An independent Scotland?

[Audley Strange]

You know one part of me does still wonder if the Scottish Independence movement is a backwards, a retrograde mentality just like many see UKIP being, but ironically it seems to me that anti-euro skeptics tend to be all for the Union and those guys are often a bunch of swivel-eyed loons, as we all know. I guess as Ron said it's not about England, though obviously it is, in a sense. Let's put it this way, there are more of you than us and your national interests and ideologies are not that much in line with ours, plus, you stupid fuckers keep voting in the Tories so even when the other three nations vote for other parties we end up with a shambles that doesn't represent us other than through the mysticism of "State"

There is a level of frustration that comes with being almost consistently governed by a party who no one in your nation voted for.

[ronmcd]

You know one part of me does still wonder if the Scottish Independence movement is a backwards, a retrograde mentality just like many see UKIP being, but ironically it seems to me that anti-euro skeptics tend to be all for the Union and those guys are often a bunch of swivel-eyed loons, as we all know. I guess as Ron said it's not about England, though obviously it is, in a sense. Let's put it this way, there are more of you than us and your national interests and ideologies are not that much in line with ours, plus, you stupid fuckers keep voting in the Tories so even when the other three nations vote for other parties we end up with a shambles that doesn't represent us other than through the mysticism of "State"

There is a level of frustration that comes with being almost consistently governed by a party who no one in your nation voted for.

Well, there's certainly nuance in any and every political position, and a wide range of people with different reasons for voting any particular way. UKIP is largely on the extreme right wing of the Tory party, but of course they have have left and centrist supporters too for a variety of reasons (well, their EU policy). The Scottish Independence movement including the SNP is largely on the left, but some on the right and centre support independence for sure.

For me personally (all I can speak for), the problem is as you say - consistently governed by a party we don't elect. But that has been made all the more obvious because the Scottish Parliament under both Labour/libdem and now SNP administrations has consistently gone in a different direction ideologically from Westminister, exposing the real differences in approach. And as the policies diverge, we in Scotland are in effect punished for our different policies, not deliberately, but as a side effect. For example education is entirely inependent in Scotland, but with Westminister moving university fees from government funding to student funding, Scotland therefore receives less money. But we dont want to charge students. The money then has to come from other areas to maintain free education.

Without complete control, the divergence in policies between Holyrood and Westminister causes more and more problems over time.

It would be easy to say I want independence because I want to protect (and expand) those left of centre policies the devolved Parliament has pursued, but now that the indy Rubicon has been crossed for me, I would still support it if Scotland voted for a new Conservative independent government. I might not agree with their policies, but it would be Scotland getting the government it chose. Note I dont agree with SNP policies in many areas either, but they currently best represent my views because the Labour party is a neo-liberal disgrace, even here in Scotland, supposedly the socialist heartland of the party. As the late Clyde Shipbuilders Union leader Jimmy Reid once said, he didn't leave the Labour party, the Labour party left him. But a Scottish government I didn't agree with would still be better representative of me my politics and attitudes than a Westminister government.

[Audley Strange]

Heh, Jimmy Reid, who wrote columns for the Murdoch Press? Yeah, sure the labour party left him, suuuuuuuurree.

Truth is it was a crap idea and we all know that, unions that threaten the ability of a nation to function are no better or worse than corporations who also have the ability to hold the state to ransom. That era of Labour died a ugly but natural death because it was unworkable and self-defeating. However I do think that in Scotland, which let's face it is a deeply nostalgic nation, they hold on to that idea of the donky jacketted picket line as some kind of noble social value, but's its a dream like the fantasy Victoriana of Daily Mail England. It didn't exist and what did didn't work. It can't work now, we don't have the massive state run industries, but we are still a left leaning nation in the main part, we need, I think to find some way to make that workable without falling into the same patterns. So yeah, at the moment it seems we can't even attempt that for ourselves.

[ronmcd]

Heh, Jimmy Reid, who wrote columns for the Murdoch Press? Yeah, sure the labour party left him, suuuuuuuurree.

Truth is it was a crap idea and we all know that, unions that threaten the ability of a nation to function are no better or worse than corporations who also have the ability to hold the state to ransom. That era of Labour died a ugly but natural death because it was unworkable and self-defeating. However I do think that in Scotland, which let's face it is a deeply nostalgic nation, they hold on to that idea of the donky jacketted picket line as some kind of noble social value, but's its a dream like the fantasy Victoriana of Daily Mail England. It didn't exist and what did didn't work. It can't work now, we don't have the massive state run industries, but we are still a left leaning nation in the main part, we need, I think to find some way to make that workable without falling into the same patterns. So yeah, at the moment it seems we can't even attempt that for ourselves.

Reid was also a columnist for the Herald, Scotsman, etc. Not sure what that signifies, any more than writing in the Sun. He was also a communist when he was younger. Again, not sure what your point is. In later life he didn't like New Labour, as many Labour supporters didn't, myself included.

The rest of your post, I agree. I'm not looking to return to old Labour, or the 70's. I just think we can do better, and having control seems the staggeringly obvious first step, to me.

[Audley Strange]

My point was that he had no right to claim Labour left him, as if he was the torch-bearer for militant socialism when he became little more than a courtier for the Establishment and thus has little room to criticise. The Labour party that he recognised was sold out by him and his peers because they recognised at it's centre was a self destructive void. His words seem like self serving apologetics. That's all. I don't know why a lot of that old guard don't just admit it was a shambles and learn from it rather than romanticise it. Other than that? Yeah we're on the same page I think.

[Svartalf]

You've yet to see our next play of the Sicilian Vespers.

[mistermack]

Man, I feel for you mistermack, this must hurt.

You've hopped over to the pathetic side of silly now.
Scotland voting for separation means nothing to me, apart from a debating subject. There's nothing there to hurt.

But if it WAS important to me, as it is to you, then I would be rather pleased with the way it's going.
Unless something drastic happens, the vote will be a resounding no, and nothing has been offered, or will be offered, on further devolution. The only people who are losing anything, are Scottish businesses, through the uncertainty, and the Scot Nats, who will be left with nothing, except a fruitless begging bowl for further devolution.

I notice that they have gone quiet about the currency. I wonder why?
It's a nightmare. They can't offer continuance of the pound, and nobody wants the euro.
It's the begging bowl either way.
All that smarmy Alex can hope for, is a dramatic turn-around in the fortunes of the Euro bloc, because the pound option will be attacked more and more, and look less and less certain, as the vote gets nearer.
And he can't do anything about it, except beg.

[ronmcd]

Man, I feel for you mistermack, this must hurt.

You've hopped over to the pathetic side of silly now.
Scotland voting for separation means nothing to me, apart from a debating subject. There's nothing there to hurt.

But if it WAS important to me, as it is to you, then I would be rather pleased with the way it's going.
Unless something drastic happens, the vote will be a resounding no, and nothing has been offered, or will be offered, on further devolution. The only people who are losing anything, are Scottish businesses, through the uncertainty, and the Scot Nats, who will be left with nothing, except a fruitless begging bowl for further devolution.

I notice that they have gone quiet about the currency. I wonder why?
It's a nightmare. They can't offer continuance of the pound, and nobody wants the euro.
It's the begging bowl either way.
All that smarmy Alex can hope for, is a dramatic turn-around in the fortunes of the Euro bloc, because the pound option will be attacked more and more, and look less and less certain, as the vote gets nearer.
And he can't do anything about it, except beg.

Impressive, proven wrong on your last accusation, you just ignore it and move on to another.

On the currency, there is no doubt about what will happen if people vote for independence. Scotland will retain the pound, even if a future Scottish government wanted to move to a new currency it would be years away.

And the Scottish government have not gone quiet on the currency, they issued their currency paper written by economists not politicians in Feb 2013, the treasury paper came 2 months later. And nothing the treasury said prevents Scotland keeping the pound.

Btw, the pound and the central bank are Scottish as much as anyone elses.

[mistermack]

Impressive, proven wrong on your last accusation, you just ignore it and move on to another.

Your posts get more stupid by the minute. You apparently think that if you post something, it means something.
I made no claim about smarmy Alex promising a DATE for a referendum. I just pointed out that he promised a referendum, and has delayed it to the very last minute. He could have called it earlier, he didn't, he has left it to the very last minute.
What I posted was entirely accurate. You put up this straw man, that he always said it would be late.
I NEVER SAID HE DIDN'T. I just pointed out the FACT that he's left it to the last minute, because he knows he's going to lose it.

So well done, you gave your own straw man a real kicking. But you didn't prove anyone wrong. You just proved that when faced with inconvenient truths, you need a straw dolly to push over.

Well done. Give yourself ANOTHER big pat on the back. Be my guest.

[Rum]

Man, I feel for you mistermack, this must hurt.

You've hopped over to the pathetic side of silly now.
Scotland voting for separation means nothing to me, apart from a debating subject. There's nothing there to hurt.

But if it WAS important to me, as it is to you, then I would be rather pleased with the way it's going.
Unless something drastic happens, the vote will be a resounding no, and nothing has been offered, or will be offered, on further devolution. The only people who are losing anything, are Scottish businesses, through the uncertainty, and the Scot Nats, who will be left with nothing, except a fruitless begging bowl for further devolution.

I notice that they have gone quiet about the currency. I wonder why?
It's a nightmare. They can't offer continuance of the pound, and nobody wants the euro.
It's the begging bowl either way.
All that smarmy Alex can hope for, is a dramatic turn-around in the fortunes of the Euro bloc, because the pound option will be attacked more and more, and look less and less certain, as the vote gets nearer.
And he can't do anything about it, except beg.

I tend to agree. I look forward to smarty pants Salmond going into retitrment and sulking for the rest of his life.

[ronmcd]

Impressive, proven wrong on your last accusation, you just ignore it and move on to another.

Your posts get more stupid by the minute. You apparently think that if you post something, it means something.
I made no claim about smarmy Alex promising a DATE for a referendum. I just pointed out that he promised a referendum, and has delayed it to the very last minute.

He promised a referendum in 2014 (ie 2nd half of parliament). If he was delaying it, it would be ... delayed.

[mistermack]

He could have held a referendum any time.
He's holding it at the last possible minute. Three plus years later than he needed to.

If he thought he would win it, he would have held it straight away. Any fool knows that.
When you WANT a referendum, and leave it for four years, that's a delay in my book.

[ronmcd]

What I posted was entirely accurate. You put up this straw man, that he always said it would be late.
I NEVER SAID HE DIDN'T. I just pointed out the FACT that he's left it to the last minute, because he knows he's going to lose it.

Ooooh, pants on fire

Once the SNP, the party that is pushing for separation, and promised a referendum, got elected, it was also perfectly respectable to demand that smarmy Alex put his money where his mouth was, and hold the promised referendum.
He campaigned on that promise.
He is the one that went backwards on his promise, by the absolute maximum that he could. Because he knows that if he held it any sooner, he would definitely lose.

You claimed he went back on his promise, after being elected. No, he has resolutely held to his promise, despite the other parties demanding he BREAK his promise!

It's ok, I expected nothing better of you than attempted deceit, from past experience.

[ronmcd]

He could have held a referendum any time.
He's holding it at the last possible minute. Three plus years later than he needed to.

If he thought he would win it, he would have held it straight away. Any fool knows that.
When you WANT a referendum, and leave it for four years, that's a delay in my book.

So which promise were you accusing him of going back on? In a previous post? The one you are pretending didn't happen?

He is actually holding it at the right time - after a sufficient period for people to hear the arguments. We only have to look at what happened with the AV referendum. The tories mounted a vicious campaign of disinformation for 2 weeks which prevented the case for AV from even being explained properly.

Not going to happen this time, people will decide based on the facts. The longer the campaign, the more time for disinformation to be defeated. Regardless which side win.

[ronmcd]

He could have held a referendum any time.
He's holding it at the last possible minute. Three plus years later than he needed to.

If he thought he would win it, he would have held it straight away. Any fool knows that.
When you WANT a referendum, and leave it for four years, that's a delay in my book.

Like the Tories and Labour and Libdems who all want an in out referendum on EU in ........ 2017 at the earliest?

Bwahahahahahaha!