Jump to content

How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?


Highlander

Recommended Posts

Dusk_Till_Dawn
3 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Spot on. Calling people traitors because they looked at facts before deciding rather than making a decision due to having a major chip on their shoulder must be very off-putting to those sitting on the fence.

 

I am fully Scottish, then British. Don't consider myself European but obviously am.  

 

 

Anyone calling no voters traitors has been watching too much Braveheart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ri Alban

    267

  • frankblack

    213

  • Boris

    175

  • JamboX2

    134

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

Relatively sure No last time after a lot of research. Even more solid No this time.  Colleagues at work were Yes last time and now would be No. 

 

Yes was full of it last time round but they didn't get found out until afterwards. 

 

As a previous poster alluded to, the EU referendum was known about at the time of the vote and we still voted no. The EU was not listed as a major factor for no voters and so to pretend otherwise is just opportunism from the SNP. 

 

Scotland has more than paid its way in the UK and so nobody should feel subsidised by the UK. We benefit greatly being part of the UK and always have done. 

 

People that think independence transcends everything should not be trusted. They will never change their mind and admit it might not be the best for Scotland.

 

All evidence shows Scotland spend a lot more than we can afford to spend currently. We can't live the way we are currently living in an indy Scotland. It is blatant short term bribery to get them over the line. 

 

False social media and "alternative news" is the only way Yes will deceive the nation to vote for indy. 

 

 

 

Do you have any examples or links to this "false social media" and "alternative news" that is deceiving us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Spot on. Calling people traitors because they looked at facts before deciding rather than making a decision due to having a major chip on their shoulder must be very off-putting to those sitting on the fence.

 

I am fully Scottish, then British. Don't consider myself European but obviously am.  

 

 

But that's being dismissive too. You're implying that Yes voters didn't consider the rational debate but only reacted due to a "chip on their shoulders". Perhaps that may have been the case for some voters, but it's ridiculous to extrapolate that to Yes voters in general.

 

As an aside, I'd be interested in finding out what being "fully Scottish" is. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I thought that was Mo. :facepalm:

I've done it before red, I'm not interested in persuading anyone, anymore. You're either Scots or you're not. You don't need an excuse to vote yes, just no. 

Fair enough but if you're not interested in joining in the debate, please spare us the snidey digs. It's a serious topic and the conversation deserves a bit of respect, from all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

But that's being dismissive too. You're implying that Yes voters didn't consider the rational debate but only reacted due to a "chip on their shoulders". Perhaps that may have been the case for some voters, but it's ridiculous to extrapolate that to Yes voters in general.

 

As an aside, I'd be interested in finding out what being "fully Scottish" is. ;)

 

Some yes voters accepted the facts and still decided that Indy is worth it. I have no issue with them. It is those that think we are being lied to by the UK, that it is a big conspiracy and that our secret riches are being kept from us which annoy me. 

 

All I mean is I am Scottish born and bred. I consider myself to be Scottish first and foremost but also British. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Yes then, Yes now, Yes forever.

 

Anyone who thinks another country running another neighbouring country is a good idea needs their head examined.

 

We will be next if Norn Iron doesn't beat us to the gun first. 

 

 

 

 

B5FXrOKIMAA5k4y.jpg large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

Do you have any examples or links to this "false social media" and "alternative news" that is deceiving us?

 

Sure! The one I keep seeing is below. In Facebook, search for "oil Scotland independent a year surplus"

 

This has been doing the rounds since 2014. I pasted it below in case you don't have Facebook. 

 

"Here is some information/ammunition to use when challenging union support 

HMRC published the following figures:
A) revenue raised in Scotland £45.056 billion
B) Block grant awarded to Scotland £26.984billion 
C) Scotlands stated contribution to the union ££17.2 billion 
D) in the same year Scotlands internationally recognised waters raised , NOT for Scotland, for the UK government £4.69 billion pounds
E) by the HMRCs own admission these figure do not include some £4-5 billion pounds MISATTRIBUTED to England which should have been attributed to Scotland
IF SCOTLAND HAD BEEN INDEPENDENT we would have collected the £45 billion figure and kept that in the SCOTTISH TREASURY 
We were able to balance the books at £26.98 billion (the block grant) so our SURPLUS would have been £17billion
Add to that 96% of the North Sea revenue and you get a surplus of £469billion!!!
Can you all now see why Theresa May will do anything and everything to stop Scotlands independence?
£469 BILLION IN SURPLUS IN ONE YEAR!!!! Scotland is a wealthy country 
Oh yes and before you say 'ah but oil prices have hit rock bottom' .... the above figures were produced when oil was just under $40 a barrel!!!
And also note that we would have been  £17 billion in SURPLUS without a penny of oil revenue!!
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST INDEPENDENCE???????"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Of course it's an argument, it's the argument for or against Scottish independence, and we ought to have a well thought-out, cogent, respectful debate on the issues involved.

 

By the way, civil wars are almost never civil. ;)

Maybe for once people could focus on the original offenders on threads. Hasselhoff, pablo and not me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Fair enough but if you're not interested in joining in the debate, please spare us the snidey digs. It's a serious topic and the conversation deserves a bit of respect, from all sides.

As I said, maybe you could direct that at others first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

As I said, maybe you could direct that at others first. 

I'm not the bbc, I don't need to display impartiality (hohoho), I directed it at the guy who acknowledged he's got no interest discussing the topic at hand.

 

I did add "from all sides" at the end by the way, I don't prefer unionist snide to nationalist snide or anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

This has slowed down a lot in recent years and may no longer be vastly relevant. A decreasing birht rate and improved standard of living will have contributed to it. Government now insists that we need more immigration as we have a skills shortage. The solution is simple - we need to upskill and reskill our workforce. We need to provide real opportunities for people in areas that are relevant to Scotland.  Building a sustainable and decent society around caring and inclusive values especially for children would give people a future and more of a sense of belonging and less self loathing i.e. Scottish cringe. Planning for the future would be a start instead of leaving everything to the market and destroying your own industrial base and social cohesion. 

 

        Strange ideas and unrealistic aspirations i know but at the moment we are moving increasingly rapidly the other direction with many telling us that the dystopia on the horizon is inevitable and a natural consequence of the modern world. If people want to leave the country, then fine but we should try to make it more difficult for them to do so by making Scotland a better place.  

I don't disagree with you regards upskilling and reskilling, not to mention the vision of an inclusive society. 

 

However, if we were on the road to that already, courtesy of Scottish Government action, wouldn't the argument for independence be even stronger? 

 

Westminster is an influence/factor, but perhaps we should also lead by example? 

 

FWIW, as I've said, I voted yes and would so again, but after (and at times now) the SNP won't get my vote. That is why it is essential that any future yes campaign is independent of them. Imo, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Yep. And some folk believe that the No side would be happy just to accept the vote. Rangers fans destroyed Manchester when they couldn’t watch their team getting beat on big screens. People actually believe that  those types wouldn’t  turn the place upside down if they had their precious Union ripped up. That’s the basis of their entire existence ffs. :rofl:

Yes = bad and not PHM. 

 

Tossers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument on Independence should never be based on Oil. Oil is a bonus which other Independent Countries don’t have. Oil however is unpredictable and fluctuates in price, it’s difficult to get at and find, it’s expensive to drill as is the expertise & technology to drill it. So Oil is, and always will be, a terrible argument as the basis of Independence. It may have been relevant in the 70’s but that was suppressed and we live in a different world now.

 

The Argument for Independence should be based on powers, values, democracy and other things which are relevant.

 

Personally I’ve always believed there is no need for Independence if the UK became Federal.

 

Each country has the same Currency in which there is an ‘Independent’ Central Bank.

 

Each Country has all powers over all things except interest rates, obviously, which are set by ‘the Independent’ central bank. 

 

All Countries trade with one another but can have different treaties and agreements with the WTO, the EU or whoever. We could have a shared Defence interest in which each Country contributes, a shared intelligence interest to protect our citizens but ultimately we decide if we get involved in conflicts outside of our borders. 

 

Why is that not a thing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Maybe for once people could focus on the original offenders on threads. Hasselhoff, pablo and not me. 

 

This is not a great road to go down, ri, because it is where flame wars begin, but in this particular case, Hasselhoff posted an opinion, reasonably lengthy (i.e. he raised several points, it wasn't just a trite one-liner), and you reacted with nothing but a Dear God - facepalm. Hasselhoff then reacted with his own dismissive image. In other words, you started it. Instead of just dismissing his opinions, why didn't you take the guy up on what he wrote? I mean you obviously disagreed with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Sure! The one I keep seeing is below. In Facebook, search for "oil Scotland independent a year surplus"

 

This has been doing the rounds since 2014. I pasted it below in case you don't have Facebook. 

 

"Here is some information/ammunition to use when challenging union support 

HMRC published the following figures:
A) revenue raised in Scotland £45.056 billion
B) Block grant awarded to Scotland £26.984billion 
C) Scotlands stated contribution to the union ££17.2 billion 
D) in the same year Scotlands internationally recognised waters raised , NOT for Scotland, for the UK government £4.69 billion pounds
E) by the HMRCs own admission these figure do not include some £4-5 billion pounds MISATTRIBUTED to England which should have been attributed to Scotland
IF SCOTLAND HAD BEEN INDEPENDENT we would have collected the £45 billion figure and kept that in the SCOTTISH TREASURY 
We were able to balance the books at £26.98 billion (the block grant) so our SURPLUS would have been £17billion
Add to that 96% of the North Sea revenue and you get a surplus of £469billion!!!
Can you all now see why Theresa May will do anything and everything to stop Scotlands independence?
£469 BILLION IN SURPLUS IN ONE YEAR!!!! Scotland is a wealthy country 
Oh yes and before you say 'ah but oil prices have hit rock bottom' .... the above figures were produced when oil was just under $40 a barrel!!!
And also note that we would have been  £17 billion in SURPLUS without a penny of oil revenue!!
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST INDEPENDENCE???????"

I haven't seen this but i really dont think there would be many people taken in by a claim of a £467 billion annual surplus on that reasoning. A 45% Indy vote was not achieved and sustained on rubbish like that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
50 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

The argument on Independence should never be based on Oil. Oil is a bonus which other Independent Countries don’t have. Oil however is unpredictable and fluctuates in price, it’s difficult to get at and find, it’s expensive to drill as is the expertise & technology to drill it. So Oil is, and always will be, a terrible argument as the basis of Independence. It may have been relevant in the 70’s but that was suppressed and we live in a different world now.

 

The Argument for Independence should be based on powers, values, democracy and other things which are relevant.

 

Personally I’ve always believed there is no need for Independence if the UK became Federal.

 

Each country has the same Currency in which there is an ‘Independent’ Central Bank.

 

Each Country has all powers over all things except interest rates, obviously, which are set by ‘the Independent’ central bank. 

 

All Countries trade with one another but can have different treaties and agreements with the WTO, the EU or whoever. We could have a shared Defence interest in which each Country contributes, a shared intelligence interest to protect our citizens but ultimately we decide if we get involved in conflicts outside of our borders. 

 

Why is that not a thing? 

Does anybody know why the uk government is so against a federal arrangement? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Boris said:

I don't disagree with you regards upskilling and reskilling, not to mention the vision of an inclusive society. 

 

However, if we were on the road to that already, courtesy of Scottish Government action, wouldn't the argument for independence be even stronger? 

 

Westminster is an influence/factor, but perhaps we should also lead by example? 

 

FWIW, as I've said, I voted yes and would so again, but after (and at times now) the SNP won't get my vote. That is why it is essential that any future yes campaign is independent of them. Imo, of course. 

We have no choice but to lead by example and we are on the road albiet extremely tentatively. We are diverging from the English majority. The argument is that we are not going fast enough and that we are not capable of going far enough under a devolved administration. Many people want Scptland to become more progressive and inclusive but think that can be acieved inside the UK. I dont believe this as every time Labour gets into power they turn into the Tories.

 

I will obviously vote Yes but my reasons are primarily to do with UK foreign policy. Economic and social differences can be catered for in a federal system, foreign policy cannot. I don't want to be part of a country that initiates violence on false premises as we have done on numerous occasions.

 

I dont know why you dislike the SNP so much, have you forgotten what it was like before the got power? You can't have an Indy campaign without the SNP. They are the biggest part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

I haven't seen this but i really dont think there would be many people taken in by a claim of a £467 billion annual surplus on that reasoning. A 45% Indy vote was not achieved and sustained on rubbish like that.

 

 

I have seen this post countless times over the last 4 years and it is circulated far and wide on Facebook and Twitter. 

 

Read the comments about it. "we should get this printed onto flyers" etc. These people are at the forefront of the "movement" spreading misinformation. 

 

People often believe stuff that is nonsense and vote accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
9 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

I have seen this post countless times over the last 4 years and it is circulated far and wide on Facebook and Twitter. 

 

Read the comments about it. "we should get this printed onto flyers" etc. These people are at the forefront of the "movement" spreading misinformation. 

 

People often believe stuff that is nonsense and vote accordingly. 

 

Like vote no to stay in the EU

 

:levein_interesting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Progressive spin? That’s an interesting way to describe escaping from Tory rule forever.

 

You won't. You'll get Tories in Scotland. They may win elections and govern. That is democracy. Independence may revitalise them. Awake a giant. 

 

4 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

scotland has proven at the ballot box in westminster and holyrood elections that it is a considerably more progressive and social democratic country inmoutlook and policy (the ones it can control) than England and the rest of the UK, and has been for some time.

 

Yet the proportion of poorer kids going to uni is lower than in England. We don't have as expansive a social housing policy as in Wales. And our universities cap the number of domestic students attending. Not to mention we have huge strides to make in terms of health inequality, sectarianism and educational inequality from birth which are all in devolved areas. Local Government has been emasculated and diminished. Community councils are but talking shops.

 

I don't think you can doubt that 2 terms of Lab/Lib and 2 of SNP is not two types of progressive parties. But they haven't done much to change how Scottish services work to solve such issues. 

 

Good has been done. Much I feel is window dressing.

 

4 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Going our separate ways and staying good friends makes perfect sense to me anyhow.

 

I don't know how good our friendship will be if we keep up the "regressive", "thieving" Tories from the south stuff. How the SNP square the border between an EEA/EU member with a non-EEA/EU is also going to be vital here.

 

The fact is many of the issues and economic shocks Brexit is causing will happen with Indy. And I see no more clarity on proposed solutions to them than I have from Leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

Relatively sure No last time after a lot of research. Even more solid No this time.  Colleagues at work were Yes last time and now would be No. 

 

Yes was full of it last time round but they didn't get found out until afterwards. 

 

As a previous poster alluded to, the EU referendum was known about at the time of the vote and we still voted no. The EU was not listed as a major factor for no voters and so to pretend otherwise is just opportunism from the SNP. 

 

Scotland has more than paid its way in the UK and so nobody should feel subsidised by the UK. We benefit greatly being part of the UK and always have done. 

 

People that think independence transcends everything should not be trusted. They will never change their mind and admit it might not be the best for Scotland.

 

All evidence shows Scotland spend a lot more than we can afford to spend currently. We can't live the way we are currently living in an indy Scotland. It is blatant short term bribery to get them over the line. 

 

False social media and "alternative news" is the only way Yes will deceive the nation to vote for indy. 

 

 

 

Daily Mail season ticket holder right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

Was Yes, would still vote Yes if I was still in Scotland.

 

If another referendum does come up we'll vote No again because we're a nation of serfs.  Exemplified perfectly by Ruth Davidson and friends who proclaimed that Brexit would be disastrous only to change her mind after the actual result to appease the colonial masters.

 

After 2014 it was great seeing stories of Scotland being politically energized but seeing some of the responses to those intending to vote No is depressing.  Nothing more than regurgitated inaccurate media soundbites.  

99.9% bang on (bit about voting no again is just wrong though). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

I have seen this post countless times over the last 4 years and it is circulated far and wide on Facebook and Twitter. 

 

Read the comments about it. "we should get this printed onto flyers" etc. These people are at the forefront of the "movement" spreading misinformation. 

 

People often believe stuff that is nonsense and vote accordingly. 

I've never seen it and i don't think its been on here. There is a,ot of misinformation but i don't think this even qualiies for that category. It's a long read for an idiot and anybody who stuck with it and read it all cannot be taken in by it. I searched for it and found it on a Rangers supporters page with a hashtag Smash the SNP.  You would need better quality nonsense to convince people even us badly educated, gullible cultists who support the SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

We have no choice but to lead by example and we are on the road albiet extremely tentatively. We are diverging from the English majority. The argument is that we are not going fast enough and that we are not capable of going far enough under a devolved administration. Many people want Scptland to become more progressive and inclusive but think that can be acieved inside the UK. I dont believe this as every time Labour gets into power they turn into the Tories.

 

Im not really arguing against you on that, although I sometimes feel that the limitations of devolution are a convenient excuse.

 

24 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I will obviously vote Yes but my reasons are primarily to do with UK foreign policy. Economic and social differences can be catered for in a federal system, foreign policy cannot. I don't want to be part of a country that initiates violence on false premises as we have done on numerous occasions.

 

Again, I wouldn't disagree with you, although perhaps a federal constitution would limit the ability to wage dubious wars?

 

24 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I dont know why you dislike the SNP so much, have you forgotten what it was like before the got power? You can't have an Indy campaign without the SNP. They are the biggest part of it.

 

I don't dislike the SNP so much, I quite like Sturgeon as it happens. I've been in close proximity recently to a lot of apparatchiks though, and I found them quite pompous in their demeanour, however I suspect most political parties would be the same.

 

I'm also not convinced at their ability to if not see, but appreciate that there are other points of view. Very much an air of if you're not with us your against us. Like my experience in 2014 when questioning the white paper, for example.

 

I also don't think labour and the liberals did that bad a job when in power at Holyrood either, however both lost their way at Westminster and the SNP capitalised. Fair play.

 

Regards any Indy campaign, yes the SNP will be part of it, but to win it has to be ecumenical. There may well be soft yes voters who, for whatever reason, immediately switch off at the SNP. Therefore a broad church approach may be a better tactic.

 

The constitutional convention helped create Holyrood. A labour government passed the legislation, but they didn't deliver it. The Scottish electorate did. That's perhaps worth remembering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 The Yes movement (SNP and Greens at least) is open minded and has sought progressive alliances with other parties to mitigate against the worst effects of Tory government and Brexit. Who have they shunned? This isn't about Davidson or any other so-called personality, it's about the future of our country.

 

But your point falls flat given the Labour Party and the Liberals have supported a number of SNP (Government) initiatives in Holyrood to do things differently from the Westminster Parliament in many devolved areas: banning right to buy, extra funding in health and education, support (and indeed pushing) for more action in mental health, the ending of the bedroom tax (indeed that was a Labour request for a budget which was passed) and many other things including support for the recent Social Security (Scotland) Act. Also on the Withdrawal Bill Consent. So there is ongoing work between these parties. I think you should perhaps look at this in a less SNP-centric light - dare I say more neutral light. 

 

The recent Education Bill failed to win Green, Labour and Liberal support over the assessments and the proposed changes in how the governance of schools worked - less local government control, more power to heads was opposed by them and also by parts of the profession and trades unions. The Tories backed their bill, why not put it to a vote and win with the support of the two biggest parties.

 

So where there is principled objections to be made they take them. Equally, you can't honestly expect two unionist parties to back a referendum they don't want to hold nor can I, or others, expect the SNP to back a people's vote. Both situations are ones they actively do not wish to have. The unionists don't want to face the independence fight again - especially given they feel to have made inroads and gains in 2017's election. The SNP don't want a dual referendum precedent to be set on Brexit as it will be demanded for independence. So I am grown up enough to see where these parties have effectively worked together and where they haven't and not think the situation is mutually exclusive.

 

Quote

 

The Labour Party has rejected all of these overtures including those made by Plaid preferring instead to form alliances with the Tories in councils in Scotland and voting with the Tories in Westminster. They also conspire with the Tories to undermine popular legislation in Scotland like the OBFA and are currently trying to derail the plans for improving Scottish Education e.g. Primary one National assessments. There's is a scorched earth policy against Scotland and i believe they are following a similar policy now regaqrding Brexit. They would much rather see their opponents fail than contribute to the overall wellbeing of the country.

 

Councils: That is local democracy. Labour is in coalition with the SNP in Dumfries & Galloway, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Edinburgh, Fife, South Ayrshire and Stirling. They are in coalition with the Tories in Aberdeen (banned from the party) and West Lothian, minority with supply and confidence support.

 

So they are in local government with the SNP in more official coalitions than not. Where they are in power with Tory support or supply and confidence perhaps they could not agree terms with the SNP in those areas. After all each local party has differing local priorities and policies which may or may not be compatible. If you accept Scotland has a different political culture and that it creates different outcomes and situations then the same applies in local government. That is democracy and respecting the results people throw up. In the continent no one would bat an eyelid at the right and left forming "grand coalitions". It's bad for our politics to be so factionalised as we are. But your assertion doesn't add up when you look at the reality. Good spin though.

 

OFBA was hated by fans groups and was not a good law. It only combated sectarianism at, in or around football. It vilified fans of football over orange marchers who were still to be done under the old breach of the peace laws. It was a bad Act. Fans, politicians, academics and lawyers said so when it passed and said so after it was passed.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37835502

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10222/paul-quigley-its-too-late-snp-offensive-behaviour-act-its-time-ditch-it

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/18/kevin-mckenna-scotland-offensive-behaviour

https://theferret.scot/offensive-behaviour-football-act-denies-people-human-rights/

https://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/search?q=OBFA

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13802122.Anti-bigotry_football_law__quot_doesn_t_work_quot___admits_SNP_MSP/

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15890138.Anti-sectarian_funding__has_been_cut_by___10m_/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/anti-sectarian-charities-facing-battle-7096031

https://www.actiononsectarianism.info/home-news-slide/vital-funds-to-support-anti-sectarian-charities-cut

 

And it wasn't just Labour Coco. Greens, LibDems and Tories thought it bad. Hence why a majority of Justice Committee members voted for it's repeal and/or replacement:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2107481/holyrood-committee-bill-sectarian-behaviour-football-act-james-kelly/

 

The Act was bad law. It criminalised football fans. You could sing these songs in a creche and not fall within the ambit of the Act. So how did it do anything to be anything more to fight sectarianism. What good does cuts to the Community Safety Fund do here? Or for that maintaining denominational education? Long term plans and projects make a difference. Not bad law.

 

P1 Testing: Parents, teachers, trades unions, Liberals, Greens and Labour all oppose this and have done for sometime on the belief that testing at that age is opposed to the aims of the CFE and is inappropriate given the emphasis of our early ages education policies has for a long time been learning through enjoyment. So if you lay that at Labour's door you need to do so at all the other opposition groups in this one. The Tory volte face is certainly an act of opportunism, but the other groups - out with Labour - must really hate children in Scotland as well. 

 

Again if you are going to apply scorched earth policy to them, then anyone who disagrees with them must be guilty of the same. I mean your hyperbole is entertaining but imo doesn't all add up.

 

Simply put, perhaps if you looked beyond the constitutional debate and started to view things beyond yes and no you may see there is legitimate disquiet on "domestic policies" (for want of a better phrase) and that this isn't merely opportunism but people looking for a better way of doing what the government is proposed. Not as malicious as you'd like me and others to believe.

 

Quote

 

I am sure in the circumstances this wouldn't have been thrown back in their faces on a matter by matter basis. Like Nicola does with the Greens and others.

 

Quote

 

Given the Dail is the Irish Parliament I assume you've not read this. Given it would have been hard for Tony Blair or Jack McConnell in 2006 to form an alliance with the Irish Progessive Democrats in the Dail.

 

Quote

 

Local democracy again. Up to the party. I do have sympathy with this though and think it should be investigated where Labour has 0 chance of winning the seat. But then so too should the SNP, Liberals and Greens perhaps not run where they are 3rd and 4th...

 

Quote

 

1. I have sympathy with electoral pacts. 

2. I believe in local democracy and disagreed with suspending councillors for making deals they believe to be in their constituents best interests.

3. An article which is predicated on a rumour from a mate of Ruth Davidson is barely substantial enough to suggest this will happen or is a serious prospect.

 

Quote

 

1. Emily has changed her tune on that one - unsurprising given how much things have gone south.

2. 4 MPs do not a summer make. But then again, I thought similar when that unnamed source alleged 6 SNP parliamentarians voted Leave including Mr Angus MacNeil and Mr Alex Neil. 

 

Coco - I think, personally, that there's merits in electoral pacts but I am not Jezza Corbyn nor Dickie Leonard. I'm not even a party member. So there's little I can do to back it.

 

But perhaps chill out a tad and read the links I've given you. It's not all doom and gloom and it's not all anti-scotland. Hopefully in time you'll grasp that. 

 

Cheers man, good to chat. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Absolutely No. Then don't stop there, close down Holyrood. Devolution has been an unmitigated disaster that has led us to this. Return proper power to local government and give us all peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Regards any Indy campaign, yes the SNP will be part of it, but to win it has to be ecumenical. There may well be soft yes voters who, for whatever reason, immediately switch off at the SNP. Therefore a broad church approach may be a better tactic.

 

Agreed. The SNP ownership of Yes is it's downfall. I think a Yes movement lacks a Canon Wright or the heavy involvement of organisation not lead by SNP members. The model they need is the Constitutional Convention of the 1990s. In which Labour was a leading light but the Liberals, trade unions and civic organisations were invited in to help shape the narrative and the offer for the "next push". But for that to work the SNP need to be willing to let go of all the levers of the movement's direction and offering. That is something I don't believe they are capable of.

 

26 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

The constitutional convention helped create Holyrood. A labour government passed the legislation, but they didn't deliver it. The Scottish electorate did. That's perhaps worth remembering.

 

Yup. But I'd argue the devolution elements of Labour - John Smith, Donald Dewar, George Robertson, Helen Liddell and others - kept the light of devolution alive in Labour and that it is to them that we should give big thanks to for it happening. People voted for 2 parties committed to it in Scotland in 1997 and then backed it in a referendum of 1998. The SCC got us there in the end. But Labour and the LibDems were the midwives of it's birth. Much like should Yes happen that the SNP would be it's midwife. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

When Scotland voted to stay in the union we didn't know we were getting out of Europe in fact we were told the opposite. 

When Scotland voted to stay in the UK, the "Yes voters" voted to come out of Europe.

Yes voters had less idea of the consequnces  and agreements or "deals" with the UK Government than we do of the Brexit deals. It's like getting a divorce but still expecting the benefits of marriage, without the pain, but then none of us really know what that pain will be, 10 years of Austerity or 25 years of Austerity.... or more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes then and yes again.

 

When it goes tits up, I can bugger off to Canada. At least the arsehole government to the south wouldn't have any direct influence on my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
38 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Absolutely No. Then don't stop there, close down Holyrood. Devolution has been an unmitigated disaster that has led us to this. Return proper power to local government and give us all peace.

 

That's the fringiest of the fringe views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

That's the fringiest of the fringe views. 

I'm not sure it is, I think there is quite a few people with similar views to that, and it might even be growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

I haven't seen this but i really dont think there would be many people taken in by a claim of a £467 billion annual surplus on that reasoning. A 45% Indy vote was not achieved and sustained on rubbish like that.

 

 

No less a figure than the erstwhile FM was happy to bend the truth with rubbish like that - all to further his cause. Do you think that had no bearing on swaying the gullible?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/23/alex-salmond-north-sea-oil

68E26993-65FC-4CED-955C-389869A9FEE7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All roads lead to Gorgie
15 minutes ago, H2 said:

I'm not sure it is, I think there is quite a few people with similar views to that, and it might even be growing.

They might be now but just wait until Boris wins his second term in office then they will be craving Holyrood's speedy return. It's a safety blanket that Scotland needs against Boris and his likes! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
28 minutes ago, H2 said:

I'm not sure it is, I think there is quite a few people with similar views to that, and it might even be growing.

 

I'm not convinced on that tbh. There's now a whole generation of voters who've never lived in a Scotland without its own parliament. As the years roll on and that number continues to increase the concept of no Scottish Parliament will just be baffling to most people rather than a genuine position. All imo of course. 

Edited by AlphonseCapone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, H2 said:

When Scotland voted to stay in the UK, the "Yes voters" voted to come out of Europe.

Yes voters had less idea of the consequnces  and agreements or "deals" with the UK Government than we do of the Brexit deals. It's like getting a divorce but still expecting the benefits of marriage, without the pain, but then none of us really know what that pain will be, 10 years of Austerity or 25 years of Austerity.... or more?

How do you know it would lead to Austerity? 

 

8.6% of UK assets, whether that’s embassies, gold, bonds, military hardware, it’s debt, whatever is belongs to Scotland.  This is nothing like a EU trade agreement or disputing what directives we have to keep etc... etc... 

 

Scotland doesn’t have fiscal powers, So how do you know Scotland would be poorer or richer? 

 

Ireland by 2020 is forecast to become to 5th richest Country on earth per capita. We have more going for us than Ireland ffs. The only difference is they have the power to grow their economy, we don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

How do you know it would lead to Austerity? 

 

8.6% of UK assets, whether that’s embassies, gold, bonds, military hardware, it’s debt, whatever is belongs to Scotland.  This is nothing like a EU trade agreement or disputing what directives we have to keep etc... etc... 

 

Scotland doesn’t have fiscal powers, So how do you know Scotland would be poorer or richer? 

 

Ireland by 2020 is forecast to become to 5th richest Country on earth per capita. We have more going for us than Ireland ffs. The only difference is they have the power to grow their economy, we don’t. 

 

That doesn't really mean much. That wealth could be tied up in land, abroad or in company shares. Effectively not being used for the benefit of the majority of it's people.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

That doesn't really mean much. That wealth could be tied up in land, abroad or in company shares. Effectively not being used for the benefit of the majority of it's people.

It does.

 

It proves that Ireland can effectively grow their economy because they have the powers to do that where as Scotland does not despite us having a lot more going for us than Ireland does. We have lower unemployment in Scotland and a bigger workforce.

 

Ireland spends 3000 more per head on public services than Scotland does.

 

It is what it is. Accept it, don’t try and spin a negative out of it. It’s irrelevant where Ireland spends their dough. If Scotland had Ireland’s GDP we’d be running at a surplus. Which is entirely feasible if we had the same economic powers. 

Edited by Cruyff Turn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

It does.

 

It proves that Ireland can effectively grow their economy because they have the powers to do that where as Scotland does not despite us having a lot more going for us than Ireland does. We have lower unemployment in Scotland and a bigger workforce.

 

Ireland spends 3000 more per head on public services than Scotland does.

 

It is what it is. Accept it, don’t try and spin a negative out of it. It’s irrelevant where Ireland spends their dough. If Scotland had Ireland’s GDP we’d be running at a surplus. Which is entirely feasible if we had the same economic powers. 

 Do you have a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coconut doug said:

I've never seen it and i don't think its been on here. There is a,ot of misinformation but i don't think this even qualiies for that category. It's a long read for an idiot and anybody who stuck with it and read it all cannot be taken in by it. I searched for it and found it on a Rangers supporters page with a hashtag Smash the SNP.  You would need better quality nonsense to convince people even us badly educated, gullible cultists who support the SNP.

 

I told you where to find it so not sure how you ended up thinking this was done Pro-union propaganda. Please post a link to the location you found as I could not see that. 

 

For your benefit, here are some posts that showed when I did the Facebook search I mentioned earlier. Take a read of the comments and see how many people believe it unquestioningly and go on to reshare. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/242448469443591/permalink/415607595461010/

 

 

 

 

I saw similar nonsense posted before the actual vote in 2014, shared by someone I knew. 

 

An SNP councillor for Livingston south (Moira Shemilt) shared it too adding "good to know"

 

Hope that is enough evidence for you. It is blatantly incorrect but if the majority of Scotland isn't smart enough to question what they read on social media then that is the one lifeline nationalists have. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 Do you have a link?

 

Scotlands population is about 5.4m

Irelands is 4.8million

 

Ireland spending per head on public services is around €14502. 

Page 14, in the blue table. 

https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/public_spending_in_the_republic_of_ireland_a_descriptive_overview_and_growth_implications_wp.pdf

 

Scotlands public spending per head page 7 £13530.

govscot:document

 

Irelands spending per head on healthcare.

€4706 per head. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/state-among-highest-spenders-on-health-per-person-in-oecd-1.3547256

 

Scotlands spending per head on healthcare. In summary first couple of pages in.

£2332 per head.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00724/SN00724.pdf

 

Just another point which has nothing to do with Ireland about where all our money goes.

 

Scotland spends 3.182 billion on Defence (Reserved) p28

 

Scotlands population is 8.2% of the UKs.

 

UK Defence spending is 34 billion.

 

8.2% of 34billion is 2.78billion

govscot:document

 

Scotland receives only 1.7billion back from the UK

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-confirms-1-7bn-defence-spending-scotland-amid-snp-criticism/

 

Scotland is getting ****ed by the UK on defence and the UK government are charging interest of Scotland’s deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that positive comparisons with Ireland are going to be a very useful technique in turning around previous No voters like myself. I see many similarities between us. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Does anybody know why the uk government is so against a federal arrangement? 

Because the truth shall set you free. And it'll lose its borrowing status to us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted no last time, but if I saw that the Scottish government was making a difference in vital areas, education, health, housing, law and order, and especially employment opportunities for our youth I may be persuaded to change. We need nurses, doctors, joiners, plumbers, brickies, electricians yet all we hear is we have a skills shortage that needs to be filled from the EU. Why not give our school leavers these opportunities to have a real career with a future, instead of the world of dead end, zero hours contract jobs or worst still, a life of benefits, drugs or crime. Our present system encourages these problems and will continue to do so. We already have the potential man-power, we need investment and training. They empowered sixteen year olds with the vote ( for their own ends ) but continue to fail them, as previous governments have for many years. The SNP should be showing the way to the rest of the UK but instead choose to blame Westminster for all that is wrong north of the border. Still no.

Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...