The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[starchief]

It kills the image of Westminster having an "ulterior motive which benefits them but not us". For most of those years since 1999, Westminster was run by "us" and directly accountable to the Scottish people at election time.

Im actually leaning towards independence (I suspect it will largely be devo max in practice) but trying to hint being unionist means being anti-Scottish and Macchivelian is disingenious to the majority of people that dont support independence. They can be just as principled, just as freedom loving and just as patriotic but with a different viewpoint. Especially when it comes to economics, which is far from clear.

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

 

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at.  Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve.  Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood.

 

Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area.  The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. 

[PullMyFinger]

 

 

 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

 

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at.  Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve.  Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood.

 

Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area.  The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. 

 

That's bullshit, SNP will never hold a majority at Westminster so will never form government at that level. To change legislation you need the power to do it, why else enter politics?

[PullMyFinger]

It kills the image of Westminster having an "ulterior motive which benefits them but not us". For most of those years since 1999, Westminster was run by "us" and directly accountable to the Scottish people at election time.

Im actually leaning towards independence (I suspect it will largely be devo max in practice) but trying to hint being unionist means being anti-Scottish and Macchivelian is disingenious to the majority of people that dont support independence. They can be just as principled, just as freedom loving and just as patriotic but with a different viewpoint. Especially when it comes to economics, which is far from clear.

Who has hinted it's anti-Scottish to support the UK? I'd say it's pro-Scottish to support independence for Scotland but does that make me anti-English? Of course not, nor anti-Welsh nor anti-Irish.

[Yngwie]

Who has hinted it's anti-Scottish to support the UK?

 

One of Salmond's officials said so a few months ago.

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

 

 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

 

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at.  Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve.  Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood.

 

Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area.  The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. 

 

That's bullshit, SNP will never hold a majority at Westminster so will never form government at that level. To change legislation you need the power to do it, why else enter politics?

 

With respect, you seem to be rather missing the point.  Of course the SNP will never form a Government at the UK level but despite that, some of their most able politicians choose to stand for election to the UK Parliament rather than the Holyrood Parliament.

 

Actually, people do not enter politics simply because they believe they will have the power to change things, they stand for election because they hope to be able to influence change whether in power or not.  Perhaps you should ask Angus Robertson why he sits in the UK Parliament when he would be assured of a senior Government post if he sat at Holyrood.

 

The fact that the calibre of opposition MSPs is so low is not an argument for independence.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

 

The referendum is not about nationality, it's about the right of Scots to choose our own future.

 

Scots politicians in Westminster parties are answerable to the UK electorate as well as their constituents if they happen to be members of the government in addition to parliament. 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

No!! Its about the rights of those living in Scotland to choose their own future. Scotland is a multi-national country and every resident living here is entitled to a vote.

 

 

With respect, you seem to be rather missing the point.  Of course the SNP will never form a Government at the UK level but despite that, some of their most able politicians choose to stand for election to the UK Parliament rather than the Holyrood Parliament.

 

 

SNP candidates, like other parties, are selected to stand for election. Some may well want to serve at Westminster but thats not to say they will be selected for such a position. Their use may well be seen by the party selectors as being more useful at Holyrood than Westminster depending on their ability and skills. In other words would they better serve as a frontbencher at Holyrood than a backbencher at Westminster.

[PullMyFinger]

 

 

 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

 

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at.  Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve.  Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood.

 

Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area.  The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

 

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at.  Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve.  Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood.

 

Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area.  The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. 

 

That's bullshit, SNP will never hold a majority at Westminster so will never form government at that level. To change legislation you need the power to do it, why else enter politics?

 

With respect, you seem to be rather missing the point.  Of course the SNP will never form a Government at the UK level but despite that, some of their most able politicians choose to stand for election to the UK Parliament rather than the Holyrood Parliament.

 

Actually, people do not enter politics simply because they believe they will have the power to change things, they stand for election because they hope to be able to influence change whether in power or not.  Perhaps you should ask Angus Robertson why he sits in the UK Parliament when he would be assured of a senior Government post if he sat at Holyrood.

 

The fact that the calibre of opposition MSPs is so low is not an argument for independence.

 

 

You went from "very few would refuse" to "some would choose", yet I am missing the point?

 

 

Who has hinted it's anti-Scottish to support the UK?

 

One of Salmond's officials said so a few months ago.

 

 

How many officials does Salmond have? If you're going to post assertions at least have the decency to have a link to where there's a verifiable source. Especially when it's so inflammatory.

 

Might I suggest they were misquoted or misrepresented? How about if they had said "It's anti-Scottish to support having the people of Scotland ruled over by a Westminster parliament consisting of two chambers, one of which is unelected and stinks of ****?".

 

 

 

 

The referendum is not about nationality, it's about the right of Scots to choose our own future.

 

Scots politicians in Westminster parties are answerable to the UK electorate as well as their constituents if they happen to be members of the government in addition to parliament. 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

 

No!! Its about the rights of those living in Scotland to choose their own future. Scotland is a multi-national country and every resident living here is entitled to a vote.

 

 

With respect, you seem to be rather missing the point.  Of course the SNP will never form a Government at the UK level but despite that, some of their most able politicians choose to stand for election to the UK Parliament rather than the Holyrood Parliament.

 

 

SNP candidates, like other parties, are selected to stand for election. Some may well want to serve at Westminster but thats not to say they will be selected for such a position. Their use may well be seen by the party selectors as being more useful at Holyrood than Westminster depending on their ability and skills. In other words would they better serve as a frontbencher at Holyrood than a backbencher at Westminster.

 

 

Quite correct, I must be getting lazy. I meant to say the people of Scotland. I'll be calling Andy Murray English next.

 

SNP candidates aren't like Lab, Con or FibDem candidates as the party is only standing in Scotland. Angus Robertson is the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas as he is a brilliant strategist. If this referendum succeeds it will be in no small part down to his hard work even though he's not front and centre.

[Yngwie]

 

How many officials does Salmond have? If you're going to post assertions at least have the decency to have a link to where there's a verifiable source. Especially when it's so inflammatory.

 

Might I suggest they were misquoted or misrepresented? How about if they had said "It's anti-Scottish to support having the people of Scotland ruled over by a Westminster parliament consisting of two chambers, one of which is unelected and stinks of piss?".

 

It was an SNP MSP who is also Salmond's Parliamentary Liaison Officer, and caused a fairly well publicised rumpus with one of the more foolish assertions from either side so far.

 

"I absolutely make no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish ... in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people"

 

http://news.stv.tv/politics/293417-parties-clash-over-msps-anti-scottish-claims/

[Oddquine]

 

 

How many officials does Salmond have? If you're going to post assertions at least have the decency to have a link to where there's a verifiable source. Especially when it's so inflammatory.

 

Might I suggest they were misquoted or misrepresented? How about if they had said "It's anti-Scottish to support having the people of Scotland ruled over by a Westminster parliament consisting of two chambers, one of which is unelected and stinks of ****?".

 

It was an SNP MSP who is also Salmond's Parliamentary Liaison Officer, and caused a fairly well publicised rumpus with one of the more foolish assertions from either side so far.

 

"I absolutely make no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish ... in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people"

 

http://news.stv.tv/politics/293417-parties-clash-over-msps-anti-scottish-claims/

 

Ach, Yngwie, could you find nothing better than a January 2012 article to make what you consider a point?  Might have been good to look back at the context...but I guess that would have left you with nothing to say...and that wouldn't do, would it?

 

She said I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.

 

In the same debate Ruth Davidson said As the debate unfolds over the coming weeks, there will be a clear dividing line between patriots and nationalists..which may well have been the prompt for the above response.as it implies nationalists are not patriots.  I don't  know because I can't find the whole debate online..but I'd appreciate a link.

 

Can't really see why some people were getting so uptight then, tbh, because the SNP stuck to their manifesto commitments...unless it was because so few UK elected Governments do and they couldn't get their heads round a promise made and actually kept?...And I can understand even less why you would be resurrecting it  now?  Why did you?

[Yngwie]

Ach, Yngwie, could you find nothing better than a January 2012 article to make what you consider a point?  Might have been good to look back at the context...but I guess that would have left you with nothing to say...and that wouldn't do, would it?

 

I wasn't making any point at all, if you read posts #133 and #136 you'll see I was just helpfully answering questions from Pullmyfinger.

 

To quote your good self, "Might have been good to look back at the context"

[Oddquine]

It kills the image of Westminster having an "ulterior motive which benefits them but not us". For most of those years since 1999, Westminster was run by "us" and directly accountable to the Scottish people at election time.

Im actually leaning towards independence (I suspect it will largely be devo max in practice) but trying to hint being unionist means being anti-Scottish and Macchivelian is disingenious to the majority of people that dont support independence. They can be just as principled, just as freedom loving and just as patriotic but with a different viewpoint. Especially when it comes to economics, which is far from clear.

 

But Westminster wasn't run for us.or even to benefit us, starchief....so the fact that For most of those years since 1999, Westminster was run by "us" and directly accountable to the Scottish people at election time. has meant nothing because the MPs who were not SNP were not working in Westminster for Scotland, they were working in Westminster for their parties and the UK Parliament....if it helped or satisfied the majority of their constituents, that was a bonus.....but not their focus. If they had been representing Scotland and their constituents only after devolution, they would not have been voting on issues which had been devolved to Scotland and which would not affect Scotland at all.....like the student university fees one which produced so much animosity against Scotland because of their actions.

 

Don't disagree overmuch with your second paragraph.......but independence won't be remotely devo-max, given that we won't be subject to the UK foreign policies and won't have to host Trident. I rather think in the fullness of time, we will also go for our own currency and all that entails.but continuing with sterling is the sensible decision in the short/medium term at least. Have to say I've never considered that devo-max was a description of the politics in a country choosing to use the currency of another country as their main unit of exchange. Wonder if all those countries which use the UK dollar know they are not independent. Would that mean that the British Dependencies,  the British Virgin Islands  and Turks and Caicos Islands are really American if currency sharing is devo-max?

 

Re Especially when it comes to economics, which is far from clear, a debate tonight on Radio5live had a fifteen year old saying what all of us pro-independence supporters have been saying from the beginning..that, going forward, we are no clearer about the economics of the UK than we can be about those of Scotland. All economic policies are based on a best case scenario with fingers and toes firmly crossed....as illustrated by the Coalition's failures requiring U-turns.  In the next few months, the SNP will produce papers setting out their vision for Scotland going forward as an independent country, as I believe NuLabour and the Tories intend to do  for Scotland within the Union....but in the end, any economic forecasts are as accurate and as varied as polls generally turn out to be.

 

The link to the fifteen year old talking more sense than many anti-independence supporters is here   http://youtu.be/cRwIkiC__9U

[starchief]

Scots voting for non-Scottish matters doesn't mean they aren't also working for Scotland.  MPs in Scotland are working for Scotland - most just think it's best to work in a UK context and most view independence as bad for Scotland, hence they work against it.  That's their belief.  Since your year of 1999, Scots have, for the most part, controlled the government.  To think they are somehow Scottish, mainly representing Scottish constituencies and having to be re-elected by their Scottish voters but, somehow, they aren't working to benefit Scotland (unless, amazingly, they are SNP) is disingenous.  MPs, MSPs and MEPs in Scotland are all there to represent their constituents.  Whether you agree with the way they do it or think they are any good is another matter (personally, I wish voters would go a bit more on the MP rather than the party but that's the way it is - I'd rather Ken Clarke than Keith Vaz but it's the party that would win it).

 

I don't see the British Army, the BBC etc disappearing or excluding Scotland.  We'll certainly have more influence but I don't think independence will give that complete break some are expecting.  I probably used shorthand to explain that as devo max but not in a very good way.

 

Economics is far from clear but one option isn't necessarily as good as the other.  It's a calculated choice but all too often I hear one side present their case as a fait accompli.  Far from it.  I'd love to hear true independent expert opinion but I fear the waters are too muddied to get any clarity (you present an expert and the opposition presents another - no need for anyone to post a link to one expert to prove your point, there are plenty others with 180degree views for the other thought).

 

I'm still in favour of federalism as the local scene should be the most involved in everyone's day-to-day lives (I can understand why Bradford has a big BNP and Respect vote, I can get why Nottingham is Labour-dominated, I understand why Greens are in Brighton, I know why Conservatives do well in the countryside and I can see why the Lib Dems are big in the Islands - and these differences should be taken precedence when deciding pressing issues affecting these areas).  I could easily switch to no to independence with substantially increased devolution but I suspect the no vote is just too large for these concessions to be worthwhile.  That's why I am leaning towards independence.

[Oddquine]

Scots voting for non-Scottish matters doesn't mean they aren't also working for Scotland.  MPs in Scotland are working for Scotland - most just think it's best to work in a UK context and most view independence as bad for Scotland, hence they work against it.  That's their belief.  Since your year of 1999, Scots have, for the most part, controlled the government.  To think they are somehow Scottish, mainly representing Scottish constituencies and having to be re-elected by their Scottish voters but, somehow, they aren't working to benefit Scotland (unless, amazingly, they are SNP) is disingenous.  MPs, MSPs and MEPs in Scotland are all there to represent their constituents.  Whether you agree with the way they do it or think they are any good is another matter (personally, I wish voters would go a bit more on the MP rather than the party but that's the way it is - I'd rather Ken Clarke than Keith Vaz but it's the party that would win it).

 

Maybe I wasn't being completely fair there.I should have perhaps emphasised more that they go to Westminster and generally vote for the policies of the political parties which funded their passage to the green benches....so they work in Westminster for the UK and for  those constituents who voted for them. I am sure, however,  that they do the the best they can for individual constituents whoever they voted or didn't vote for...but being in Westminster, even as an integral part of the Government does not give them the ability to over-rule policies with which they don't agree..or promote policies they'd like to see.

 

The Secretary of State for Scotland is the Government's mouthpiece in Scotland and is meant to ensure that the UK Cabinet and others involved are fully aware of Scottish needs and circumstances.....which hasn't worked that well when you consider that the majority of Scottish MPs opposed various UK bills from the Poll tax to the Bedroom Tax and many in between, but we got them anyway. 

 

I don't so much mind the party political aspect...as it always flags up the mindset of the candidate.....but I do think that there should be no whip system. Imo, if a political party in power can't convince their own members of the benefit of the bill they are placing before the House, they should not be forced to back it..  I came to that conclusion re the usefulness of party politics as a flag to attitude in the days when proud Tories, dunted when Grampian Regional Council died, resurrected themselves as Independents to stand for The Moray Council..and still do to this day.

 

 

I don't see the British Army, the BBC etc disappearing or excluding Scotland.  We'll certainly have more influence but I don't think independence will give that complete break some are expecting.  I probably used shorthand to explain that as devo max but not in a very good way.

I'm not so sure about that...there will  quite possibly be Scots who would prefer to be in the rUK military.if it continues to be run as it is now...as it will undoubtedly offer more excitement and travel than a Scottish Defence Force..but I suspect that there will be a separate Scottish military.......which is not to say that there may not be mutual co-operation once tempers after the divorce have cooled...but I am not inclined to think so as long as the rUK keeps Trident.  I also think that there will be an SBC.....though we'd probably still manage to get the BBC with the right equipment as they do in Europe. But I suppose that will depend on the negotiations after the vote if it is yes.

 

 

Economics is far from clear but one option isn't necessarily as good as the other.  It's a calculated choice but all too often I hear one side present their case as a fait accompli.  Far from it.  I'd love to hear true independent expert opinion but I fear the waters are too muddied to get any clarity (you present an expert and the opposition presents another - no need for anyone to post a link to one expert to prove your point, there are plenty others with 180degree views for the other thought).

Economics will always be far from clear. Different economic theories applied to the same set of figures will generally produce as many results as there are economists interpreting them.  All of them will be possible....but none will be guaranteed...not the ones to be produced by the SNP shortly......or those produced by UK Governments.or individual UK parties in the run up to September 2014.. They can't be....because they are all based on estimates extrapolated from the newest set of accurate figures, however old those may be...and in the case of the Scottish Government,..from an assumption that Scotland will get, as under International Law,, the geographical share of oil revenues.and an extrapolation as to the worth of that going forward...and the assumption that negotiations re the division of UK assets and UK debts will be fair and equitable.

 

To me, it isn't the economic policy and the tax take etc, which is important, as that is unknowable until you start to take it.....it is the policies that tax take is going to be used to implement......and a comprehensive acceptable Written Constitution.

 

Way I look at it is that the Scottish Government has done no bad with what they had to disburse to ameliorate the effect of the policies of a UK Government on Scotland......and with the best will in the world, I can't see them producing what will be tantamount to their   manifesto for 2016 by plucking figures out of the air or promising more than they believe they can deliver.  We already know pretty much what the policies for 2015 are for both the Tories and Labour..more of the same kind as we have had since 2010. 

 

We take a leap of faith every election when we vote in our MPs and MSPs , and that doesn't always work out as we might have liked.....but when we vote for a Government in Westminster, we know two things for sure...they are only there for five years.....and if the economic forecasts on which they based their policies go wrong, they have the fiscal tools to readjust their tax take and  change outcomes. In an Independent Scotland, we will have the same ability.....all it takes is that leap of faith to believe that we are a competent population able to govern ourselves,

 

 

 

I'm still in favour of federalism as the local scene should be the most involved in everyone's day-to-day lives (I can understand why Bradford has a big BNP and Respect vote, I can get why Nottingham is Labour-dominated, I understand why Greens are in Brighton, I know why Conservatives do well in the countryside and I can see why the Lib Dems are big in the Islands - and these differences should be taken precedence when deciding pressing issues affecting these areas).  I could easily switch to no to independence with substantially increased devolution but I suspect the no vote is just too large for these concessions to be worthwhile.  That's why I am leaning towards independence.

 

I could live with a federal system, in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together could outvote England.......and England would therefore be obliged to carry at least one other country's representatives to take us to war, keep Trident etc.......but that has never been on offer even in 1707 when Scotland tried for the 1707 equivalent.,,though we did get to keep our Laws, religion and Education system as a sop for "ceasing to exist as a nation".  

 

Devo-max would have been a sensible addition to the referendum..if only because Westminster didn't want it, and Salmond didn't dig in his heels to get it ...not that I'd have voted for it, myself, but I did think that a referendum so important should offer a middle of the road option as well as the two extremes..if only because it would have, imo, ensured the continuation of the Union for those who are wedded to it as an identity, but like the idea of being "different".....and a halfway house for those who would like Independence, but are, to put it bluntly "feart" and need to be convinced that Scottish politicians can be as competent in Scotland as they have been a lot of the time in the UK.

 

Devo-max may well have been the end of the journey if it had been available.......kinda the best of both worlds for most....but we have been forced into the situation that we are obliged to choose the Union or Independence..nothing in between........and I suspect that a NO vote will not stick for the three generations the NO camp appears to think..but will become a neverendum.or even, given the need to get UK permission for referenda....a unilateral declaration of independence in the future.

 

Exciting times!

[Oddquine]

 

Ach, Yngwie, could you find nothing better than a January 2012 article to make what you consider a point?  Might have been good to look back at the context...but I guess that would have left you with nothing to say...and that wouldn't do, would it?

 

I wasn't making any point at all, if you read posts #133 and #136 you'll see I was just helpfully answering questions from Pullmyfinger.

 

To quote your good self, "Might have been good to look back at the context"

 

Erm, Yngwie ....you do, I assume, realise that post #136 is the one to which I am currently responding.     Do you mean post #130 which was a response to starchief?  Re your response to post #133 having read post#130......my comment still holds........the comment you cite  was, I suspect, though I cannot be 100% sure....,but  given the timing it is very likely, was made during a debate called by a Labour MSP on allowing ex-pat Scots to vote for the future governance of a country in which they no longer choose to live..a debate which was supported by all Unionist MPs, including Ruth Davidson and her cohorts...but argued against by the SNP and other pro-independence parties/individuals because there was evidence that the  UNHRC  would consider a referendum based on criteria other than residence would be queried by other nations......resulting at one stage in the debate in the response you paraphrased.

 

What context did you use in your response to post #133, I'd be interested to know.?  I can find nothing online bar the MSM interpretations...with no context or links to the original debate,... some tweets with no  context or links to the original debate.......and a blog with what looks like cherry picked quotes from the debate, given the sparsity of them (and the umbrage expressed by the blogger as to the offence caused to her by the out of context cherry-picked quotes), and tweets resulting from it, Have you found anything more compelling to illustrate that Joan McAlpine was being more offensive to the  Unionist members of the Scottish Parliament than they were to to a Scottish population they appeared to deem incapable of deciding their  own future without input from Scots who prefer to live elsewhere?

 

I await your links with interest.

[GaliantGrunt]

Don't worry guys n girls - still another 365 Scottish days left to debate this!

[Oddquine]

Don't worry guys n girls - still another 365 Scottish days left to debate this!

LOL ! Cheer us up, why don't you!  

[Yngwie]

 

 

Ach, Yngwie, could you find nothing better than a January 2012 article to make what you consider a point?  Might have been good to look back at the context...but I guess that would have left you with nothing to say...and that wouldn't do, would it?

 

I wasn't making any point at all, if you read posts #133 and #136 you'll see I was just helpfully answering questions from Pullmyfinger.

 

To quote your good self, "Might have been good to look back at the context"

 

Erm, Yngwie ....you do, I assume, realise that post #136 is the one to which I am currently responding.     Do you mean post #130 which was a response to starchief?  Re your response to post #133 having read post#130......my comment still holds........the comment you cite  was, I suspect, though I cannot be 100% sure....,but  given the timing it is very likely, was made during a debate called by a Labour MSP on allowing ex-pat Scots to vote for the future governance of a country in which they no longer choose to live..a debate which was supported by all Unionist MPs, including Ruth Davidson and her cohorts...but argued against by the SNP and other pro-independence parties/individuals because there was evidence that the  UNHRC  would consider a referendum based on criteria other than residence would be queried by other nations......resulting at one stage in the debate in the response you paraphrased.

 

What context did you use in your response to post #133, I'd be interested to know.?  I can find nothing online bar the MSM interpretations...with no context or links to the original debate,... some tweets with no  context or links to the original debate.......and a blog with what looks like cherry picked quotes from the debate, given the sparsity of them (and the umbrage expressed by the blogger as to the offence caused to her by the out of context cherry-picked quotes), and tweets resulting from it, Have you found anything more compelling to illustrate that Joan McAlpine was being more offensive to the  Unionist members of the Scottish Parliament than they were to to a Scottish population they appeared to deem incapable of deciding their  own future without input from Scots who prefer to live elsewhere?

 

I await your links with interest.

 

 

 

1. Pullmyfinger asked "Who has hinted it is anti-Scottish to support the UK?"

2. I gave him an answer, that it was one of Salmond's officials.

3. He then understandably asked me to post a link to a verifiable a source.

4. So I did.

 

End of.

[Charles Bannerman]

Don't worry guys n girls - still another 365 Scottish days left to debate this!

Never mind GG. At least it makes visits to the dentist seem quite attractive!

[FoolPhysio]

Brilliant!

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/news/release.asp?newsID=3266

[starchief]

Brilliant!

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/news/release.asp?newsID=3266

An error occurred. Please contact webmaster@aberdeenshire.gov.uk if the problem persists.

[Charles Bannerman]

Brilliant!

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/news/release.asp?newsID=3266

To summarise the link, a poll in schools in Aberdeenshire has produced 8718 votes (75.4%) for NO and an embarrassing 2847 (24.6%) for yes.

This isn't simply a case of this outcome just squeaking it. This is a massive NO majority - and using a very large satatistical sample compared with your average opinion poll. It is especially embarrassing for Salmond, coming as it does right in the back yard of the said MSP for Aberdeenshire East!!

It is very interesting from one or two points of view. But principally, speaking here is the younger generation which current voters would leave holding the baby in later years in the event of a yes vote. This of course is also the generation which will become the decision makers and those responsible for running things when the oil starts to run out. You hear a load of selfrighteous nonsense from the separatists about "campaigning for the future of our children and grandchildren". Well it looks to me as if the said children and grandchildren are telling them - by a majority of more than three to one here - "Look we are quite happy as we are. Go away Alex and leave us alone!"

Hopefully this should also be a strong message to possible yes voters not to try to impose a scenario which they clearly don't want on the generations which would have to live with its consequences.

This poll also shows that Salmond's attempted flanker of enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds has backfired spectacularly! It seems to me that the SNP maybe thought/ hoped cynically that younger voters might not have the maturity to weigh up the arguments and come to an informed decision so might well base their decision on something less cerebral like watching Braveheart. This is another typical example of SNP "wish list politics". Because instead, recent polling seems to suggest that it is male voters from west central Scotland who are perhaps being influenced in this manner. Meanwhile the youth of Scotland have shown that they are not the soft touch the separatists expected, but instead are showing a commendable degree of judgement here and are telling the SNP not to mess with their future.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[FoolPhysio]

Thank you Charles, erudite as always.

Reproduced in text in case link is inoperable:

 

News Release

Schools referendum on national independence engages thousands of pupils

18th September 2013

More than 10,000 pupils from Aberdeenshire schools learned the outcome today (Wednesday) of polling on the issue of national independence across the area.

They had the opportunity to cast their votes yesterday (Tuesday), which were then counted and declared a year before the national referendum on independence.

The major electoral participation project involved more than 14,500 pupils at 17 secondary and four special schools.

Pupils learned about all the issues involved and all sides of the debate, before casting their own vote.

Many of them will be able to take part in the referendum on independence for Scotland proper when it takes place next year.

Aberdeenshire-wide, an overwhelming “no” was returned to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

There were 8,718 pupils who voted no, with 2,847 voting yes.

Only one school, with an electorate of 17 pupils and 13 votes cast, voted yes to independence. Two other schools had tied results.

From an electorate of 14,584, 11,653 took the chance to vote, an incredible turnout of 79.9% - 88 ballot papers were rejected.

Aberdeenshire Council and Grampian Electoral Registration Office helped young people set up, contest, and hold their own polls.

It was run in the same way as any real election or referendum, using specially printed ballot papers and electoral registers, but owned entirely by pupils.

The schools referendum was co-ordinated by the council’s Electoral Participation Group.

Campaign groups “Better Together” and “Yes Scotland” both provided materials and information for the project and pupils also sought out their own information.

Aberdeenshire Council Depute Returning Officer and elections coordinator, Allan Bell, said: “This project has mirrored what is happening at a national level and gave young people the chance to find out about what is happening, as well as an insight into how the referendum will be conducted.

“We are very keen to encourage electoral participation generally and get young people involved and interested in the democratic process in particular.

“Today was not about the result, it was about the educational opportunity for our young people in Aberdeenshire, providing them with the confidence and knowledge to seek out their own information on issues important to them and to vote in any way they wish.”

Education Officer, Andy Ritchie, said: "This event has been another great success in engaging young people in the electoral process and will hopefully impact on electoral participation in the area in the future.

“The hard work and commitment of pupils and staff is really commendable and the feedback we’ve received on this in terms of the educational benefits has been excellent.

“Most of all, the young people have really enjoyed the experience and hopefully have a much better grasp of how democracy works and why it is important to participate if you want your views to be represented.”

Further electoral participation activities will take place in Aberdeenshire over the next few years.

The results were returned today in front of pupils representing their schools, teachers and local politicians at Meldrum Academy.

Of course, being of more mature years myself, I realise that the "winning" side would always hail the result as a triumph of their opinion over the other one, whilst the "losing" side will use a number of arguments to try and put as positive spin as they can on why this is not fully representative of the true feeling by the enfranchised. As a jaded watcher of current politics with a somewhat jaundiced eye, I am under no illusion that the manner of the positive spin would likely be the same regardless of which side utilised it. After all, a weapon is a weapon no matter whose finger is on the trigger.

Still, will be amusing to see what the spin actually is. :-)

[dougiedanger]

Shouldn't be long before Oddquine is here to rip CB a new one.

 

Again.

[PullMyFinger]

This might shed a little light

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-hope-of-the-future/

 

Misinformation and disinformation will always influence the impressionable.