Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[reaths17]

 

 

So there's no difference, but you hate one? No difference.

 

"hate who"?

 

their all the same, and i dont want the expense/hastle for the SAME, offer something different or pipe doon, is it, as far as i'm concerned.

Edited May 10, 2014 by reaths17

[The Comedian]

"hate who"?

 

their all the same, and i dont want the expense/hastle for the SAME, offer something different or pipe doon, is it, as far as i'm concerned.

 

Your position utterly baffles me.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Your position utterly baffles me.

 

I'm trying to work out if there is an actual position there beyond 'I don't like Salmond'.

[Alba gu Brath]

Indeed but 1 party member is hardly a sign of an endemic collapse of No support in the party.

 

But he's not only 1 member and he and his pro-Yes colleagues haven't left the party.

 

Oh, and was Henry MacLeish ever a co-ordinator, or even member, of Better Together?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that more than 30% of Scottish Labour members plan to vote Yes. Among Labour voters, the figure will be higher.

 

Btw, Cinema ad not going down too well it seems.

 

Edited May 10, 2014 by Alba gu Brath

[jambo1185]

Thats funny. It got a round of applause when I went to the cinema on Monday afternoon.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2014 by jambo1185

[2NaFish]

 

 

"hate who"?

 

their all the same, and i dont want the expense/hastle for the SAME, offer something different or pipe doon, is it, as far as i'm concerned.

 

id say hate is a pretty accurate description, but if youd prefer, i'll say 'prefer'. you prefer one but say there is no difference. its nonsensical.

 

you don't like the status quo, fair enough. you don't see independence as being any tangible change. Could you explain, then, why you're rather vociferous in your preference for the current status quo?

[jambo1185]

Much like the politicians debate, this thread has deteriorated rapidly over time lol. The past couple of days on here have been mental!

[scott_jambo]

Thats funny. It got a round of applause when I went to the cinema on Monday afternoon.

 

Wanting their current dole money protected no doubt.

Edited May 10, 2014 by scott_jambo

[jambo1185]

 

 

Wanting their current dole money protected no doubt.

 

Sorry im confused. Is that supposed to be a dig at me ffor being at the cinema during the day? It was a bank holiday remember.

[Vic Vespa]

Thats funny. It got a round of applause when I went to the cinema on Monday afternoon.

 

Out of interest how many people does it take to hold a round of applause ?

 

I've been to a cinema where there's only been 10 people watching the film and 7 of those were under 12.

 

Might even have been the same show from the sounds of it

[reaths17]

id say hate is a pretty accurate description, but if youd prefer, i'll say 'prefer'. you prefer one but say there is no difference. its nonsensical.

 

you don't like the status quo, fair enough. you don't see independence as being any tangible change. Could you explain, then, why you're rather vociferous in your preference for the current status quo?

 

there was a time when we paid one set of twats to tell us what to do, then came along the EU, then came along holyrood, countries still the same just 3 sets of twats to pay for now. we certainly dont need to add to that, so unless the seperatists offer tangible change, WHATS THE POINT OF THIS, is just so some twats can go aroond shouting wur free.

[jambo1185]

 

 

 

Out of interest how many people does it take to hold a round of applause ?

 

I've been to a cinema where there's only been 10 people watching the film and 7 of those were under 12.

 

Might even have been the same show from the sounds of it

 

Oh I don't know, about 3. Although someone else whooped, but it may be cos their mate brought them some pic and mix just as the advert was finishing . But I'd guess it was the same number of people who were 'hilariously' booing it elsewhere.

 

(I was really just be sarcy whilst trying to make the point that holding on to some birds tweet as a signal that the BT advert is getting a negative reaction nationwide is a bit of classic straw-clutching. It will have completely different receptions from showing to showing depending on who is in the audience. I imagine most people the adverts on both sides won't even register. Like the rest of the debate)

[The Comedian]

 

 

there was a time when we paid one set of twats to tell us what to do, then came along the EU, then came along holyrood, countries still the same just 3 sets of twats to pay for now. we certainly dont need to add to that, so unless the seperatists offer tangible change, WHATS THE POINT OF THIS, is just so some twats can go aroond shouting wur free.

 

Aye, that's exactly what it is.

[2NaFish]

 

 

there was a time when we paid one set of twats to tell us what to do, then came along the EU, then came along holyrood, countries still the same just 3 sets of twats to pay for now. we certainly dont need to add to that, so unless the seperatists offer tangible change, WHATS THE POINT OF THIS, is just so some twats can go aroond shouting wur free.

 

ah, so there's no difference and yet you still have a preference. You're gonna have to walk me through it again. Nothing that matters will change - so why do you care? It doesn't matter.

 

Although you seem to think we'd be adding to the 'sets of twats' by removing Westminster. You realize it's the opposite of that and that we'd diminish our sets of tests by one third. 33 percent less sets of twats, and you oppose it.

[2NaFish]

 

 

there was a time when we paid one set of twats to tell us what to do, then came along the EU, then came along holyrood, countries still the same just 3 sets of twats to pay for now. we certainly dont need to add to that, so unless the seperatists offer tangible change, WHATS THE POINT OF THIS, is just so some twats can go aroond shouting wur free.

 

ah, so there's no difference and yet you still have a preference. You're gonna have to walk me through it again. Nothing that matters will change - so why do you care? It doesn't matter.

 

Although you seem to think we'd be adding to the 'sets of twats' by removing Westminster. You realize it's the opposite of that and that we'd diminish our sets of tests by one third. 33 percent less sets of twats, and you oppose it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

But he's not only 1 member and he and his pro-Yes colleagues haven't left the party.

 

Oh, and was Henry MacLeish ever a co-ordinator, or even member, of Better Together?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that more than 30% of Scottish Labour members plan to vote Yes. Among Labour voters, the figure will be higher.

 

Btw, Cinema ad not going down too well it seems.

 

 

The defection of a relatively low ranking party member from BT to Yes isn't really game changing. I agree labour voters and members will vote yes, that's their own democratic choice and being a card carrier or lifelong supporter shouldn't affect your vote here. But equally was there not a figure of near two thirds of SNP voters not being independence supporters in 2011?

 

That's all relative party politics. McLeish has been linked by yes supporters with being a closet yes man. Hence why I chose him as an example. He has said he is a no voter and he doesn't back independence and has said he disagrees with BT and it's tactics. A fair position.

 

This isn't a party political issue to me. Nor should it be for others. Yet from the SalmCam debate to the post-vote landscape party politics are muddying the waters.

 

Oh and btw, I really can't care less what someone's reaction to a cinema advert in one cinema in one part of the country means. IMO it means hee-haw to the outcome & debate.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

ah, so there's no difference and yet you still have a preference. You're gonna have to walk me through it again. Nothing that matters will change - so why do you care? It doesn't matter.

 

Although you seem to think we'd be adding to the 'sets of twats' by removing Westminster. You realize it's the opposite of that and that we'd diminish our sets of tests by one third. 33 percent less sets of twats, and you oppose it.

 

Tbf there is an issue of democracy if some view a huge issue like this with apathy. I also agree that little will change after a yes vote.

[2NaFish]

 

 

 

 

Tbf there is an issue of democracy if some view a huge issue like this with apathy. I also agree that little will change after a yes vote.

 

some is a bit vague. Some people will always find a way to step away from politics - possibly through laziness, possibly through disaffection and possibly through a desire to be contrary. I guess we'll only know when the votes are cast.

 

with regards change, of imagine there'd be a drift over time. you made a fine post a few days back about the gradual, constant development of Scotland within the UK. There's no reason to think that microcosm wouldn't continue. There would also be, I expect bigger changes in time - a vote on the monarchy within a few years, say. If the split is for good as we are often warned, it doesn't make much sense to ask what the short term changes are.

[reaths17]

ah, so there's no difference and yet you still have a preference. You're gonna have to walk me through it again. Nothing that matters will change - so why do you care? It doesn't matter.

 

Although you seem to think we'd be adding to the 'sets of twats' by removing Westminster. You realize it's the opposite of that and that we'd diminish our sets of tests by one third. 33 percent less sets of twats, and you oppose it.

 

as i've said before, we will have westminster running our monetary policy set 1, EU running our legislation, set 2 and NATO running our defence, set 3 and a hugely increased holyrood running god knows what, set 4, in a ex-union which will be a 10th the size it was. add the creation of mass jobs for the governments plans to assign an official as a guardian on every child( which is massively invasive idea on any parents freedom) and you wont be able to move for beaurocracy and beaurocrats, no wonder their planning to have an open border to anyone with all this job creation.

 

while we're at it perhaps you'd like to have a go at a list of the benefits salmond is offering with this speperation, remember a scottish face isn't one and bare in mind the fact he's trying to give away the big political powers on economy to his stated enemy westminster/

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

 

some is a bit vague. Some people will always find a way to step away from politics - possibly through laziness, possibly through disaffection and possibly through a desire to be contrary. I guess we'll only know when the votes are cast.

 

with regards change, of imagine there'd be a drift over time. you made a fine post a few days back about the gradual, constant development of Scotland within the UK. There's no reason to think that microcosm wouldn't continue. There would also be, I expect bigger changes in time - a vote on the monarchy within a few years, say. If the split is for good as we are often warned, it doesn't make much sense to ask what the short term changes are.

 

I quite agree, to an extent.

 

Your post here and mine the other day point to constitutional issues - heads of stare, powers of parliaments and governments. However that is of little real interest to many. And whilst in 15 years since the first devolved elections the nature of the UK and her politics has radically altered - demise of the UUP, Legislative power in Wales, a nationalist and labour government in Wales, the SNP emerging as a party of government and the emergence of coalition in Westminster - we have seen very little social change or a divergence of political cultures across the UK.

 

That is what people want. Salmond talks a good talk but on inspection of a lot of his policies we see a conformity to established politics in the light neo-liberal mould of the Westminster parties of Major and more so Blair than Brown. A light tax economy with an undercurrent of pro-US foreign policy aims.

 

To me I see a move away from that down south, 'tentatively. An opposition debating how to improve wages, control energy costs and seeks to give everyone a better chance of managing living costs. I hear little of this up here from our government in Holyrood. I hear more on how yes would better this from think tanks and minority parties than the party likely to govern. That's a worry.

 

From that nature of discourse I don't blame those like reaths17 who view this vote about being about the lesser of two evils. Nor do I think it's wrong that our island communities who feel as distant from Holyrood as much as they do from Westminster to consider requesting devolution for themselves or a form of crown dependency status. What we are being offered with yes has as much an issue of failing to make things noticeably better than they are now and for a significant minority still raises huge issues of democratic deficit, fear of centralisation and remoteness from those in power as Westminster does. To some we're swapping London bankers and Think tanks for Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers, and for many that may not look much better than now.

[2NaFish]

 

 

as i've said before, we will have westminster running our monetary policy set 1, EU running our legislation, set 2 and NATO running our defence, set 3 and a hugely increased holyrood running god knows what, set 4, in a ex-union which will be a 10th the size it was. add the creation of mass jobs for the governments plans to assign an official as a guardian on every child( which is massively invasive idea on any parents freedom) and you wont be able to move for beaurocracy and beaurocrats, no wonder their planning to have an open border to anyone with all this job creation.

 

while we're at it perhaps you'd like to have a go at a list of the benefits salmond is offering with this speperation, remember a scottish face isn't one and bare in mind the fact he's trying to give away the big political powers on economy to his stated enemy westminster/

 

I'm not evangelical so have no interest in converting you, so you'll get no list I'm afraid.

 

whilst you're stuck with the 'there's no difference but I have a preference' line any point you make will be undermined.

[curriehearts]

as i've said before, we will have westminster running our monetary policy set 1, EU running our legislation, set 2 and NATO running our defence, set 3 and a hugely increased holyrood running god knows what, set 4, in a ex-union which will be a 10th the size it was. add the creation of mass jobs for the governments plans to assign an official as a guardian on every child( which is massively invasive idea on any parents freedom) and you wont be able to move for beaurocracy and beaurocrats, no wonder their planning to have an open border to anyone with all this job creation.

 

while we're at it perhaps you'd like to have a go at a list of the benefits salmond is offering with this speperation, remember a scottish face isn't one and bare in mind the fact he's trying to give away the big political powers on economy to his stated enemy westminster/

 

You can't give away powers you don't have.

[curriehearts]

Tbf there is an issue of democracy if some view a huge issue like this with apathy. I also agree that little will change after a yes vote.

 

What time period are you referring to? Day 1, week 1, year 1, year 10?

 

Of course things will change, some quicker than others eg.

- The first budget of a Scottish Government (irrespective of what party is in power) will be scrutinised by the markets, Is it sensible? Can Scotland afford it? That level of scrutiny will be intense and hold politicians to account?

- Making Scotland more competitive to create jobs will take longer

- closing the gap between the rich and poor will take longer again.

[GrimUpNorth]

 

 

 

I quite agree, to an extent.

 

Your post here and mine the other day point to constitutional issues - heads of stare, powers of parliaments and governments. However that is of little real interest to many. And whilst in 15 years since the first devolved elections the nature of the UK and her politics has radically altered - demise of the UUP, Legislative power in Wales, a nationalist and labour government in Wales, the SNP emerging as a party of government and the emergence of coalition in Westminster - we have seen very little social change or a divergence of political cultures across the UK.

 

That is what people want. Salmond talks a good talk but on inspection of a lot of his policies we see a conformity to established politics in the light neo-liberal mould of the Westminster parties of Major and more so Blair than Brown. A light tax economy with an undercurrent of pro-US foreign policy aims.

 

To me I see a move away from that down south, 'tentatively. An opposition debating how to improve wages, control energy costs and seeks to give everyone a better chance of managing living costs. I hear little of this up here from our government in Holyrood. I hear more on how yes would better this from think tanks and minority parties than the party likely to govern. That's a worry.

 

From that nature of discourse I don't blame those like reaths17 who view this vote about being about the lesser of two evils. Nor do I think it's wrong that our island communities who feel as distant from Holyrood as much as they do from Westminster to consider requesting devolution for themselves or a form of crown dependency status. What we are being offered with yes has as much an issue of failing to make things noticeably better than they are now and for a significant minority still raises huge issues of democratic deficit, fear of centralisation and remoteness from those in power as Westminster does. To some we're swapping London bankers and Think tanks for Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers, and for many that may not look much better than now.

 

Excellent post

[Gizmo]

there was a time when we paid one set of twats to tell us what to do, then came along the EU, then came along holyrood, countries still the same just 3 sets of twats to pay for now. we certainly dont need to add to that, so unless the seperatists offer tangible change, WHATS THE POINT OF THIS, is just so some twats can go aroond shouting wur free.

 

You don't like 3 levels of infrastructure - well then there's your answer - vote YES and get rid of one hugely expensive layer of bureaucracy.

 

There are other pertinent points one could make but you've been consistent in your dismissive attitude all along when any are mentioned that you are either trolling or an absolute hard NO and just taking the piss.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Canon Kenyon Wright has come out in support of yes vote in an open letter in the Herald

Who is he the former chair of the constitutional convention , he used to argue for more powers to Holyrood .

 

While the Orange Order plan a march with their pals from Ireland on the eve of the vote .

 

In other news Labour in the 70s were advised to set up an oil fund but couldn't afford to , the Tory party in the 80s could have and should have but did not .

[The Comedian]

Canon Kenyon Wright has come out in support of yes vote in an open letter in the Herald

Who is he the former chair of the constitutional convention , he used to argue for more powers to Holyrood .

 

While the Orange Order plan a march with their pals from Ireland on the eve of the vote .

 

In other news Labour in the 70s were advised to set up an oil fund but couldn't afford to , the Tory party in the 80s could have and should have but did not .

 

Just aswell for the unionists because, after it has been pished away they can then claim we are messed without it.

 

Anything to stop self-determination including allowing Westminster to blow billions more of one of our greatest resources.

[coconut doug]

I quite agree, to an extent.

 

Your post here and mine the other day point to constitutional issues - heads of stare, powers of parliaments and governments. However that is of little real interest to many. And whilst in 15 years since the first devolved elections the nature of the UK and her politics has radically altered - demise of the UUP, Legislative power in Wales, a nationalist and labour government in Wales, the SNP emerging as a party of government and the emergence of coalition in Westminster - we have seen very little social change or a divergence of political cultures across the UK.

 

That is what people want. Salmond talks a good talk but on inspection of a lot of his policies we see a conformity to established politics in the light neo-liberal mould of the Westminster parties of Major and more so Blair than Brown. A light tax economy with an undercurrent of pro-US foreign policy aims.

 

To me I see a move away from that down south, 'tentatively. An opposition debating how to improve wages, control energy costs and seeks to give everyone a better chance of managing living costs. I hear little of this up here from our government in Holyrood. I hear more on how yes would better this from think tanks and minority parties than the party likely to govern. That's a worry.

 

From that nature of discourse I don't blame those like reaths17 who view this vote about being about the lesser of two evils. Nor do I think it's wrong that our island communities who feel as distant from Holyrood as much as they do from Westminster to consider requesting devolution for themselves or a form of crown dependency status. What we are being offered with yes has as much an issue of failing to make things noticeably better than they are now and for a significant minority still raises huge issues of democratic deficit, fear of centralisation and remoteness from those in power as Westminster does. To some we're swapping London bankers and Think tanks for Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers, and for many that may not look much better than now.

Ukip are currently around 30% in polls, significantly ahead of the Tories. They have always lost their deposits in Scotland. Of course politics are diverging. Differences regarding immigration could hardly be more stark and is the reason for UKIP having such a high poll rating. England continues its lurch to the right. Many Labour and Tory policies and people are indistinguishable.

The labour party is split between Scotland and rUK where it created and initially supported the bedroom tax policy. Oppositiom to this in Scotland forced them to change their policy but many still didn't turn up in parliament to vote against it.

We've seen Labour governments cut Corpoation Tax twice and propose more cuts (Brown). We've seen a reluctance to restore the 50p tax rate for high earners whilst doubling tax rates for the poorest taxpayers. You have criticised the SNP for suggesting a cut in Corporation Tax post independence when that might be an entirely sensible policy designed to mitigate against the uncertainty of independence and may well be temporary.

Scotland now has around 45% of its electricity produced through renewables and continues to grow this, while in rUk they talk of "green crap". Opinion polls now show Scotland significantly in favour of EU membership while rUk is against.

Your constant carping about Salmond and attempt to paint him as a neocon are poor. I have never known a politician take so much vilification from the media. I have struggled to work out why this has happened and can only think it is because he always talks Scotland up, because he is both knowledgeable and clever, because he has working class origins but most of all because he is a Socialist. Incredibly he maintains the highest approval ratings. Contrast him with media darlings Farage and Boris Johnson. These are the guys with high approval ratings in England. In comparison to Salmond they get a free ride. Miliband tops the wierdness league though.

IMO The Tories will be returned to power again in 2015. There is no serious challenge. They may take a beating in the Euro elections but their core voters will return to keep Red Ed out. It might even take an electoral pact between them and Ukip. Cameron's successor is already warming up, if Cameron falters, Boris will give them the lift they need, except in Scotland of course. Despite being the most insipid, reactionary and idealogically ignorant leader the Labour party has had the press call him Red Ed. Even Sarwar had to keep him right on the bedroom tax. Can you imagine the seethe in Scotland if we vote NO and shortly afyterwards BJ gets to be Prime Minister?

So Salmond is supporting an "undercurrent of pro U.S. policy aims". Last week he was accused of supporting Putin. This must be a very subtle undercurrent. It's long standing SNP policy to remove Trident. He was amongst the first to speak against the Iraq war and the bombing of Syria (when once again Miliband didn't know what to do). He was amongst a very few to criticise the actions of the U.S. in bombing Serbia. One of the biggest attractions of independence for me is that we will no longer have to be a U.S. vassal state. Scotland will have different interests and priorities to rUK. Threatening, bombing and invading other countries will not be the main thrust of our foreign policy.

Of course Salmond and the SNP are populists, they have to be, they have a referendum to win and do not want to offend anybody on the run up. After the referendum everything changes. The SNP are gone.

[djf]

Similarly

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/next-generation-nowhere-to-be-found-as-scots-tory-youth-conference-is-scrap.24189427

 

Annual Scottish youth Tory convention cancelled after selling just 12 tickets.

[JamboX2]

 

Ukip are currently around 30% in polls, significantly ahead of the Tories. They have always lost their deposits in Scotland. Of course politics are diverging. Differences regarding immigration could hardly be more stark and is the reason for UKIP having such a high poll rating. England continues its lurch to the right. Many Labour and Tory policies and people are indistinguishable.

 

Read again. My post mentions how political parties have adapted and altered. It says the culture and policies have differed little. Is the SNP any less spin and media fixated than Blair's New Labour? Are they any less detached from the same elites the Westminster parties are? They have their own business interests, the leadership are close to Murdoch and are very much on the centre right economically.

 

Many Labour and SNP policies are indistinguishable, many SNP and Tory policies are too. Why do you think Goldie dubbed SNP budgets the next best thing to a Tory one? It's called political centrism. Third way ism. Which should've died with Blair is alive and we'll in Scotland in the SNP and in London in the coalition. That's the issue. That's the flaw. That's why people in England are voting ukip to an extent, because they view it a finger up to the Westminster establishment. Something john snow pointed out in his blog as a driver of some to vote yes in Scotland.

 

However, from what I see in front of me I see that this attitude is still prevalent at Holyrood as much as Westminster.

 

The labour party is split between Scotland and rUK where it created and initially supported the bedroom tax policy. Oppositiom to this in Scotland forced them to change their policy but many still didn't turn up in parliament to vote against it.

 

They brought in non smoking pubs and free tuition and free personal care when in power up here. That's the point of devolution. The national parties needn't follow the uk one blindly. The Red Sea speech between Wales and the UK labour parties show this. As do Alastair Campbell's diaries where he wrote that Dewar, McLeish and McConnell caused them sleepless nights with their insistence on coalitions and different policies from UK labour.

 

We've seen Labour governments cut Corpoation Tax twice and propose more cuts (Brown). We've seen a reluctance to restore the 50p tax rate for high earners whilst doubling tax rates for the poorest taxpayers. You have criticised the SNP for suggesting a cut in Corporation Tax post independence when that might be an entirely sensible policy designed to mitigate against the uncertainty of independence and may well be temporary.

 

My issue with the SNP is they can't have their cake and eat it. Have your 3% cut. Start your dogfight with the UK. But don't then play the social class warriors while ruling out a 50p rate on the basis of tax competition (Swinney).

 

Scotland now has around 45% of its electricity produced through renewables and continues to grow this, while in rUk they talk of "green crap". Opinion polls now show Scotland significantly in favour of EU membership while rUk is against.

 

Good on both. But don't forget Scottish industrial leaders welcomed the reduction in green energy levies for industry in the recent budget and said this was advantageous for Scottish jobs and industry as lower energy costs allow for expansion. It's a two way street. As for Europe, why should a yes voting Scotland then fear the peoples opinion on the deal negotiated for our entry?

 

Your constant carping about Salmond and attempt to paint him as a neocon are poor. I have never known a politician take so much vilification from the media. I have struggled to work out why this has happened and can only think it is because he always talks Scotland up, because he is both knowledgeable and clever, because he has working class origins but most of all because he is a Socialist. Incredibly he maintains the highest approval ratings. Contrast him with media darlings Farage and Boris Johnson. These are the guys with high approval ratings in England. In comparison to Salmond they get a free ride. Miliband tops the wierdness league though.

 

I don't hate Salmond. I admire his success and he's clearly a clever and able man. I don't think he has it any rougher in the press or from satirists etc. I think that's a myth. I've seen many unionists get as rough a ride as the nationalists do. Who cares? Clearly the press are doing their job. And for all the perceived bile he gets in the press and broadcast media he's never had his father called a traitor or had his holiday destinations queried as suitable.

 

Speak to any member of the STUC or the SSP, the Greens, and members of the SNP themselves, no one calls him a socialist. How can you say he is when you assess his policies . They are centrist and populist. Is robbing local services that the poor rely on to fund your tax freeze which benefits the well off most socialist? Are the cuts to higher education? Are the ?1bn worth of anti poverty cuts?

 

Don't get me wrong. Socially they do well policy wise. But socialist? I don't see it. Sorry,

 

IMO The Tories will be returned to power again in 2015. There is no serious challenge. They may take a beating in the Euro elections but their core voters will return to keep Red Ed out. It might even take an electoral pact between them and Ukip. Cameron's successor is already warming up, if Cameron falters, Boris will give them the lift they need, except in Scotland of course. Despite being the most insipid, reactionary and idealogically ignorant leader the Labour party has had the press call him Red Ed. Even Sarwar had to keep him right on the bedroom tax. Can you imagine the seethe in Scotland if we vote NO and shortly afyterwards BJ gets to be Prime Minister?

 

Bojo has no hope of being pm in 2015. He has little hope beyond that. Polling shows him behind Cameron as prime ministerial. I think it'll be a hung parliament, Labour to pip the Tories. LibDems to make up the rest. UKIP to get 1 or 2 seats. SNP to get a couple more than now.

 

Cameron's successor will be one of his most competent ministers - Hague, Theresa May or Philip Hammond. Gove is too disliked, Osborne too close to Call me Dave and Bojo is an arse. Politics down in Westminster is getting duller and more divided by ideology than it has for years. Ed is talking of renationalising the railways for gods sake, Hague or Hammond and/or May will be the safest hands for the Tories and are liked universally in the party.

 

Sorry. But I don't, and never will buy, that we are months away from a UKIP government or a Labour collapse to 5 seats.

 

So Salmond is supporting an "undercurrent of pro U.S. policy aims". Last week he was accused of supporting Putin. This must be a very subtle undercurrent. It's long standing SNP policy to remove Trident. He was amongst the first to speak against the Iraq war and the bombing of Syria (when once again Miliband didn't know what to do). He was amongst a very few to criticise the actions of the U.S. in bombing Serbia. One of the biggest attractions of independence for me is that we will no longer have to be a U.S. vassal state. Scotland will have different interests and priorities to rUK. Threatening, bombing and invading other countries will not be the main thrust of our foreign policy.

 

He wants NATO membership and his defence spokesman spoke of letting out Scottish bases to the USA to sweeten booting trident out of the Clyde (a key part of the nuclear umbrella).

 

He ain't Blair but he's pro-US, backed Libyan intervention and backed the Afghan mission from the off. Iraq was a good call by Swinney when he was interim leader but his Kosovo speech proved to be his unpardonable folly.

 

Of course Salmond and the SNP are populists, they have to be, they have a referendum to win and do not want to offend anybody on the run up. After the referendum everything changes. The SNP are gone.

 

And here we return to the beginning, they are a party devoid of any principle but centrism and the third way of all things to all men. They are as hollow as Blairism proved to be. Sadly, they won't exit stage left. As former spin doctors and advisers to Eck have said - Andrew Wilson and Bell for two - have both wrote in the Scotsman since the turn of the year that the SNP aim to go on and win the next two elections either way, their aim is to be the Finna Fail of Scotland.

[jambo1185]

Great post JamboX2.

[coconut doug]

Read again. My post mentions how political parties have adapted and altered. It says the culture and policies have differed little.

I read it again and you did not say this in your original post. You said

" And whilst in 15 years since the first devolved elections the nature of the UK and her politics has radically altered - demise of the UUP, Legislative power in Wales, a nationalist and labour government in Wales, the SNP emerging as a party of government and the emergence of coalition in Westminster - we have seen very little social change or a divergence of political cultures across the UK."

My view is that if there is no divergence then why have UKIP had contrasting fortunes in Scotland compared to England. You tried to deflect by talking about SNP business interests.

 

 

Many Labour and SNP policies are indistinguishable, many SNP and Tory policies are too. Why do you think Goldie dubbed SNP budgets the next best thing to a Tory one? It's called political centrism. Third way ism. Which should've died with Blair is alive and we'll in Scotland in the SNP and in London in the coalition. That's the issue. That's the flaw. That's why people in England are voting ukip to an extent, because they view it a finger up to the Westminster establishment. Something john snow pointed out in his blog as a driver of some to vote yes in Scotland.

 

The goal is independence. The policies are populist and short term. We know this. I don't accept that people are voting Ukip and SNP for the same reasons, if that's what you mean.

 

 

 

They brought in non smoking pubs and free tuition and free personal care when in power up here. That's the point of devolution. The national parties needn't follow the uk one blindly. The Red Sea speech between Wales and the UK labour parties show this. As do Alastair Campbell's diaries where he wrote that Dewar, McLeish and McConnell caused them sleepless nights with their insistence on coalitions and different policies from UK labour.

In quoting Campbell you make my point. Currently we can only control around 10% of expenditure yet conflicts over this small amount of money causes the party leadership sleepless nights. This would become even more difficult if Labour were to increase powers to Scotland and illustrates precisely why they will not do it. Are Labour not against free tuition? They were when the SNP abolished the graduate endowment in 2008.

 

 

 

My issue with the SNP is they can't have their cake and eat it. Have your 3% cut. Start your dogfight with the UK. But don't then play the social class warriors while ruling out a 50p rate on the basis of tax competition (Swinney).

 

Politicians wanting their cake and eat it. trying to be all things to all men, whatever next. Who are these social class warriors of whom you speak? Pragmatists and cooler heads will prevail.

 

 

 

Good on both. But don't forget Scottish industrial leaders welcomed the reduction in green energy levies for industry in the recent budget and said this was advantageous for Scottish jobs and industry as lower energy costs allow for expansion. It's a two way street. As for Europe, why should a yes voting Scotland then fear the peoples opinion on the deal negotiated for our entry?

 

Why indeed? A cleaner environment is good for everybody, not just business leaders.

 

 

I don't hate Salmond. I admire his success and he's clearly a clever and able man. I don't think he has it any rougher in the press or from satirists etc. I think that's a myth. I've seen many unionists get as rough a ride as the nationalists do. Who cares? Clearly the press are doing their job. And for all the perceived bile he gets in the press and broadcast media he's never had his father called a traitor or had his holiday destinations queried as suitable.

 

Actually he has had a lot worse and it is happening almost every day and sometimes more than once a day. It's not just the Daily Mail that's doing it either.

 

Speak to any member of the STUC or the SSP, the Greens, and members of the SNP themselves, no one calls him a socialist. How can you say he is when you assess his policies . They are centrist and populist. Is robbing local services that the poor rely on to fund your tax freeze which benefits the well off most socialist? Are the cuts to higher education? Are the ?1bn worth of anti poverty cuts?

 

Don't get me wrong. Socially they do well policy wise. But socialist? I don't see it. Sorry,

 

Populist, i agree but this is a means to an end. He was thrown out/left the SNP for being a socialist IIRC. This is why i say post indy, the SNP are gone.

 

Bojo has no hope of being pm in 2015. He has little hope beyond that. Polling shows him behind Cameron as prime ministerial. I think it'll be a hung parliament, Labour to pip the Tories. LibDems to make up the rest. UKIP to get 1 or 2 seats. SNP to get a couple more than now.

 

Cameron's successor will be one of his most competent ministers - Hague, Theresa May or Philip Hammond. Gove is too disliked, Osborne too close to Call me Dave and Bojo is an arse. Politics down in Westminster is getting duller and more divided by ideology than it has for years. Ed is talking of renationalising the railways for gods sake, Hague or Hammond and/or May will be the safest hands for the Tories and are liked universally in the party.

 

Sorry. But I don't, and never will buy, that we are months away from a UKIP government or a Labour collapse to 5 seats.

 

Not UKIP but UKIP in disguise i.e. the Tories. Ukip supporters will return to the Tories. Miliband and Labour are unelectable (too Wierd). Who is going to risk our financial recovery by not voting to continue with Osbourne's austerity driven balancing of the books. I know it's rubbish but that is what the electorate are told.

Hague has had a go already (didn't go too well) .May is one dimensional, has no mates (according to Portillo) and two restricting illnesses. Hammond is responsible for the shambles that passes for a defence policy. If Cameron falls, then Bojo it is. To some an arse but to others a breath of fresh air.

 

He wants NATO membership and his defence spokesman spoke of letting out Scottish bases to the USA to sweeten booting trident out of the Clyde (a key part of the nuclear umbrella).

 

Politics is the art of the possible. No point in upsetting the USA. You know what happens when you do.

 

He ain't Blair but he's pro-US, backed Libyan intervention and backed the Afghan mission from the off. Iraq was a good call by Swinney when he was interim leader but his Kosovo speech proved to be his unpardonable folly.

 

Supporting the U.S. sometimes and opposing it at other times makes him different from almost all mainstream U.K. politicians. Its almost as if he is assessing each situation on it's merits. He was uniquely, absolutely right on Kosovo/Serbia.

 

 

And here we return to the beginning, they are a party devoid of any principle but centrism and the third way of all things to all men. They are as hollow as Blairism proved to be. Sadly, they won't exit stage left. As former spin doctors and advisers to Eck have said - Andrew Wilson and Bell for two - have both wrote in the Scotsman since the turn of the year that the SNP aim to go on and win the next two elections either way, their aim is to be the Finna Fail of Scotland.

 

The principle is to cause the least upset to the largest number of people. You have to take this approach if you want them to support you. No point in going all left as you will only alienate the right and vv. The SNP may well want to win 2 elections and become Fianna Fail but its not going to happen because the independence movement is based on making Scotland a better place not fuelled by resentment to the UK.

[Gizmo]

Ukip are currently around 30% in polls, significantly ahead of the Tories. They have always lost their deposits in Scotland. Of course politics are diverging. Differences regarding immigration could hardly be more stark and is the reason for UKIP having such a high poll rating. England continues its lurch to the right. Many Labour and Tory policies and people are indistinguishable.

The labour party is split between Scotland and rUK where it created and initially supported the bedroom tax policy. Oppositiom to this in Scotland forced them to change their policy but many still didn't turn up in parliament to vote against it.

We've seen Labour governments cut Corpoation Tax twice and propose more cuts (Brown). We've seen a reluctance to restore the 50p tax rate for high earners whilst doubling tax rates for the poorest taxpayers. You have criticised the SNP for suggesting a cut in Corporation Tax post independence when that might be an entirely sensible policy designed to mitigate against the uncertainty of independence and may well be temporary.

Scotland now has around 45% of its electricity produced through renewables and continues to grow this, while in rUk they talk of "green crap". Opinion polls now show Scotland significantly in favour of EU membership while rUk is against.

Your constant carping about Salmond and attempt to paint him as a neocon are poor. I have never known a politician take so much vilification from the media. I have struggled to work out why this has happened and can only think it is because he always talks Scotland up, because he is both knowledgeable and clever, because he has working class origins but most of all because he is a Socialist. Incredibly he maintains the highest approval ratings. Contrast him with media darlings Farage and Boris Johnson. These are the guys with high approval ratings in England. In comparison to Salmond they get a free ride. Miliband tops the wierdness league though.

IMO The Tories will be returned to power again in 2015. There is no serious challenge. They may take a beating in the Euro elections but their core voters will return to keep Red Ed out. It might even take an electoral pact between them and Ukip. Cameron's successor is already warming up, if Cameron falters, Boris will give them the lift they need, except in Scotland of course. Despite being the most insipid, reactionary and idealogically ignorant leader the Labour party has had the press call him Red Ed. Even Sarwar had to keep him right on the bedroom tax. Can you imagine the seethe in Scotland if we vote NO and shortly afyterwards BJ gets to be Prime Minister?

So Salmond is supporting an "undercurrent of pro U.S. policy aims". Last week he was accused of supporting Putin. This must be a very subtle undercurrent. It's long standing SNP policy to remove Trident. He was amongst the first to speak against the Iraq war and the bombing of Syria (when once again Miliband didn't know what to do). He was amongst a very few to criticise the actions of the U.S. in bombing Serbia. One of the biggest attractions of independence for me is that we will no longer have to be a U.S. vassal state. Scotland will have different interests and priorities to rUK. Threatening, bombing and invading other countries will not be the main thrust of our foreign policy.

Of course Salmond and the SNP are populists, they have to be, they have a referendum to win and do not want to offend anybody on the run up. After the referendum everything changes. The SNP are gone.

 

Not sure I agree with the SNP gone after a referendum - I do however expect to see a revitalised opposition once the former Unionist parties are freed of the apron strings from their UK masters.

 

The rest of your post I absolutely agree with. We can gain so much by independence and the alternative seems to be more of the same or worse - a Tory/UKIP coalition or, more unlikely but not impossible, a Thatcherite-aping Labour. Neither will change the fortunes of the people who are genuinely struggling up here.

[JamboX2]

 

 

So short term pain for some, policies which affect the poorest the worst and short term policies which do little to challenge our endemic social, health and educational issues are worth while for the attainment of independence to cure the nation?

 

Because that's what it sounds like, with your we need to piss the fewest numbers off to attain what we want. Which is more jam tomorrow than the no side.

 

I was being tougne in cheek. We have Salmond and Swinney saying they'll not touch a 50p rate and will cut tax on big business but then you have Sturgeon saying that every social benefit will be increased. It's a hard one to square.

 

No they aren't against free tuition. Like the SNP you purposefully muddy the water here. They were against removing an endowment based on earnings because it helped fund a lot of the living costs funds which have been slashed of late to fund other projects.

 

Tony Blair was a Foot protege. Him and Salmond have moved right their entire careers. It's hard to avoid that fact. As those who know him well have wrote and as his biographies have stated he is a careerist who aligned himself with people and groups which bettered him. Much like Blair. Out with nationalism I don't think there is much ideological weight to him. Hence the move from nationalising oil fields to 3% tax cuts for those firms (and ruling out windfall taxes). At least Sillars had that principle and conviction.

 

You do remember how Salmond was a flop went away and came back to win an election 8 years later? Hague, May and Hammond are all more likely than the oppurtunistic Bojo to lead that party. File him under Redwood and Clarke - too risky to actually lead a nice pipe dream though.

 

I forgot the opposition to Syrian military action of late being a sign the SNP aren't a lone voice of dissent anymore. To me lessons have been learnt.

 

Sorry, in what way was he right on Kosovo? A genocide in Europe and it was right to stand back? Unlike Iraq there is actually strong legal arguments on intervention in this case.

 

At times you can sense a palpable resentment of the UK from some in yes. Not that that is an official position, duh. The fact is come 2016 there is one winner, the SNP. Either way. The electoral arithmetic is with them. Labour would need a Tory and or green expansion to even hope of winning the best of the lot under that system of ams.

 

Oh and btw, the point wasn't a greener world is grand, my point was that those businesses viewed the green levies on them as harming Scottish business.

[JamboX2]

 

 

And sorry, my first point is exactly what I said it was. The culture of politics, it's tone and presumptions and the way it operates with the media is totally the same as Westminster. Spite, angst and spin. I listed the political changes since 1999 as a political consequence.

 

And where has Salmond received the level of frankly ludicrous nonsense about his personal life by the PRESS not satire etc, that say Red Ed got for his dad being a "traitor"?

 

Both the unionists and nationalists positions have been subjected to a high level of scrutiny. The flaws in both sides are evident to see because of the press. The campaigns are jokes and not up to the job frankly. They lack depth, intelligence and imagination on how politics should work. Better Together is a sham and Yes Scotland seems strong armed by the SNP. They have both failed to offer a pluralistic offer to the nation and when the history books on this are written should be scathed. People will make this decision in spite of not because of them.

[jambos are go!]

Ukip are currently around 30% in polls, significantly ahead of the Tories. They have always lost their deposits in Scotland. Of course politics are diverging. Differences regarding immigration could hardly be more stark and is the reason for UKIP having such a high poll rating. England continues its lurch to the right. Many Labour and Tory policies and people are indistinguishable.

The labour party is split between Scotland and rUK where it created and initially supported the bedroom tax policy. Oppositiom to this in Scotland forced them to change their policy but many still didn't turn up in parliament to vote against it.

We've seen Labour governments cut Corpoation Tax twice and propose more cuts (Brown). We've seen a reluctance to restore the 50p tax rate for high earners whilst doubling tax rates for the poorest taxpayers. You have criticised the SNP for suggesting a cut in Corporation Tax post independence when that might be an entirely sensible policy designed to mitigate against the uncertainty of independence and may well be temporary.

Scotland now has around 45% of its electricity produced through renewables and continues to grow this, while in rUk they talk of "green crap". Opinion polls now show Scotland significantly in favour of EU membership while rUk is against.

Your constant carping about Salmond and attempt to paint him as a neocon are poor. I have never known a politician take so much vilification from the media. I have struggled to work out why this has happened and can only think it is because he always talks Scotland up, because he is both knowledgeable and clever, because he has working class origins but most of all because he is a Socialist. Incredibly he maintains the highest approval ratings. Contrast him with media darlings Farage and Boris Johnson. These are the guys with high approval ratings in England. In comparison to Salmond they get a free ride. Miliband tops the wierdness league though.

IMO The Tories will be returned to power again in 2015. There is no serious challenge. They may take a beating in the Euro elections but their core voters will return to keep Red Ed out. It might even take an electoral pact between them and Ukip. Cameron's successor is already warming up, if Cameron falters, Boris will give them the lift they need, except in Scotland of course. Despite being the most insipid, reactionary and idealogically ignorant leader the Labour party has had the press call him Red Ed. Even Sarwar had to keep him right on the bedroom tax. Can you imagine the seethe in Scotland if we vote NO and shortly afyterwards BJ gets to be Prime Minister?

So Salmond is supporting an "undercurrent of pro U.S. policy aims". Last week he was accused of supporting Putin. This must be a very subtle undercurrent. It's long standing SNP policy to remove Trident. He was amongst the first to speak against the Iraq war and the bombing of Syria (when once again Miliband didn't know what to do). He was amongst a very few to criticise the actions of the U.S. in bombing Serbia. One of the biggest attractions of independence for me is that we will no longer have to be a U.S. vassal state. Scotland will have different interests and priorities to rUK. Threatening, bombing and invading other countries will not be the main thrust of our foreign policy.

Of course Salmond and the SNP are populists, they have to be, they have a referendum to win and do not want to offend anybody on the run up. After the referendum everything changes. The SNP are gone.

Your contention that Salmond has received the most villification you have every seen from the media is very hard to comprehend. Most of the media fawned over him and that has only slightly changed as he has made gaffs such as over Putin and Murdoch. IMO. Edited May 11, 2014 by jambos are go!

[coconut doug]

So short term pain for some, policies which affect the poorest the worst and short term policies which do little to challenge our endemic social, health and educational issues are worth while for the attainment of independence to cure the nation?

 

Because that's what it sounds like, with your we need to piss the fewest numbers off to attain what we want. Which is more jam tomorrow than the no side.

 

I was being tougne in cheek. We have Salmond and Swinney saying they'll not touch a 50p rate and will cut tax on big business but then you have Sturgeon saying that every social benefit will be increased. It's a hard one to square.

 

No they aren't against free tuition. Like the SNP you purposefully muddy the water here. They were against removing an endowment based on earnings because it helped fund a lot of the living costs funds which have been slashed of late to fund other projects.

 

Tony Blair was a Foot protege. Him and Salmond have moved right their entire careers. It's hard to avoid that fact. As those who know him well have wrote and as his biographies have stated he is a careerist who aligned himself with people and groups which bettered him. Much like Blair. Out with nationalism I don't think there is much ideological weight to him. Hence the move from nationalising oil fields to 3% tax cuts for those firms (and ruling out windfall taxes). At least Sillars had that principle and conviction.

 

You do remember how Salmond was a flop went away and came back to win an election 8 years later? Hague, May and Hammond are all more likely than the oppurtunistic Bojo to lead that party. File him under Redwood and Clarke - too risky to actually lead a nice pipe dream though.

 

I forgot the opposition to Syrian military action of late being a sign the SNP aren't a lone voice of dissent anymore. To me lessons have been learnt.

 

Sorry, in what way was he right on Kosovo? A genocide in Europe and it was right to stand back? Unlike Iraq there is actually strong legal arguments on intervention in this case.

 

At times you can sense a palpable resentment of the UK from some in yes. Not that that is an official position, duh. The fact is come 2016 there is one winner, the SNP. Either way. The electoral arithmetic is with them. Labour would need a Tory and or green expansion to even hope of winning the best of the lot under that system of ams.

 

Oh and btw, the point wasn't a greener world is grand, my point was that those businesses viewed the green levies on them as harming Scottish business.

Short term pain for some, of course. There is no way to legislate everybody out of difficulty or the Labour Party would have done it by now.. The policies we have now are largely those inherited from Labour anyway. IMO the SNP are not a third way party, they are one dimensional populist party that will have little or no relevance 5 years post indy. That is not to say that some of their msp's etc will not be prominent in Scottish politics but they will not all be in the same party. Only when we are independent will we be able to give our health, education and social problems the focus and priority needed. The SNP and the independence debate are a distraction. Scotland needs the powers to make the right decisions for our country.

Tuition fees, Endowments call it what you want but Labour is the party that introduced Tuition Fees and voted against the removal of Endowments in Scotland. The notion that the money paid back by those earning goes to supporting living costs of the poorer students is as spurious as Gordon Brown's imaginary pension pot. The pooling and sharing of something that does not exist.

Salmond may be a lapsed socialist and a flop and idealogically devoid and if so he will go the way of many after a yes vote. For the time being though i prefer to think of him as somebody who has articulated Scotland's case more effectively than anybody else. I look at the concerted, long standing campaign against him in the Tory press and know that he is doing something right.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that Labour was against military action in Syria. They were not. As ever Miliband called it wrong by offering Cameron a free hand only to go back on his promise. Popular opinion defeated the Syrian adventure and it was abandoned in parliament on a technicality. The Labour ammendment that was voted down was still calling for military action.

As you know Salmond called the bombing of Serbia "an unpardonable folly". The circumstances of the Kosovo situation were not properly reported in our country and many believe the bombings were a response to the genocide of moslems. Quite the contrary, the Serbs were being targeted in the hope of provoking a response. The army sent to protect the Serbs was ordered to leave by Nato and when it refused Nato began bombing civilian targets. After the army did leave there was ethnic cleansing on both sides with many commentators believing more Serbs were killed. There was nothing like the 250,000 reported in the UK press though. Dozens of Serbian civilians were killed in the bombings and the country continues to suffer the effects of Nato's use of depleted uranium in its shells. Chomsky explains what happened and why and in this clip describes the British as the biggest hawks at that time. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chomsky+bombing+of+serbia+humanitarian+intervention&qpvt=chomsky+bombing+of+Serbia+humanitarian+intervention&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=BBFFD1B3A53A89A30047BBFFD1B3A53A89A30047

Salmond not being part of the "westminster elite" was able to call it for what it was. As you will also know Salmond criticised their actions because they did not have a UN resolution. What are your strong legal arguments in favour of bombing Serbia?

[coconut doug]

Your contention that Salmond has received the most villification you have every seen from the media is very hard to comprehend. Most of the media fawned over him and that has only slightly changed as he has made gaffs such as over Putin and Murdoch. IMO.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-dictator-comparison-bingo/ There are many more. Look at who said what and ask yourself if these people are capable or worthy of being taken seriously.

 

What is the gaffe Salmond made? Is there anything in what he said about Putin you don't agree with.

[jambos are go!]

http://wingsoverscot...mparison-bingo/ There are many more. Look at who said what and ask yourself if these people are capable or worthy of being taken seriously.

 

What is the gaffe Salmond made? Is there anything in what he said about Putin you don't agree with.

The article you refer to highlights mostly politicians comparing other politicians to historical figures Hardly new. And politicians dishing dirt is not the media as you suggest. In the past year or so 2 Tory Cabinet Ministers have been driven from office by the Media.

 

Lastly. I don't admire Putin and am amazed that modern Russia has an economy smaller than the UK!

[curriehearts]

 

My issue with the SNP is they can't have their cake and eat it. Have your 3% cut. Start your dogfight with the UK. But don't then play the social class warriors while ruling out a 50p rate on the basis of tax competition (Swinney).

 

 

Jambox2 - didn't understand your bit in bold - what has been ruled out by Swinney?

[JamboX2]

 

 

Short term pain for some, of course. There is no way to legislate everybody out of difficulty or the Labour Party would have done it by now.. The policies we have now are largely those inherited from Labour anyway. IMO the SNP are not a third way party, they are one dimensional populist party that will have little or no relevance 5 years post indy. That is not to say that some of their msp's etc will not be prominent in Scottish politics but they will not all be in the same party. Only when we are independent will we be able to give our health, education and social problems the focus and priority needed. The SNP and the independence debate are a distraction. Scotland needs the powers to make the right decisions for our country.

 

It's not legislating folk out of poverty it's about not enacting policies which make matters worse. If you genuinely believe that impoverishing the worst off by robbing local services to proportionately give richer people freebies and a tax give away in straightened times when food banks are on the rise to win a yes vote by pandering then it's really a new low IMO.

 

You're right that scotland needs powers but the SNP has a lot of emerging political talent at the moment, where will they go? The vitriol of Scottish politics is to such a level that I can hardly see Sturgeon joining Labour or Swinney the Tories. It's beggars belief. The SNP will re-shape itself into some one nation party (The National Party) and run on. Politicians seek power. They will be emboldened by a Yes win and in 50 years time they'll still be going.

 

They are no more or less careerist politicians than the Westminster ones.

 

Tuition fees, Endowments call it what you want but Labour is the party that introduced Tuition Fees and voted against the removal of Endowments in Scotland. The notion that the money paid back by those earning goes to supporting living costs of the poorer students is as spurious as Gordon Brown's imaginary pension pot. The pooling and sharing of something that does not exist.

 

Tuition fees were abolished in Scotland by the Dewar-Wallace government of 1999-2000. Endowment made a huge difference, I know this as I took part in campaigning against cuts to living costs allowances for less well off students. The endowment was a fair policy and one which helped fund grants and costs outside of base tuition. Student debt in Scotland is a huge issue for many, incurred mainly by the worst off trying to pay for their living costs and study at the same time.

 

Beyond 1st year a halls rents and costs associated with that rocket and act as a barrier to many in going to uni. I was lucky I lived near enough Edinburgh university to commute, but for many that isn't an option. A girl I knew couldn't afford her Diploma in Professional Legal Practice not because the course was a post grad and therefore something she'd be charged for but because the living costs and this would be too much without the allowances she had got in undergrad but was barred from. That was someone who worked whilst at university from day 1 as well. We also have seen cuts to ladders from LAs because of money being moved to fund certain other policies which assisted people from backgrounds were uni has been off limits or unachievable due to costs. This is creating the ludicrous position that even with free tuition (I repeat something the SNP inherited) we have a lower proportion and number of kids from the poorest and most deprived areas making it into university.

 

With that in mind we need extra revenue. A graduate tax or endowment is fair. It's a direct, hypothecated investment back into education and can help fund all these program's and grants to ensure we can change this. The well off need to help the worst off and those of us who we're lucky to get state help to progress and better ourselves should pay back or pay more to help ensure this is furthered and protected going forward. That's real socialism and real pooling and sharing, what you are thinking is that any extra charge is a hider acne and a regressive move, it's just not that simple what so ever.

 

We have the power to change this NOW. We are sadly moving backwards here. Not just with university but also with colleges and further education for more vocational work. The SNP line on all this is frankly one which treats us like idiots.

 

Salmond may be a lapsed socialist and a flop and idealogically devoid and if so he will go the way of many after a yes vote. For the time being though i prefer to think of him as somebody who has articulated Scotland's case more effectively than anybody else. I look at the concerted, long standing campaign against him in the Tory press and know that he is doing something right.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that Labour was against military action in Syria. They were not. As ever Miliband called it wrong by offering Cameron a free hand only to go back on his promise. Popular opinion defeated the Syrian adventure and it was abandoned in parliament on a technicality. The Labour ammendment that was voted down was still calling for military action.

 

So after calling him a socialist he's now a lapsed one, but that's okay because he has done well in articulating the Scottish case. Did Dewar fail here with free tuition? Did McLeish with free personal care? Did McConnell with the smoking ban and the commonwealth games bid? All did things which conflicted with what was going on at Westminster. All fought the Scottish case ably. Even before them the likes of Rifkind, Taylor and Johnson all argued the Scottish case well. As have Goldie etc. it's the responsibility of the entire Scottish political establishments duty, all do it well to me.

 

As for Syria, it was backbench pressure on the leaderships of the parties which blocked it. Politics isnt all frontbenchers. It is in Scotland where controlling tendencies affect all parties.

 

Salmond not being part of the "westminster elite" was able to call it for what it was. As you will also know Salmond criticised their actions because they did not have a UN resolution. What are your strong legal arguments in favour of bombing Serbia?

 

Salmond is part of the British political elite and was then too. He lead a sizeable party and one with a good number of MPs.

 

There is strong international precedent for that operation - Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was based on the suffering of the people under the Khmer Rouge, the Indian involvement in Bangladesh was argued on humanitarian grounds in the 1970s, US intervention in Grenada was argued under humanitarian intervention, soviet troops were initially sent into Afghanistan under the premise of this to stop civil war and so was UN involvement in Somalia in the 1990s. Humanitarian intervention is also always argued under interpretation of international treaties and the UN charter duty to work to relieve suffering, and as you can see as precedent pre-Kosovo. Libya was approved by the UN after these arguments were raised. Unlike domestic law international public law like this relies on precedent of it happening and not being opposed or by being accepted by major bodies. In this case there was precedent and it gave NATO allies grounds for it - note all NATO members were involved and worked in tandem to justify it, which the UN later approved of.

 

I don't totally agree with your view of the conflict. It was a bloodbath in there and Serb paramilitaries backed by the Serb government had been involved in persecuting native Albanians for a long time before the Serb army became involved. The refugee situation and the evidence supporting genocide was reason enough for action and peacekeeping after it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Jambox2 - didn't understand your bit in bold - what has been ruled out by Swinney?

 

A return to the 50p rate in Scotland if yes wins and the SNP form the government. It would appear some tax competition is good to the SNP and not others.

[coconut doug]

The article you refer to highlights mostly politicians comparing other politicians to historical figures Hardly new. And politicians dishing dirt is not the media as you suggest. In the past year or so 2 Tory Cabinet Ministers have been driven from office by the Media.

 

Lastly. I don't admire Putin and am amazed that modern Russia has an economy smaller than the UK!

These quotes are all in the media or else it is unlikely i would have seen them. I honestly don't think this is one politician comparing another to a historical figure. The characters mentioned are despots and mass murderers. Do you think Salmond is like them? Do you think he should be reported in the way most of these rags have done? The media are all over it exagerating and misrepresenting what was said as with the recent Putin comments when the Express accused Salmond of giving Putin "gushing praise" Do you think it is acceptable to have the first minister described in such terms. I see it as a concerted attack on the democratically elected leader of Scotland. No other country or individual is subjected to such racist hatred as far as i can see. Have a look at the Telegraph and The Mail and look at readers comments, its disgusting. Here's a sample, there are many more. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603157/Freedom-Alex-Salmond-issues-Braveheart-style-battle-cry-bid-win-supporters-independent-Scotland.html

Don't you think Putin is to be admired for his stance on Syria and the part he played in avoiding a bloodbath? The bit where he suggested they might decommision the chemical weapons rather than bomb Syria. Has he not restored some pride in Russia? Has he not stood up to the USA or do you think he is totally without any redeeming features?

The Tory ministers driven from office. If Mitchell was one then i have some sympathy but then it was Cameron who forced his resignation in the end.

[GrimUpNorth]

 

These quotes are all in the media or else it is unlikely i would have seen them. I honestly don't think this is one politician comparing another to a historical figure. The characters mentioned are despots and mass murderers. Do you think Salmond is like them? Do you think he should be reported in the way most of these rags have done? The media are all over it exagerating and misrepresenting what was said as with the recent Putin comments when the Express accused Salmond of giving Putin "gushing praise" Do you think it is acceptable to have the first minister described in such terms. I see it as a concerted attack on the democratically elected leader of Scotland. No other country or individual is subjected to such racist hatred as far as i can see. Have a look at the Telegraph and The Mail and look at readers comments, its disgusting. Here's a sample, there are many more. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603157/Freedom-Alex-Salmond-issues-Braveheart-style-battle-cry-bid-win-supporters-independent-Scotland.html

Don't you think Putin is to be admired for his stance on Syria and the part he played in avoiding a bloodbath? The bit where he suggested they might decommision the chemical weapons rather than bomb Syria. Has he not restored some pride in Russia? Has he not stood up to the USA or do you think he is totally without any redeeming features?

The Tory ministers driven from office. If Mitchell was one then i have some sympathy but then it was Cameron who forced his resignation in the end.

 

What utter garbage. Putin has fuelled the Syrian war by arming Assad. How much blood on Putins hands ?

 

Seriously is there anything Salmond could do or say that some of you wouldn't criticise ? Can he do anything wrong ?

 

And have a look at the comments under any of Alex Massies articles on the spectator site, or any of better together or any other unionist twitter replies they recieve. Pure nationalist hatred. And it's getting worse.

 

Talking about racist hatred, example from today

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10823301/SNP-student-leader-in-racism-row-for-calling-David-Cameron-an-English-t.html

 

Good relations will continue though eh.

 

 

[reaths17]

 

 

 

You can't give away powers you don't have.

 

do you mean powers your not using?

[reaths17]

 

 

 

I'm not evangelical so have no interest in converting you, so you'll get no list I'm afraid.

 

whilst you're stuck with the 'there's no difference but I have a preference' line any point you make will be undermined.

 

so you, like the rest of the seperatists have no idea what benefit your going to get, but are just gonna vote for it anyway. not one plausible reason with any kinda substance. where's that scottish face?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

so you, like the rest of the seperatists have no idea what benefit your going to get, but are just gonna vote for it anyway. not one plausible reason with any kinda substance. where's that scottish face?

Is there something wrong with that?

 

If your nationality is solely Scottish wouldn't you want to govern yourself?

[DETTY29]

so you, like the rest of the seperatists have no idea what benefit your going to get, but are just gonna vote for it anyway. not one plausible reason with any kinda substance. where's that scottish face?

Is there something wrong with that?

 

If your nationality is solely Scottish wouldn't you want to govern yourself?

To me the key benefit of a Yes vote is the ability for Scots to govern themselves.

[2NaFish]

so you, like the rest of the seperatists have no idea what benefit your going to get, but are just gonna vote for it anyway. not one plausible reason with any kinda substance. where's that scottish face?

 

I never said i don't have a list. I said i wouldn't give you a list, and i explained why i wouldn't. Please don't invent things. Ironically, you're the one without any plausible reason and yet you have an entrenched position and, moreover, a desire to change others' opinions. Once again, given that there's no difference according to you, why do you have a preference?

 

However, given that Geoff and Detty have highlighted it, given the paucity of any convincing argument against independence, i'd say that considering oneself considerably more Scottish than British is more than enough reason. If, as you yourself assert, there is no change from one to the other then, beyond abstaining, a feeling is pretty much all there is to go on. I dont think that feeling is enough for me to evangelize to others, you apparently do.

Edited May 12, 2014 by 2NaFish

[reaths17]

 

 

 

I never said i don't have a list. I said i wouldn't give you a list, and i explained why i wouldn't. Please don't invent things. Ironically, you're the one without any plausible reason and yet you have an entrenched position and, moreover, a desire to change others' opinions. Once again, given that there's no difference according to you, why do you have a preference?

 

However, given that Geoff and Detty have highlighted it, given the paucity of any convincing argument against independence, i'd say that considering oneself considerably more Scottish than British is more than enough reason. If, as you yourself assert, there is no change from one to the other then, beyond abstaining, a feeling is pretty much all there is to go on. I dont think that feeling is enough for me to evangelize to others, you apparently do.

 

 

thanks people, it took a while but we got there in the end.