Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7

[Strocky]

///ajd said:

Strocky said:

Re your SSP claiming family member, would a right wing no voter knock back something they could claim for on a point of principle?

It was made quite clear the family member was effectively a benefit fraud, however without even knowing him, Strocky the nationalist is jumping to the defence of such freeriding scrounging antics.

When asked whether they wanted the pound or euro, 45% of strockies friends said they'd stick with the giro*

• With acknowledgements to the originator of the joke.

I was merely showing human nature doesn't have political boundaries but you charge on with the mock offence

[r11co]

An excellent article on the recognition of the lack of checks and balances in the devolved Scottish Government, and the dangers of going forward with the Smith Commission recommendations without the separation of legislative and administrative devolution.

Unfortunately it is not the sort of thing I expect cultist SNP supporters to be able to read all the way to the end without getting bored or actually being able to understand.

I voted against the setting up of a Scottish Executive - I believed at the time it would become a botched, second rate administration. Seems I was right.

[r11co]

Strocky said:

No matter how much it pains NO voters, you shared your bed with Right Wing scum.

Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch.

Oh, the irony.

[IainT]

Strocky said:

This is one of the reasons why I've hardly posted on here over the past few months, the same old broadstroke applying to 1.5m Scots that at worst they're basically all racists and hate the English which is bks, (it's anti-establishment / civic nationalism) or at worse they're deluded fools who should know better

If you want to see contempt between the Scots/English, just trawl through the comments pages on the daily anti-SNP pieces in the Daily Mail / Telegraph

There are unpleasant and very loud voices on both sides that need challenging. The nationalist debate is inherently divisive and there are elements, seemingly close to the oh so pristine SNP leadership who stir up anti-English sentiment to bolster their case. If their debate were framed against an ethnic group rather then 'the English' they would face legal recourse.

The unionist debate literally can't fall back on demonizing Scots whereas the nationalist argument regularly falls back on two unpleasant things - demonizing the English and being victims. Of course it's a minority of Nationalists that are effectively racist but it doesn't appear to be a small minority.

I'm strongly pro-union (with strong regional devolution - think federal Germany), I take that view because we have a strong shared cultural heritage, share an island with more in common than with any of our neighbours, are economically indivisible. We're better as a country than as separate nations.

All that said, if Scotland had voted for separation then fine, you'd have been screwed in the short-term and rUK would have been fine despite the costs of reorganizing the infrastructure.


Sadly a knee-jerk reaction to being abused, blamed or generally disliked it to return in kind and the 'nasty' nats tend to garner a 'nasty' response that tars all nats.

[AstonZagato]

I'm sure there are nasty elements on both sides of the debate. However, the nasty side of the YES campaign were more obvious, active and vociferous according to those i know north of the border. That definitely chimes with the press coverage too.

The difference would seem to be that NO campaigners would roundly condemn the types of activity that happened that night in Glasgow. If you look at the YES campaign, it would appear that cyber bullying and closing down debate was part of a concerted campaign. It was not condemned by the leadership despite being given every opportunity to do so. Salmons was noticeable by his avoidance wherever possible of condemnation.

[Strocky]

IainT said:

There are unpleasant and very loud voices on both sides that need challenging. The nationalist debate is inherently divisive and there are elements, seemingly close to the oh so pristine SNP leadership who stir up anti-English sentiment to bolster their case. If their debate were framed against an ethnic group rather then 'the English' they would face legal recourse.

The unionist debate literally can't fall back on demonizing Scots whereas the nationalist argument regularly falls back on two unpleasant things - demonizing the English and being victims. Of course it's a minority of Nationalists that are effectively racist but it doesn't appear to be a small minority.

I'm strongly pro-union (with strong regional devolution - think federal Germany), I take that view because we have a strong shared cultural heritage, share an island with more in common than with any of our neighbours, are economically indivisible. We're better as a country than as separate nations.

All that said, if Scotland had voted for separation then fine, you'd have been screwed in the short-term and rUK would have been fine despite the costs of reorganizing the infrastructure.


Sadly a knee-jerk reaction to being abused, blamed or generally disliked it to return in kind and the 'nasty' nats tend to garner a 'nasty' response that tars all nats.

Culturally there are some similarities between the countries (the might of the empire was a great embolder) but there are also cultural differences between the regions never mind the countries

Politically however there isn't much of a shared bond at present (Scotland moved on from dour Presbyterian Conservatism in the 50's) and even the North of England seems to be rejecting the current right of centre politics for either a UKIP protest vote or not voting at all

I'm instinctively anti-establishment because of my background and limited interactions with the establishment during my lifetime

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

[Strocky]

r11co said:

An excellent article on the recognition of the lack of checks and balances in the devolved Scottish Government, and the dangers of going forward with the Smith Commission recommendations without the separation of legislative and administrative devolution.

Unfortunately it is not the sort of thing I expect cultist SNP supporters to be able to read all the way to the end without getting bored or actually being able to understand.

I voted against the setting up of a Scottish Executive - I believed at the time it would become a botched, second rate administration. Seems I was right.

Are you actually expecting posters to indulge in adult debate when you routinely call them knuckledraggers or thick?

[Strocky]

r11co said:

Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch.

Oh, the irony.

[Borghetto]

Strocky said:

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

A bit like when labour was in power or the Tories now - there will always be one side that loses. Trying to tie a Scotland victim card on it is just childish.

[Big Rod]

Strocky said:

Culturally there are some similarities between the countries (the might of the empire was a great embolder) but there are also cultural differences between the regions never mind the countries

Politically however there isn't much of a shared bond at present (Scotland moved on from dour Presbyterian Conservatism in the 50's) and even the North of England seems to be rejecting the current right of centre politics for either a UKIP protest vote or not voting at all

I'm instinctively anti-establishment because of my background and limited interactions with the establishment during my lifetime

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

There's the thing though. The majority of your 'fellow citizens' voted for something other than the SNP.

[Axionknight]

They voted no too, but let us just ignore that tiny detail.

[barryrs]

Strocky said:

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE.

[roadtripboy]

Strocky said:

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

What if, in an independent Scotland, Perthshire (for example) voted substantially differently to the rest of Scotland? Should they start clamouring for independence?

What if nobody in my house voted for the party in power? Can I declare my house an independent country?

Perhaps Glasgow and Dundee should go their own way, after all why should the rest of the country that voted No have a mandate over them...?

Part of living in a democratic country is a graceful and mature acceptance that you don't always get who you vote for if more people disagree than agree with you. Fortunately for you, the SNP is doing its best to stifle democratic principles.

[Strocky]

Big Rod said:

There's the thing though. The majority of your 'fellow citizens' voted for something other than the SNP.

Are you referring to Referendum or the recent GE?

You are aware that YES wasn't just the SNP?

I assume you're also aware I'm talking about the UK elections and not a one off referendum?

[Strocky]

roadtripboy said:

What if, in an independent Scotland, Perthshire (for example) voted substantially differently to the rest of Scotland? Should they start clamouring for independence?

What if nobody in my house voted for the party in power? Can I declare my house an independent country?

Perhaps Glasgow and Dundee should go their own way, after all why should the rest of the country that voted No have a mandate over them...?

Part of living in a democratic country is a graceful and mature acceptance that you don't always get who you vote for if more people disagree than agree with you. Fortunately for you, the SNP is doing its best to stifle democratic principles.

Ahh the old Scotland's a region of the UK red herring

[malks222]

Strocky said:

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

what happens if/when oil bounces back and aberdeen decides it gives far too much revenue to the IS government and they didnt get the governemnt they wanted and it then spends it on weegie slackers on the dole? or that too much money was spent building a new bridge over the forth? or that its costing them too much to collect mrs macks rubbish bins and deliver her post in take the highroad?

Does aberdeen then make a move to become an independent prinicpality of the north??

what happens if those in the west end of glasgow decide they didnt get the government they voted for, and are fed up subsidising those that live in possilpark or springburn?? or those in stockbridge in edinburgh want to become independent from those in sighthil/pilton???

[Big Rod]

Strocky said:

Big Rod said:

There's the thing though. The majority of your 'fellow citizens' voted for something other than the SNP.

Are you referring to Referendum or the recent GE?

You are aware that YES wasn't just the SNP?

I assume you're also aware I'm talking about the UK elections and not a one off referendum?

Did I say 'referendum' or 'independence'?

Quite aware on both counts, thank you.

Edited by Big Rod on Wednesday 26th August 11:54

[Strocky]

Big Rod said:

Did I say 'referendum' or 'independence'?

You're statment mentioned neither, hence me asking for clarification

[IainT]

Strocky said:

Culturally there are some similarities between the countries (the might of the empire was a great embolder) but there are also cultural differences between the regions never mind the countries

Politically however there isn't much of a shared bond at present (Scotland moved on from dour Presbyterian Conservatism in the 50's) and even the North of England seems to be rejecting the current right of centre politics for either a UKIP protest vote or not voting at all

I'm instinctively anti-establishment because of my background and limited interactions with the establishment during my lifetime

I'm aware that an IS would just be swapping one establishment for another, however the difference would be that at least the majority of my fellow citizens would be represented by the party they voted for, not left to hope that England voted the same way as Scotland in a GE

UK politics is centrist. Scotland is centre-left as are large swathes of England although more centre-right across the whole country. Comparing Scotland to England and declaring political incompatibility is typically short-sited and deep rooted in the nationalist divisive agenda to seek differences rather than consensus. The variations between parts of England are far wider.

We do need a better, more regional system where votes count no matter what the majority of your neighbours vote for. What you have now is an unprecedented level of representation in the UK parliament, total representation i all devolved matters - you can't for a second seriously think having no opposition to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament is a good thing? 50% of the vote in Scotland for 95% of the seats is hardly fair nor representative of the slight majority that didn't vote SNP (50.03% didn't vote SNP in Scotland).

Using the last GE as an example of England forcing a Tory government on the country - it was far more a case of Labour forfeiting a say by giving up the centre ground. A move they're seemingly keen to continue with.

My suggestion is keep the union, move to a federal system with regions, broadly equivalent on some factor - population makes obvious sense. Move election to PR and make voting mandatory. Offer a 'none of the above, they're all wasters' option on all ballots.

[Justayellowbadge]

Strocky said:

Ahh the old Scotland's a region of the UK red herring

Frequently bandied about with the 'water is wet' red herring, the 'pope is catholic' red herring and the laughable 'earth not flat' red herring.

It might, might, just be possible you are confusing the concepts of 'red herring' and 'fact'.