Scottish Politics / Independence - Vol 11

[biggbn]

McGee_22 said:

biggbn said:

Dreadful article and one that does not describe the country, or people I know. Its sad that such a minority, because that is what I believe they are; I have lived and worked in Scotland all my life, have a diverse group of friends and colleagues and do not recognise this 'anti immigrant' rhetoric. Of course I have seen racism, usually practiced by drunken idiots who would not utter a word at another as they stumble from pubs and clubs at 3am, again, a minority of clowns. I have said this before, some have disagreed and some agreed, but I will not stop posting a counterpoint. Come to the country I know and you will be welcome, we're a Jock Tamson's bairns at the end of the day. I am heartily sick of the many and different ways divisiveness is preached north and south of the border, indeed, across the world. Differences should be embraced and celebrated not feared and persecuted. Come on into my world, its how I and those I know live, and its lovely

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 29th June 21:12

Yet you have on numerous occasions said you admire some of the qualities of Sturgeon and Rayner, two characters who's entire careers are built on their embracing, promoting and celebrating divisiveness in a particularly disgusting manner.

Your bestowing platitudes and praise, however faint or glorious, upon those two is the very opposite of the heartfelt words you have just written.

Sturgeon has been a very good politician, has been been the words to comcentrate on here. She has played a blinder flr her party. I cannot abide her, but she plays the political game very well. I would say the same about Thatcher and Blair, two equally divisive characters i could not and cannot abide but, credit where its due. I detest the seeds of division Sturgeon sows, the last refuge of the scoundrel being an adopted flag of patriotism and all that.

Rayner I think would be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer but I have conceded she is a divisive character and freely admit that. What are the options McGee? Let the Labour party continue to be led by a spineless invisible nodding dog until it becomes ever more irrelevant? Sadly, politicians of late seem divisive by nature and prey upon the baser instincts of the electorate, playing to people's fear of the other whenever possible. I wish it were not so, but sadly it seems to be. People seem to think suggesting someone would be better than someone else, or someone has done a good job is to give them a warts and all ringing endorsement and that is not the case. Would I prefer the Labour party had a better option than Rayner? Yes, but I don't think they do. Would I prefer Scottish Labour or a decent Tory party like Ruth Davidson led could wipe Sturgeon out at the next election? Yes and yes. Hell, Id rather Scotland was run by an impartial civil service than the clowns I'm charge, but it's not and they are.

Take care man, and thanks for your comments, they serve to highlight just what a difficult 'game' we play when we put our mark down at the polling station, and the difficulty of that game means that none of the above will get my vote because I don't see any party north or south of the border as being deserving of my approbation. This is all just chat, and enjoyable chat at that. Have a good one, peace, gbn x

[NoddyonNitrous]

Independent MSPs might have a greater head count after the next election

[McGee_22]

biggbn said:

McGee_22 said:

biggbn said:

Dreadful article and one that does not describe the country, or people I know. Its sad that such a minority, because that is what I believe they are; I have lived and worked in Scotland all my life, have a diverse group of friends and colleagues and do not recognise this 'anti immigrant' rhetoric. Of course I have seen racism, usually practiced by drunken idiots who would not utter a word at another as they stumble from pubs and clubs at 3am, again, a minority of clowns. I have said this before, some have disagreed and some agreed, but I will not stop posting a counterpoint. Come to the country I know and you will be welcome, we're a Jock Tamson's bairns at the end of the day. I am heartily sick of the many and different ways divisiveness is preached north and south of the border, indeed, across the world. Differences should be embraced and celebrated not feared and persecuted. Come on into my world, its how I and those I know live, and its lovely

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 29th June 21:12

Yet you have on numerous occasions said you admire some of the qualities of Sturgeon and Rayner, two characters who's entire careers are built on their embracing, promoting and celebrating divisiveness in a particularly disgusting manner.

Your bestowing platitudes and praise, however faint or glorious, upon those two is the very opposite of the heartfelt words you have just written.

Sturgeon has been a very good politician, has been been the words to comcentrate on here. She has played a blinder flr her party. I cannot abide her, but she plays the political game very well. I would say the same about Thatcher and Blair, two equally divisive characters i could not and cannot abide but, credit where its due. I detest the seeds of division Sturgeon sows, the last refuge of the scoundrel being an adopted flag of patriotism and all that.

Rayner I think would be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer but I have conceded she is a divisive character and freely admit that. What are the options McGee? Let the Labour party continue to be led by a spineless invisible nodding dog until it becomes ever more irrelevant? Sadly, politicians of late seem divisive by nature and prey upon the baser instincts of the electorate, playing to people's fear of the other whenever possible. I wish it were not so, but sadly it seems to be. People seem to think suggesting someone would be better than someone else, or someone has done a good job is to give them a warts and all ringing endorsement and that is not the case. Would I prefer the Labour party had a better option than Rayner? Yes, but I don't think they do. Would I prefer Scottish Labour or a decent Tory party like Ruth Davidson led could wipe Sturgeon out at the next election? Yes and yes. Hell, Id rather Scotland was run by an impartial civil service than the clowns I'm charge, but it's not and they are.

Take care man, and thanks for your comments, they serve to highlight just what a difficult 'game' we play when we put our mark down at the polling station, and the difficulty of that game means that none of the above will get my vote because I don't see any party north or south of the border as being deserving of my approbation. This is all just chat, and enjoyable chat at that. Have a good one, peace, gbn x

I would strongly disagree that Sturgeon is, as you describe, 'a very good politician'.

She has ruined the economy of Scotland, employed sychophants and incompetents and henchmen (and women) as her colleagues and all the while spreading discord and blame about the Tory Party, the Westminster Government and yes, the English. She has ignored the 'democratic will of the people' as ably demonstrated in the decisive 2014 referendum and continues to do so. She has lied to her own Parliament, lied or become conveniently forgetful at her her own enquiry - I would say she is as good a politician as Boris is - bloody awful.

I think you are confusing being an orator with being a politician - she is a good orator, as was Hitler, but a good politician, please for your own sake consider her record while First Minister and all the multitude of failures she has signed off.

As for Rayner and her continued river of bile she barely suppresses - do you think as a politician she actually has any ideas beyond hatred of the Tory Party in her head - I certainly haven't seen any evidence of that - if you have then please point me in that direction.

I don't have any answers as what or who the alternatives are save to say that one way these horror shows stay in place is by shared opinions of 'oh, but they're good at being a politician' when they're patently not.

Please have the decency to call it for what it is - Rayner is good at seeming passionate - but it isn't passion - its pure hatred and perhaps a hint of jealousy - she isn't a good politician - she never has any actual answers even on simple questions like policy - or even 'were you there?' - and Sturgeon has a lengthy track record of abject failure upon abject failure as a Politician and First Minister all the while using the Tories and the English as her bogiemen - her record in of failures whilst in Office trumps Boris's all ends up! Sturgeon is a good orator, but a good politician - not a chance - she is the worst that Scotland has seen for decades.

[CoolHands]

I think the more (she) goes on about it, the less enthusiastic people will (are) get? Surely at the beginning it’s quite exciting - Yeah! Independence! Sounds great!

<endless years later>

yay zzzzzzz

[Starfighter]

I do wonder if the UK government should grant a section 30 order with certain caveats based on some of the problems we had with Brexit such as a fiscal plan, structure of trading relationships and a timetable.

I believe the Scots should make a free choice but it needs to be an informed choice and not based on the sort of jingoistic rhetoric we had with Brexit.

[TheJimi]

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

[hidetheelephants]

TheJimi said:

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

She's an indifferent orator at best, she just looks good in contrast to the surfeit of diddies in Holyrood.

[TheJimi]

hidetheelephants said:

TheJimi said:

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

She's an indifferent orator at best, she just looks good in contrast to the surfeit of diddies in Holyrood.

As much as I detest her, I think she's probably better than you give her credit for, although Boris is most people's direct comparison, so the bar is set fairly low in that regard.

[Cold]

I wonder what the voter turnout would be if she gave an assurance to leave politics for good within 24 hours of a "Remain" result.

[McGee_22]

TheJimi said:

As much as I detest her, I think she's probably better than you give her credit for, although Boris is most people's direct comparison, so the bar is set fairly low in that regard.

Just as for biggbn I have to ask, what on earth are you objectively baseing this assertion on? She and her government have only failure after failure on their rap sheet - please name two or three successes of the Scottish Government since she became First Minister?

[I Know Nothing]

Whether Sturgeon ruins the ecconomy of Scotland or not she seems to be delivering what the Scots want

Starfighter said:

I do wonder if the UK government should grant a section 30 order with certain caveats based on some of the problems we had with Brexit such as a fiscal plan, structure of trading relationships and a timetable.

I believe the Scots should make a free choice but it needs to be an informed choice and not based on the sort of jingoistic rhetoric we had with Brexit.

The caveat should be that the Shetland Islands should be allowed to stay part of the UK if they vote they do not want to break away with Scotland.

[sherman]

I Know Nothing said:

The caveat should be that the Shetland Islands should be allowed to stay part of the UK if they vote they do not want to break away with Scotland.

You would be better off asking if Denmark will take you back.

How long would a Newcastle to Lerwick ferry take? 24 hours?

Newcastle is probably the closest UK ferry port post Independence.

Edited by sherman on Thursday 30th June 02:26

[biggbn]

TheJimi said:

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

Isn't everything you describe being a politician? Hunter Thompson described politics as the art of controlling one's environment and that is, to a tee, what she has done. She has lied, manipulated and controlled her way to the top and stayed there. Is she a good, as in GOOD politician? Hell no, she isn't a good person in any way shape or form, but has she played the many and varied games of politics well? Undoubtedly though it sticks in my craw to say it.

As for Rayner, once again, what McGee is alluding to is I have said she woukd be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer. That is and was the extent of my comments. I believe she would have broader appeal and bring in more votes. I have openly called her divisive and fully agree that she, and others like her are part of a politics of division that seems to be practiced by all, and isn't my kinda politics, or lifestyle....none of which changes my opinion that she would bring more votes to the Labour Party than Mr Charisma.

I don't think any of that is hard to understand, is it? If it is, I humbly apologise and will withdraw from further debate on this topic because that is as clear as I can make things so further debate will not help.


Have a great day all, last day of work for me!! Peace, gbn x

Edit. I see McGee has asked another poster to name successes for the Scottish government. There are...none? Yet Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...

Edited by biggbn on Thursday 30th June 06:43

[Ecosseven]

biggbn said:

TheJimi said:

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

Isn't everything you describe being a politician? Hunter Thompson described politics as the art of controlling one's environment and that is, to a tee, what she has done. She has lied, manipulated and controlled her way to the top and stayed there. Is she a good, as in GOOD politician? Hell no, she isn't a good person in any way shape or form, but has she played the many and varied games of politics well? Undoubtedly though it sticks in my craw to say it.

As for Rayner, once again, what McGee is alluding to is I have said she woukd be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer. That is and was the extent of my comments. I believe she would have broader appeal and bring in more votes. I have openly called her divisive and fully agree that she, and others like her are part of a politics of division that seems to be practiced by all, and isn't my kinda politics, or lifestyle....none of which changes my opinion that she would bring more votes to the Labour Party than Mr Charisma.

I don't think any of that is hard to understand, is it? If it is, I humbly apologise and will withdraw from further debate on this topic because that is as clear as I can make things so further debate will not help.


Have a great day all, last day of work for me!! Peace, gbn x

Edit. I see McGee has asked another poster to name successes for the Scottish government. There are...none? Yet Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...

Edited by biggbn on Thursday 30th June 06:43

Really interesting point and I share Biggbn's point of view. the country needs a good LEADER, not just a good politician. A good leader has to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions with a clear plan for what is best for the country overall. Sturgeon and Boris have both failed to do this and are not good leaders in my opinion.

[Welshbeef]

Just checking on the finances.

Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.

Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year

So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.

What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.

Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.

What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.

[Jasey_]

Now now Welshy all the debt belongs to the nasty tories not the long suffering down trodden iScots.

Indy Scotland is a land where the streets are paved with gold.

[Welshbeef]

Jasey_ said:

Now now Welshy all the debt belongs to the nasty tories not the long suffering down trodden iScots.

Indy Scotland is a land where the streets are paved with gold.

Ah ok well we can specifically inflation link the Caledonian bail out that rUK has paid for (in addition ). Them greedy Scot’s back in the day wouldn’t accept bankruptcy but needed rUK bail out came a begging.
Actually had they not paid up the creditors could I suppose acquire vast lands of Scotland as was

[biggbn]

Ecosseven said:

biggbn said:

TheJimi said:

McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.

Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.

Isn't everything you describe being a politician? Hunter Thompson described politics as the art of controlling one's environment and that is, to a tee, what she has done. She has lied, manipulated and controlled her way to the top and stayed there. Is she a good, as in GOOD politician? Hell no, she isn't a good person in any way shape or form, but has she played the many and varied games of politics well? Undoubtedly though it sticks in my craw to say it.

As for Rayner, once again, what McGee is alluding to is I have said she woukd be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer. That is and was the extent of my comments. I believe she would have broader appeal and bring in more votes. I have openly called her divisive and fully agree that she, and others like her are part of a politics of division that seems to be practiced by all, and isn't my kinda politics, or lifestyle....none of which changes my opinion that she would bring more votes to the Labour Party than Mr Charisma.

I don't think any of that is hard to understand, is it? If it is, I humbly apologise and will withdraw from further debate on this topic because that is as clear as I can make things so further debate will not help.


Have a great day all, last day of work for me!! Peace, gbn x

Edit. I see McGee has asked another poster to name successes for the Scottish government. There are...none? Yet Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...

Edited by biggbn on Thursday 30th June 06:43

Really interesting point and I share Biggbn's point of view. the country needs a good LEADER, not just a good politician. A good leader has to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions with a clear plan for what is best for the country overall. Sturgeon and Boris have both failed to do this and are not good leaders in my opinion.

[andy_s]

Politics is the successful exploitation of the stupidity of crowds.

[Evercross]

biggbn said:

Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...

Apologies for the snip, but it was just to add to the above point. Sturgeon is not a good politician. She is a relatively accomplished one who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the benefit of being a high-ranking member of an immature party with a less than rigorous process for choosing leaders that preferred a rite of succession rather than a contest, and is carried by a populist cause that permits her to perform very much below par compared to her peers. I sincerely doubt that she would have made the same impression had she been in one of the bigger parties.

She is also a contemptible person. Many many years ago I followed the blog of George Laird, a disillusioned former SNP activist who had worked on the campaign trail with many of the Nationalist leading lights. He said of Alex Salmond that while he had an ego he still had time for the little people in the party and was a genuine leader, and that John Swinney was as affable off-camera as he comes across on-camera, and had similar to say about other SNP figures such as Jim Sillars et al.

His reason for leaving the party was... Nicola Sturgeon. He described her as sneering and condescending, cliquish, and only interested in interacting with certain factions of the party. Laird's opinions very much shaped my own of Sturgeon, and it is interesting to see many years later the character traits he described coming to the fore as her sense of untouchable arrogance makes her believe she doesn't have to hide them in public any more.

Check out this particular piece of condescension towards the BBC's John Kay on national TV.

Point to note - it is irrelevant that Kay had read Sturgeon's document because the document deliberately contains no detail because it exists to obfuscate the process of achieving a 'legal' referendum. Kay wanted clarification but instead got treated like st for daring to do his job.

Edited by Evercross on Thursday 30th June 08:26