Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Smarmy Arab said:

Nat Onal is on the mast head. 

 

So you are proposing a model along the lines of Ireland, (as is the Growth Commission) .  Low tax tiger economy.....now who is the Tory!  

Serious question, is the GC an effort to convince those on the right wing of scottish politics that an Indy Scotland would mean a massive shrinking of the welfare state and new bare-knuckle neo liberal tax haven....like...er..... Ireland?

To present an argument that this constitutional debate is a choice of nationalisms would make a Jesuit blush.....only a nationalist would even begin to make such a binary self referential, reductionist case.  I will tell you again, 'unionist' is a position I arrive at, having examined the evidence, not a position I start from, that is NOT A NATIONALIST position, it is a pragmatic position.  The problem (one of them!) With nationalist politics is it begins every discussion with a conclusion, then the work back....the GC is exactly that....if you want Indy this is the cost. (A welcome addition to the debate, as it at least acknowledges the deficit and dangers of over reliance on a volatile resource.)

So tell us, how did you make the Jesuit blush? We Need To Know.

Have you ever tried responding to what Indy supporters actually say, rather than telling us what we really think and then responding to that? I don’t even know what “begins every discussion with a conclusion” means, but apparently I do it all the time. 

Its really very simple. The UK is unlikely to deliver a fair and just society. There is, to put it mildly, a degree of evidence for that. We dutifully gave the Labour Party a go at changing things. They were Braw, for a good fifty - sixty years. Since around 1960 - 1970 they’ve been shite at it. Some of us want to try something different. Hope that’s OK with you.

From that you get a whole heap of weird stuff about blood, soil, flags, Nat Onals, hating all manner of things and folk, battle re-enactors (hyper weird that one) and God knows what else. At one point, you had the SNP, which consisted of six loonies in kilts and a dug at the time, handing over the UK to the Germans in 1940. Yoons be crazy, indeed.

What in the holy fek does binary self referential reductionist mean?

The GC is an attempt to start a discussion. They are going round the country to public meetings. It’s hard for a Red Tory to understand, busy as you are with forming council coalitions with Blue Tories all over the country and planning today’s Westminster abstention, but they actually want folk to get stuck in about it, so they can make it better. Why not go to one of the meetings? We probably will - I don’t like some of it.

I didn’t advocate anything about Ireland. Once again, you decided what I meant and responded to that. I thought a Tiger Economy was a Singapore thing (I was born there, incidentally). I merely pointed out that ex British colonies can do well. Apparently people in New Zealand are STILL not starving - they couldn’t have got the email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Two Js said:

You know Smarmy, I think you and I have similar ideas on how to assess whether Scotland should be independent or not.  Apart from that I haven't a clue what you are talking about. :confused::laugh: 

Congratulations on getting AS to discuss the financial implications of Independence - I tried and failed.  I shall follow this discussion (the bits I understand) with interest.

So how does he get you to discuss the financial implications of staying with the Union - I tried and failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said, everyone knows what living in Scotland as part of the UK is all about (Brexit notwithstanding). You want people to vote for change, so it is up to you to convince people that things will be better. This, in the main, can only be achieved by convincing us that Scotland and its' people will be more prosperous. Something you admit you cannot do.

Your argument that SNP MPs are far superior to any other politician in Scotland is fine however, despite your fervent hope, Nicola Sturgeon will not become immortal in an independent Scotland, and rule with her SNP government until the second coming (although I think Alex has burnt his bridges where that is concerned).  What happens if people think "Well that's us got independence. No need to vote SNP anymore." and we end up with a coalition government of 3 or 4 different parties.

So. in summary, the financial implications of staying in the UK are irrelevant until you come up with evidence that an independent Scotland will be better off.

I'm not going to continue this discussion.  You will just end up calling me names and posting childish GIFs (I think that's what they are).  This will get us nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that’s seven times you’ve decided not to continue this discussion now. 

I never said SNP MP’s are far superior to any other politicians in Scotland. You’ve completely made that up. I did say most of the Labour MP’s who lost their seats in 2015 were pretty useless. I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who’ll argue with that! 

If the SNP fades away after Independence - which many, including myself, think would be appropriate - then PR, the voting system used in the overwhelming majority of democracies, may produce coalitions. Dozens of countries across the world manage fine with that including most of those in the EU effortlessly running rings around May. Most folk arn't fazed by that in the slightest, and it’s a weird reason to oppose independence. 

The irony is, without right wing majorities in England, centre left governments in Scotland are a nailed-on certainty for the foreseeable future. Without the SNP, that means a future version of Labour, probably in coalition with the Greens or Liberal Democrat-type centrists. Labour can put its policies into effect. You’d think Labour types would therefore be jumping at the chance of independence. Hundreds of thousands of their voters recognised this years ago, and are simply waiting for the party to prise its face from the Westminster trough and follow their lead, then we can get on with it and get it done, and talk about the football. 

That’s if we can have teles in the tents Smarmy has decided we will all be living in. Wonder what they’ll do with all the empty houses?

Edited by Abernethy Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

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...
 Share