The end of the UK?
We'll take a cup o' kindness
Reply
Kern wrote:
CraigGrannell wrote:
Mind you, British people tend to like the status quo—maybe even a vote on EU membership might result in nothing changing.


This might be the case. Salmond has to prove to the undecideds and the legions of constitutional apathetics (what? There's life outside of constitution writing? Even the chance of sex?) that divorce from the UK will improve their lives and wallets. We might hate first-past-the-post, for instance, but most people don't care, for good or ill.


My own take on any EU referendum is that we'll likely vote to stay in, for all the media's efforts to try and convince people otherwise. I might be wrong here, and the 5 years (minimum) between now and any such vote is a very long time in politics, but I doubt it. The Euro issue will have been sorted out by then, one way or another, and most people are realistic about the net influence and power of the UK on the world stage (i.e. next to bog all), most especially as against the rise of China et al. Plus, as Craig said, there's always the issue of inertia anyway.

It may well be that actually, Cameron is able to squeeze at least some of the EU reforms that he seeks anyway, thereby obviating the need of such a referendum (or at least giving the necessary wiggle room to claim it's no longer in any way justified). Stranger things have happened.
Kern wrote:
CraigGrannell wrote:
Mind you, British people tend to like the status quo—maybe even a vote on EU membership might result in nothing changing.


This might be the case. Salmond has to prove...


You think Salmond doesn't like the status quo? I reckon he's pushed the referendum thing so hard because he'll secretly be very glad to see the back of it.
Quote:
Of course, the big question is whether ['Nobody in particular'-Uncle Jo Stalin] will return to his homeland to vote for independence, or whether he'll remain one of the large disenfranchised Scottish diaspora.


On the balance of probabilities - so far - I'm going to spoil my ballot paper, but if the individual alluded to is who I think, then I might just reconsider and do my part to keep Scotland free of his particular style of hateful sectarianism.


Quote:

(As for people who don't even live in Scotland, well, they "don't have a dog in the fight", I guess )


I'm not quite picking up on the nuance of this statement. Any further explanation? I'd quite like to know what's behind it.

Regards
kalmar wrote:
Kern wrote:
CraigGrannell wrote:
Mind you, British people tend to like the status quo—maybe even a vote on EU membership might result in nothing changing.


This might be the case. Salmond has to prove...


You think Salmond doesn't like the status quo? I reckon he's pushed the referendum thing so hard because he'll secretly be very glad to see the back of it.


As Longshanker has observed, I think Cameron's masterstroke here - which will undoubtedly be the SNP's undoing - was keeping DevoMax off the ballot paper. Salmond can have his 16-year olds voting (possibly the only demographic who'll lack the nous to see through their lies and ineptitude, although hapless 20-year old bloggers discussing Scottish politics haven't been too well received by the cybernats of late, it would appear), but he must know he's goosed now.

If the SNP lose their referendum, which they will - and badly too - Salmond will be finished. No doubt he can then resume his banking career; he seems to have all the right credentials and personal attributes for it.

(I have to say though Kalmar mate, how very dare you - as a Scot, living - and working - in Scotland, even comment in this matter. What do you know about it you Unionist patsy/there were at least two grammatical errors in your post/I'll answer the question if you answer 100 spurious ones that I put to you first, except I won't of course, etc. etc. repeat to fade :D )
Longshanker wrote:
I'm not quite picking up on the nuance of this statement. Any further explanation? I'd quite like to know what's behind it.


...Do you really need to ask? Take a wild guess. :D

:attitude:
Quote:
but he must know he's goosed now.


I think he'll make a good, probably rigged-ish, fight of it. Salmond's got no choice but go the whole hog now anyway. Ultimately the inertia of voter apathy and ennui will be against him.

The SNP/Yes campaign are currently under the impression that BetterTogether have used up all their firepower. The Yessers reckon their own powder for return fire is dry. I reckon if the Tories look like being bombed out in the run up to the general election, all Labour have to do is make some moves along the 'more powers' to the Scottish parliament line and the game is over bar the shouting.

So it's definitely game on. The Yes campaign have significantly more committed grass rooters on the ground prepared to chap the doors and evangelise on the potential of MacNirvana for the Scots. They'll make inroads without doubt. Ultimately, Salmond is the SNP's biggest asset, but he's also their biggest liability.

It's worth noting that support for the Home Rule vote in 1979 was around 61% for the Yessers one week before the actual vote. It plummeted 10% in that week due to some heavy duty scaremongering from the Unionist camp. At the time, the most heard line from Unionists, due to the 'rigged' 40% rule, was that not voting was the same as a No vote. That part explained why, on turnout figures, the Yes vote won fair and square with 51%. It won't be that simple this time.

You might also find this piece interesting. http://www.whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk ... endum.html

What plainer signal could there be that Salmond's expecting to lose.

Quote:
""L'état, c'est moi" is the First Minister's motto every time he gets into his office in the morning."


I usually refer to Salmond as the Sun King. Bit of irony given past exchanges elsewhere, eh?

Regards
Longshanker wrote:
The SNP/Yes campaign are currently under the impression that BetterTogether have used up all their firepower. The Yessers reckon their own powder for return fire is dry.


But the thing is, the 'No' camp have barely needed to raise a finger against the 'Bitter Apart' Brigade - the SNP (and President of the EU Commission) have done all the heavy lifting for them!

I was sat on my settee watching Question Time when Nicola Sturgeon lied through gritted teeth in front of the cameras about the SNP's fictional EU legal advice that they had to take legal steps (at Scots' taxpayer's expense) to "protect", only a few weeks back. I have eyes and ears; I don't need anyone else to twist the basic facts of this situation and tell me that somehow, my very senses deceived me on this. The bottom line is that the SNP leadership - primarily, but not just Salmond in isolation - was caught absolutely red-handed blatently lying to their own people and perhaps even more importantly, exposed as being completely and utterly half-arsed on a matter so fundamentally important to the independence of Scotland so as to beggar belief. Naivety doesn't even begin to describe this latter point; no doubt the Scots electorate - even those 'normal', perfectly sensible Nationalist-inclined folks (not hate-blinded, idiotic, off-their-tits cybernats, obv.) - must've looked on in abject horror at all of this? The prospect of having such inept, blatantly dishonest people running their country as a small, standalone state in such a manner, would've surely sent a shiver down their collective spines akin to pouring liquid helium down the back of their shirts?

This alone would be quite bad enough, but then there's also the small matter of Mr Barroso's letter concerning the status of an independent Scotland within the EU - I am amazed at the bald, stark, very un-EUish, unequivocal language he used and no-one, almost no matter how deluded or hate-filled, could possibly avoid the absolutely clear ramifications of this, even if they choose not to admit it to others and/or themselves, for reason(s) best known to themselves. But most people in this debate, including myself and irrespective of which side we're on, are interested in the *truth*, not some self-appointed third party commentator's wishful thinking. In this regard, Mr Barroso provided us with what the SNP so dismally refused to do, no doubt because they were too scared, or too stupid/arrogant, to find out?

Of course, even aside from even these matters, there's also been the nasty Orwellian spectacle of Salmond's lies in Parliament and underhand attempts at amending Parliamentary records "on the QT" when busted by Labour, in the vain hope that no-one would notice or find out (like, as if), not to mention strutting round like some post-prandial peacock. You mention elsewhere that you think Salmond is part asset, part liability? I'd be inclined to think exclusively the latter, personally. Don't forget, in addition to the above, he's also been proven to have been catastrophically and demonstrably wrong about so many other things as well. Imagine if Scotland became independent in 2008 - with its toxic, about to fail banks - and had adopted the Euro to boot, precisely as he would've dearly wanted at the time? Shit the bed, it doesn't even bear thinking about.

Quote:
The Yes campaign have significantly more committed grass rooters on the ground prepared to chap the doors and evangelise on the potential of MacNirvana for the Scots.


That might well be true, but they've also got the much-reviled cybernats in the mix as well; many of whom already seemingly blocked from mainstream online discussion/debate resources (fully two years before the actual referendum date) presumably because those mainstream people - important, influential commentators among them - just cannot stand the aggression, rudeness, outright trolling and sheer lack of empathy/complete inability to see the other side of the argument or even just the truth of a given situation?

As I've said before, I regard the Scots as being quite the most delightful, friendliest, most accommodating people on Earth. I love going to Scotland, so much so that Lady R and I holidayed there only a couple of weeks ago (in the Highlands). On 2 January, not even New Years Day itself, I had complete strangers hugging me and my dog in the street and shaking my hand in the middle of the day, wishing me a Happy New Year, as I walked my dog, genuinely interested and delighted that I was visiting their beautiful country and so on, telling me all the best places to go. I looked like a slightly disheveled, unshaven middle aged man; my dog is a large male Rottweiler. Most people in Cheshire, where I live, look down their noses at me, if they acknowledge me at all - the difference could not be more pronounced. I love Scotland and the Scots and would love to live there.... but my point here is that, surely people like that, looking at the typical antics of the cybernats, as exercised in their own name, recoil in horror? Regardless of whether they actually agree with part of what they're saying, or not, they are surely a PR disaster for the SNP and Nationalist argument in general?

That 28% figure is, like I have said, inarguably very revealing.

Quote:
It's worth noting that support for the Home Rule vote in 1979 was around 61% for the Yessers one week before the actual vote. It plummeted 10% in that week due to some heavy duty scaremongering from the Unionist camp. At the time, the most heard line from Unionists, due to the 'rigged' 40% rule, was that not voting was the same as a No vote. That part explained why, on turnout figures, the Yes vote won fair and square with 51%.


I'd make the general point that Scotland, the UK, the EU and the world in general is a very different place to 1979 - people are (quite rightly) far more scared now, than they were then. They can surely see that given the economic storm that has broken - and will continue to break - and that will mean, rightly or wrongly, that inertia will likely have a much higher influence now, as compared to those entirely different, idealistic times. Most normal people, living in Scotland, have too much to lose - their jobs, their homes. They are concerned for their children and dependents; people who are relying on them. It's easy to be politically idealistic and naive when you have absolutely nothing and nothing to lose, but that's not true of the vast majority of people.

I'd also mention that oil and particularly gas prices are likely to plummet once shale gas (and oil) production comes online all around the world (England very much included, as indeed great swathes of mainland Europe), spookily enough within the next 2 years. Russia are already panicking about it; they know what's round the corner. This will, I'm sure, blast a huge hole into the already ludicrous economic arguments for independence of the SNP - such as they are.

Quote:
You might also find this piece interesting. http://www.whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk ... endum.html

What plainer signal could there be that Salmond's expecting to lose.


If the SNP lose, which they will, it'll be 20 years minimum before another referendum, and personally I'd say closer to 30 years - whatever Salmond or anyone else in the SNP thinks in terms of contingency planning.
Quote:
But the thing is, the 'No' camp have barely needed to raise a finger


Correct! Hilariously most of the bad publicity has been the result of SNP own goals.

Quote:
...small matter of Mr Barroso's letter...


Today's saviour for the Nats is Dr David Shepper: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01prbls (01:59:58)
Specifically rebuts and counters many of the points raised by Barroso's letter. Nats all rub selves with homiletic emollients and shout Hurrah!


Quote:
The prospect of having such inept, blatantly dishonest people running their country as a small, standalone state in such a manner


To be fair, we've had that, in UK context, for at least the past 50 years. The SNP are merely maintaining the tradition while attempting to somehow appear sanctimoniously superior to their Westminster counterparts: which, as you quite rightly point out, they're tragically laughably risibly not.


Quote:
You mention elsewhere that you think Salmond is part asset, part liability? I'd be inclined to think exclusively the latter, personally.


Without the triumph of his will, the SNP would never, repeat never, have reached the zenith they have now. A referendum for independence is their holy grail. I take my hat off to Salmond for that. It was mostly accident, but the three main parties paid the brunt of general public disaffection post 2010 general election. The SNP via Salmond rhetoric provided Scots with a convenient protest vote. It's why I voted for them in 2011. I never thought for a minute they would get a majority.

The Scottish system was designed to never deliver a majority. It's why the unicameral system at Holyrood has been found so deficient. It gives credence to the claims you'll hear from Labour about it being a one man band dictatorship. Imagine Tony Blair's New Labour without the House of Lords as a check and balance and you've just about hit the nail on the head on the free rein Salmond has.

Quote:
they've also got the much-reviled cybernats in the mix as well;


The Cybernats are overrated for their impact - empty vessels, most noise etc. Salmond's right to ignore them. Part of the reason I'm on this site (other than enjoying debating with you) is due to some online research I carried out on a certain Ultimate Cybernat. I genuinely find said individual disturbing due to the vitriol, bigotry and political sectarianism he spews. Without OTT bitching, I would certainly appreciate links, files any info/snippets which further demonstrate the extremes. I've seen some disturbing things he wrote regarding Chemical fires and watching 9/11 on television.

He's not the really disturbing thing though - despite the Flashmob he dropped on a poor third year uni student doing her exams. It's the fact that he now has certain high ranking Nats conversing with him and taking him seriously. I might have to drop the belief that the SNP are a joke protest party and update it to them being apologists for extremists party. :spew:

Quote:
If the SNP lose, which they will, it'll be 20 years minimum before another referendum, and personally I'd say closer to 30 years - whatever Salmond or anyone else in the SNP thinks in terms of contingency planning.


There's no doubt the Union needs reformed. I thought Devolution would help - it hasn't. God knows the country's virtually frozen politically when much more important things than the bloody constitution should be getting dealt with.

Regards
Longshanker wrote:
Today's saviour for the Nats is Dr David Shepper: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01prbls (01:59:58)
Specifically rebuts and counters many of the points raised by Barroso's letter. Nats all rub selves with homiletic emollients and shout Hurrah!


Well, there is no higher authority in this matter than the President of the EU Commission. That's all that really needs to be said. (It's also very clearly and openly the case that there are large, powerful entities outside of the UK itself - a key fact of life so often ignored by Nationalists - who also have a huge vested interest to hinder any attempt by the SNP to break Scotland away from the rest of the United Kingdom. This, I believe, is actually far more important than such people tend to acknowledge, but there again, since when has the SNP's politics been rooted in anything other than ridiculous, romantic wishful thinking and arguments, devoid of any hard-headed pragmatism?)


Quote:
To be fair, we've had that, in UK context, for at least the past 50 years. The SNP are merely maintaining the tradition while attempting to somehow appear sanctimoniously superior to their Westminster counterparts: which, as you quite rightly point out, they're tragically laughably risibly not.


Agreed to some extent, but to my mind I don't think we've ever quite seen such blatent, inept and 'default setting' lies before. Part of the offence arises precisely because the SNP are just so comically bad and amateurish at it all; it's *so* bad that it is an affront and an insult to our intelligence.

Quote:
Without the triumph of his will, the SNP would never, repeat never, have reached the zenith they have now. A referendum for independence is their holy grail. I take my hat off to Salmond for that. It was mostly accident, but the three main parties paid the brunt of general public disaffection post 2010 general election. The SNP via Salmond rhetoric provided Scots with a convenient protest vote. It's why I voted for them in 2011. I never thought for a minute they would get a majority.


I think it's been very important for the Scots to get the spectacle and reality of an outright majority SNP government 'out of their system' as it were, like some short lived, ill-advised holiday dalliance. They've now seen, first hand, what this 'dream ticket' is actually like in practice, and the sort of stuff that's gone on as a consequence. Whilst Scotland remains within the UK (and EU), it ultimately doesn't matter that much, but they know it most certainly would were Scotland ever to fulfill the SNP's stated aim.

Clearly they DON'T like it - otherwise a damn sight more than 28% of them, barely one in four - would be in favour of independence. That's just an inarguable fact of the matter. So from my Unionist perspective and as I have long said, it's fantastic that there is this SNP government in place, and someone like Salmond is in charge. In effect, he makes all the necessary arguments for us, far better than we ever could.
Longshanker wrote:
I would certainly appreciate links, files any info/snippets which further demonstrate the extremes.


Nah, that's just not my bag mate. :)

Stuart hates my guts, but he's never done me any harm. Part of the reason I got chucked off his blog was due to my sticking up for another dissident poster who got a bunch of personal stuff stalked off the web by someone there (not Stu), which just isn't cricket IMO, so I'm certainly not going to do stuff like that myself. No, I've "offered him out" as it were in this thread, in terms of having an actual debate, which he's declined, which is entirely fair enough.

I think I've disagreed with Stuart more than everyone else on the entire internet put together, but so what. He is still a great writer and he's kept me entertained over the years. If I ever meet him in real life, I'd buy him a beer. :D

For me, as passionate as I get at times over arguments on the internet, it's always and forever just that: ultimately meaningless arguments on the internet.
Latest poll puts support for independence at a derisory, unprecedented 23% (as predicted).

Quote:
Support for separation slumped during 2012 to its lowest level since devolution, according to a new survey published this evening. The report confirms that the Scottish people are firmly pro-devolution and against breaking away from the United Kingdom.

ScotCen Social Research’s annual Scottish Social Attitudes survey found that just 23% of people in Scotland now think that “Scotland should become independent, separate from the rest of the UK”. This figure equals the previous low recorded in 2010, and represents a drop of nine points on the 2011 figure (32%).


http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entr ... ion-slumps
Quote:
For me, as passionate as I get at times over arguments on the internet, it's always and forever just that: ultimately meaningless arguments on the internet.


Of course. I'm not looking for personal details. I am interested in more info regarding the copyright theft claim by Bruce Everiss. I picked that up from here. I had no idea.

To me it highlights a potential gross hypocrisy from Mr Campbell. There was a reference to him arguing elsewhere with this Bruce fellow and I was wondering if I could be pointed in the right direction. If that constitutes stalking then I'm guilty as charged. I'd call it research.

Quote:
represents a drop of nine points on the 2011 figure (32%).


Indeed. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at grassroots and higher levels of SNP meetings. Salmond has almost the same ratio of 'enemies' within the SNP as he does from within the other political parties.

When Finance Minster John Swinney failed to inform Salmond that the college budget figures he was bandying about in the Scots Parliament in December were incorrect, I figured that that was perhaps the first signal of some of the jockeying for position going on within the party. Possibly too far out from the Neverendum to be correct, but certainly not outwith the index of possibilities.

The inertia required to turn that level of disinterest around is beyond the abilities of a jockeying huckster like Salmond.

Regards
Via a Scottish chum on Twitter, an irony-free SNP minister complaining about the uncertainty created by an independence referendum (of sorts): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-21189343
I see that Salmond's proposed question got shot down as being biased.
Curiosity wrote:
I see that Salmond's proposed question got shot down as being biased.


Yup.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... on-1563405

Quote:
Independence referendum: Watchdog rejects Scottish Government's wording of preferred question

30 Jan 2013 11:00
THE Electoral Commission believe the phrase 'do you agree' could encourage people to vote yes and recommend the question be changed to: 'Should Scotland be an independent country?'


Of course, I did try to point this out to :attitude: at the time too - in fact my exact verbatim suggestion was indeed "Should Scotland be an independent country?" - but of course, I was derided as a [heretic/troll/idiot, delete as applicable].

I daresay if you're losing (or have lost) the debate and only 23% of your electorate having been convinced by your arguments, you'll be desperate enough to try anything. Most certainly up to and including trying to queer the pitch with some bullshit, blatantly biased question wording?

I said they wouldn't get away with it though, and sure enough: they haven't. Quelle surprise, eh. :roll:
I bet you it ends up a damn sight closer than 23% in the end, though.
Curiosity wrote:
I bet you it ends up a damn sight closer than 23% in the end, though.


Oh, I totally agree mate. My prediction: 60/40 in favour of the Union, as I think I mentioned before.
I'll be cracking open the bubbly on that day, to be sure.
CraigGrannell wrote:
Via a Scottish chum on Twitter, an irony-free SNP minister complaining about the uncertainty created by an independence referendum (of sorts): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-21189343


LOL.

Quote:
"In recent days it has become clear that the UK government could be on a collision course with the EU over the terms of her membership, and it is no longer fanciful to consider as real the possibility that the UK is heading out of the EU."


...That just beggars belief; DoubleThink personified. Utterly incredible. :D
Longshanker wrote:
Indeed. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at grassroots and higher levels of SNP meetings. Salmond has almost the same ratio of 'enemies' within the SNP as he does from within the other political parties.

When Finance Minster John Swinney failed to inform Salmond that the college budget figures he was bandying about in the Scots Parliament in December were incorrect, I figured that that was perhaps the first signal of some of the jockeying for position going on within the party. Possibly too far out from the Neverendum to be correct, but certainly not outwith the index of possibilities.

The inertia required to turn that level of disinterest around is beyond the abilities of a jockeying huckster like Salmond.


I think that's a very interesting point. From my perspective, as a layman observer if you will, the various characters within the SNP don't appear to be a very cohesive bunch, which is a rather polite way of putting things. I'd wager that there are some pretty heavy-duty egos in the mix there, and like all single-issue parties, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not a good deal of ideological dissent as well. An uneasy, fragile alliance if you will; loosely bonded by an overriding, ultimately negative objective. Rather like UKIP (or even the BNP).

It is inarguable that things are going really badly for the SNP right now, particularly these last few months. Will that fragile alliance hold its nerve in the face of 23% polls and other setbacks, gaffes and embarrassments, or will personal ambition/frustration start to make more of an impact?

Like I've said before, Scots' politics is fascinating to watch and is, in many respects, the 'Wild West' as compared to IMO more grown up mainstream politics. If I were a betting man, I'd take a punt on a real challenge to Salmond within 6 months tops, if he doesn't raise his game. That said, it's not as though the upper echelons of that Party are exactly bursting with quality and talent either, though, as we've seen only too well. But as I said previously, if you're making Labour look like a competent, safe pair of hands - you've got problems.
In yet other news, looks like Lucinda Creighton of the Republic of Ireland hasn't read the SNP script written on the back of a napkin:

Quote:
Ireland's European affairs minister has said an independent Scotland would need to apply to become a member of the European Union.

Lucinda Creighton told the BBC an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the EU, but would need to apply and go through a lengthy process.

Her views chime with concerns raised by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore.


Quote:
"If Scotland were to become independent, Scotland would have to apply for membership and that can be a lengthy process, as we see even with the very advanced and well-integrated countries like Iceland, where I've just come from.

"Iceland is obviously a member of Efta (European Free Trade Association) and had been deeply involved in the single market for many years, but still has a task in terms of transforming its legislation and fitting into the European requirements for membership.

"And that would be the case, I think, for Scotland as well. It may not take as long, but there would be an application and a negotiation process, as there is for any candidate country."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-21195630

Still, as a European Affairs Minister, no doubt she hasn't got a clue etc etc repeat to fade. Those pesky facts, eh.
I had to chuckle at this. Cameron tells the Labour front bench to fuck off.

Quote:
"If Scotland were to become independent, Scotland would have to apply for membership and that can be a lengthy process, as we see even with the very advanced and well-integrated countries like Iceland, where I've just come from.

To be fair, Iceland, while a member of EFTA and also having various additional treaties with EU countries, still needs to make many changes to laws and systems, in order to be allowed into the EU. Scotland, by its nature of currently being part of the UK, would likely have less to do, although perhaps only if it effectively cloned relevant aspects of the UK's existing systems. But, yeah, anyone in Scotland thinking it would split from the UK and the next moment be in the EU is… well, optimistic is probably the nicest word. At best, the process would take many months, and possibly years.

Interestingly, I'm also starting to see more pro-EU rumblings from Icelanders. (Things there aren't that great, despite rest-of-Europe's news oddly now painting the country as some kind of utopia where the population stuck it to the man and smashed up the banks.) It'd be funny if Iceland managed to join the EU before Scotland.
CraigGrannell wrote:
Quote:
"If Scotland were to become independent, Scotland would have to apply for membership and that can be a lengthy process, as we see even with the very advanced and well-integrated countries like Iceland, where I've just come from.

To be fair, Iceland, while a member of EFTA and also having various additional treaties with EU countries, still needs to make many changes to laws and systems, in order to be allowed into the EU. Scotland, by its nature of currently being part of the UK, would likely have less to do, although perhaps only if it effectively cloned relevant aspects of the UK's existing systems. But, yeah, anyone in Scotland thinking it would split from the UK and the next moment be in the EU is… well, optimistic is probably the nicest word. At best, the process would take many months, and possibly years.

Interestingly, I'm also starting to see more pro-EU rumblings from Icelanders. (Things there aren't that great, despite rest-of-Europe's news oddly now painting the country as some kind of utopia where the population stuck it to the man and smashed up the banks.) It'd be funny if Iceland managed to join the EU before Scotland.


I think that's entirely fair comment, Craig. It does indeed seem credible that Scotland may have a somewhat easier time of it than Iceland, always assuming of course that they do little more than clone relevant aspects of the wider UK's existing systems (opt-outs excluded, obv.), but this then immediately begs the question as to what on Earth would be in it for the Scottish people, in that case?

As you also say though, even this is all a very different proposition from being in a state of pure and total denial about the whole issue of an independent Scotland having to apply for EU membership per se.
Dimrill wrote:
I had to chuckle at this. Cameron tells the Labour front bench to fuck off.


Fairly sure it's "What are you afraid of?". It should be the other thing.
Grim... wrote:
Dimrill wrote:
I had to chuckle at this. Cameron tells the Labour front bench to fuck off.


Fairly sure it's "What are you afraid of?". It should be the other thing.


:this:

Heh, just listened this now. :D

Actually David Cameron was speaking to Angus Robertson of the SNP, not the Labour front bench... How awesome would it have been if he had told him to "fuck off"? Richly deserved, for sure. :D

Mind you, expecting the SNP to set out the case for "independence", or at least the break up of the United Kingdom, is a forlorn hope indeed. Like, as if they've even remotely worked out pretty much *any* of the details themselves - less still understood any of the actual, real world implications - as we've all seen only too clearly these last few months in particular. Fact is, they haven't got a clue; they're making it up as they go along, making total arses of themselves in the process. That's probably one of the key reasons why independence is polling at around 23%.

Mind you, given the *real* implications of "independence", which are only now starting to come to light - only thanks to the intervention third parties, mind, in the vacuum of input and truth from the SNP - I'd say they're afraid of quite a lot? Along with 77% of the Scottish electorate too for that matter, not to mention c.three-quarters of the top 250 Scottish businesses...

If I were a Nationalist, I'd be telling the SNP to stop lying first and foremost, get their shambolic act together (an actual accurate, truthful, costed and comprehensive manifesto for independence, vaguely based on facts and realities and specifically dealing with issues such as EU membership, would be a start) and tell 'em to tell the Cybernats to put a sock in it. Happily enough from my Unionist POV though, fat chance on any score.
Part of the problem from what I'm reading is the gist from the SNP that there's nothing to worry about and Scotland will sail forward into some kind of utopia. If they acknowledged risks but said it would be worth it to be entirely in control of Scotland's destiny, that might be a better route. That said, with the Tories and Labour both making rumbling noises about something approximating (although not quite going so far as) devo max if the vote is 'stay with the UK', it's no wonder Scots in general are thinking 'better the devil you know'. This is even more the case given that the SNP has quite often used countries like Iceland and Ireland as examples of how fab Scotland could be economically—and both countries got hammered during the last (and the ongoing) downturn. The UK of course also got hit badly, but has the cushion of simply being larger.
According to a story in the Herald, looks like senior elements within the SNP *have* had enough of Cybernats after all:

Quote:
SENIOR Nationalists have launched a crackdown on so-called "cybernats" who use the internet to abuse and attack political opponents.

A group of respected party activists, with a high-profile presence on social media, has begun policing offensive comments on blogs and social networking site Twitter.

In a separate move, the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign has highlighted warnings to supporters not to make personal attacks or engage in abuse.


Quote:
The latest spat followed BBC reports on the Scottish Government's decision to accept a more neutrally-worded referendum question, which attracted more than 1300 comments on the corporation's website.

SNP activist Calum Cashley stepped in to silence a cybernat called SNPDunblane who prompted a furious online backlash after suggesting the BBC should not have allowed comments on the issue from outside Scotland. The user later deleted his comments and the account was closed down.


Quote:
"If you think about the people not on either side who are looking for information, they will be thinking what the hell is going on? If you saw a fight in the street you would not go near it and it's the same online."

He added: "We have started to challenge them and ask them what they think gives them the right to be so bloody rude. "It is not a party thing. The problem is they are not party members. The party does not know who they are."

The latest Twitter row came as the Yes Scotland campaign emailed supporters reminding them of online guidance published last year.

It states: "Someone who does not agree with us should be treated with respect. Politics is all about different viewpoints. Never make personal attacks on any individual or engage in general abuse of opponents. The key to victory is positive persuasion. Our case is a strong one and there is no need to become involved in personal attacks."

Labour MSP Richard Simpson said: "This sort of online abuse of anyone who disagrees with the SNP is unacceptable. I hope the SNP gets control of its supporters who hurl abuse and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them."

Yes Scotland insisted it had not highlighted its guidelines in response to the latest Twitter row. A campaign spokesman said: "We would hope anyone who uses social media – from whichever side of the fence –uses it courteously, sensitively and responsibly."

A spokesman for the SNP said: "The SNP's social media guidelines are robust, as shown by the fact that this Twitter account was taken down."


http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... s.20084686

I must say I'm surprised that anyone in the SNP has acted on this, but kudos to them; credit where credit's due. Hopefully this will now raise the quality of the debate, such as it is; ordinary, moderate Nationalists might now be able to make themselves heard above the hate-fueled din and I for one would be interested in what they've got to say (as opposed to the empty vessel "we should move Faslane to the Falkland Islands" 'eye-swivelling bampot brigade' :roll: )

Who knows; perhaps even the SNP itself will now start to formulate an honest, accurate and comprehensive case and manifesto for independence, in order to fill the vacuum left by the removal, or at least attenuation of, Cybernat activities; itself *positively* asserting and setting the political agenda and framework of *constructive, informed* debate? Yup, I'm an optimist... We can but hope.

In the meantime though, that'll be yet another item on my wishlist ticked off, following the latest polls showing only 23% support for independence, the SNP's biased referendum question wording slap-down and yet further clarification of the inarguable status of a newly independent Scotland within the EU to boot, this time courtesy of the Irish government. Yup, it's sure been a good week in the world of Scottish politics; the proverbial Royal Flush poker hand. Save for winning the referendum itself, it just doesn't get any better than this. :)
The Scottish Government released a short document setting out the timetable for independence if the vote goes in their favour (read here; it's only about 16 pages or so).

One of the early questions they highlight which would have to be settled early on would be a definition of Scottish citizenship. I reckon this is going to be trickier than they think: should it apply to every current UK citizen resident in Scotland on the day of independence, or would they want to seek a higher test? I suppose there are plenty of recent precedents that could be drawn upon, but no doubt any definition isn't going to satisfy everyone in Scotland, and any law would have to be pretty robust to prevent complicated legal challenges.

Once again, it's an issue that people probably don't think about, yet one that will have to be tackled were Scotland to go its own way.
You people have no joy in your lives.
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


:'( !

To be fair, at this very moment, no I bloody well haven't thank you. If I spent less time spouting crap on the forum I'd be able to leave the office earlier mumble mutter etc
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


Ask me about the single transferable vote.
Lord Raiden wrote:
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


:'( !

To be fair, at this very moment, no I bloody well haven't thank you. If I spent less time spouting crap on the forum I'd be able to leave the office earlier mumble mutter etc

God, your boss must be a right bastard. ;)
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Lord Raiden wrote:
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


:'( !

To be fair, at this very moment, no I bloody well haven't thank you. If I spent less time spouting crap on the forum I'd be able to leave the office earlier mumble mutter etc

God, your boss must be a right bastard. ;)


Oh, he is. ;)
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


Yeah, that went in the wrong thread.
Craster wrote:
Craster wrote:
You people have no joy in your lives.


Yeah, that went in the wrong thread.

It worked where it was, though.
I don't get this? :shrug:

Guys, I can assure you there's plenty of joy in my life lol. What are you saying? That it's somehow wrong to debate or discuss this subject? Sorry, but it's something that's of interest to me personally - I don't want to see the break up of the United Kingdom, and most especially not on the back of what I see as a load of half-arsed proposals that haven't been thought through and are likely based on desire (for whatever reason, seemingly at any cost, as compared to hard-headed pragmatism), or even worse, bare-faced lies.

BEEX has a long and proud history of 'political debate' threads, which of course get heated on occasion. However, these threads are, to my mind, certainly legitimate and of value. It can't all be 'your mum' jokes, as much as I myself enjoy that sort of banter too.

I may well have the wrong end of the stick here, no doubt you'll enlighten me, but it's hard to see how else one can interpret 'we have no joy in our lives', in the context of the three main participants to this thread. (I'd have to say also that neither of you - particularly Kissyfur - is any stranger to heated political debates either and/or stuff that you care about ;) ). >:|

:(
No, I totally wrote it in the wrong topic. I meant to put it in the movie thread.
I think I'd respect Salmond more if he said 'yeah, we just want Scotland to leave for shits and giggles'.
Craster wrote:
No, I totally wrote it in the wrong topic. I meant to put it in the movie thread.


Yes I know mate. However, it was the 'natch' that I was referring to, in response to Kissyfur saying it worked where it was anyway.
Seriously, I want to know. If you think my input to this thread is somehow unwanted or unwelcome, then - yet again - I'll take the hint. It's sad, though.
Not at all! It was a reference to the fact that I'm so gosh-darned witty I can throw comments into entirely the wrong thread and still be entertaining. It's a gift.
You are too sensitive, Raidy. Be strong in your convictions!
:facepalm:

You are beyond parody
DavPaz wrote:
:facepalm:

You are beyond parody


Yawn. Whatever.
Not everything is a personal attack.
DavPaz wrote:
Not everything is a personal attack.


LOL. But " :facepalm: you are beyond parody" most certainly is.

As for the original point, yes, Craster did post in the wrong thread - but then another poster made a specific point of saying "it still worked", which is most certainly ad hominen, and then Craster responded with "naturally". Or can't you read or something?

Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing this with you. It doesn't even concern you. You think I'm "beyond parody", that's all fine by me. The feeling's mutual, I can assure you.
Not wishing to speak for Mr K, but I think it was just a flippant and meaningless comment; like a 'your mum' joke.

I certainly enjoy reading your take on these things, especially since the Guardian comments pages are all pro-Yes and seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that the pro-independent vote will win.
Page 8 of 41 [ 2009 posts ]