I can't sit at the PC for long enough atm to read through innumerable google pages if I haven't hit on the right form of words to get me there early doors, so it would save me a lot of pain. I've only found the statement, not the opposition responses so far, and would be interested to read them.

Corrie 3
11-Sep-12, 02:50
Nothing could have done more to convince me that I don't want these people having any influence over my life.
But you are happy to be influenced and governed by the likes of Osbourne, Cameron, Clegg etc who squeeze so many people and ruin lives just so they can benefit a few of their rich friends?
I feel real sorry for you Duke, wanting to make mega-bucks profit on your property and trying to play with the rich boys who only think about themselves. Try giving something of your life instead of taking, you will feel much better about yourself in the long run.

C3...............:confused:confused

ducati
11-Sep-12, 06:44
But you are happy to be influenced and governed by the likes of Osbourne, Cameron, Clegg etc who squeeze so many people and ruin lives just so they can benefit a few of their rich friends?
I feel real sorry for you Duke, wanting to make mega-bucks profit on your property and trying to play with the rich boys who only think about themselves. Try giving something of your life instead of taking, you will feel much better about yourself in the long run.



C3...............:confused:confused

Thanks for the advice. You do tend to be a bit literal and extreme in your take on things.

ducati
11-Sep-12, 06:46
They already have, though. Hard luck, ducati.

Have you got a link to the actual remarks from the opposition parties on video or in the media on which you have based your opinion? I can't sit at the PC for long enough atm to read through innumerable google pages if I haven't hit on the right form of words to get me there early doors, so it would save me a lot of pain. I've only found the statement, not the opposition responses so far, and would be interested to read them.

I just watched the BBC coverage. If you are interested it's probably repeated or on I player.

Actually I doubt currently how much influence they have on me personaly. Other than making me angry. :lol:

Reading the exchanges won't give you a feel for the arrogant, sneering attitudes though.

Oddquine
12-Sep-12, 03:34
I just watched the BBC coverage. If you are interested it's probably repeated or on I player.

Actually I doubt currently how much influence they have on me personaly. Other than making me angry. :lol:

Reading the exchanges won't give you a feel for the arrogant, sneering attitudes though.

If I can get it on IPlayer, won't that allow me to make up my own mind as to who is doing the sneering...or is IPlayer only available without sound and with subtitles?

I'll get back to you when I can sit through the whole thing.....having been pushed to sit comfortably through Salmond's statement, which I would hazard a guess was a lot shorter than the IPlayer version with the opposition interjections.

golach
16-Sep-12, 20:14
A favourite separatist paradox of late - "We are not a true nation, Britain beats us down, we cannot be a true nation until we are independent!" vs "We are already a full nation, that is why we won't need to re-apply to join the EU after independence!"

Eh whats that all about??

secrets in symmetry
16-Sep-12, 20:28
A favourite separatist paradox of late - "We are not a true nation, Britain beats us down, we cannot be a true nation until we are independent!" vs "We are already a full nation, that is why we won't need to re-apply to join the EU after independence!"

Eh whats that all about??Have you not got it yet golach? The vast majority of secessionists are selfish, illogical, self-contradicting, mendacious buffoons. There are one or two clever ones, but they're even worse lol.

Rheghead
17-Sep-12, 17:05
Have you not got it yet golach? The vast majority of secessionists are selfish, illogical, self-contradicting, mendacious buffoons. There are one or two clever ones, but they're even worse lol.

There's no reasoning with them. They'd dance with the Devil if it assured independence for Scotland.

Mystical Potato Head
17-Sep-12, 17:54
There's no reasoning with them. They'd dance with the Devil if it assured independence for Scotland.

Just like you would dance with the devil if it assured Scotland was covered in wind turbines.We all know there is absolutely no reasoning with you
but you can never reason with hypocrites anyway.

Rheghead
17-Sep-12, 18:03
Just like you would dance with the devil if it assured Scotland was covered in wind turbines.We all know there is absolutely no reasoning with you
but you can never reason with hypocrites anyway.

No I've reasoned why there should be the right amount of wind turbines in the right places. But that is an anathema to those opposed to turbines. I put you in that category.

squidge
20-Sep-12, 12:43
Worth a Read - the article and perhaps the book too.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/09/18/the-economic-case/

Rheghead
20-Sep-12, 16:08
Worth a Read - the article and perhaps the book too.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/09/18/the-economic-case/

Read it and I keep getting the feeling that it was all about left wing, anti-nuclear political escapism. Instead of escapism why not change the beast from within?

rob murray
20-Sep-12, 16:30
Read it and I keep getting the feeling that it was all about left wing, anti-nuclear political escapism. Instead of escapism why not change the beast from within?

Left wing ??

Oddquine
20-Sep-12, 22:24
Read it and I keep getting the feeling that it was all about left wing, anti-nuclear political escapism. Instead of escapism why not change the beast from within?

Like making your partner go to a marriage counsellor with you to try and stave off their demanding a divorce to remove their participation in your failed marriage...and then spending your time with the counsellor denigrating them and aggrandising yourself as justification for continuing the status quo?

It takes two to tango, and there is no chance of changing anything if one of the parties involved has no wish to change themselves, their attitude, their outlook or their actions, but convince themselves that by going 15607 their partner will eventually give in. Hegemony, as a concept, exists as much in a controlling personal "partnership" as in a political one..and the only way to remedy the consequences of that in either case is to remove oneself from it, with or without the permission of the other partner. The courts will decide the division of debts/assets, neither party may be 100% satisfied..but they will be left in a position where they are no longer stuck in a marriage where they don't want to be and are able to make a kirk or a mill of their own life.

Those who think a beast can be changed from within are the ones living in cloud cuckoo land...those who know there is Buckley's chance of that, after years, nay centuries of trying, and now believe the only option is to remove themselves from the range of the beast's direct influence, are the realists. Though I can understand why those who are reasonably or very well off within the UK system, like the Politicians sitting in the UK Parliament, won't want to rock the boat of their own comfortable income and lifestyle...just in case they are worse off.

John Little
01-Oct-12, 10:35
In consideration of a failure on the part of some correspondents to read what I have said, as evidenced on other posts in this forum, I refer them to post 5 here.

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?185824-Who-killed-the-org&p=972915#post972915

I can't be bothered to say it all again.

On the other hand the SNP does seem to prefer what I believe Mathematicians and Scientists call an iterative approach; that is to say that a process is repeated and repeated until you get the result you wish. So if the same stuff is repeated again and again you might persuade enough people that you are right.

I cannot subscribe to this because in this thread the SNP has signally failed to respond to some observations which seem important.

They keep asking what the Union has that is good?

I make a list - a month ago, in the link above, and it is ignored. Then a whole new thread materialises asking the same old question.

I identify them as Scots in residence, but not necessarily ethnically, and find that they are a group of disparate people who have come together in the hope of something better. They are therefore economic secessionists rather than true Nationalists. Do they refute this?

No.

I do not doubt that Scotland can do things on her own but pose the idea that a lot of what might be done would depend on oil. The SNP is against fossil fuels. So I find a certain hypocrisy in refusing to use coal but in basing free prescriptions, tuition etc on oil. One SNP supporter undertakes to ask his local MSP to clarify the party's position on fossil fuels.

I never hear anything back.

Considering this position and other policy pledges, and the number of times in their history when they have shifted their position, I ask if there are any points of principle on which the SNP is prepared to make a stand?

No response.

I label them a selfish party, using the UK's stupid constitution to their advantage, bringing a situation where perhaps 3 million people of varied backgrounds could break up the United Kingdom while the other 59 million have no choice but to watch helpless. This is a most convenient form of Democracy is it not?

Is it true what somebody told me- that 10% of the SNP membership is English?

And now I watch the demonisation of the UK.

Not so much the Tories, but the UK. It appears that Scotland gets a bad deal on roads and just about everything else from 'Westminster' 'London' 'Englandshire'. Not the UK government which has a certain number of Scots in it, but a faceless entity whose aim is to victimise Scots.

Never mind the complaints from Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle etc- Scotland gets a bad deal, so let's break up the UK- because we can.

And since they find nothing good to say about the UK, I have to ask myself yet another question about the SNP?

Are they enemies of the UK?


I reject your labels; I am not a "Unionist". The very attempt to label me as such brings into question the right of my country to exist.

I am British, and though of mostly Scots extraction I am English. I have no problem with that.

The SNP can keep its tribal labels for its own convenience. And 'Brit' is no bad name either.

John Little
01-Oct-12, 10:49
As I have been caught bang to rights, I have to hold up my hand. It's a fair cop guvnor.

I really am a troll. I am also SiS- but the biggest quirk of all is that I am Oddquine too.

And if the Fernies don't mind I am quite prepared to be one of them too...


I don't suppose that will fool MI5 when GCHQ forwards this to them, but it does make you wonder who is who don't it?

Are MI5 monitoring this forum?

Well let's put it this way - with a nuclear waste facility in the county and Vulcan as well, if they did not monitor the local forum they would be stupid, incompetent and not doing a proper job.

Just think all you SNP types - one of the big disadvantages of independence - you'd never, as a foreign national, be able to use the Freedom of Information act to get your MI5 file to see what those nice spooks were saying about you...

ducati
01-Oct-12, 10:53
Are MI5 monitoring this forum?



Of course I am

John Little
01-Oct-12, 11:09
Of course I am

Why then it is undoubtedly your job to keep an eye on all potential enemies of the United Kingdom. The sort of people who would band together in hopes of gain, to subvert the British government and bring about its overthrow.

You must do a good job now!

Fidelis
01-Oct-12, 11:10
I for one am guilty as charged , I havent answered all your points one by one! . I will try to set aside time to do so , although others are better able to , and probably will. Just briefly, in passing , why is Scottish a "tribal " name? What a strange idea! Isnt it nice though that you feel so strongly about our affairs that you spend so much time talking about them!

ducati
01-Oct-12, 11:13
Why then it is undoubtedly your job to keep an eye on all potential enemies of the United Kingdom. The sort of people who would band together in hopes of gain, to subvert the British government and bring about its overthrow.

You must do a good job now!

Don't worry, we are on the case.

pmcd
01-Oct-12, 11:46
As the Great (and welcome back!) John Little has more or less pronounced, as far as clarity on the actual issues of Independence is concerned, in the words of Yul Brynner in "The King and I" - "it is a puzzlement." I too have noticed that the SNP latterly seeks to demonise "Westminster" and "The UK", where before they restricted their bile to "the Tories". A word to the wise, and also the Baboon of Brigadoon: if you want to keep the Monarchy, be regulated by the Bank of England and align yourself to sterling, its time to put away the red bottom and use a) brain, b) common sense and finally c) mouth in articulating reasonable requests from the huge majority in whose ultimate power it will lie to ensure the success or failure of your Independence project. Calling the potential Gift Horse a vicious spavined mare ain't going to work!

And if your alternate plan is to embrace full membership of the European Community, then "Independence" will certainly have a hollow ring to it. And even if Europe says OK to a secessionist Scotland, then beware what happens next. (See Ireland). First, you are called a recipient state, and receive huge subsidies until you're hooked on them. "The Celtic Tiger" period of boom and investment. Then they let you fly, knowing you'll crash and burn. Then they "rescue" you, with a forced vote or a "protection" loan worthy of a Mafia gangster. And then you can kiss the last vestige of Independence goodbye -

Those days are gone now
And Old Westminster is just a wee pain
With tears in our eyes now
We've learnt to lose more than we gain
We stood against him
Rumpuy's paper army,
Which sent us all barmy
And skint again"

John Little
01-Oct-12, 11:51
I for one am guilty as charged , I havent answered all your points one by one! . I will try to set aside time to do so , although others are better able to , and probably will. Just briefly, in passing , why is Scottish a "tribal " name? What a strange idea! Isnt it nice though that you feel so strongly about our affairs that you spend so much time talking about them!

By 'tribal' I was referring more to 'Unionist' as opposed to anti- Unionist. Those two labels set up a debate which bring the future of my country into question. By rejecting Unionist I assert my right to be unquestionably 'British' in which no sub divisions are necessary for defining nationality. If one wishes to subdivide into component nationalities then that's a matter of individual choice, though inter-marriage and mobility and multi-culturalism have rendered it rather undefinable in any real sense.

'Our affairs'.

So it's your affairs. Not mine.

I am supposed not to mind the break up of my country? It's not 'my affair'.

Well that told me.


I suppose it's not any affair of the 750,000 Scots living in England either?
Or the hundreds of thousands who live and work abroad?

They don't get a vote either in 2014. Sorry Pal - should have stayed at home.

Pretty exclusive club you have there.

The 'British' can go take a long walk off a short pier it seems - no need to consult them.

squidge
01-Oct-12, 21:51
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh John is back - hello John :) Glad to see you!

Too many threads with too many questions to answer - you can lose all day in these threads - mired in negativity and confrontation - and so I am avoiding lengthy answers - I nearly replied to Weezers the other day and then I decided to take my daughter to the park instead - it was much more fun.

These are some of the other things I have been doing

I have a medieval banquet to organise

I have a job interview to prep for ( keep your fingers crossed folks)

I have a husband to support whilst he is struggling with something important just now

I have spent a week looking for a new car after the head gasket went on ours - got one thank god

I have articles and stories to write (and get paid for whoo hoooo)

I have dinner to cook

I have the school run to do

I have children to raise

I have the shopping cooking cleaning washing to do

I have listening to do

I have my mum and dad arriving soon so I have to clean the oven amongst other things that only get done when my mum is coming

I have to go into school to teach the kids about medieval scotland

I have coffee to have with lovely wonderful and positive people.

And so I have no time for aggression, negativity and curmudgeonly behaviour - my own as well as that of others It was making me grumpy and irritated. I will only reply to stuff I have the time and the inclination for. I might reply to stuff that is directed at me personally but Im not going to promise because I have no intention of losing myself any more in these endless threads.

Glad you're back though.

Corrie 3
01-Oct-12, 21:56
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh John is back - hello John :) Glad to see you!

Too many threads with too many questions to answer - you can lose all day in these threads - mired in negativity and confrontation - and so I am avoiding lengthy answers - I nearly replied to Weezers the other day and then I decided to take my daughter to the park instead - it was much more fun.

These are some of the other things I have been doing

I have a medieval banquet to organise

I have a job interview to prep for ( keep your fingers crossed folks)

I have a husband to support whilst he is struggling with something important just now

I have spent a week looking for a new car after the head gasket went on ours - got one thank god

I have articles and stories to write (and get paid for whoo hoooo)

I have dinner to cook

I have the school run to do

I have children to raise

I have the shopping cooking cleaning washing to do

I have listening to do

I have my mum and dad arriving soon so I have to clean the oven amongst other things that only get done when my mum is coming

I have to go into school to teach the kids about medieval scotland

I have coffee to have with lovely wonderful and positive people.

And so I have no time for aggression, negativity and curmudgeonly behaviour - my own as well as that of others It was making me grumpy and irritated. I will only reply to stuff I have the time and the inclination for. I might reply to stuff that is directed at me personally but Im not going to promise because I have no intention of losing myself any more in these endless threads.

Glad you're back though.
Mornings are quite busy for you then Squidge? How do you fill the rest of your day?

C3.........(Gets tin hat on)!!! Lol.

squidge
01-Oct-12, 21:58
Lol Corrie

Afternoons are for knitting and learning to crochet Corrie - socks, scarves and blankets for Christmas presents.

John Little
01-Oct-12, 22:02
Thank you for the welcome back; an Org break was necessary for me - we all have busy lives as you so ably demonstrate.

I am glad that you are so busy and even more so that you get paid for your writing - I wish that I did- but what I am writing is unlikely to pay anything- I'll be happy as Larry if someone prints it. We shall see.

But I'm glad you cue me in to clear my mind of a few thoughts before, being old, I go to bed and soon.



The SNP, it appears, is an exclusive outfit because if you live in the UK, but not in Scotland, the policy of breaking up the UK is none of your business.

They are quite happy to tell you so.

It is a matter purely for “Scots” – that is to say Scots as defined by the SNP, which is all and sundry who happen to live there- Martians included and funnily enough, English.

If you are Scots by blood, birth, descent and 100 generations and do not live there, then tough luck.- you also do not get a say in the breaking of Britain.

What this means, in effect, is that the SNP is a Residents’ Association rather than a party- a superior one though – the sort found on a nice estate. Its members seek to improve their neighbourhood.

Another organisation it may be compared to is a trades union.

Trades unions are open to all and voting rights within them are defined ; in this case the voters are the residents of Scotland of all races, creeds, beliefs and origins. They exist, not to promote the good of all society, but of their members and on their behalf they are prepared to employ a number of techniques- in propaganda, politics, economics etc, but like all Guild Socialists they gain at the expense of someone. In this case the country commonly referred to as ‘Britain’.

The trade is ‘being a Scot’. Anyone of any nationality can become a Scot by moving there and staying long enough to go on the voter register.

It has one defining ideological tenet – which is Independence from the UK, although, in keeping with the rest of its shifting principles, it seems prepared to accept devo-max instead. They purport then, to be a single-interest party, but are prepared to compromise on that as well.

Once independence is achieved, then the SNP will, according to some of its members, break up into its constituent groups and form different parties.

As to what happens after Independence, a delightfully rose-tinted fluffy cloud of semi promises, good intentions and earnest hopes seems to be the order of the day.

Well here’s a fine set of premises on which to base the break-up of this great nation.

Sweet dreams.

Rheghead
01-Oct-12, 22:56
I have dinner to cook

I have the school run to do

I have children to raise

I have the shopping cooking cleaning washing to do
.

I think you need to prioritise.

squidge
01-Oct-12, 22:58
I think you need to prioritise.

You'll notice sleep isnt in there either - maybe just maybe its in no particular order lol......

John Little
02-Oct-12, 19:46
Well Squidge - here's a few more musings;

I really am grateful to Fidelis for implying that the upcoming referendum on Independence was not my affair, because it concentrated my mind wonderfully.

Because I am English – is it my affair?

That’s probably the knee jerk reaction of many English people to the news that ‘the Scots’ are going to have a referendum on Independence.

But it got me to thinking – Why might it be my affair?

Why don’t I just butt out and leave “the Scots” to sort it out? Why argue at all, let alone on this forum?


Then it struck me that actually the SNP have set all the terms of reference so far and the definitions of what is actually happening are their definitions.

So when is a referendum on Scottish independence not a referendum on Scottish independence?

Answer; - when it’s ‘Scottish’ only within one definition, and when it’s really about the break-up of the United Kingdom.


I was chided the other day for referring to the ‘Scottish Nationalist Party’ when it’s actually the Scottish National Party. That missing ‘ist’ is very very very important.

You see if the ‘ist’ was in there, then it would be a party for Scots and would have all sorts of nasty right wing connotations. But without the ‘ist’ it can be a party for everyone who lives in Scotland, no matter from where.

So a notional Mr Tadeusz Mazursky from Crakow, EU citizen, with the right to vote in the UK, resident in Scotland and on the voting register, can cast a vote for ‘Scottish Independence’, which is really a vote to destroy the United Kingdom.

And I can’t.

Citizen of the UK, subject of HM Queen, genetically Celtic, born here, lived in 3 of the 4 nations – and I don’t get a say in the break up of the UK.

It’s not my affair.

Funny old world.

But the biggest and most cynical laugh of all must be reserved for the plight of the expatriate and ethnic Scots. There’s this chap called Wallace who has a group on Facebook ‘Let Wallace vote this time’. He’s travelling at the moment, and when he gets home he wants to spend a few years in London – and then go back to Scotland. He’d also like a say in the referendum but he can’t.

Because that term of reference has also been set by the SNP – residents only.
(apparently there’s a lot of SNP supporters very uneasy about this, but the leadership won’t budge.) Apparently Mr Wallace can vote in UK elections by postal vote – but not in the referendum; he wants a say in the future of his nation but the SNP has decided not.

Never mind – I’m sure that Mr Mazursky will do right by him.

850,000 expatriate and ethnic Scots don’t really matter – do they?
Why should they get a say in the future of Scotland. They don’t live there.

The people of Scotland (term of reference decided by SNP) will decide; Scots or nots.


You see it ain’t really about ‘Scots’

It’s about numbers.

It does not matter who votes for independence, just so long as they do - not a lot to do with ‘Scots’ at all really.

Not ‘Nationalism’ but Secession.

In the last 5 years alone 312,000 people have immigrated to Scotland from the EU alone.

I have this crazy scenario in my head where ‘Scots’ are split down the middle over independence and the United Kingdom breaks up because of the votes of people not born there.

Couldn’t happen – could it?

And if it did – would it be right?



The best thing I have ever seen on this was Rob Murray’s ideas on devo-max to the regions.

I’d go for that because I get to stay British – but England gets to have its own parliament too, and the UK should be run by a council for the UK with the four nations contributing proportionately.

golach
02-Oct-12, 22:10
What is the SNP? A laughing stock the world over, Eck gets booed at the Ryder Cup, where next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFouF8z360&feature=share

squidge
02-Oct-12, 23:51
Well Squidge - here's a few more musings;

I really am grateful to Fidelis for implying that the upcoming referendum on Independence was not my affair, because it concentrated my mind wonderfully.

Because I am English – is it my affair?

That’s probably the knee jerk reaction of many English people to the news that ‘the Scots’ are going to have a referendum on Independence.

But it got me to thinking – Why might it be my affair?

Why don’t I just butt out and leave “the Scots” to sort it out? Why argue at all, let alone on this forum?


Then it struck me that actually the SNP have set all the terms of reference so far and the definitions of what is actually happening are their definitions.

So when is a referendum on Scottish independence not a referendum on Scottish independence?

Answer; - when it’s ‘Scottish’ only within one definition, and when it’s really about the break-up of the United Kingdom.


I was chided the other day for referring to the ‘Scottish Nationalist Party’ when it’s actually the Scottish National Party. That missing ‘ist’ is very very very important.

You see if the ‘ist’ was in there, then it would be a party for Scots and would have all sorts of nasty right wing connotations. But without the ‘ist’ it can be a party for everyone who lives in Scotland, no matter from where.

So a notional Mr Tadeusz Mazursky from Crakow, EU citizen, with the right to vote in the UK, resident in Scotland and on the voting register, can cast a vote for ‘Scottish Independence’, which is really a vote to destroy the United Kingdom.

And I can’t.

Citizen of the UK, subject of HM Queen, genetically Celtic, born here, lived in 3 of the 4 nations – and I don’t get a say in the break up of the UK.

It’s not my affair.

Funny old world.

But the biggest and most cynical laugh of all must be reserved for the plight of the expatriate and ethnic Scots. There’s this chap called Wallace who has a group on Facebook ‘Let Wallace vote this time’. He’s travelling at the moment, and when he gets home he wants to spend a few years in London – and then go back to Scotland. He’d also like a say in the referendum but he can’t.

Because that term of reference has also been set by the SNP – residents only.
(apparently there’s a lot of SNP supporters very uneasy about this, but the leadership won’t budge.) Apparently Mr Wallace can vote in UK elections by postal vote – but not in the referendum; he wants a say in the future of his nation but the SNP has decided not.

Never mind – I’m sure that Mr Mazursky will do right by him.

850,000 expatriate and ethnic Scots don’t really matter – do they?
Why should they get a say in the future of Scotland. They don’t live there.

The people of Scotland (term of reference decided by SNP) will decide; Scots or nots.


You see it ain’t really about ‘Scots’

It’s about numbers.

It does not matter who votes for independence, just so long as they do - not a lot to do with ‘Scots’ at all really.

Not ‘Nationalism’ but Secession.

In the last 5 years alone 312,000 people have immigrated to Scotland from the EU alone.

I have this crazy scenario in my head where ‘Scots’ are split down the middle over independence and the United Kingdom breaks up because of the votes of people not born there.

Couldn’t happen – could it?

And if it did – would it be right?



The best thing I have ever seen on this was Rob Murray’s ideas on devo-max to the regions.

I’d go for that because I get to stay British – but England gets to have its own parliament too, and the UK should be run by a council for the UK with the four nations contributing proportionately.

Ok Ok OK Ill bite - but only cos I am doing a shift tonight and its mega quiet and I have nothing more interesting to do.

I am English too John, but I live here and therefore I have the RIGHT to vote on this issue. Does it matter whether I was born here? Here is where my life is, where my home is, my work, here is the society and community that I contribute towards, my children are educated here, I do voluntary work here, I pay my taxes here, the people that I love are here and the issues that impact on my life and that of those around me are here. If all these things apply, does it matter if I was born here, in poland, in uzbekistan, or china or syria or australia or canada or wherever? The SNP said at the start of all this that the decision was for the people of Scotland - not for ethnic scots but for those people living here - making their lives here and this has been upheld by the UK government.

In January 2012, Labour MSP [/URL]Elaine Murray apparently led a debate arguing that the opportunity to vote should be extended to Scots living outside Scotland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Murray) This was opposed by the Scottish Government, who argued that it would be too complex said that evidence from the UNited Nations Human rights committee showed that a referendum not based on residence would be queried by other nations. In the House of Lords, Baroness Symons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#cite_note-extended_vote-28)argued that the rest of the United Kingdom should be allowed to vote on Scottish independence, on the grounds that it would affect the whole country. This argument was rejected by the UK government, with Jim Wallace pointing to the fact that only two of 11 referenda since 1973 had been across all of the United Kingdom.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#cite_note-extended_vote-28"]

The expat Scot has made their choice about where to build their life just like I have. I no longer live in Manchester - why would I have expected to vote in the referendum about whether they should have a mayor? Why would I have expected to vote in the referndum about congestion charging. I am interested in what goes on there - I have an opinion but I dont live there and so I dont have the RIGHT to influence what happens in Manchester. Interestingly the rules are the same I think throughout the UK.... they are not peculiar to Scotland -For anyone living abroad, the current rules stipulate that if you had been registered to vote in the UK in the previous 15 years you can make an annual declaration allowing you to remain on the electoral register in the constituency where you were last registered while living in the UK.

Once registered, you can vote at any UK parliamentary (general election) or European parliament election which occurs while you are on the register.

However, you cannot vote in local government elections or in elections associated with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So my parents who lived in Manchester for fifty years cannot vote in local government elections or local or regional referendums either. This isnt just an SNP policy - it is the policy of the UK.... the LAW in fact. I know it is always better if we can decry the policies of our enemies as something underhand but unfortunately this isnt the case with this particular issue.

Mr Wallace and you for that matter John, can vote in the scottish referendum but you would have to move house - to live here. That is just that - the law the rules and the cut off point. Full Stop.

As for your assertion that it doesnt matter who votes for independence well - it obviously does - it matters that those people who live here and who do all the things I mentioned above - like work, contribute and commit to Scotland as their home get the chance to vote. That is precisely why your Mr Mazursky and my friends Marta and Anya get to vote because their commitment to The place they call home - here - gives them that right. You would be the first to shout from the rooftops if they said that only ethnic Scots can vote and so would I. That isnt the sort of politics I want to play. IT is RIGHT that Mr Mazursky and I CAN vote and Mr Wallace and YOU cannot. Thats it.

As for Devo Max well John - dont hold your breath. The Westminster government has said absolutely no vote on Devo max regardless of what the consultation shows and if there is a NO vote for independence there was recently a news item saying that - I think Alistair Darling said - there will be no further powers for Scotland and if there are none for Scotland then there are none for england either.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 09:21
Thank you for a good long reply. My response need not be long, which I do not doubt will cause thanks in many hearts.

You have made it pellucidly clear that being Scots is almost an irrelevance in this vote. In 2014 will be a referendum which may result in the destruction of the UK. Marta and Anya get a vote in that.

I don't.

This tars the SNP as no Nationalists but certainly as secessionist.

You seem to expect the British to accept this, all sweetness and light. Well I may have to accept it, but I do assure you that if you break up the country I was born and bred in, and i am told its not my affair,then my feelings will be less than charitable.

Have a nice day.

squidge
03-Oct-12, 10:19
I dont expect you to accept it John and certainly not with all sweetness and light ..... I expect and hope that we will see many coherent and challenging arguments both for and against an independent Scotland. The Better Together campaign has failed in that spectacularly and I hope absolutely that this improves - you speak as though the referendum is won - it isnt. There are two whole years. You have a voice regardless of whether you have a vote - lets see you use it to make respectful and thoughtful arguments FOR the continuation of the union which dont include

pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
pro independence supporters are sheep following their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above)
That solely comprise of ridiculing the leaders of the indpendence campaign
That suggests that pro indy supporters need to be silenced and to be shipped off to faraway places where they wont be trouble.
That an independent Scotland is too wee too stupid and too poor and so that makes the idea of an independent Scotland absurd.

All these appear regularly here and elsewhere and add NOTHING to the debate. This is just propoganda that has been around since the year dot in various guises and is as effective now as it ever was - that is not at all.

Being Scots is not an irrelevance many people who are Scots ( although I am not sure about the definition) believe in their hearts that Scotland should and must be independent. Many people are nationalists of the heart and soul and mind and would take independence at any price. You sneer at those who want an Independent Scotland for a better country and society as "seccessionists" As though it is a somehow less noble reason than a true "nationalist" who wants it because it is Scotland and they BELIEVE in an independent Scotland with their whole heart and would have it tomorrow. And yet others sneer at those people as "braveheart watching tartan clad shortbread tin" nationalists. The truth is that people have different reasons for wanting independence like people have different reasons for watning to remain within the union. Damned if you do and damned if you dont.... but god forbid that you or anyone else should accept that people are actually THINKING about this and making DECISIONS and asking QUESTIONS which are helping them make their mind up.

There is everything to play for John and using words is your tool of choice as is mine. Lets hear it - huff about not getting a vote but neither you not I will change that so lets talk about the things that matter.

ducati
03-Oct-12, 11:02
You can't dismiss the main argument that the Scottish economy is too small.

It's easy to analyse. Just check how many large companies would be listed on a Scottish Stock Market and how much reliance would be on foreign companies.

Yes they employ local people. Yes they pay local taxes. But at the end of the day the revenue generated by the business's goes away and doesn't contribute to the economy.

Look at the headline growth area, renewables. How many Scottish companies are manufacturing the equipment for Wind energy? How many Tidal and Wave energy companies are manufacturing anything?

How many oil and gas support companies are actually local?

This is all very worrying because in a global economy (like it or not) these employers will go where they can make the most profit and this changes all the time.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 11:43
@ Squidge

"pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
pro independence supporters are sheep following their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above)
That solely comprise of ridiculing the leaders of the indpendence campaign
That suggests that pro indy supporters need to be silenced and to be shipped off to faraway places where they wont be trouble.
That an independent Scotland is too wee too stupid and too poor and so that makes the idea of an independent Scotland absurd."

I have done and said none of the above. And Propaganda is something which cuts both ways. I think the SNP is all about propaganda and froth with little substance.

But I do think you are missing the point.


If this WERE a Scots movement - the Bravehearts as you call them, and they voted for independence, then I would have no objection at all. That would be the legitimate expression of nationhood.

But by your own admission it is NOT a Scots movement.

It's a Resident's movement.

Indeed hundreds of thousands of Scots will be barred from voting.


So by your logic, all we have to do in order to decide the vote is to do what they used to do in the old days of Rotten Boroughs and ship in a few hundred thousand mixed migrants from all over the world, cue them to vote one way or another, and bob's your uncle - end of UK.

A rag tag and bobtail mixture originating of many nations may break up the UK and most of the UK gets no say.
How ironic is that?

Take the "Nationalist" or the Bravehearts out of your equation - and what are you left with?
Economic arguments and aspirations for a 'better deal'.
Something shared by all of us.

Look at your last post and substitute 'Lancashire' for Scotland and tell me it does not fit.


The fact is that the whole thing is a con. Try it in Lancashire and you'd get nowhere.

But Scotland has a history and its own structures of state where a secessionist party can pose as a nationalist party and a motley alliance of Scots, proper old style nationalists and 'new Scots' from all over the world can break up a 300 year old union with a great history, fine achievements and standing - and get away with it because of a historical anomaly.

The state of our union should have been sorted by our forefathers and mothers. There have been plenty of Scots in positions of power in this union.

It still can be.

Corrie 3
03-Oct-12, 12:10
If the boot was on the other foot and it was England that wanted to leave the Union would we as Scots living over the Border get a vote? I think not because if we did the English Govt would have to go Worldwide and give all English by birth a chance to vote which would be impossible.
Also, going Independent is looking to the future and the future of Scotland is down to the people who live here and who have chose to make it their home. Not someone who left years ago and have little chance of returning!
As for us all being thick and like sheep well we get used to that, it usually rears it's head when the pro-unionists have run out of reasonable argument!!

C3.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 12:18
Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?

Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?

You getting paranoid or something?


If the boot was on the other foot then I would expect and insist that the English government (if it ever exists) would give the vote to everyone registered to vote. It's done in general elections by post - can it be done by the internet?

As to your discounting the 850,000 expatriates - I will not speak for them. There's a few who look in here occasionally so they can do that for themselves.

My personal opinion is that the disenfranchising of such a significant proportion of the population on such a great matter is scandalous and shameful. (a thought shared by some SNP members on Mr Wallace's FB page)

Fidelis
03-Oct-12, 12:18
What is the SNP? A laughing stock the world over, Eck gets booed at the Ryder Cup, where next?

hWttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFouF8z360&feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFouF8z360&feature=share)
Well, another "patriotic" Scot putting down the SNP, sad really, but I suppose every country has its proportion of similar citizens, who dont know their history or their economics or their international relations! I suppose you prefer the dream team of Joanne Lamont and Eric Milliband!

John Little
03-Oct-12, 12:20
Well, another "patriotic" Scot putting down the SNP, sad really, but I suppose every country has its proportion of similar citizens, who dont know their history or their economics or their international relations! I suppose you prefer the dream team of Joanne Lamont and Eric Milliband!

Please give us a lesson in History, Economics and International Relations.

I can't wait.



PS - who's Eric Milliband?

Corrie 3
03-Oct-12, 12:49
Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?

Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?

You getting paranoid or something?



Sorry John, it's not you making those insults but if you look carefully there has been quite a few recently...It really doesn't help either side when name calling comes into it!!
My apologies if you thought it was you who had been giving out said insults!!
C3..

Oddquine
03-Oct-12, 12:51
Thank you for a good long reply. My response need not be long, which I do not doubt will cause thanks in many hearts.

You have made it pellucidly clear that being Scots is almost an irrelevance in this vote. In 2014 will be a referendum which may result in the destruction of the UK. Marta and Anya get a vote in that.

I don't.

This tars the SNP as no Nationalists but certainly as secessionist.

You seem to expect the British to accept this, all sweetness and light. Well I may have to accept it, but I do assure you that if you break up the country I was born and bred in, and i am told its not my affair,then my feelings will be less than charitable.

Have a nice day.

Which part of the voting parameters/rules etc in the UK..all parts of the UK... is a function reserved to the UK Parliament do you not quite understand, out of interest? Did you not grasp that fact of UK politics during all these months in which the UK Parliament has been telling the Scottish Government that it has to have its permission to hold a referendum, and without that permission from the UK Parliament, it would simply be a consultative referendum and ignorable, not binding (if they could hold any kind of referendum at all which was also being disputed)?

I appreciate you appear to have a blind hatred for the Scottish National Party for some strange reason, but does it not seem at all illogical, even irrational, of you to blame the SNP for being bound by rules laid down by the UK Parliament.

If you think about it logically....a consultative referendum would, in the scheme of keeping the Union, have been the most sensible option if the UK Government actually wanted the Union to continue. A consultative referendum could have offered all options.....the Status Quo, Independence and Devo-Max....and it is clear that the majority, even now, would vote for Devo-Max (ie a Federal system) which would have solved the West Lothian Question for the voter in England into the bargain. The majority in Scotland at the moment wants political change within the Union...not Independence, the minority want to keep the Status Quo.

However, as squidge has said As for Devo Max well John - dont hold your breath. The Westminster government has said absolutely no vote on Devo max regardless of what the consultation shows and if there is a NO vote for independence there was recently a news item saying that - I think Alistair Darling said - there will be no further powers for Scotland and if there are none for Scotland then there are none for england either.

And it is this fact which makes one wonder if the UK Government does want to preserve the Union in any shape other than the current one which gives them complete economic control of everything. It does not seem to be the case that they do...so it would appear it is the control which is important to them, not the Union per se. It would be so easy for the UK Government to relinquish control and keep the Union, but they prefer to have a stand-up fight to hold on to the control with the possibility that it will lead to the end of the Union. And it will eventually...if not this time, then next time...because there will be a next time..and it won't take a generation to arrive.

If you read, although I don't suppose you do, pro-independence websites and facebook pages, you will see slowly growing numbers saying that while they would prefer Devo-Max, if that is not an option on the table, they will vote for Independence because no meaningful change in the UK political system is not an option they can accept..so with two years to go there is still a lot to play for.

Does the UK Government really want to keep Scotland in the Union.....because if so, the decades of trying (and failing) to puncture the wheels on the Scottish Independence bus has taught them nothing.....while it has taught those of us on the bus that UK Government promises mean nothing and tinkering around the outside edges of devolution accomplishes nothing.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 13:26
@ Oddquine

I have noticed over many years that if one dares to analyse or criticise the policies of the Israeli government, then they react by demonising their critic as 'anti-semitic'.

I must assume that my 'blind hatred' of the SNP is a similar attempt by you to demonise me because you do not like what I have been saying about the SNP. My 'blind hatred' of the SNP is actually called by most normal people 'opposition'.

I do not agree with them.

My reasons for not agreeing with them and the thought processes behind those reasons are set out in this thread, and it's a sort of ongoing process because my position has shifted greatly in this last year.

I am perfectly aware of the nature of the constitutional debate over the nature of the referendum - you seem not to be aware that any referendum, binding or not, if it had a majority for independence, would be politically irresistible.


As to the UK government- I do not agree with them either. They are a bunch of bungling incompetents, which is hardly surprising since our Prime Minister and Chancellor both never held office in any form before taking on the jobs they are doing.

I think they are a bunch of chancers, making it up as they go along, out of touch, and with the wrong social priorities.
Which is why I'll vote against them.

But just because I don;'t like them does not mean that I will head back up to Cumbria and set up a movement to secede from the Union on the grounds that the expressed wish of Cumbrian residents is to have their own government in Carlisle.

I do actually look at some pro-Independence sites and I've seen a lot of bile which balances out quite well with the rational stuff.

The most rational thing I have read about this whole issue was Rob Murray's thoughts on devo-max.

Whilst I wholly agree that the constitution of the UK needs wholesale revision, I do not take seriously your idea that the UK government wants to see the breakup of the Union. I don't think Cameron has woken up to the danger - or is not taking it seriously enough.

If the SNP wants independence after 2014 then I think it will be disappointed, going by present polls. If the SNP uses its present position to reform the UK then they do us all a favour.

If you don't like what I have said about the nature and aspirations of the SNP - then please feel free to refute anything I have said.

squidge
03-Oct-12, 14:57
Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?

Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?

You getting paranoid or something?




you people? And what might "you people" mean? i am sorry if you thought I was saying that YOU had made these comments. I was saying that the pro union debate seems to largely consist of these types of argument and that you are able to do so much more - and we need so much more. We need a robust and articulate defence of the union which doesnt consist of the stuff i quoted if we are to have an informed decision. I am sure that you can do that John.

AS for the SNP I dont speak for them - I am not a member, i have voted for them in the past but I am not particularly tied to voting for them in the future. I will vote for the party which I believe offers the best option for Scotland and tackles the issues that are close to my heart.

The voting rights of the people of the UK are what they are - I have no chance of changing them and neither do you. Time to move on I think.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 15:13
'You people' are the people who bring the idea onto this thread that the SNP are under attack on the grounds that you state.

Bringing them onto this thread could 'taint' it with arguments and ideas which have not actually appeared on this thread.

So I wonder at the motive or the logic for bringing them onto this thread.

Was there one?

As to your not being a member of the SNP - you have stated that repeatedly and I think it dissembles somewhat since on here and in other places you are strongly supportive of them.

Your political position as regards social matters is not all that far removed from my own and I regret deeply that you feel the need to fence your concerns off into an exclusive enclave and not address them nationally.

Your last sentence is expressive of the negativity on which the SNP's aspirations are founded. The whole thing rests on 'giving up' on the UK. The voting rights of the people of the UK have changed on a number of occasions and no doubt will continue to do so if enough pressure is put on our political leaders.

I sincerely hope that Johann Lamont's members are venting their spleen at her right now. Labour began in Scotland and the dream of a better Britain for all had its genesis in Keir Hardie- he was a nationalist to begin with- but his vision was wide, international and inspiring. Labour needs to re-connect with its soul- and it is possible that they may do so.

Just because you wish to give up does not mean that you have to tear the nation down with your own disappointed hopes.

squidge
03-Oct-12, 17:01
John - I am not giving up - I am only just starting....... If we can improve things in Scotland whether we get independence or not then maybe, just maybe we can influence the rest of the UK. If we secure independence we may do that by the development of new political parties or of existing political parties reafirming their roots which will filter through to the rest of the UK and galvanise the political parties there to change and grow and be better than they are, if we do not secure independence then by shaking the bars and rattling the political establishment maybe we can galvanise the political parties to look more closely at their Raison d'etre and revisit their roots to benefit the people of the UK.

As for tainting the thread, well the thread does not stand in Isolation - The Better Together campaign has been TERRIBLE and the debates online and on this Discussion board have included many of the types of propaganda mentioned. We MUST move away from that type of debate over the next two years if we are to get an informed and sensible argument and people who support the union are currently being badly let down on that score. The debate is there to be debated - the fight to be fought if you like. Only by talking about it - only by respectful and sensible articulate and intelligent debate will we get anywhere.... It was an invitation to discuss things whilst avoiding the points I mentioned John, not an accusation.....

John Little
03-Oct-12, 17:23
Aye - there's a lot of pious aspiration in the SNP but as Weezer points out - and others too - not a lot of substance.

Here's your big problem; I'm taking it that Oddquine is an SNP member;

"3.The SNP don't have to explain anything...what makes you think they have that obligation? Before 2016 and that election, the SNP's vision of how an an independent Scotland will work is no more valid or definitive than mine, or Squidge's or Recquery's....or the opinions of any other pro-independence supporter. The SNP vision is only valid if the SNP are in a position to implement it...and there are no guarantees of that..so there is no requirement to produce a costed manifesto four years ahead..particularly when we don't know our financial situation. We can probably assume that the precedents in International Law, if they exist, will prevail if negotiations break down...but negotiations and a mutually agreed outcome would be by far the best and most sensible option...but we haven't had them yet."


See?

You don't have to explain anything.

The message is surely quite clear. A vote for the SNP is a leap of faith.

So those of a religious mind may feel able to take that leap.

Or perhaps the simple message could be drummed over and over again 'vote SNP or you're not a true Scot'....

I suspect that the hard headed folk of Scotland may need a little more than the above.

Don't you?

squidge
03-Oct-12, 17:54
Of course people will need a little more - but it is important to remember that there are two years to go yet. The SNP is not the only party in Scotland and there are others - it is not "up to the SNP" to decide what Independence is going to look like. They will need to give their options and opinions and no doubt other parties will do so as well. There is a conference for Labour voters for independence soon and that might just see us start to get answers from Labour. We have the SDA and the Green party whose manifesto's will develop and offer a different view.

We have the chance to influence these policies by talking about and debating the issues and that is what we need to do.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 19:31
You know - that document that Weezer has linked on the other thread is dynamite. I recommend you to read it.

squidge
03-Oct-12, 19:44
I have done John. I read it earlier this year and I read it a few weeks ago and I have looked at it again tonight. It raises several pertinent and interesting questions but it leaves unanswered some too.

Oil is not the answer to the economy in an independent Scotland and you KNOW that I dont think it is. Let me clarify my thoughts for you

" If you read the reports, there is between 1 day and a million years’ worth of oil sitting beneath the North Sea. Some would almost have us believe that the oil will run out the day after Scotland becomes Independent, plunging Scotland into an economic decline which will see us all homeless and toothless, queuing for bread and burning our furniture to keep warm. I know the oil will run out. I am sure that all those people who are cleverer than me know it too. What I don’t understand, is why people think that the economy will stand still, that industry will not change. If we look at industry over the last fifty years then we can see that there is little resemblance between today’s industrial landscape and that of our fathers or grandfathers. The opening ceremony of the Olympics highlighted some of the many changes and so we can expect and indeed, we should strive to change the landscape over the next fifty years. Whether it is renewables, or another digital or scientific revolution or a return to heavier industry, an Independent Scotland can work to ensure that we are prepared for the demise of the oil industry so that well before it runs out Scotland no longer needs oil."

John Little
03-Oct-12, 19:49
Well fine. No use of oil. No use of coal. Increasingly globalised markets. Best of British luck. You're going to need it.

squidge
03-Oct-12, 19:58
Well fine???????

Thats the response I get from my 17 year old when I dont say the things HE wants. You know what - I have better things to do than entertain grown up teenagers - you 'll be saying yeah yeah yeah whatever next. :roll:

Off to do something worthwhile.......

John Little
03-Oct-12, 20:04
Well fine??????? Thats the response I get from my 17 year old when I dont say the things HE wants. You know what - I have better things to do than entertain grown up teenagers - you 'll be saying yeah yeah yeah whatever next. :roll:Off to do something worthwhile.......

There is little else to be said.

There's none so blind as them that don't want to see.

You won't see.

What else is there to say?


Btw - what was that you said about calling people names?

Corrie 3
03-Oct-12, 20:14
Well fine. No use of oil. No use of coal. Increasingly globalised markets. Best of British luck. You're going to need it.
Tut tut John..........When the oil runs out it will run out for the UK, coal is all but finished in the UK now thanks to Maggie, the Unions,the Greens and the high price of having to import it. And dont forget, gas will be running out for the Uk before very long so it's not only Scotland that needs your best of British luck is it?

C3.

John Little
03-Oct-12, 20:19
Did I say it was?

John Little
03-Oct-12, 20:25
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/gas-fired-power-stations-uk

http://www.ukcoal.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18611647

None of those allowed in SNP Scotland...

No nuclear either.


Going to build a new industrial base on wind and wave?

weezer 316
03-Oct-12, 23:01
Tut tut John..........When the oil runs out it will run out for the UK, coal is all but finished in the UK now thanks to Maggie, the Unions,the Greens and the high price of having to import it. And dont forget, gas will be running out for the Uk before very long so it's not only Scotland that needs your best of British luck is it?

C3.

Maggie and the unions...........working together where they!!

It just couldnt be that we couldnt subsidies loss maknig pits any more could it? it couldnt be that could it? She did it for the crack clearly.....

Mindnumbing.....

Forget about Thatcher. Her name doenst resonate with people our age as looking back it pretty clear something drastic needed done or Britain was finished. I would put your energies into trying to convince they tin hat mob the tories have taken their benefits and now they are after their thoughts....and fat eck can save you by building wind farms to interfere with the signal.

ducati
04-Oct-12, 07:49
The main change in industrial Scotland over the last 30 years is all the industry has been bought and sold to foreign interests.

Anyone notice that when a professor of this or that is trotted out to try to explain the latest innovation being worked on at this or that University in Scotland, they are always Dutch, Norwegien, Italian, Spanish, Canadian.............

Just an observation, I don't know what it means.

secrets in symmetry
04-Oct-12, 08:10
@ Squidge

"pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
pro independence supporters are sheep following their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above).
I might not have put it quite so bluntly as she did, but the evidence from their posts on this forum would certainly support those claims - especially since these were evidently their own words lol.

John Little
04-Oct-12, 11:22
Before this little discussion shambles off into the hell of sullen silence I am going to take the liberty of elaborating some of what Weezer has already pointed out.

The government bases its shifts in policy on advice it gets from various sources. These sources come in a number of forms – Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Commissions and Civil Service Commissions are the main ones. If a minister wishes to make a decision then he/she needs state of the art information and instructs a civil servant to prepare a briefing document after consultation with appropriate experts and authorities.

Weezer has provided a link to such a document.

Sometimes they are wrong – as in the information given to the Transport Minister over rail franchising- but that mistake was over forecasting. Weezer’s link is not about forecasting but about what has happened already.

Such mistakes are as rare as hen’s teeth in practice because the civil servant who makes them suddenly finds that their career is finished.

Which means that the overwhelming probability is that the information in Weezer’s link is accurate.

I take the liberty of reproducing the last part of it here;


“Oil fund
An oil fund works on the basis that all oil revenues are paid into the fund and only interest gained is taken out. If this same approach to an oil fund had been in place in Scotland since North Sea oil was discovered then there would have been a fiscal deficit every year – totalling almost £150bn over the last 27 years. If instead oil revenue was paid into an oil fund only once the budget was balanced then there would only have been nine years when any money would have been paid into a fund, and since 1989-90 there would have been 18 years when even with oil revenues being used to support Scotland’s public finances there would still have been a fiscal deficit.
Oil revenues can be used only once, you can’t spend them to offset an expenditure black hole and invest them in an oil fund at the same time.

Conclusion
− North Sea oil revenues are volatile and difficult to forecast because of movements in the price of oil, production levels and costs as shown in the data presented and the evidence from the Commission on Scottish Devolution report.
− Oil production from the North Sea is declining − Scottish fiscal balance has never been in surplus without oil revenues, and
has been in surplus for only 9 years even when all oil revenues are allocated to Scotland
Scotland has seen a public sector deficit in every year since 1980-81 when no direct share of oil revenues is allocated.
Even with all oil revenues allocated to Scotland there would have been only nine years out of twenty-seven where there would have been a surplus, none of them since 1988-89.
With all oil revenues accruing to Scotland there would still have been a cumulative net deficit of around £20bn over twenty-seven years.
Oil is a diminishing resource. Production has fallen year on year since 1999 (bar 2007, when the large Buzzard Field started production), and is currently declining at around five per cent per annum.
The price of oil is exceptionally volatile. It has fallen to a value today of less than half of what it was a year ago.
Since 2002-03 total Exchequer revenues from taxes on profits from oil and gas production have year on year fallen by 16%, increased by 21%, increased by 82%, fallen by 3%, fallen by 14%, and increased by 66% - and have over this time variously made up around a sixth to a third of the total Scottish budget. This would make forward budgeting extremely difficult for an independent Scotland.”

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%20and%20Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf

All of which exposes the SNPs position as rather airy posturing. Something to be glazed over because it is inconvenient.

There is an ice-berg ahead and the Captain has just ordered full steam ahead.

In reality Weezer has shot their fantasy straight through the head – stone dead.



But will they notice?