Reply With QuoteI am totally with you on this subject I was a Naw voter before the Nats got power , and nothing during the referendum or any thing since have changed my mind, i will be voting Naw for the foreseeable future.Originally Posted by cptdodger
1K.Orger
I have said this before, and got so much abuse thrown at me for it on Facebook, but I knew from 1979, I would always vote no. It had nothing to do with whatever this plan b is, or currency or anything else for that matter. For me is was my Nationality that was being played about with, and I wasn't having it. No amount of speeches, pledges, books or anything else would, or has changed my mind. Political parties such as the SNP, Conservatives come and go, but once my Nationality was gone that would be it. To me, it is non negotiable.
1K.Orger
I am totally with you on this subject I was a Naw voter before the Nats got power , and nothing during the referendum or any thing since have changed my mind, i will be voting Naw for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by golach; 07-Sep-15 at 21:22.
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
.Orger
Ditto.............
1K.Orger
I imagine that in years to come this forum will become a social document and will be studied by students of the ologies to see how it all went wrong or right whatever your ism may be.
Nationalism can be a very destructive force but we all have it and its important to us.
Most people have a personal national identity and that's deeper than other things in our lives. The proofs there in the quotes above.
Carl Rogers was a well known author and psychologist. He studied people and groups and mediated with them to try and find an answer to whatever their deeper conflicts may be. He found the most difficult groups to work with were the Unionists and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland. There was no solution from the outside. It was a deep set ism and don't you dare touch it.
During 30 years of troubles nearly 4000 people were killed because of Nationalism so lets not take our eye off that.
You lot are stoking a fire. I'll call you unionists because that's what you are but your also British Nationalists whether you like it or not. I'm British too. Your national identities at stake but mine isn't. Its understandable your upset .You haven't been challenged for over 300 years. Your going the wrong way about sorting it . Every day for months carpet posting and insults about how bad the SNP are. First thing in the morning last thing at night. I find it disturbing and at times childish.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I find your post very disturbing and vaguely threatening in its tone. It almost suggests that unless everyone allows you to have your preffered choice, despite it having been voted and decided already democratically.
That civil unrest will ensue.
Why else would you mention the troubles and amount who died or stoking fires.
The referendum has been and gone the decision was made yet still those hell bent on Seperation haven't accepted the result and carry on campaigning hurling insults and making veiled threats on social media and calling for another referendum I ask you who is stoking the fires if not yourselves.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 08-Sep-15 at 04:10.
1K.Orger
We live in a depressing age. Sometimes the whole world seems to be on fire.I'm one of the most grateful people around that I live in Britain. I would never down her.
I worry about the recent upsurge of British Nationalism on the internet. Facebooks full of it too. I get it on my fb page courtesy of a fb friend who likes and shares the most offensive anti SNP material. It's pure hatred directed towards the SNP. It has little to do with democracy and more to do with the haters.
Ian Paisley used to use democracy as a shield whilst at the same time stoking the fires of hatred to satisfy his own deep national identity. He came round a bit when he was helped to understand democracy is a 2 way process and those he hated had needs that had to be considered too.
What about you Mr Together? Are you going to carpet bomb the org forever and a day with anti SNP propaganda to satisfy some deep and warped sense of Identity or are you going to consider, like Mr Paisley, that it takes 2 to tango.
.Orger
GleeberGet over it, the referendum was decided by a fairly decent majority.It's all the sour grapes and demands for a second referendum that fuel any fires burning.And frankly thinly veilled threats of the Scottish troubles is moronic.
1K.Orger
You want to see hatred on Facebook? This group appeared a couple of days after the Referendum, aimed purely at No voters. I will post a link to the newspaper report on this group. And before anybody disclaims the newspaper of glorifying it, talking rubbish or whatever else you accuse newspapers of - this is only the half of it, they could not print the rest of what was on this group, I know, because I sat in a Police station for nearly three hours giving a statement.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1..._Army_website/
So gleeber, if you are that concerned about what you have read on Facebook, do something about it, like I did.
Last edited by cptdodger; 08-Sep-15 at 08:06.
1K.Orger
I'm just as concerned about them M/s Dodger as I am about you but I don't get them in my face all day every day on my favourite website.
1K.Orger
Why are you concerned about me ?
1K.Orger
And I don't get them in my face everyday either, that group was removed rather quickly, unfortunately it was pointed out to me by one of my American friends, god only knows what impression the rest of the world had about Scotland after the Referendum. I chose long before the referendum not to go on groups that had anything to do with the Yes or No (to Scottish Independence) votes. The abuse and comments were vile. So, it goes both ways.
1K.Orger
if you have an FB friend who post anti SNP material the answer is simple.........unfriend them.....its only FB not the end of the world. I got rid of a pro snp poster this way, its easy just a click of a button.
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
1K.Orger
I started this thread to illustrate that Jim SIllars, a previously very prominent and influential scottish politician has a new book where he examines the failure of the yes vote and for the first time people will see that alternatives, plan b's were available and accepted by the yes working group. Salmond woudlnt go down this route as I said he thought introducing plan b's late into the yes campaign would "split" the campaign, as it turns out he got it badly wrong. He, for political reasons, with held vital key information on plan b's on currency and the EU which as it turns out blew up in his face. SIllars approach is to get a national debate going, focusing internally initially ie why did the yes campaign really fail, the dismissal of plan b's ( on currency and EU ) played, he suggests, a big part in the failure. The book is more for yes voters and the SNP as a whole, understand why they lost, and stop blaming / running on grievanances, the book also presupposes another vote sometime in the future when the timing is right ( fiscally and economically ) this is backed up by STurgeons 2 terms government plan. ie indy 2 is off the agenda for at least 2 parliaments. It doesnt matter if polls show that yes support is 52% 62% or 72% indy 2 wont happen until the government deliver and the economy has been developed ( particulary post north sea oil price slumps = less tax revenue ), hence sturgeons 2 term plan. ANy future campaign, Sillars argues has to meaningful address the big issues. Of course in doing so there will be a % of people who will always vote no preferring to be part of GB and be British as is their choice, but at least Sillars is attempting to really bottom out why yes failed and to try and change the landscape, ie become less adversarial and more open all round which is a good thing if this comes off. But no matter what, Sillars is an elder stateman, he may not carry enough weight now to influence his party, the choice to really examine the yes failure or not lies soley with the SNP and yes voters.
Last edited by rob murray; 08-Sep-15 at 09:48.
1K.Orger
Below is very interesting...............clearly shows that plan b's were available and dismissed and also Sturgeons take on the yes failure : the Yes campaign’s failure to convince enough people about “the economic ability of Scotland to be an independent country.” Note though that Sillars ( and academic ) claims are rejected by elements of the SNP......
A majority of members on the board that governed last year’s Scottish independence campaign privately supported naming a Plan B currency despite Alex Salmond’s public claims that George Osborne was bluffing over not sharing the pound, a senior nationalist has disclosed. Jim Sillars, the SNP’s former deputy leader, said they eventually decided not to put forward an alternative because they feared it would mean Yes Scotland being portrayed as split on the crucial issue.
But Mr Sillars said he now believed this was the campaign’s biggest mistake following academic research into the Unionist Better Together campaign’s 11-point victory that showed “people didn’t know what kind of money they would use.”
The SNP rejected his claims, made in a new book published to coincide with the referendum’s first anniversary, but his version of events was supported by other members of the Yes Scotland advisory board.
During the campaign Mr Salmond insisted there would be a currency union between a separate Scotland and the remainder of the UK after a Yes vote, and Mr Osborne was bluffing over rejecting any such deal.
He said there were three Plan Bs – the euro, a new Scottish currency and unilaterally adopting the pound in the same way countries like Panama use the US dollar – without specifying his preference.
But Mr Sillars, who is Mr Salmond’s former mentor, said senior Yes Scotland board members wanted to give public backing to creating a new Scottish pound. They included Dennis Canavan, the campaign’s chairman, Colin Fox, the Scottish Socialist Party leader, and Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Greens’ co-leader.
“Without that (proposal), the uncertainty was not removed. At that time, I got in touch with some members of the Yes Scotland advisory board to persuade them that whatever the SNP government said about a currency union, the broader Yes campaign had to have a plan B – our own Scottish currency,” he told the Sunday Times.
“Most of them agreed and at one meeting of the advisory board, there was a majority for an alternative plan B. This fact has never been made public, primarily because that majority was persuaded that to declare for a plan B would be seen as the Yes side being split.”
Salmond has blamed the last-minute Unionist “vow” of more powers for Scotland for the defeat but this was rejected by academic research into the result, which found the impact of the vow was negligible and economic factors were to blame.
In a recent interview, Ms Sturgeon cited the Yes campaign’s failure to convince enough people about “the economic ability of Scotland to be an independent country.” ....hence her toning down indy 2 and focusing on a 2 term parliament to build the scottish economy.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I'd tend to agree with your posts Rob there's no doubt the currency and EU issues where fudged during the referendum with no credible answers along with the NATO issue as well. The other issue is no one doubts Scotland's ability to be a sovereign nation that's probably the easiest part of the whole equation but what sort of country would it be. The economy of 5 million people is nowhere near as strong as the economy of 65 million who just happens to be your largest export market as well, I think had the vote swung them other way many hard and undesirable truths would of come home to roost for Scotland. Simple economics would of prevailed and we would now be a lot poorer for it.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
You seem to have missed one salient point until such time as Scottish Politics returns some semblance of normality with other parties being voted into seats we live in a virtual one party state.
There are no two sides to criticising a ruling government they are either in power or not.
You seem to consider my posts as some kind of anti SNP witch hunt how about looking it as more robust critique of the ruling party.
If it where to be any other party and their failures where as monumental as the present incumbents then I'd be just as vociferous.
You call the current scene depressing but your other post was one of the closest I've seen on the org which would breach the incitement to riot act so I'd be very careful how you phrase things in case a man wearing blue visits you.
1K.Orger
There can be no doubt now that creditible options on currency and EU were dismissed by the yes campaign as headed by Salmond, what I find interesting is that he feared that announcing at a late stage alternatives would be seen as a split in the campaign....what made him think that ? because the vote was lost, the myth has been propogated that the vow, media bias / anti yes scare stories, all coupled up under project fear, was to blame for the failure of the yes campaign. We now know the absolute truth, questions over currency and EU were not dealt with in sufficient depth ( ie the plan b options ) and questions over the economy were also not realistically dealt with, ( unless of course you go to wings over scotland where you can download loads of posters proclaiming that Scotland absolutely could go it alone and issues related to currency EU and economy are all blasted out the ball park, a just have blind faith approach / they the noers are all lying to.... so vote yes. Sturgeon herself is qouted as saying that failure to convince people of scotlands economic viability also contributed. So we have a substantial majority of senior politicans / people who made up the yes team who were in favour of going public with plan b's over currency EU, couple this with sturgeons admission over "doubts" on the economy and we are are near the mark in explaininig the failure. Question is if the yes camp did outline plan b's and a creditible economic plan would they have secured a majority / we will never know.
.Orger
More from Jim Sillars new book.
1K.Orger
Good read and a bit like Corbyn.....ie make banks servants to the people and not masters...also raises interesting critique over OBR and IFS ."What Yes did not successfully get across was the idea that independence does not mean creating a mini UK, but a completely different Scottish state, with economic structures and moral principles aimed at correcting the gross inequalities that now define us to our lasting shame.
1K.Orger
I'm not convinced.
The assumption here seems to be that if they had done this the SNP would have won.
Also terms like "our lasting shame" shows the analysis is strongly influenced by the authors own political views and so not a unbiased assessment of the campaign.
40% or so were always going to vote yes. The same for no. That left 20% or so potentially open to influence to the campaigns.
I doubt enough of that 20% would have wanted a "completely different Scottish state" whether it had been offered to them or not. Many of them would rather fix any failings in the marriage rather than take the option of divorce.
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.
- Charles de Gaulle
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks