View Full Version : Politics.... Any chance of a rethink?
oodyourdabe
18-Jun-14, 01:52
Just starting a thread here because I am sick to death of the discussion regarding an Independent Scotland.
In all honesty I think politics is wrong, corrupt and not beneficial in it's current state.
I don't think we should be voting in one party to make decisions for the next 4 years. For a start when I see the debates on the television these days it looks like two kids in a play ground trying to one up each other.
Whether we vote Scotland independent or not it will still be someone making decisions for us when they may not necessarily be deciding what the people want.
Take the Iraq War for example. It was up to Blair and his party and they decided to enter it. It is a war that has accomplished very little for the country of Iraq other than getting rid of a tyrant who has been replaced by various extremist groups who continue to wreak havoc to this day.
When it comes to a decision such as entering into a war I think THAT is what the people should vote. They should hold a vote Yes or No to enter into a war that the entire country votes on instead of leaving it up to a small group of politicians to make this decision for us. End of the day it's our tax money that is being wasted in it.
Ancient Greece had a setup where 400 individuals were picked, similar to jury duty, who were in charge of coming up with policies. When a policy was created the entire country then voted if they wanted this policy to stand or if it should be withdrawn and disregarded.
A lot of people say to me "But that's just the way it is" and I respond with "Does that make it right?"
Religion is something else I think is ruining this country. We have certain religions in this country who do not pay taxes. I don't mind if you want to believe something, but why you should be exempt from taxes I'll never know.
I base my views on facts. People get ill, hungry and need homes. The value of the taxes dodged by religious groups would pay for all three of these many times over and yet groups are allowed to avoid these because they believe something. If I believe that the sky is green and fire doesn't burn....does this make it true? No. Facts tell you that my statements are false. Looking at factual evidence I'd say that most religions are wrong yet if you believe in the stories then fair enough, but why do religious groups avoid taxes?
We have a parliament full of rich people, also avoiding certain taxes, making decisions on bedroom taxes when they have no real experience of how it will affect society as they personally will not be affected.
We have people who can't work, aren't legally allowed to drive due to disability who are provided with disability cars. Where is the logic in this?
Taxpayer's money is spent on adding Gaelic wording to our road signs. Who voted for this? Who decided it? And what is the benefit of this in all reality? To make this town seem more cultural?
Why not have a town/state/country where we are known for the way we treat each other and help each other out? A town where you can be proud to live in.
This country needs a rethink. Whether it be now or in the future I personally think things can not go on this way.
Well then, don't read the 'discussion regarding an independent Scotland'. I enjoy it and so do stacks of other folk, I feel I have real insight into what PEOPLE are thinking without all the rot spouted by the politicians. Embrace this wonderful opportunity to be part of a discussion of something we will never see the like again.
Kevin Milkins
18-Jun-14, 07:36
And what about the Romans, what did they ever do for Britain?
You perhaps haven't seen that Just now the Scottish Government has offered a draft constitution for an Independent Scotland. It is open for you to comment on - for all of us - to indicate what we want as fundamental rights for citizens of a new independent Scotland. So if we want to ensure our politicians can't take us into a war we don't want, the constitution could ensure the we have to have a referendum on any such decision, if we want the right to free higher education to be a fundamental right then we could add that. We can include how we will hold our elected representatives to account, the right to a free NHS, and so on. It's there, make sure you comment on it.
Also over the last couple of years the electoral reform society has held several workshops to discuss the sort of government we might want in an Independent Scotland. Free Events where anybody can go along and participate in discussions and workshops. Check out what they are saying.
If you are fed up of the independence thread and the online stuff then it might be an idea to go along to events for both sides and discuss these issues there. I think you'll find it miles more engaging :)
I'd vote for you oodyourdabe
Just starting a thread here because I am sick to death of the discussion regarding an Independent Scotland.
In all honesty I think politics is wrong, corrupt and not beneficial in it's current state.
I don't think we should be voting in one party to make decisions for the next 4 years. For a start when I see the debates on the television these days it looks like two kids in a play ground trying to one up each other.
Whether we vote Scotland independent or not it will still be someone making decisions for us when they may not necessarily be deciding what the people want.
Take the Iraq War for example. It was up to Blair and his party and they decided to enter it. It is a war that has accomplished very little for the country of Iraq other than getting rid of a tyrant who has been replaced by various extremist groups who continue to wreak havoc to this day.
When it comes to a decision such as entering into a war I think THAT is what the people should vote. They should hold a vote Yes or No to enter into a war that the entire country votes on instead of leaving it up to a small group of politicians to make this decision for us. End of the day it's our tax money that is being wasted in it.
Ancient Greece had a setup where 400 individuals were picked, similar to jury duty, who were in charge of coming up with policies. When a policy was created the entire country then voted if they wanted this policy to stand or if it should be withdrawn and disregarded.
A lot of people say to me "But that's just the way it is" and I respond with "Does that make it right?"
Religion is something else I think is ruining this country. We have certain religions in this country who do not pay taxes. I don't mind if you want to believe something, but why you should be exempt from taxes I'll never know.
I base my views on facts. People get ill, hungry and need homes. The value of the taxes dodged by religious groups would pay for all three of these many times over and yet groups are allowed to avoid these because they believe something. If I believe that the sky is green and fire doesn't burn....does this make it true? No. Facts tell you that my statements are false. Looking at factual evidence I'd say that most religions are wrong yet if you believe in the stories then fair enough, but why do religious groups avoid taxes?
We have a parliament full of rich people, also avoiding certain taxes, making decisions on bedroom taxes when they have no real experience of how it will affect society as they personally will not be affected.
We have people who can't work, aren't legally allowed to drive due to disability who are provided with disability cars. Where is the logic in this?
Taxpayer's money is spent on adding Gaelic wording to our road signs. Who voted for this? Who decided it? And what is the benefit of this in all reality? To make this town seem more cultural?
Why not have a town/state/country where we are known for the way we treat each other and help each other out? A town where you can be proud to live in.
This country needs a rethink. Whether it be now or in the future I personally think things can not go on this way.
Sorry to bring independence into the thread....but much of what you say will never get considered by Westminster, far less changed.....and is part of the reason for the drive to become independent. Change won't happen voluntarily, if left to Westminster....it hasn't in 300+ years and won't in the next 300.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, in fact I have been known on forums and on facebook to say that we should get rid of party politics, and choose governments the way we choose juries, because, after all, whoever is in charge, the civil servants actually do the work to implement the brainfarts of our government..all the MPs do is produce the farts. If we voted governments in for a maximum of a single parliamentary term, there would be no career politicians, because there would be no career...and no entrenched elites running the country like a party fiefdom to meet their own aspirations and not those of the whole population. I'm afraid that I kinda think that people who go to uni, read politics at some level, take a job inside Parliament, as a researcher or the like, until there is an available space in which they can stand as candidates in elections (as it appears mostly happens now) are the very people who should be forbidden to be MPs. People who want a career in politics are the very people who should be told to take a hike. ;)
I agree that there are decisions which should not be taken by any Parliament, whipped/threatened into submission by the party leaders, but by the population as a whole in a referendum...such as the contents of a written constitution and future changes to it, going to war, being in/out of NATO and/or the EU/EFTA, for example.
Unfortunately, people do get used to the way things work, until the way things work no longer work for them as individuals....on the "makes no difference to me" principle. You just have to look at the referendum on the voting system to see that, as, despite the ongoing mutterings in Scotland about unrepresentative Government in Westminster, we voted against changing the system to make it more, if not completely, representative of our votes. I'm not a fan of coalitions, tbh, I'd prefer a decent PR system and minority Governments, as that would mean that no one party could push through their specific agenda, but the largest minority party would have to carry the majority in the Parliament. Real consensus politics.
I agree that there should be no religion entrenched in Government, as is the case in the UK today with C of E bishops having seats by right in the Lords. It isn't just religions who get tax exemptions, though, the likes of educational establishments, care homes and theatres can as well, as long as they register themselves as charities....and from looking at the HMRC website, a good accountant could save them a lot of money as there are various tax/VAT exemptions.
In the great scheme of things, religious groups are less problematic for the UK projected tax take than the likes of big businesses like Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc, who remove billions from the forecast calculations, as opposed to the millions lost because of the charitable status of religions.
You say Why not have a town/state/country where we are known for the way we treat each other and help each other out? A town where you can be proud to live in. That is what we are trying to do, starting with the country....the rest will likely follow. :)
Also worth a read is the new book that is out by the Jimmy Reid Foundation for anyone who is looking for an alternative - titled "Common Weal - All of us first" it gives an interesting view of how we could do things differently for the benefit of everyone - Practical Idealism.
http://allofusfirst.bigcartel.com/product/common-weal-book
http://www.allofusfirst.org/
Importantly this is not a book which provides a case for or against Independence. it is simply a case for a better Scotland whatever the outcome of the referendum is.
northwest
18-Jun-14, 12:31
Whilst I can agree with much of the opening post, I was a little dismayed to see the following
"We have people who can't work, aren't legally allowed to drive due to disability who are provided with disability cars. Where is the logic in this?"
Well I know it is popular given the amount of bashing the disabled have taken, but can you clarify this question, the logic would obviously be that they will in those cases benefit by being carried in the vehicle in order to help lead their daily lives, they are hardly likely to be walking everywhere.
Those with a disability severe enough regarding their mobility get an allowance that can be put towards a car. What does it matter if they can or can't drive, the vehicle doesn't have to be driven by them, so long as it is used for them, so should they not get the help if they are a passenger carried in the vehicle?
Many sick and disabled people have previously held decent responsible jobs, have paid tax and national insurance and fulfilled roles in society the same as anyone who is currently able bodied. Why would you seem to suggest that they shouldn't get help when they become sick / disabled and are no longer able to do so?
What alternatives do you suggest for these people? Perhaps leave them housebound, suffering, stricken by poverty but not in the public eye?
Others are born disabled, again, should they not benefit from help from a civilized society? They have not contributed any financial gain to society through work and tax, is that their fault? I don't believe so, what would you advocate for these people?
There is unfortunately an attitude among people these days to kick out at anyone receiving help, and a liking to perceive it as unnecessary and a drain on society. Those same people may become ill, and even disabled, and it is very likely they will if their situation is bad enough, seek help and take what they can get to help support them. There but for the grace of god go you and I, People just don't see the reality until they are affected by it.
Perhaps you have a different solution? I'd be interested to hear it.
There is unfortunately an attitude among people these days to kick out at anyone receiving help, and a liking to perceive it as unnecessary and a drain on society. Those same people may become ill, and even disabled, and it is very likely they will if their situation is bad enough, seek help and take what they can get to help support them. There but for the grace of god go you and I, People just don't see the reality until they are affected by it.
What I find amusing is that supermarkets for example put loads of disabled spaces right outside the door, but the 'disabled' who park in them seem to be perfectly able to walk what must be a quarter mile or half mile up and down the aisles for ages doing their shopping.
What I find amusing is that supermarkets for example put loads of disabled spaces right outside the door, but the 'disabled' who park in them seem to be perfectly able to walk what must be a quarter mile or half mile up and down the aisles for ages doing their shopping.
Or even more amusing is the clown who is suffering from a disability through a "back injury" which gives him a new car every few years. Strange thing tough as he was seen carrying a huge flat screen TV to his car the other day and loading it into the boot. Not bad for someone who can't walk more than a few steps due to "crippling" pain..... This is the sort of abuse that denies honest people their disability!
northwest
18-Jun-14, 14:49
And there lies the potential issue. Any defense of disabled people seems to be met with the responses I knew the post would draw. The presumption that in many cases it is all a big con, and most cases are simply milking the system. There is an element of this goes on, we all know that, but in truth it is a minority of cases but it is the immediate response that gets dragged out every time.
The post in question asks the logic of providing a car to a disabled person so severely disabled that they can not drive. That has nothing to do with an able bodied person pretending to be disabled.
The only thing I would caution against is judgement of people that can walk who are classed as disabled. The criteria for mobility is the lack of ability to walk a certain distance, without either having to stop or suffering severe discomfort.
So, just because someone manages to walk around a supermarket does not tell you what pain they suffer, nor do you know if the end result will be spending the next day in bed as a result.
The point being it is that judgmental attitude, with a lack of actual knowledge of the facts regarding an individual that leads to the same responses being wheeled out time and again that have nothing to do with the statement actually questioned.
Regarding anyone knowing someone milking the system, if you think that is the case then report them, they do harm the genuine cases so I have nothing against that, but why let the few cloud your view of the majority.
oodyourdabe
18-Jun-14, 14:52
My comment regarding the disability. Allow me to explain.
I refer to two personal experiences. One is a man who can't work due to a shoulder injury who gets a car provided for him every three years.... who also fishes on the lochs unaided. He has mentioned to someone I know that he can't work as he needs to constantly stretch his legs and ease up. Sitting in a boat, hours on end unaided casting away and being unable to work in my opinion is a pure corruption that makes a fool to those who truly are unable to work.
Second example. Someone I know of who has a heart problem. Granted I understand this is a terrible thing to have happen to you and I understand you may not be able to work. But to see this person in Skinandis almost every single week dancing and drinking again shows me that this is yet again another person taking advantage of a system out there to help the unfortunate.
Also with regards to the user "susie" who has advised me not to read the independent pages.... I don't think you understand the point in my post. It isn't to say "I am sick of reading about this" it is to say "I do not believe this country is running as efficiently as it could be"
By not reading the independence pages I am essentially turning my head and being oblivious to what I feel the problem is. That is the reason this country is a mess. We are all stuck in a rut so to speak.
Ask yourself how many people go to work, complain about it and then utter the phrase "Ach at least it's Friday" when it comes to the end of the working week.
As if that's it sorted. It is. But only for two days. Then the next Monday comes and the problems start again. We are happy to say "That's just the way it is" and ignore things thinking this is solving a problem. But taking action is the steps required to sort a problem. susie.
squidge I appreciate your input and would like to say you are bang on with your responses and I will follow them up :)
Thanks to anyone who has responded or even just read this. It's more time that some politicians would give me.
oodyourdabe
18-Jun-14, 14:57
And don't get me wrong. I am not advising that no one should be given a disability car.
But the most hard hitting personal point to me in my comment is the fact that my grandmother suffers from severe arthritis. She is now retired. But cannot even put her ear rings in the morning due to the condition of her hand.
She applied for a disability badge, not a car, but a badge to enable her and her husband to park closer to the shop in order to make it easier were she to carry shopping.
She was denied.
If you feel I am wrong then please respond. But I don't see the logic in the people making these kinds of decisions.
northwest
18-Jun-14, 15:35
Thank you, clear and concise reply with no aim at a wind up, makes a change on these boards :)
Firstly, your grandmother is far from alone in being denied a blue badge, it is often the case that a first application is refused.
She can apply again and I would suggest she does so if she has mobility difficulties. It is often a case of not knowing how to answer the form in regard to the questions asked. For instance the criteria is based on having to stop or suffering severe discomfort over a prescribed distance.
So if your Gran can walk fifty yards say, that is typically what she would say on the form and answer "yes" to the question, and therefor be turned down, if in fact she can't walk fifty yards ( don't quote me on distances please I'm not sure off hand of the exact criteria today) without suffering severe discomfort then it doesn't matter that she can walk the prescribed distance, what matters is she suffers pain while doing so, so the answer would now be "No" and she should get the badge.
I'd suggest looking up the criteria and seeing just how she fits, it can often be a question of knowing how to apply the answers to the questions in the manner the bureaucrats are looking for. There is a lot of help on the internet, and Citizens Advice should be able to help. If she meets the criteria she will get a badge, but only if you know how to fill the forms. A doctors opinion is also often needed. That needs to be a doctor who actually knows her, not just any doctor at the surgery who happens to be filling in forms with no knowledge of the patient, and it does happen.
That is a lot of what is wrong with the system, it is unfair and unclear, unless you research it or get help, this also makes it open to abuse by those who want to play the system. It needs to be clearer, simpler, and based more on medical facts pertaining to an individual for the deserving to actually get the benefit of it, rather than being a system that can be played.
So, if we can agree that a genuine, disabled person should be worthy of the help available, then we are in agreement, it is experiences like your Grans along with the lies of the gutter press that vilifies people in the eyes of a majority.
I Hope your Gran gets her badge, I would also like to think that people won't judge her when they see her using it, sadly I know many will. But to hell with them anyway.
The ones milking the system should be ashamed, but so too should anyone who tars the majority of disabled with the same brush based on a few that play the system.
I think we are actually in some agreement, the system needs changing, I just hope it isn't for the worse.
northwest
18-Jun-14, 16:32
Anyway, all that was regarding one little point of your post. So I'd like to think it won't now detract away from your initial point of the current political system.
Currently people vote in what seems to me what is in their opinion the "best of a bad lot". Or that is the way it is for me. I vote for the party that I feel is most in line with my needs and beliefs. They then go on their way and "rule" the country with no real input from the public, whose next chance to change things democratically will be a general election.
Like or hate the party voted to power we are stuck with them, while they do what they like.
Doesn't actually seem that democratic to me. And the idea of more decision making made at a public level is on the face of it an appealing idea.
So, my concerns are, how do we educate the public to think and vote with their heads regarding the true benefit of the country, instead of being led to vote by propaganda put out by political powers through papers like the daily mail and the rest of its ilk, along with the messages received by the public from TV documentary makers whose only real aim is to get viewing figures through its use of shock / horror / sensationalist storylines.
The danger to me is that of a public incited against another group of people or another country by nothing more than political spin, all then rushing out to make an ill informed vote. That I believe would be the biggest risk and stumbling block of your ideas.
In principle I like the idea of more democracy, more power for the people, but is there a way to implement it without the risks that come with it?
[QUOTE=oodyourdabe;1086190]
Also with regards to the user "susie" who has advised me not to read the independent pages.... I don't think you understand the point in my post. It isn't to say "I am sick of reading about this" it is to say "I do not believe this country is running as efficiently as it could be"
By not reading the independence pages I am essentially turning my head and being oblivious to what I feel the problem is. That is the reason this country is a mess. We are all stuck in a rut so to speak.
Ask yourself how many people go to work, complain about it and then utter the phrase "Ach at least it's Friday" when it comes to the end of the working week.
As if that's it sorted. It is. But only for two days. Then the next Monday comes and the problems start again. We are happy to say "That's just the way it is" and ignore things thinking this is solving a problem. But taking action is the steps required to sort a problem. susie.
You don't know me. I am NOT stuck in any sort of rut at all.
I do not think the UK is in a mess.
I am self-employed, I work hard 365 days a year and I love every minute of it. I don't have a 'Friday ' experience. I appreciate every day that I can get up and do what I do.
I am proud to be British, proud and happy to live in Caithness.
If your point was about whether this country runs efficiently or not, why start off on one subject, swap to another and then finish on something else.
My advice to you makes sense to me at any rate, if you don't like it, don't bother about it. Why would you want to wind yourself up? Take it easy. Look after yourself and your family and enjoy every day. We aren't here for all that long.
orkneycadian
18-Jun-14, 18:26
You perhaps haven't seen that Just now the Scottish Government has offered a draft constitution for an Independent Scotland. It is open for you to comment on - for all of us - to indicate what we want as fundamental rights for citizens of a new independent Scotland.
[lol]
And you really think that the Eck and Nic show would play a blind hoot of notice?
They recently went to consultation on a matter and went against the 87% of respondents wishes.
They also have completely ignored the call for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to have their own independence referendum.
They blanketly assume that everyone in Scotland wants no nuclear deterrent, to be a member of the EU, to want to enter into a "sterling union" with the rUK.
No, I am afraid with the SNP, its their way, or not at all. A sobering thought for anyone thinking of voting Yes.
[lol]
And you really think that the Eck and Nic show would play a blind hoot of notice?
They recently went to consultation on a matter and went against the 87% of respondents wishes. I still dont know what this is about, but at least we - the Scottish Electorate - would be able to vote the SNP out if they dont do what they say - something we are singularly unable to do with the UK government.
They also have completely ignored the call for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to have their own independence referendum.. Oooh have you elected an MSP who stood on a mandate of holding a referendum in Orkney and Shetland? A point that I have raised before I think and which you steadfastly refuse to engage with. The Scottish Referendum was agreed because the Scottish Electorate voted for a majority SNP Government and we all knew that if they got a majority then we would be having a referendum. They didnt get a referendum because of an internet petition. Elect an MP/MSP who offers a referendum on orkney and Shetland becoming independent and Ill back you all the way but in the meantime dont wave a bit of paper around and cry foul. Stand yourself if its that important to you.
They blanketly assume that everyone in Scotland wants no nuclear deterrent, to be a member of the EU, to want to enter into a "sterling union" with the rUK.No, I am afraid with the SNP, its their way, or not at all. A sobering thought for anyone thinking of voting Yes.
They offer that as their plan for independence however. There is a General Election in 2016 - vote for someone else. The tories and it seems the libdems are looking to guarantee a referendum on EU membership, the SDA offer plans to quit the EU altogether. The Tories, Labour and libdems are committed to keeping trident and none of them think a Sterling zone will work so it will be interesting to see what alternative they offer. The Green Party and the SSP also want a scottish currency outwith Sterling. Plenty of options there I think
It is actually, with the SNP that its their way or vote for someone else! Its not like they are putting themselves into power for the next 20 years with no possiblilty of electing anyone else.
:roll:
Edit - ahhh its the air rifle thing -found it. You are right - the SNP did disregard the consultation. The daily record reported that the consultation had been hijacked by gun enthusiasts and lobby groups to the extent that a significant number of the responses were cut out coupons from a gun magazine and around 60% were from outside Scotland. Analysts reported that this meant the consultation could not be said to reflect the views of people living in Scotland who would be affected by the legislation. You can read the whole report and read most of the individual responses to the consultation on the Scottish government website. You can take a look and make your own mind up whether it was right to decide the consultation was not valid.
orkneycadian
18-Jun-14, 23:40
Now, now Squidge, don't fall into the same trap as the SNP in bending the truth....
What the SNP themselves said in relation to the consultation was;
21. While generating considerable opposition to the general principle of regulating air
weapons the consultation was a valuable exercise in highlighting many practical issues and
drawing out concerns around the high-level proposals set out in the consultation paper. While
the Scottish Government was clear that the consultation was not designed to discuss the overall,
and clearly stated principle of introducing licensing for air weapons, it has taken account of all
the views submitted in developing the Bill provisions. In particular, the Scottish Government
welcomed and has built on many of the constructive comments received.
Source = http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Bills/Air%20Weapons%20and%20Licensing%20(Scotland)%20Bil l/b49s4-introd-pm.pdf
The key words here are....
While the Scottish Government was clear that the consultation was not designed to discuss the overall, and clearly stated principle of introducing licensing for air weapons
In other words "We had made up our mind before we even went to consultation, and nothing anybody said in the consultation was going to change it"
Now, remind me again how thats what we know as "democracy"? What they basically say is that the consultation was a waste of time, as they had already decided the principle.
Okayyyyy so, let me get this straight. The Scottish Government were introducing legislation to licence Airguns. This was their intention for several years. They ran a consultation on the form the legislation should take and issues that needed to be addressed when drawing up the legislation but the consultation was never intended and not designed to be about whether or not to have legislation in the first place.
So you are complaining that they ignored issues raised in the consultation that were outside what the consultation was consulting about. Is that right?
Surely your complaint should be that they didn't run a consultation on whether to licence airguns in the first place. Which is a bit of a different issue. If they had done THAT and ignored the results your indignation would make more sense.
Incidentally, I wasn't bending the truth, I simply reported what I found so people could draw their own conclusions. I avoided my own personal view deliberately coz I do not like airguns and do not understand why anyone would want them in their house. I nearly got shot in the face by one many years ago, some damn fool in a town. I'd melt them all down for scrap!
orkneycadian
20-Jun-14, 07:37
On Radio Scotland this morning, I am somewhat stunned to hear that the SNP government are actually discussing reinstating alcohol at football matches. This of course has been banned since 1980. The reason the SNP are discussing this? Was it in their election manifesto? No. Because 62% of people surveyed would like it. The sole reason given by King Alex as to why they are not keen? Police Scotland.
Why is this being treated differently to other matters, including the Northern Isles referendum? Because it significantly affects the Central Belt.
Its getting plainer and plainer, every day, that SNP focus will always be on Central Belt issues, and the fringes, and issues that matter to them, will be swept aside. By the way, I am considering Caithness and Sutherland to be on the fringes as well.
Vote Yes, and this is the kind of Central Belt orientated policies that you will see dominating.
if they ran the poll outside a football ground on match day they could up the percentage to 100 no doubt. The SNP are discussing it, big deal! they are discussing lots of policies and plans but that does not mean it will become fact nor does it say that it will happen. As for central belt orientated policies? they can't be any worse than Westminster orientated policies......
As for the "Norhtern Isles Referendum"...i hear that the isles are seeking to join Norway. Nice way to go with incredibly high taxes, basic food stuffs at 2-3 times the price of the UK, beer around £6 a pint etc etc......your oil money won't last long in Norway.
orkneycadian
20-Jun-14, 17:40
Norway is usually the country that the Yes camp hold up as a shining example of Scotland would be like if we adopted the same oil fund policy as them. Interesting that you are now telling us that we do not want to be like Norway... :confused
In any case, the Northern and Western Isles aspirations are for independence, not to join Norway. We just don't understand how the SNP can be so enthusiastic on one hand, but so insistent that we would be "better together" on the other. But then, that kind of hypocrisy seems quite normal for them, and their supporters.
On the one hand, Squidge tells us that matters are only of relevance if the governement were mandated on them at the election. I have searched the SNP 2011 election manifesto, and it makes no mention at all about re-introducing alcohol at football matches. I do not understand then why it is even being discussed. Squidge tells us that if we, the electorate, want something done, it needs to be in the manifesto of an elected government. Why are these elected muppets even wasting the time of day on discussing it? Because, its a Central Belt issue, and a wee bit swally at the game would go a long way to securing more votes in 2016. It doesnt matter that the rest of us in the country have to foot the policing bill for them to knock the stuffing out of each other on a Saturday afternoon.
I do feel that Central Belt orientated policies will be worse than Westminster. The Central Belt of Scotland is a practically urbanised area, with very little rural area of any significance. I don't really count the field between one housing scheme and the other as rural.... Neither does a "country park" count. The Central Belt dominates Scotland by a long way in terms of percentage of total population. The whole of the south east of England however has a relatively minor percentage of the UK population.
Norway is usually the country that the Yes camp hold up as a shining example of Scotland would be like if we adopted the same oil fund policy as them. Interesting that you are now telling us that we do not want to be like Norway... :confusedIn any case, the Northern and Western Isles aspirations are for independence, not to join Norway. We just don't understand how the SNP can be so enthusiastic on one hand, but so insistent that we would be "better together" on the other. But then, that kind of hypocrisy seems quite normal for them, and their supporters. On the one hand, Squidge tells us that matters are only of relevance if the governement were mandated on them at the election.Nope lol she doesn't. She says mandates at elections are important for securing the right to hold a referendum
I have searched the SNP 2011 election manifesto, and it makes no mention at all about re-introducing alcohol at football matches. I do not understand then why it is even being discussed. I dont see why it needs discussing either. Although discussing it doesn't mean the law will be changed.
Squidge tells us that if we, the electorate, want something done, it needs to be in the manifesto of an elected government. nope. She doesn't, she says that if we want to hold a REFERENDUM, it needs to be the will of the majority of those voting. That gives whoever a mandate to demand a REFERENDUM.
Why are these elected muppets even wasting the time of day on discussing it? Because, its a Central Belt issue, and a wee bit swally at the game would go a long way to securing more votes in 2016. It doesnt matter that the rest of us in the country have to foot the policing bill for them to knock the stuffing out of each other on a Saturday afternoon. I agree with you.
I do feel that Central Belt orientated policies will be worse than Westminster. The Central Belt of Scotland is a practically urbanised area, with very little rural area of any significance. I don't really count the field between one housing scheme and the other as rural.... Neither does a "country park" count. The Central Belt dominates Scotland by a long way in terms of percentage of total population. The whole of the south east of England however has a relatively minor percentage of the UK population.Nope it doesn't. London metropolitan area and South East of England has just under 30% of The UK population. On it's own South East England is the most populated region with over 8 and a half million people that's around 13%. More people live there than live in Scotland Rural Scotland has 2 % of the UK population - that's in both remote and accessible rural areas. In An independent Scotland rural areas account for just under 20% of the population. It is right to say that the Central Belt is dominates Scotland's population with around 70% of people living there but a rural population of 20% is miles harder to ignore than 2%.
orkneycadian
20-Jun-14, 21:39
but a rural population of 20% is miles harder to ignore than 2%.
Oh Squidge, you really are going to have to stop following John Swinneys lead when it comes to manipulating figures....
You can't compare the 2% and the 20%, and say that the 20% is harder to ignore. Thats apples and oranges. What you need to compare is the rural percentage of the UK as a whole, with the rural percentage of Scotland. You can't put in the rural bit of Scotland expressed as a percentage of the UK.
Oh Squidge, you really are going to have to stop following John Swinneys lead when it comes to manipulating figures....You can't compare the 2% and the 20%, and say that the 20% is harder to ignore. Thats apples and oranges. What you need to compare is the rural percentage of the UK as a whole, with the rural percentage of Scotland. You can't put in the rural bit of Scotland expressed as a percentage of the UK.I can if the point I am making is about the influence of the population of Rural Scotland not rural UK. Let's see if I can be a bit clearer for you. The rural population of Scotland stands at about 1 million people. That is around 2% of the UK population. In an Independent Scotland the rural population will amount to 20% of Scotland's population. It will be a bigger proportion of the population , of the electorate if you like. It is much less risky for a government to ignore 2% of the population/electorate than it is for a government to ignore 20% of the population/electorate.
The population of Scotland, independent or not, will be whatever percentage you choose to calculate. You can try and dress your own particular colour of politics up to be the utopia you wish to promulgate to the masses.
But it is still the current version of dirty, bent, troughing politics that we have in the UK.
Support it, break it or remove the mandate. Do not try and spin it that your own version of this political anal rape is somehow better than the next party's version.
They, and you, play the same game.
Ok Phil, YOU calculate it then.
The population figures are what they are. I'm not making them up. The figures are available for everyone to see and to do their own calculations if they don't like mine.
My opinion is that we will have a better chance of influencing policy if we make up 20% of the population of a country rather than 2%. Not sure why that is "spin" rather than simply my opinion and not sure why that opinion justifies your ugly metaphor but hey ho... It's been a crazy day in a crazy week :/
I don't need too. The population of Scotland, and the various areas of, will not change from Scotland to Independent Scotland. I'm not spinning anything.
Ugly metaphor! You really think the current political system across the UK is fine and dandy, and truly working for the electorate?
The electorate that has practically stopped voting because the majority of us know we are only swapping one bent fiddling yahoo with another bent fiddling yahoo, conspiring with other bent fiddling yahoo's to ensure their own survival and profit.
And I can see your reply now, before I've even finished writing this post. And it will be based on the same format, utilising the same political system, that you support for your ideals.
The OP made a very valid opening post about how the country is operated and our (the wider electorate) control in the decision making process. I say again,
support it, break it or remove the mandate.
No Phil I don't think it is working .... That's why I am voting Yes. That's why I took part in the electoral reform society's work on an alternative democracy, that's why I have signposted people to The Common Weal. Quite how any of that makes it wrong to say that at the rural population of Scotland makes up a larger percentage of Scotand's population than it does of the population of the UK is not clear to me. But hey ho.
I never said it was wrong. I'm talking about political spin. :)
Well then I'm glad I'm right ;)
Tangerine-Dream
21-Jun-14, 20:23
Embrace this wonderful opportunity to be part of a discussion of something we will never see the like again.
Thank god for that! The sooner this mind numbing "debate" is over the better.... only three more months of it to endure :eek:
Tangerine-Dream
21-Jun-14, 20:42
Do not try and spin it that your own version of this political anal rape is somehow better than the next party's version.
You are correct...... all politicians are rear end bandits and will stuff you from behind and then claim it was a member of the opposing party that did it. The thing is, none of them are accountable, none of them tell the truth and they are all in it for themselves.
They are all the same and you are voting for "Same".... yes and no are two opposite answers and whoever you vote for it will all be the same and will get progressively worse until we have a revolution and overthrow all of these narcissistic (too ugly to be an actor) mouthpieces.
There should have been three voting options...... YES / NO / YOU'RE BOTH NOT WORTH GETTING OUT OF BED TO VOTE FOR
I know which one I would have got out to bed to vote for ;)
orkneycadian
22-Jun-14, 09:18
It would be much more fun if voting resulted in trapdoors on the platform at the count opening under the feet of ousted candidates, with a pit of highly venemous snakes and crocodiles underneath. That would maybe make them sit up a bit....
webmannie
22-Jun-14, 10:02
It would be much more fun if voting resulted in trapdoors on the platform at the count opening under the feet of ousted candidates, with a pit of highly venemous snakes and crocodiles underneath. That would maybe make them sit up a bit....
i propose that Orkney trials this at the next local election. Ayes to the right, Naes till the pit
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.