Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Garvin]

2013BRM said:

Garvin said:

2013BRM said:

. . . . . . the political elite draining the country . . . .

What does this mean exactly, please explain?

do some digging, it covers everything from expenses to overseas donations

In the overall scheme of things these are insignificant, annoying and irritating but not significant, and do not constitute 'draining the country'. What fks the country good and proper is the welfare bill which is now no longer a safety net for the real needy but also a gravy train for all the useless, lazy fkwits in the country who try their damnest to fiddle the system as well. This is the real drain on the country!

You can chase insignificant emotional irritations all you want but that really will not change things - we need real statesman like politicians who can make a difference, changing the 'system' will not improve our politicians. Independence here and there will not get you better leaders - if you think the likes of Salmon and Sturgeon are any better than the politicians in Westminster then, I'm afraid, you are seriously deluded.

For example, if Scotland is as rich as Salmond and Sturgeon make out, why does it need more propping up under the Barnett formula? Surely all these rich folk and successful companies can pay their taxes with ease, still have high disposable income and enjoy a standard of living well in excess of the rest of UK without any need for independence. The facts are it isn't 't and it can't. Scotland has a massive welfare bill with a massive drain on its resources - independence was never going to change this, it runs a large deficit that independence had no way of filling! The SNP have lied through their teeth and yet they are somehow supposed to be better than other politicians. It's amazing just how many people suck up all the clap trap without engaging their own brains and doing a bit of rational thinking (although I think 55% of Scots may have done).

[2013BRM]

Garvin said:

2013BRM said:

Garvin said:

2013BRM said:

. . . . . . the political elite draining the country . . . .

What does this mean exactly, please explain?

do some digging, it covers everything from expenses to overseas donations

In the overall scheme of things these are insignificant, annoying and irritating but not significant, and do not constitute 'draining the country'. What fks the country good and proper is the welfare bill which is now no longer a safety net for the real needy but also a gravy train for all the useless, lazy fkwits in the country who try their damnest to fiddle the system as well. This is the real drain on the country!

You can chase insignificant emotional irritations all you want but that really will not change things - we need real statesman like politicians who can make a difference, changing the 'system' will not improve our politicians. Independence here and there will not get you better leaders - if you think the likes of Salmon and Sturgeon are any better than the politicians in Westminster then, I'm afraid, you are seriously deluded.

For example, if Scotland is as rich as Salmond and Sturgeon make out, why does it need more propping up under the Barnett formula? Surely all these rich folk and successful companies can pay their taxes with ease, still have high disposable income and enjoy a standard of living well in excess of the rest of UK without any need for independence. The facts are it isn't 't and it can't. Scotland has a massive welfare bill with a massive drain on its resources - independence was never going to change this, it runs a large deficit that independence had no way of filling! The SNP have lied through their teeth and yet they are somehow supposed to be better than other politicians. It's amazing just how many people suck up all the clap trap without engaging their own brains and doing a bit of rational thinking (although I think 55% of Scots may have done).

Garvin, if you read what I wrote I said it covers everything. As for me thinking Salmond is some kind of saviour it is you who is deluded, he is anything but. Although a couple of bent Politicians on your home turf are a fk sight easier to manage than 650 in London.
Now, unless your are some kind of fiscal genius, and I doubt you are, then you cannot explain how the finances from Scotlands exports and oil relate to the welfare burden. I imagine it is an imaginary ratio very deliberately drip fed for people like you to regurgitate as gospel. We can argue the toss all we like on here but I think we will see UKIP gain in strength from this as the rest of the country looks a little closer at Westminster. Not many Scots see Salmond as a saviour, more as a means to an end

[rovermorris999]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's the latter of the two. I wouldn't have trusted a 17 year-old me to make a rational and well-informed decision. At that age one tends to know very little of the world and how it works but you think you know it all and older people who tell you otherwise are doddery old farts. Until you become an old fart yourself and realise they really did understand more than you.

[Cobnapint]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think you'll find, without any doubt whatsoever, it was the latter.

All part of Salmonds fairer society, unfairly engaging in a cynical tactic to improve his chances of winning.

[2013BRM]

rovermorris999 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's the latter of the two. I wouldn't have trusted a 17 year-old me to make a rational and well-informed decision. At that age one tends to know very little of the world and how it works but you think you know it all and older people who tell you otherwise are doddery old farts. Until you become an old fart yourself and realise they really did understand more than you.

and are worried for their pensions

[Chlamydia]

fluffnik said:

Not current, quite properly, due to incompatibility with human rights.

I consider hereditary office obscene.

Ditto theological claims to legitimacy.

You don't seem keen on democracy either.

[glazbagun]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think that's a little insulting to the young. That's like saying the No campaign were exploiting the fear and inflexibility of Pensioners. It's just a case of generational priorities.

Young people have no pension to lose, no mortgage, no kids to send to school, the NHS is pretty academic to most of them as their bodies won't be falling apart for decades, and they're mobile enough to move anywhere in the world. Why should they fear an independent Scotland when they'll have forty good years ahead of them.

Pensioners, on the other hand can be as disenfranchised and hungry for political change as anyone else, but threaten their abilty to put food on the table and it all becomes pretty academic.

I was amused at the BBC coverage when places like Perth voted against independence and the panel were acting as if it were somehow surprisng given the parties they'd voted for.

[r11co]

Garvin said:

What fks the country good and proper is the welfare bill which is now no longer a safety net for the real needy but also a gravy train for all the useless, lazy fkwits in the country who try their damnest to fiddle the system as well. This is the real drain on the country!

<SNIP>

The SNP have lied through their teeth and yet they are somehow supposed to be better than other politicians. It's amazing just how many people suck up all the clap trap without engaging their own brains and doing a bit of rational thinking (although I think 55% of Scots may have done).

The SNP did indeed lie, but their lies were designed to appeal to exactly the sort of people you described. Look at the areas where YES were ahead - Glasgow and Dundee, two heartlands of the dolemongers and incapacity benefit fraudsters. Social justice my arse!

[johnxjsc1985]

We do need a new Political class and not more Student of Politics. Closing Westminster and moving it to the centre of the country would be a start but we all know we are locked in to what we have at present and God forbid that we should upset the markets and the LSE. All we are left with is having a good moan about it.

[bp1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Someone earlier asked for the Pearson Correlation between benefits and yes votes.

Could find relatively recent figures for JSA by council ward, and a quick bash about gives a +.44 Pearson Correlation, so shows a moderate relationship between those on JSA and the propensity to vote yes. I do realise there are other benefits but its Saturday morning and I don't want to spend too long. A quick graph shows Glasgow to be a big outlier ( significantly bigger numbers on JSA), so pulling Glasgow out, gives a weaker positive correlation of +.36.

Usual bounds of correlation are ~ .3 weak correlation, ~.5 moderate correlation and ~.7 strong correlation. Now these are usually dropped a bit when ever social sciences are involved (less rigour see? - notice smilies, wife is a psychologist, I'm a physicist ).

People can read into that what they will, I just wanted to put the numbers up.

[rovermorris999]

2013BRM said:

and are worried for their pensions

And why not? They've paid for them. But by 'old fart' I meant over 40-ish which is a grave-dodger to a 16 year-old.

[dvs_dave]

Chlamydia said:

fluffnik said:

Not current, quite properly, due to incompatibility with human rights.

I consider hereditary office obscene.

Ditto theological claims to legitimacy.

You don't seem keen on democracy either.

I think Middle East tyrannies are more his cup of tea. The yes voters seem equally as fanatical, irrational and hate filled so would probably end up putting Scotland into similar dire situations. Thank fk the swivel eyed loons don't now get the opportunity.

[Moonhawk]

Reading some of the comments on the "We are the 45%" Facebook page is tragic.

Why did Scotland even bother having a referendum with two options on it - if there was only ever going to be one acceptable answer.......their diatribes make a mockery of the whole democratic process.

[Garvin]

2013BRM said:

Garvin said:

2013BRM said:

Garvin said:

2013BRM said:

. . . . . . the political elite draining the country . . . .

What does this mean exactly, please explain?

do some digging, it covers everything from expenses to overseas donations

In the overall scheme of things these are insignificant, annoying and irritating but not significant, and do not constitute 'draining the country'. What fks the country good and proper is the welfare bill which is now no longer a safety net for the real needy but also a gravy train for all the useless, lazy fkwits in the country who try their damnest to fiddle the system as well. This is the real drain on the country!

You can chase insignificant emotional irritations all you want but that really will not change things - we need real statesman like politicians who can make a difference, changing the 'system' will not improve our politicians. Independence here and there will not get you better leaders - if you think the likes of Salmon and Sturgeon are any better than the politicians in Westminster then, I'm afraid, you are seriously deluded.

For example, if Scotland is as rich as Salmond and Sturgeon make out, why does it need more propping up under the Barnett formula? Surely all these rich folk and successful companies can pay their taxes with ease, still have high disposable income and enjoy a standard of living well in excess of the rest of UK without any need for independence. The facts are it isn't 't and it can't. Scotland has a massive welfare bill with a massive drain on its resources - independence was never going to change this, it runs a large deficit that independence had no way of filling! The SNP have lied through their teeth and yet they are somehow supposed to be better than other politicians. It's amazing just how many people suck up all the clap trap without engaging their own brains and doing a bit of rational thinking (although I think 55% of Scots may have done).

Garvin, if you read what I wrote I said it covers everything. As for me thinking Salmond is some kind of saviour it is you who is deluded, he is anything but. Although a couple of bent Politicians on your home turf are a fk sight easier to manage than 650 in London.
Now, unless your are some kind of fiscal genius, and I doubt you are, then you cannot explain how the finances from Scotlands exports and oil relate to the welfare burden. I imagine it is an imaginary ratio very deliberately drip fed for people like you to regurgitate as gospel. We can argue the toss all we like on here but I think we will see UKIP gain in strength from this as the rest of the country looks a little closer at Westminster. Not many Scots see Salmond as a saviour, more as a means to an end

What you wrote was ambiguous and vague to say the least, I merely pointed out where the massive drain is and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 'political elite' per se. To state that the drain is due to everything and down to the 'political elite' is, quite frankly, quite useless and smats of emotional rather than objective thinking.

To further state that there are only a couple of 'bent' politicians in Scotland and all 650 in Westminster are bent is, again, an emotionally fuelled statement - it is clearly ridiculous. To then allude that Scottish voters can deal with their elected politicians in some way different to the rest of UK is, yet again, a statement that doesn't bear even the most cursory scrutiny.

If you are brave enough, post the evidence that Scotland's exports and oil (as you put it) will easily cover Scotland's expenditure, which includes its welfare bill. I believe you are the one that has been suckered into thinking that an iScotland would have got its own way on carving up oil and resources and would have run off over the hill with all the goodies - again, an irrational piece of thinking that only those blindly believing the Salmond/Sturgeon bks would take seriously - but at least 55% of Scots voters weren't so easily fooled.

As for being a fiscal genius, be careful about the insults you throw about willy-nilly without any real knowledge (but, as we've seen from your posts, posting things without thinking them through is your MO). What I can state with certainty is, that compared to you, I am a fiscal guru.

[davepoth]

rovermorris999 said:

2013BRM said:

and are worried for their pensions

And why not? They've paid for them. But by 'old fart' I meant over 40-ish which is a grave-dodger to a 16 year-old.

It's quite simple really. Young people often don't have much in the way of stuff (starter job, no house, no car, no savings) and think it's unfair that some people have more stuff than them; surely it's fair that they share their stuff (I.e. give it to the young)?

Older people often have more stuff (job, house, car, savings) and think it's unfair to have to give their stuff to the young; surely the young should stand on their own two feet?

That is (I believe anyway) why people drift to the right as they age; it's not so much that age makes them conservative, but stuff. I bet a 90 year old with nothing at all would be more disposed to vote labour than a 90 year old billionaire.

[2013BRM]

I apologise if you feel I insulted you Garvin, I certainly did my best to prevent that. I agree I am in the company of some who are vastly better equipped intellectually and emotionally, I write as a political numpty who has become engaged because of recent events. Once again, sorry if you feel I offended you but I wont let my challenged intellect prevent me having a go

[rovermorris999]

davepoth said:

It's quite simple really. Young people often don't have much in the way of stuff (starter job, no house, no car, no savings) and think it's unfair that some people have more stuff than them; surely it's fair that they share their stuff (I.e. give it to the young)?

Older people often have more stuff (job, house, car, savings) and think it's unfair to have to give their stuff to the young; surely the young should stand on their own two feet?

That is (I believe anyway) why people drift to the right as they age; it's not so much that age makes them conservative, but stuff. I bet a 90 year old with nothing at all would be more disposed to vote labour than a 90 year old billionaire.

Do you not think that age and experience give wisdom?

[Borghetto]

johnxjsc1985 said:

We do need a new Political class and not more Student of Politics. Closing Westminster and moving it to the centre of the country would be a start but we all know we are locked in to what we have at present and God forbid that we should upset the markets and the LSE. All we are left with is having a good moan about it.

If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must come to the mountain. Millions of our citizens have worked this out and chosen to share London's success.

[davepoth]

rovermorris999 said:

Do you not think that age and experience give wisdom?

Once you're aware of one electoral cycle, you are aware that politicians lie. I knew that was an absolute truth a long time before I was old enough to vote. That's really the only bit of wisdom you need to have before you make your decision.

[r11co]

Moonhawk said:

Reading some of the comments on the "We are the 45%" Facebook page is tragic.

Thanks to the laughable and depressingly ignorant discussion that went on about the referendum there, I came to the conclusion that Facebook is the public toilet floor of the internet - all misguided excrement appears to end up there!