Sign in to follow this  
rik2304

Yes Or Naw?

  

181 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Present government, but worry not it won't make any difference which party is in unless it is the Independence Party as they have come out in support of a universal state pension.

I read an academic article a few years back. It was written by a Canadian economist, who had done in depth analysis on pension provision in the Uk and had calculated that an increase of a quarter of one percent on income tax was all that was required to deliver pension promises.

I personally think governments don't want the responsibility of the payment of pensions, so peddle the myth that they are unsustainable when in fact they are not.

 

Thought you had forgotten about me WS, Happy New Year by the way.

 

Latest stats I saw for the basic state pension alone shows a total cost of approx £65 billion per year.  A quarter of one percent increase on income tax would produce approx £500 million.  That would not fund much by way of pension promises.  Was this Canadian economist called Salmond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought you had forgotten about me WS, Happy New Year by the way.

 

Latest stats I saw for the basic state pension alone shows a total cost of approx £65 billion per year.  A quarter of one percent increase on income tax would produce approx £500 million.  That would not fund much by way of pension promises.  Was this Canadian economist called Salmond?

Depends how you want to interpret the stats. A 1/4 percent straight  increase in tax would generate aprrox another £450m per year.

however @ an average 20% income tax across the population, it generates £166bn. An average  20.25% tax rate would generate about another £2bn per year.

Lies, damn lies and statistics i guess.

Still nowhere near enough to shore up the UK ponzi pension scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, and a belated Happy New Year to you too Smarmy.

 

Probably easiest if I take a leaf out of your book and reply to each point in turn.

 

 

The lack of debate between the Yes and No is not what I was referring to.  It was the populism of the Yes campaign itself...the broad spectrum was, for me way too broad and was dominated by the SNP, the other elements would have been marginalised immediately in the event of a Yes vote.  Alex Salmond was unequivocal in his assertion that he was seeking a mandate for his White Paper, whatever the Greens or the Socialists thought was irrelevant, the Soutar funded Nats were calling the shots....and IMO they would have dominated Scottish politics for a generation, for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

I think you underestimate the campaign at pavement level which from my own experience was certainly not dominated by the SNP. Of course it was a broad spectrum, but the Yes campaign also had a high number of members who had (and in many cases, like myself, still have) no affiliation to any party.

 

I don’t believe the SNP would have been stupid enough to try to marginalise any section of the support following a Yes vote, as the potential damage that would have been done to them during the period of negotiations, not to mention the Scottish General Election in 2016 would have been immense.

 

Had as you suggest, the SNP gone on to dominate Scottish politics for a generation, the fault for that would lay fairly and squarely at the doors of the other parties for failing to offer a credible and electable alternative. The electorate can only vote for/elect whoever is put in front of them, and I would have hoped that new parties would have sprung up to challenge the staid and discredited current mob.

 

 

I see no evidence that the state would be smashed, such talk, always struck me as frenzied aspirations from campaigners drunk on their own hubris.....there were no plans to smash anything, just cut a deal, a deal with forces far greater than a few disaffected Nationalists, who even with 51% of the vote would  barely constitute 6% of the UK total.

 

I stand by my remark and was talking about iScotland, not rUK – they could keep or do whatever they wanted with their system. By default we’ve the same system at present and it is corrupt and inherently malevolent; get rid of it and replace it with one that is completely transparent, streamlined, watertight and fit for purpose. The self-titled “Elites” in Westminster are never going to rock the (gravy) boat and start serving the people who elect them when they’re onto such a nice little earner. We had a chance to sweep all the shit away and didn’t take it.

 

 

I cannot understand why you would say this.  This was a referendum not an election and the Yes campaign had displayed zero introspection as to why they lost.  They took Glasgow, (the Holy Grail for the SNP), Dundee (2% of the Scottish population) and a couple of other areas in the West, but they failed spectacularly in Perthshire, Angus, Highlands & Islands, Aberdeenshire, Lothian & Borders, Fife.  Most of these areas have a bridgehead of SNP support and rejected Indy by 60%, you can dismiss this as fear if you wish, I would rather consider it a rejection of a plan to partition of this island, for a complex of reasons.  The mood among the Yes campaigners that I know is to turn away from this reality and seek to push on for a further 5%........despite the polls this is, IMO a huge error, and an insult (another insult) to the millions who voted to remain part of a larger polity for social, cultural and economic reasons.

 

We took a lot more urban areas than just the two you’ve mentioned. The rural areas appear to have been problematic, and as I’ve said already I am not 100% convinced that the SNP were doing anything more than going through the motions for most of the campaign. Anything in Angus for example seemed to be very low-key and in some respects lackadaisical in comparison to Dundee which was won I believe by the efforts of RIC.

 

However, simply pushing for another 5% is nowhere near enough. 55% isn’t even enough as is being proved right now, especially when you consider that the “winning” No share of the vote drops to below 50% when the total electorate is taken into consideration. This can hardly be seen as a ringing endorsement of the Union. I agree with your colleague, “Independence cannot succeed with only half the population, that is a recipe for disaster”. But can the status-quo succeed into the future with only half the population backing it? That looks like two sides of the same coin to me.

 

55% may have seen the Yes campaign consigned to the National Archives but not the independence campaign, just as I am certain 55% Yes wouldn’t have killed off the Unionists. Can you imagine Ian Davidson or Ma’grit Curran saying “Oh, well that’s it decided. Let’s work together with the “Separatists” (© SLAB, 2014) to produce a prosperous independent Scotland”? Like hell they would!

 

65% or more either way would I think have decided it (which incidentally is roughly the low end of where No started off), but what we’ve ended up with is a kind of limbo, the ‘Worst of Both Worlds’ if you like. Anyone who thinks 51% is enough is kidding themselves. I can imagine how well those independence negotiations would go…

 

Since the WW2, Scotland has got the government it voted for on 13 occassions, the South East of Englandshire got the government it voted for 11 times, its what happens in a democracy.  Lets not forget a democracy that the people of Scotland have voted to remain  part of every 4 years over the last 80 (since the Nats stood candidates)  I have never got the government I voted for and I just have to accept that.

 

You seem to be missing my point. Labour constantly bleat on that a vote for the SNP will let the Tories in. It’s incredibly mind-numbing stuff, plain gibberish and worthy of the slowest handclap I can muster. Only twice since 1945 has the Scottish Labour vote changed who has won a General Election, on both occasions (1964 and October 1974) converting hung parliaments into Labour wins. Every other time that Labour has won a General Election, it has done so on the back of how England, as a whole has voted. To try to imply otherwise is utter nonsense, but it doesn’t stop them. I hear they were at it again the other day. That’s my point.

 

Just for lulz, let’s also not forget that of those Tory wins, in 1951 and 1955 they won 35 and 36 seats in Scotland respectively out of a total of 71, so it wasn’t just the South-East of England who were voting for them.

 

I’m sure Labour and the rest of them would like us to return to a naive time when the internet did not exist and we weren’t all politically aware, whereby they all could spout out all sorts of crap without fear of being pulled up by the general public. Repeating a tired old mantra from yesteryear isn’t going to cut the mustard nowadays when we have access to all the information capable of destroying theirs and anyone else’s argument at our fingertips. The whole lot of them are going to have to up their game considerably as far as I’m concerned, and churning out repeated lies and expecting us all to take it at face value is treating us all with utter contempt. Just FTR, I never get a government I want.

 

Interesting that it was only the “No voters who were reluctant to air their views becase they were set about by evangelical Nats”.

 

I work with a Pole who was told by BT activists in Dundee, (I don’t know if they were evangelical or just tossers) that she’d be thrown out of the country if there was a Yes vote. Unfortunately for them, the Polish community had already put her wise to that lie.

 

The debate may have moved on to the General Election for the time being, but we will be back here again sooner or later, of that we can all be certain. If by “real politics” you mean the ya-boo sucks horseshit that masquerades as politics in this country, then frankly, “No Thanks”. Same as same as isn’t good enough any more.

 

Democracy? A system which sees us governed like a third world country/colony by some bunch of criminals or other at the behest of big business, and who aren’t even backed by more than half the electorate is not a democracy.

 

Shut your eyes and imagine the UK is run by gangsters. Hold that thought. Now open your eyes again. Notice any difference?  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends how you want to interpret the stats. A 1/4 percent straight  increase in tax would generate aprrox another £450m per year.

however @ an average 20% income tax across the population, it generates £166bn. An average  20.25% tax rate would generate about another £2bn per year.

Lies, damn lies and statistics i guess.

Still nowhere near enough to shore up the UK ponzi pension scheme.

 

I agree Canuck depends on how you look at the figures.  The statistics analogy I like is "Stats are like lamp posts, some people use them for illumination others for support.

Edited by south inch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Canuck depends on how you look at the figures.  The statistics analogy I like is "Stats are like lamp posts, some people use them for illumination others for support.

 

Many a night out of mine has resulted in the need for both support an illumination!

 

BackOnTopic, Its almost like all these career politicians are lying to us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Denzil  thanks for the reply, sorry it has taken so long to reply, I have been too busy to find the time to reply as you make several cogent points, with which I agree……several others I must take issue with,  I will continue the format and try to answer these.

‘I think you underestimate the campaign at pavement level which from my own experience was certainly not dominated by the SNP. Of course it was a broad spectrum, but the Yes campaign also had a high number of members who had (and in many cases, like myself, still have) no affiliation to any party.’

No denying it was a broad based campaign, but from my viewpoint it was insular and self-referential to an absurd degree.  Those friends of mine who were involved, were too keen to sing Caledonia on the High Street with Dougie MacLean, swept up in the emotion and fervour of the ‘cause’ instead of winning the arguments with those who were sceptical or anxious about the consequences of separation.  Indeed the tone of the discourse ‘at pavement level’ was in my experience intemperate to say the least, typified by Stuart ‘the Rev’ Campbell who decreed No voters to be the ‘enemy’ who should be treated with ‘merciless contempt’.  Such sentiments damaged the Yes case….. not that they noticed, as they wildly over-estimated a perceived groundswell, and egged on by the SNP were left blaming the BBC or engaging in conspiracy theories about massive oil fields rather than engage with the electorate who so decisively rejected separation.

 

‘I don’t believe the SNP would have been stupid enough to try to marginalise any section of the support following a Yes vote, as the potential damage that would have been done to them during the period of negotiations, not to mention the Scottish General Election in 2016 would have been immense.’

 

As I said earlier, the Socialists and Greens are electorally a marginal presence, it would be quite simple for Ms Strugeon and Mr Salmond to dismiss these groupings with a big smile and a ‘thanks….. suckers!’. 

 

‘Had as you suggest, the SNP gone on to dominate Scottish politics for a generation, the fault for that would lay fairly and squarely at the doors of the other parties for failing to offer a credible and electable alternative. The electorate can only vote for/elect whoever is put in front of them, and I would have hoped that new parties would have sprung up to challenge the staid and discredited current mob.’

 

I agreed that the political class would be responsible for the nightmare of a dominant SNP, and would share your hope for a new constellation of politics, but am far from convinced it would play out that way.

 

‘You seem to be missing my point. Labour constantly bleat on that a vote for the SNP will let the Tories in. It’s incredibly mind-numbing stuff, plain gibberish and worthy of the slowest handclap I can muster. Only twice since 1945 has the Scottish Labour vote changed who has won a General Election, on both occasions (1964 and October 1974) converting hung parliaments into Labour wins. Every other time that Labour has won a General Election, it has done so on the back of how England, as a whole has voted. To try to imply otherwise is utter nonsense, but it doesn’t stop them. I hear they were at it again the other day. That’s my point.’

 

With respect I think you are missing my point.  We live in a representative democracy and consequently aggregates of voters are placed in constituencies.  The party who wins the majority of seats governs, the other votes forms an opposition (a fundamental feature of democracy), and each constituency will deliver MP’s to parliament sometimes to govern, sometimes to opposition.  To argue ‘we never get the government we vote for’ (a central plank of the Yes campaign) is both factually incorrect and ultimately a moot point, as it would be exactly the same dynamic in an iScotland, ie Scottish voters would sometimes get the government they voted for…sometimes not!  The same flawed argument could be made for London; a fairly solid Labour city, returns more Labour MPs and Councillors than the Tories, runs more Local Authorities than the Tories, and yet has to endure Tory governments?  The same argument applies in Manchester, Liverpool, North East, and a whole host of other areas of England.  To follow this logic, Shetland has a cast iron case to be independent.  They consistently vote Liberal and (other than this minority coalition) have never ‘got the government they voted for’….they have a distinct cultural identity and loads of oil just like Scotland, will the Yes campaign support calls for an iShetland?  Will they fu…………….!

 

To argue a Scottish vote does not count is IMO quite bizarre….once again if we follow the logic of this position; votes only count if they are the decisive in the election?  So unless your vote was part of the decisive swing it is irrelevant?  Looked at in the round this is Quite absurd! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To argue a Scottish vote does not count is IMO quite bizarre….once again if we follow the logic of this position; votes only count if they are the decisive in the election?  So unless your vote was part of the decisive swing it is irrelevant?  Looked at in the round this is Quite absurd! 

 

 

Good tell that to the labour party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely after toadying up to the Tories in the referendum Labour are a spent force?! how can they be taken seriously with Murphy at the helm! Didn't think it was possible to pick someone worse than Johan Lamont(Scots aren't genetically programmed to make decisions for themselves) and then!?! You couldn't make it up!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely after toadying up to the Tories in the referendum Labour are a spent force?! how can they be taken seriously with Murphy at the helm! Didn't think it was possible to pick someone worse than Johan Lamont(Scots aren't genetically programmed to make decisions for themselves) and then!?! You couldn't make it up!?

As much as I dislike the guy, I don't think Murphy should be written off or the MSM either. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people will get ''info'' from MSM and I'm sure they will get votes from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I dislike the guy, I don't think Murphy should be written off or the MSM either. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people will get ''info'' from MSM and I'm sure they will get votes from that.

It's not that I dislike the man...I just think he is an incompetent buffoon. Sways like the wind, not smart enough to be a liar because he doesn't have a good enough memory! Too quick to spout party rhetoric without using his brain. All in all depressing to think he is making a pretty good living out of being mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I dislike the man...I just think he is an incompetent buffoon. Sways like the wind, not smart enough to be a liar because he doesn't have a good enough memory! Too quick to spout party rhetoric without using his brain. All in all depressing to think he is making a pretty good living out of being mediocre.

 

With a reference like that WS guy sounds a bit overqualified for his present job.  Sounds like a good bet to take over from Ed Milliband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given so many of the Lab  politicos out there, i kind of like him - at the very least i think he believes what he says. He may be dillussional,  ill informed, has no right to rule this country, but compared to some of our politicians...

Incompetent buffoon, is where i regard the starting point for every politician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find depressing is the fact that come May the Scottish Labour Party may well have brainwashed enough of their "supporters" into voting for them and will once again be the dominant force in the Scottish branch of UK politics.

I am now more convinced than I was on September 18th that I made the correct decision to vote yes.

Whilst I did not get the outcome that my vote deserved I am now seriously contemplating voting for SNP at the forthcoming election.

The "vow" made on the eve of the referendum to the electorate by the 3 "big" parties and Gordon Brown's (who has now decided he has had enough of politics and fecked off to his cosy pad in Kirkcaldy) ramblings from the BACK benches of Westminster promising the earth if we stayed in the UK really boiled my piss.In my view he had NO authority to make such a statement.

I just hope and pray that we will see an independent Scotland in my lifetime.

Edited by ejksjfc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I dislike the man...I just think he is an incompetent buffoon. Sways like the wind, not smart enough to be a liar because he doesn't have a good enough memory! Too quick to spout party rhetoric without using his brain. All in all depressing to think he is making a pretty good living out of being mediocre.

And despite all of that I can still see him and SLabour getting a decent amount of votes come the election, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apology required Smarmy, I too have a life :wink:

 

No denying it was a broad based campaign, but from my viewpoint it was insular and self-referential to an absurd degree.  Those friends of mine who were involved, were too keen to sing Caledonia on the High Street with Dougie MacLean, swept up in the emotion and fervour of the ‘cause’ instead of winning the arguments with those who were sceptical or anxious about the consequences of separation. 

 

I never bought into the whole happy-clappy singalong stuff which I thought was twee and naff. Folk singing carols in the street doesn’t persuade me to go anywhere near a church, and I’d guess in the same way, this had exactly the same effect on No voters. Perhaps if they’d put as much effort into engaging with the said No voters we might have had a more positive outcome.

 

Indeed the tone of the discourse ‘at pavement level’ was in my experience intemperate to say the least, typified by Stuart ‘the Rev’ Campbell who decreed No voters to be the ‘enemy’ who should be treated with ‘merciless contempt’.

 

I can’t honestly say I read much of the day to day stuff on Wings, so I’ll have to take it at face value that he said that. If that is the case then that is very unfortunate. I always thought of a No voter as a challenge or a potential Yes voter, but if they couldn’t be turned away from the “dark side”, that’s as far as it went. We won some arguments and we probably lost some too, that’s the nature of it, but we were at least engaging with No voters, or at least those who wanted to talk (the number of undecideds late in the campaign were vastly overestimated in my opinion) and that was far more important as it gave us the opportunity to ‘get the message out’. Doing that in a confrontational manner however is only going to get folks backs up.

 

The only individuals I would have classed (and still would) as the “enemy” and who I would treat with “merciless contempt” are career politicians… oh, and maybe BritNat trolls.

 

Such sentiments damaged the Yes case….. not that they noticed, as they wildly over-estimated a perceived groundswell, and egged on by the SNP were left blaming the BBC or engaging in conspiracy theories about massive oil fields rather than engage with the electorate who so decisively rejected separation.

 

Ach, behave yersel, hahaha. 65% or more as I said before, and I’d give you that; but 55% and less than half of the electorate? No chance!

 

Actually, I thought that the BBCs coverage was pretty poor overall, but as they are the State mouthpiece and their Charter is up for review next year, they were never going to be anything but loyal to the Union. Anyone who seriously thought otherwise is having a laugh.

 

As I said earlier, the Socialists and Greens are electorally a marginal presence, it would be quite simple for Ms Strugeon and Mr Salmond to dismiss these groupings with a big smile and a ‘thanks….. suckers!’.

 

That then, would have been their undoing.

 

With respect I think you are missing my point.  We live in a representative democracy and consequently aggregates of voters are placed in constituencies.  The party who wins the majority of seats governs, the other votes forms an opposition (a fundamental feature of democracy), and each constituency will deliver MP’s to parliament sometimes to govern, sometimes to opposition.  To argue ‘we never get the government we vote for’ (a central plank of the Yes campaign) is both factually incorrect and ultimately a moot point, as it would be exactly the same dynamic in an iScotland, ie Scottish voters would sometimes get the government they voted for…sometimes not!  The same flawed argument could be made for London; a fairly solid Labour city, returns more Labour MPs and Councillors than the Tories, runs more Local Authorities than the Tories, and yet has to endure Tory governments?  The same argument applies in Manchester, Liverpool, North East, and a whole host of other areas of England.  To follow this logic, Shetland has a cast iron case to be independent.  They consistently vote Liberal and (other than this minority coalition) have never ‘got the government they voted for’….they have a distinct cultural identity and loads of oil just like Scotland, will the Yes campaign support calls for an iShetland?  Will they fu…………….!

 

I see we are debating two different points, but ok I’ll run with it. I’ve been voting long enough to understand exactly how FPTP works, to know how it is manipulated, how it sees candidates elected on a very small share of the vote and why the Electoral Reform see it as, “the very worst system for electing a representative government”. I also know that regardless of whatever mob is returned, London benefits while the rest of us are left to rot. London wins every time at everyone’s, not just Scotland’s, expense. That is what the statement “we never get the government we vote for” is about, not who get in. It’s nothing to do with whether it’s Labour or Tory but that we are, all of the rest of us, getting a raw deal because everything is geared towards London.

 

For argument’s sake let’s assume that the statement was about who got in. I think the fact that in Scotland we do not use FPTP would negate that to a large extent. Only Labour’s utter collapse at the last Scottish Election produced the right conditions for a majority government to come in, otherwise we’d be looking at some form of coalition government. PR has its flaws, but it delivers a far more representative parliament and every vote in every constituency counts, whereas with FPTP only the votes for a candidate to secure victory effectively count.

 

Just to back up my point on London, taking the places you mentioned, according to government figures, per head of population London gets about 10 times as much infrastructure investment than the North West (when decommissioning funding for Sellafield is removed) and about 24 times that of the North East. ‘Our friends in the north’ are in the same boat as us, as indeed is the rest of England.

 

As for Shetland, I can categorically say that the Yes campaign would be incapable of supporting calls for an iShetland for one fundamental reason – it was wound up at the end of September and no longer exists! Shetland has as much right to be independent as anyone else, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The fact that only David Starkey and a few others have called for a referendum would however suggest that there is no appetite for it amongst the Shetlanders. This is understandable as they know only too well that under international maritime law the islands would be treated as an enclave and as such would have only 12 miles of territorial waters. Precious little if any oil in there, and maybe not even large fish stocks. If you have to import most of your foodstuffs and all of your fuel, with little exports, your economy isn’t going to go too well. They of course wouldn’t be able to use the Pound and would be out of the EU (no bad thing IMO) out of NATO and the Russians would invade them within weeks. All the oil jobs would go too… Sound familiar?  :laugh:  Perhaps Prof. Starkey should stick to medieval English history. If however Shetland wants to go for it, then good luck to them.

 

To argue a Scottish vote does not count is IMO quite bizarre….once again if we follow the logic of this position; votes only count if they are the decisive in the election?  So unless your vote was part of the decisive swing it is irrelevant?  Looked at in the round this is Quite absurd!

 

We’re at cross-purposes with this one, and I’m not suggesting that a Scottish vote doesn’t count… Let me put it another way. Hypothetically speaking, let’s assume every single MP returned by Scotland was taken out of the total number, so that only MPs returned by England, Wales and Northern Ireland counted. What I’m saying is that in all but two General Elections since 1945 the result would have stayed the same, i.e. the same party would have formed the government. This is the point I’m making. SLAB on the other hand insist that that they need everyone in Scotland to vote Labour to save us from the bogeyman Tories. This is clearly rubbish as I’ve already pointed out, regardless of the fact that it’s difficult to tell them apart these days.

Edited by Denzil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find depressing is the fact that come May the Scottish Labour Party may well have brainwashed enough of their "supporters" into voting for them and will once again be the dominant force in the Scottish branch of UK politics.

 

 

What I find amusing there, is the notion that the SLP might find it necessary to have to brainwash people who already support the party into actually voting for them. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Typical police. Arrest the victim rather than the culprit especially if they are ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Denzil…..my head is spinning with the possible permutations of the up-coming election, but I thought I would respond to some of the points you made the other week. 

 

You reject the notion that the referenda result can be described as ‘decisive’……

Ach, behave yersel, hahaha. 65% or more as I said before, and I’d give you that; but 55% and less than half of the electorate? No chance!’

Not surprisingly I disagree.  As I intimated earlier, I think this project (iScotland) would require a significant majority to gain any real political traction for the short term, long term or immediate future.  Somewhere south of 38% is nowhere near the required mandate.  Indeed a 10% + point victory (albeit in general elections, which I accept are not exactly comparable, but still a useful yardstick ) usually heads toward ‘landslide’ territory; Blair in 1997 was 13%, in 2001, 11%, Thatcher in 1983, 14%, Labour in 1945, 12%, even the SNP ‘landslide’ in 2011 was 13% and each of these results are routinely described as ‘landslides’.  I would maintain that the Sept 2014 result, off such a massive turnout, may fall short of ‘landslide’ but is certainly decisive.

 

In response to the influence of RI in a post yes Scotland you appear convinced the SNP would be inclusive towards their newfound political bedfellows….

‘That then, would have been their undoing’

Why would you be so sure?  The SNP resurgence is built largely upon the new middle class, they have no truck whatever with ‘radicals’, the relationship between the Nats and Rads throughout the ref campaign is as far as I can see parasitic…..in a true example of a parasitic relationship the host has no clue or idea that they are being used to nourish another species.  For a decade the SNP consistently berated Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for not deregulating financial markets enough, Alex Salmond proudly shouted from the rooftops that he would do anything in his power to assist RBS in its ruinous pursuit of global profile, and now we are expected to believe the SNP are some-how paragons of radical social justice?

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland

 

As far as I can see the SNP have successfully moved the debate to the following; ‘ask not what the SNP can do for you…ask only what you can do for the SNP’.   Populist claptrap is the order of the day, whatever you want the SNP can and will provide it.  Not for me they are a bungalow party….a single story, and their main objective is to destroy the Labour Party, as the Labour Party stands between them and their ultimate objective a separate state, an invidious brand of politics based on grievance, resentment and scapegoating……much like the political currents populated by UKIP.   Take an Alex Salmond speech from the ref, substitute ‘Westminster’ for ‘Brussels’ and you have a Nigel Farage speech….insular, populist and ultimately vapid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Smarmy,

I'm afraid I'm less than enthused by the forthcoming media circus which masquerades as "democracy" in this country as, to me, it makes no difference which bunch of criminals "rule" us... they're only in it to line their own pockets.

 

To pick up where we left off, as far as I see it there were no winners in the referendum as neither side could muster over half the population to back them. You are absolutely right, 38% is nowhere near enough to provide a mandate, but then again, neither is 48%. That's a bit of a problem which has been conveniently swept under the carpet. Forget Smith which was only providing lip-service in the hope that we'd all go away. Nothing has or will change.

 

Why would I be so sure the SNP would be inclusive? That's easy... politcal expediency. They'd go out of their way to prove how inclusive a post-Indy Scotland would be, hence this "Team Scotland" bollocks, and prove how different they would be compared to Lib-Lab-Con who were arguing within hours, possibly even minutes of September's result. Sure, it wouldn't last, but I believe it would be there at the start. Stabbing their "newfound political bedfellows" in the back would tar the SNP with the same muck as their Unionist opponents.

 

I almost crashed my car laughing a few Saturday's ago when some politico on Radio 4 lumped the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Greens together as "radicals". Given their anarchist origins, I'd give them the Greens, but for any "nationalist" party to be classed as 'radical' shows just how out of touch the London-centric media is. If the new middle class have no truck with the radicals, by BBC London's thinking, it can't be them who are behind this resurgence in the SNP, nor can it be the white middle class who are fuelling the so-called "Green Surge" in England. A bit of a conundrum there, but the SNP's new enlarged membership may well drag it in an unforseen direction.

 

Perhaps Salmond's "proudly shouted from the rooftops that he would do anything in his power to assist RBS in its ruinous pursuit of global profile" owes more to a mis-guided loyalty to his former employer, I don't know. I'd have let them all go under personally.

 

I don't believe that the SNP's sole objective is the destruction of the Labour Party (Scottish Branch) as the Labour Party (Scottish Branch) is more than capable of destroying itself in a frenzy of bloodletting and acrimony. There is absolutely no need for anyone else to intervene to stir that particular pot, and it is bubbling away nicely.

 

Take an Alex Salmond speech from the ref, substitute ‘Westminster’ for ‘Brussels’ and you have a Nigel Farage speech….insular, populist and ultimately vapid.

 

You set yourself up there... :wink:

 

Take a Jim Murphy speech, any speech, substitute 'SNP'/'Nationalists'/'separatists' * for ‘Brussels’ and you have a Nigel Farage speech….insular, populist and ultimately vapid.

 

* delete as appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ou reject the notion that the referenda result can be described as ‘decisive’……

Indeed a 10% + point victory (albeit in general elections, which I accept are not exactly comparable, but still a useful yardstick ) usually heads toward ‘landslide’ territory; Blair in 1997 was 13%, in 2001, 11%, Thatcher in 1983, 14%, Labour in 1945, 12%, even the SNP ‘landslide’ in 2011 was 13% and each of these results are routinely described as ‘landslides’. 

 

I don't think these results in terms of 'landslides' are comparable with the referendum result for one simple reason. In the referendum you had exactly two choices. Yes or No. It's much easier to obtain a landslide in this scenario than a General Election where voters have many choices. For that reason, it wasn't a landslide. Not even close. And when you consider the media and funding bias towards the No campaign it was actually closer than it really ever should have been.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think these results in terms of 'landslides' are comparable with the referendum result for one simple reason. In the referendum you had exactly two choices. Yes or No. It's much easier to obtain a landslide in this scenario than a General Election where voters have many choices. For that reason, it wasn't a landslide. Not even close. And when you consider the media and funding bias towards the No campaign it was actually closer than it really ever should have been.  

 

It was close because the Better Together campaign was so bloody negative. I know it's more difficult to argue positivily for a status quo, but the arguments were there beyond the 'yer no gettin' the poond' and 'WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE' type arguments put across by the no side. 

 

The Yes campaign never quite got to grips with the economic argument and, frankly, the white paper was a complete shambles. There is more to our economy than oil and there could be so much more thereafter in an Independent Scotland, but both sides seemed to get caught up in that debate. That suited the no campaign down to the ground. I know it's difficult to paint a future scenario, but the white paper read like some kind of utopian dream, with some rather ridiculous and baseless claims. One page of figures just isn't good enough. I don't think the yes campaign ever quite shook the view that a yes vote was a vote for Alex Salmond either, and he's kryptonite to some.

 

I ended up voting yes on the back of my own research and my own aspirations for Scotland's society. I wouldn't have even looked into it if the No campaign hadn't been such a massive cluster****, spouting negativity and preying on the fears of some of the more vulernable people in our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this