Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
Strocky said:
The SNP's record compares more than favourably with the incumbent Labour led Holyrood Parliament, in fact some of the chickens that have came home to roost where incubated under Jack McConnell's watch.
I've heard that said, but 8 years is more than long enough to put right the wrongs of previous administrations, plus council tax freeze and the (inevitable) resultant squeeze on public service spending, Curriculum for Excellence (as implemented), Police Scotland and the stamp duty replacements are all pure SNP failures and none have to do with the money spent on them.r11co said:
Strocky said:
Why?
Because the purpose of government is governance. Giving them a remit for something else, overtly or tacitly, is a dangerous path.That kinda used to work for Labour........
Strocky said:
So once someone votes for a party that's who they should vote for the rest of eternity?
That kinda used to work for Labour........
You're going for a straw-man argument there. I'm talking about protest politics, like Syriza, Cinque Stelle in Italy and (yes) National Socialism.That kinda used to work for Labour........
Voting for a party that wants independence because so do you, in the belief that that is all they want to deliver and they will just head off into the sunset once it is achieved, or have no intention to pulll the levers of power in other ways you will not like but are willing to overlook is dangerous.
The SNP love to criticise the House of Lords (it has plenty wrong with it) but it is a traditional mechanism of checks and balances. Most true democracies have two houses of legislature (US Senate and HoR for example), and the UK also has a strong select committee system to achieve balance.
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 12:33
r11co said:
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
And have merged all police departments into a single force. And want the BBC "devolved" up here, too. I personally view the current SNP leaders as pragmatists over idealists, but the thought of an idealist government in a one-party state with a single police force and a state broadcasting arm strikes me as a really poor idea.Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 12:33
glazbagun said:
r11co said:
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
And have merged all police departments into a single force. And want the BBC "devolved" up here, too. I personally view the current SNP leaders as pragmatists over idealists, but the thought of an idealist government in a one-party state with a single police force and a state broadcasting arm strikes me as a really poor idea.Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 12:33
glazbagun said:
And have merged all police departments into a single force. And want the BBC "devolved" up here, too. I personally view the current SNP leaders as pragmatists over idealists, but the thought of an idealist government in a one-party state with a single police force and a state broadcasting arm strikes me as a really poor idea.
Not forgetting the 'named person' scheme and the changes to the Scottish NHS central database (effectively producing by stealth one large ID database of the type rejected whole-heartedly by the rUK). Again, schemes with no connection to previous administrations, nor influenced financially or otherwise by Westminster.With more voters rating the SNP 'poor' or 'average' than 'good' on performance indicators like the economy, health, crime and justice and eduction it seems a lot of people, like Strocky, are willing forego good governance as they see the SNP as a 'means to an end'. Madness IMO - to give a party a mandate to carry on f
king about with civil liberties and being st in government because they say they will one day deliver independence.Alex Salmond said the SNP would 'hold Westminster's feet to the fire'. Well, it seems that the Scottish electorate are handing the SNP cold drinks while they proceed to piss all over them.
Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 17:19
ianrb said:
Strocky said:
The BBC is state funded so they're fair game 
That's odd, I wonder what that TV License thing is I pay?Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.
The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament
Strocky said:
The BBC is established under a Royal Charter and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.
The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament
So, not state funded then. Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.
The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament
Sway said:
fluffnik said:
r11co said:
Because the purpose of government is governance. Giving them a remit for something else, overtly or tacitly, is a dangerous path.
For which sovereignty is a prerequisite, n'est pas?
The claim was at the time nobody knew what 'executive' meant. Well I know what 'government' means and Scotland doesn't have one. Thank f
k.technodup said:
Sway said:
fluffnik said:
r11co said:
Because the purpose of government is governance. Giving them a remit for something else, overtly or tacitly, is a dangerous path.
For which sovereignty is a prerequisite, n'est pas?
The claim was at the time nobody knew what 'executive' meant. Well I know what 'government' means and Scotland doesn't have one. Thank f
k.It really is the huge elephant in the room regarding the SNP. Much as they and their supporters go out of their way to code the language they use to disguise it, they are motivated by xenophobia, and behave towards the English in a way that is perceived as akin to racism.
Regardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
Regardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 07:39
X
I realise there is a smiley at the end but that is a worrying statement none the less.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
Strocky said:
AstonZagato said:
Silencing the free press is all part of the Nationalist agenda.
Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
The BBC is state funded so they're fair game Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
r11co said:
It really is the huge elephant in the room regarding the SNP. Much as they and their supporters go out of their way to code the language they use to disguise it, they are motivated by xenophobia, and behave towards the English in a way that is perceived as akin to racism.
Regardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
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 bRegardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 07:39
ks, (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
r11co said:
You're going for a straw-man argument there. I'm talking about protest politics, like Syriza, Cinque Stelle in Italy and (yes) National Socialism.
Voting for a party that wants independence because so do you, in the belief that that is all they want to deliver and they will just head off into the sunset once it is achieved, or have no intention to pulll the levers of power in other ways you will not like but are willing to overlook is dangerous.
The SNP love to criticise the House of Lords (it has plenty wrong with it) but it is a traditional mechanism of checks and balances. Most true democracies have two houses of legislature (US Senate and HoR for example), and the UK also has a strong select committee system to achieve balance.
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
The HOL is one of the worst examples you could cite, in it's current form is an affront to democracy never mind decencyVoting for a party that wants independence because so do you, in the belief that that is all they want to deliver and they will just head off into the sunset once it is achieved, or have no intention to pulll the levers of power in other ways you will not like but are willing to overlook is dangerous.
The SNP love to criticise the House of Lords (it has plenty wrong with it) but it is a traditional mechanism of checks and balances. Most true democracies have two houses of legislature (US Senate and HoR for example), and the UK also has a strong select committee system to achieve balance.
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 12:33
No point having checks and balances when the members may offer their services to the highest bidder and are unelected
AstonZagato said:
X
I realise there is a smiley at the end but that is a worrying statement none the less.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
I think you know I was taking the proverbial with that comment, both sides during the Indy Ref where prone to spin, you can't condemn one side and condone the otherStrocky said:
AstonZagato said:
Silencing the free press is all part of the Nationalist agenda.
Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
The BBC is state funded so they're fair game Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
The BBC have been called up for lack of impartiality on Iraq, Israel, Indy Ref & the UK GE as supporting the status Quo, I don't think Salmond calling out Robinson of being ironic by insinuating Putin like tactics by one protest is a threat to free speech
Strocky said:
AstonZagato said:
X
I realise there is a smiley at the end but that is a worrying statement none the less.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
I think you know I was taking the proverbial with that comment, both sides during the Indy Ref where prone to spin, you can't condemn one side and condone the otherStrocky said:
AstonZagato said:
Silencing the free press is all part of the Nationalist agenda.
Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
The BBC is state funded so they're fair game Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
The BBC have been called up for lack of impartiality on Iraq, Israel, Indy Ref & the UK GE as supporting the status Quo, I don't think Salmond calling out Robinson of being ironic by insinuating Putin like tactics by one protest is a threat to free speech
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff