What has the SNP done for the Highlands

[+DoofersDad]

I think I am in a bit of a minority but I actually have a lot of time for politicians.  Sure there are some chancers, as there are in all walks of life, but the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/districts/countries better places.  Most of them work very long hours for very little financial reward.  Over many years I acted as an election agent at all levels of government and met many politicians from all parties.  Whilst disagreeing strongly over a range of issues, what the majority shared was a respect for the views and commitment of politicians of other parties.  I honestly feel that in general, politicians get paid very little for doing rather a lot.  This compares with many footballers who get paid rather a lot for doing very little.  A case in point is QPR's Adel Taarabt who 'arry Redknap has just had a rather entertaining rant about http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29688528.

 

Taarabt gets between £60k and £70k a week.  That is considerably more than most of our politicians get paid in a year.  Sure there are the Blairs of this world who make millions after their time in elected politics is over but they are very much the minority.  For most it is a question of sacrificing a more secure and better paid job for an uncertain and often temporary spell in politics.  It also often means putting real strains on their family life, but they do it because they believe they can make a real difference to people's lives. 

 

Salmond, Lamont, Davidson, Rennie and Harvie are a pretty diverse bunch, but each and every one of them is far more deserving of our respect than wasters like Taarabt.  And Taarabt gets paid more in a month than the 5 political leaders combined get paid in a year.  By all means lets have political debate but let's also cut the politicians a bit of slack and show then some respect.

[Charles Bannerman]

I think I am in a bit of a minority but I actually have a lot of time for politicians. 

Mmm... apart from apologising to Orwell in my last post, I would also apologise to Shakespeare on the subject of politicians  - "A plague on ALL your houses!"

[Oddquine]

I think I am in a bit of a minority but I actually have a lot of time for politicians.  Sure there are some chancers, as there are in all walks of life, but the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/districts/countries better places.  Most of them work very long hours for very little financial reward.  Over many years I acted as an election agent at all levels of government and met many politicians from all parties.  Whilst disagreeing strongly over a range of issues, what the majority shared was a respect for the views and commitment of politicians of other parties.  I honestly feel that in general, politicians get paid very little for doing rather a lot.  This compares with many footballers who get paid rather a lot for doing very little.  A case in point is QPR's Adel Taarabt who 'arry Redknap has just had a rather entertaining rant about http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29688528.

 

Taarabt gets between £60k and £70k a week.  That is considerably more than most of our politicians get paid in a year.  Sure there are the Blairs of this world who make millions after their time in elected politics is over but they are very much the minority.  For most it is a question of sacrificing a more secure and better paid job for an uncertain and often temporary spell in politics.  It also often means putting real strains on their family life, but they do it because they believe they can make a real difference to people's lives. 

 

Salmond, Lamont, Davidson, Rennie and Harvie are a pretty diverse bunch, but each and every one of them is far more deserving of our respect than wasters like Taarabt.  And Taarabt gets paid more in a month than the 5 political leaders combined get paid in a year.  By all means lets have political debate but let's also cut the politicians a bit of slack and show then some respect.

 

Don't think the problem is politicians per se...but the political party and election system, starting with the undemocratic FPTP Westminster system (and I'm not overly keen on the FPTP element in the Scottish set-up either).  I agree that the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/home areas better places, according to their definition of "better".....but they used to do it, and still do mostly at community council level, as a personal service to the community, and not just as the first step on an earning curve/career ladder. Once on the ladder, though, and into the representing of a political party, as opposed to the aspirations of the local voting population, it all changes, because the demands of the party subsumes the good of the people..and from unitary councils on, we pay politicians to do what the party tells them to do, and not what we want them to do.

 

The political party system, has evolved over the years to acquire an almost cult-like status...as evidenced by the Scottish propensity to vote for a polished turd sporting a red rosette, regardless of the ability of the individual turd (and as we used to do with those sporting blue rosettes prior to 1965 or so...so it is not a new phenomenon).  Like organised religion, the political parties have long been divided into those who control, and those who are controlled, with little room for individuals to buck the laid-down system and still have a voice (and be able to continue on to climb the earning/career ladder).

I don't really understand the "little financial reward" part....because, given the "reward" is meant at local level, at least, to be a "part-time" remuneration, it seems to me that £16,000+ as a basic "salary" is much more than adequate (particularly when you consider that a pensioner on the basic pension gets less than half of that, and a jobseeker half of that again to live off.) 

 

If you accept that monetarism, to the exclusion of fairness, as introduced by Thatcher and embraced since by every UK political party, including NuLabour, is the way to go, then you are explicitly accepting that the labourer is worthy of what any rank eejit will pay for his hire. Football clubs, particularly some in Scotland, and more in England are eejits par excellence, (as they do it mostly on overdraft, not from income).....but so are financial institutions, the BBC, some big charities and businesses....and the one thing they all have in common is that the money to pay their "competitive" silly money salaries come, in one way or another, from the pockets of those who actually work hard at more menial jobs for the money they then hand over, voluntarily, to be distributed to those who produce little of real use. 

 

Unfortunately, into the bargain, the political party system is producing, in our time, a professional political class, who do not have an independent thought in their heads, and know the value of nothing but the price of everything, particularly when it comes to the money in their own pockets. Fewer and fewer people are entering Parliament after living and working within the system Parliament has instituted for us to suffer, in order to change it for the better for all, as they once did...now they are more inclined to attend university at 18, straight from school  to read political science, spend their holidays as interns in Parliamentary offices and proceed after graduation to stand as candidates..and then get  positions in the Government/Shadow Cabinet hierarchy...lucrative positions they will only continue to hold as long as they do what the party tells them...and the wishes of their constituents are of no importance.

 

We have become a UK of sheeple controlled by a growing body of ravening wolves in sheeple clothing within a UK political system which no longer provides even as much real choice as the Whig/Tory options of the past, so while the franchise has now become universal, there is now as little point in becoming engaged in the process of elections than there was for those in the 1850s who had no vote at all.

[Yngwie]

the undemocratic FPTP Westminster system

 

It's democratic because it's the voting system the UK (including Scottish) population voted resoundingly to keep!  Any other voting system used is undemocratic because it has been implemented to suit the purposes of whoever put it in place and not because the population ever voted for it.

[Oddquine]

 

the undemocratic FPTP Westminster system

 

It's democratic because it's the voting system the UK (including Scottish) population voted resoundingly to keep!  Any other voting system used is undemocratic because it has been implemented to suit the purposes of whoever put it in place and not because the population ever voted for it.

 

 

They voted to keep it because of much the same reasons the vote in the referendum was NO.

 

In the AV referendum campaign, we had the hate face of YES as Nick Clegg who had already become unpopular over the student fee fiasco, instead of Salmond; 

As in the YES Scotland campaign, the YES AV crowd were reluctant to target and bad mouth an old Etonian PM.or any other individuals, and spent most of their time responding to the NO sides agenda rather than making a constructive case for AV..one of which should have been one person with one vote which actually counts (and the possibility of a less elitist Government);

As in the referendum campaign, NO to AV got down to dirty tricks....they made up swingeing costs for the voting machines AV would require and then produced posters claiming the cost of the machines would mean that wee babies in maternity units would die because the choice was between maternity units and AV...and  another poster with a sick baby insinuated that the cost of AV would mean that there wouldn't be a Cardiac Unit to save the baby...... .and the terminally thick UK numpties bought it;

Again, as in the Indy referendum, the turkeys in the NuLabour and Tory Westminster Gravy train came out, guns blazing, lies spitting and cash flying to protect what they had, which was lucrative employment plus the ability to swap places every few years in a two party system they had trained the UK sheeple, over the years, to accept as the natural order of things. 

And the Electoral Commission, as they did in the indy campaign, produced an "explanatory" leaflet which came down heavily on the side of the status quo and made the alternative appear more troubling and complex than it actually was.

 

So the vote was lost, not because the electoral system in the UK is fit for any purpose, bar keeping Tory and NuLabour professional politicians in what passes for work, but because NuLabour and Tory MPs  know that the best way to keep the UK electorate as a whole  in line, is to scare them into voting for the status quo, by making any other option too uncertain, complicated and personally expensive re taxes etc that they will vote for the status quo, however crap that is. 

 

That is why the referendum on the EEC did not come before we signed the Treaty of Ascension in 1972, but after we had been in it a couple of years and it had become less scary to stay in than to come out (helped by the fact that we were never told about the long term intentions, (of which Heath was aware) to transmogrify a trade agreement into an de facto union with a "union" Parliament.   And it is also why Westminster was so complacent until the last few weeks that they would have a decisive victory in the indy referendum.....as we have all been so well trained over the years to accept what is, rather than risk attempting what could be. 

[Yngwie]

...... .and the terminally thick UK numpties bought it;

 

Interesting dig at the UK, when the Scots bought it just as much!

 

Anyway, there wasn't really any meaningful debate or engagement or scaremongering over the AV referendum as far as I can recall.  I think most people just like the simplicity of whoever gets the most votes wins, a bit like in football the team that gets the most goals wins, regardless of possession, territory, corners etc.

[Oddquine]

 

...... .and the terminally thick UK numpties bought it;

 

Interesting dig at the UK, when the Scots bought it just as much!

 

Anyway, there wasn't really any meaningful debate or engagement or scaremongering over the AV referendum as far as I can recall.  I think most people just like the simplicity of whoever gets the most votes wins, a bit like in football the team that gets the most goals wins, regardless of possession, territory, corners etc.

 

 

But isn't Scotland in the UK now.and wasn't it then? So why should I differentiate between where they were born or where they live? Numpties are numpties are numpties.and the UK has more than its fair world share (imo).

 

If you don't mind me saying so, Yngwie, given the refusal of many who voted NO in the #indyref to see any scaremongering or unacceptable behaviour, bar by "Alex Salmond" alone, in that campaign over the two years, I think the definition of scaremongering is a moveable feast, depending on the direction the person shoving it is facing.

 

After all, dishonest Project Fear type methods are how Governments keep control, and/or move opinion towards their preferred option....as we are all aware, surely.......else why is everything the Government wants to implement described as a WAR on something, if not to make us all feart of what will happen if we don't go along with what they want? 

 

It seems that we are now getting Project Fear being used by a brand new (Union/Scottish Labour "independent") think tank to scare us off the idea of Devo-Max as promised in the "VOW", with the aid of the Hootsmon, which changed overnight, from the Tuesday headlines of Barnett Formula warning over declining oil revenues to the post midnight today update to  Nicola Sturgeon's Devo-Max "would lose Scots £5bn" (and note, we are back in personalisation mode much as happened with Salmond).

 

It handily ignores the fact that the Devo-Max proposal  was Westminster's panic-stricken intervention via Gordie Broon and the Daily Rectum, which they allowed, not to say approved, as they could see the Gravy train from North Britain region perhaps being derailed at Carter Bar... and it had nothing to do with Nicola, bar she is running with the baton she has been so kindly handed..with 45% of us waiting patiently to see what transpires (but without holding our collective breath)

[FoolPhysio]

So, Oddquine, I am to take it that anyone who disagrees with your view is a numptie then?

 

It was that sort of attitude that showed those who were not wholly convinced on independence what it was that those who were actually thought of them.  And they showed what they thought of that at the ballot box.  Insult us as much as you like - it only strengthens us.

[Oddquine]

So, Oddquine, I am to take it that anyone who disagrees with your view is a numptie then?

 

It was that sort of attitude that showed those who were not wholly convinced on independence what it was that those who were actually thought of them.  And they showed what they thought of that at the ballot box.  Insult us as much as you like - it only strengthens us.

 

Nah.it's a bit of irritated generalisation.......and I know I shouldn't do it, but sometimes the temptation gets too much.   However, posting on here over the #indyref run-up, I think, much of the time, I have been a bit less vituperative to the Naysayers than one or two of them have generally been to the pro-Yes crowd.   And believe me, the remarks in the threads on this forum have been a lot milder than those of the naysayers who used to swan into the YES Shop specially to berate us in no uncertain terms (even complaining that it wasn't fair that there was a Yes shop, when there wasn't a Better Together one!)   It wasn't and isn't just the pro-YES people who have bad attitudes!

 

Seems a bit ironic that, despite the fact that NO "won", we are still living in the land of pre-18/9/2014 deja vu with the Hootsmon continuing to pump out the same old, same old as we were inundated with over the campaign......despite the eternal bleating from all and sundry that Yes was refusing to give up, climb back into their hole and pull the rock over their heads...and they have even found a spanking new think tank to quote..one which is pro-"NuLabour in Scotland", of course.....so appear to be continuing to prepare for 2015 with trashing the aspirations of 45% of the population..as they have been doing all along to scare us enough to ensure a NuLabour landslide.again....and the sad thing is that there are people who will believe them, just as they did the IFS and OBR pronouncements/reports before the vote.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oddquine

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

They voted to keep it because of much the same reasons the vote in the referendum was NO.

 

 

I'm still trying hard to express the two word, two syllable sentence Y-O-U L-O-ST (so go away, stop bothering us and let us get on with our lives) in even simpler terms. I've even been through the whole process from the SNP getting a Holyrood majority, deciding to have the referendum according to their rules and then attracting 20% fewer votes than NO - and still they don't seem to get it.

I can now see the SNP continuing their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers - simply as a means of continuing their attempts to fan the flames of grievance and dissatisfaction. I actually think that the SNP would be perfectly happy for further devolution to be derailed or delayed simply to give them an apparent excuse to greet and girn as they seem to have been doing since Edward Lonngshanks was a boy.

As for the AV referendum... it was 68-32 against for goodness sake. It wasn't even close!

The more this post- referendum nationalist bellyaching keeps going, the more the nationalist tone reminds me of Germany after the First World War!

[gordieict]

 

 

 

They voted to keep it because of much the same reasons the vote in the referendum was NO.

 

 

I'm still trying hard to express the two word, two syllable sentence Y-O-U L-O-ST (so go away, stop bothering us and let us get on with our lives) in even simpler terms. I've even been through the whole process from the SNP getting a Holyrood majority, deciding to have the referendum according to their rules and then attracting 20% fewer votes than NO - and still they don't seem to get it.

I can now see the SNP continuing their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers - simply as a means of continuing their attempts to fan the flames of grievance and dissatisfaction. I actually think that the SNP would be perfectly happy for further devolution to be derailed or delayed simply to give them an apparent excuse to greet and girn as they seem to have been doing since Edward Lonngshanks was a boy.

As for the AV referendum... it was 68-32 against for goodness sake. It wasn't even close!

The more this post- referendum nationalist bellyaching keeps going, the more the nationalist tone reminds me of Germany after the First World War!

 

 

"Cynical contempt for the Scottish people" more so than the 3 amigos that gave the vow?

 

While it might not be have been the large majority that voted yes it was still a large percentage of the country that voted for an independent country, for a lot of these people this dream will never die, do you give up in something you believe in passionately Charles?

 

You seem to think that the SNP's quest for a referendum was the wrong thing to do, I would have thought that even the most ardent no voter would have thought that this was a success if only to get the people  politically engaged like never before, including the younger generation, along with shaking up Westminster parties. 

Edited October 23, 2014 by gordieict

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

They voted to keep it because of much the same reasons the vote in the referendum was NO.

 

 

I'm still trying hard to express the two word, two syllable sentence Y-O-U L-O-ST (so go away, stop bothering us and let us get on with our lives) in even simpler terms. I've even been through the whole process from the SNP getting a Holyrood majority, deciding to have the referendum according to their rules and then attracting 20% fewer votes than NO - and still they don't seem to get it.

I can now see the SNP continuing their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers - simply as a means of continuing their attempts to fan the flames of grievance and dissatisfaction. I actually think that the SNP would be perfectly happy for further devolution to be derailed or delayed simply to give them an apparent excuse to greet and girn as they seem to have been doing since Edward Lonngshanks was a boy.

As for the AV referendum... it was 68-32 against for goodness sake. It wasn't even close!

The more this post- referendum nationalist bellyaching keeps going, the more the nationalist tone reminds me of Germany after the First World War!

 

 

And, of course, every time anyone loses, they stop trying to win next chance they have, Charles?   

 

That, of course, will be why the Labour Party disbanded after the 2010 election! That will, of course,  be why the LibDems have decided that it is pointless continuing, in their pre-manifesto, to include another promise to try for PR!  That, of course,  will be why the Tories in Scotland gave up standing for GE seats in Scotland, once they lost their last MP here in 1997.    And that will be of course, why we will never get another bite at the EU in/out cherry at any time ever again!

 

Funnily enough, my perception is that the cynical contempt for the Scottish people throughout all this has come from Westminster (and proudScotsbut like yourself.).

 

What else was it but cynical contempt for Scottish opinion from Cameron, when  the option of Devo-Max, which had by far the biggest backing in polls before the Edinburgh Agreement, was not allowed to be included...that would be because he was convinced that, over the centuries,we had been adequately trained into unthinking forelock tugging in the face of our betters, and would vote for blind acceptance of the status quo....but to ensure it, he put the party with most to lose, and which hated the SNP to the level of rank paranoia, in charge of the NO campaign....hence the use of the same tactics as were used by NuLabour in the 2011 Scottish election..Project Fear, Smear, Personalise,  Denigrate and Lie.

 

If you believe polls, we nearly did it, despite starting from a pretty low base, and, all without anything more than social media, people on the ground (and the Sunday Herald, late in the game). If it hadn't been for the last minute "VOW" (which blew the Edinburgh Agreement into smithereens), we may well have succeeded, if the 25% who voted NO on the strength of it, was correct.

 

If we had been competing on a level playing field and NO had won fair and square by having the best arguments.....then maybe we'd go away for a while, but as it is...why wouldn't you expect us to be arguing for what we were promised in the "VOW".  That isn't cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers.......that is expecting Westminster not to show their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by not giving us what was promised at the last minutes.....which was, as near as dammit, "Home Rule", Federalism or Devo-Max...or do you really expect us to sit back, having lost, and simply accept the crumbs they offered us earlier which was devo-nothing-worth-having from each of them.

 

Dream on, Charles!

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 

And, of course, every time anyone loses, they stop trying to win next chance they have, Charles?   

 

If you believe polls, we nearly did it, despite starting from a pretty low base, and, all without anything more than social media, people on the ground (and the Sunday Herald, late in the game). If it hadn't been for the last minute "VOW" (which blew the Edinburgh Agreement into smithereens), we may well have succeeded, if the 25% who voted NO on the strength of it, was correct.

 

So if it had gone Yes last month, how soon would the SNP have been prepared to have another referendum? In this bizarre game, the rules seem to be that the SNP think they can have as many goes as they need to get enough ordinary people so fed up with referenda that the SNP eventually win a single vote.... and then shut up shop for all time.

 

And here I was thinking that the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator had been consigned to the attic along with the SNP Handbook Of Totally Unsupported Assertions. If you ever get bored with Nationaslism, I would suggest that the Flat Earth Society might provide a suitable substitute. (On the other hand, and more seasonally, you have probably already signed up to the Guy Fawkes Club - dedidcated to blowing up Westminster  )

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

While it might not be have been the large majority that voted yes it was still a large percentage of the country that voted for an independent country, for a lot of these people this dream will never die, do you give up in something you believe in passionately Charles?

 

 

 

 

Passing through Dingwall earlier this morning, I spotted this house with a large Yes placard still in the window along with a sign saying -

 

"Day #35 and still no extra powers"

 

Must be owned by the guy I saw a couple of seasons ago storming out of Victoria Park when County went 2-0 down against Celtic and could hardly have been back over the bridge before Grant Munro scored en route to a 3-2 County victory.  Or alternatively, Alex Salmond has rented the place as a holiday home.

 

Either way, this gives an excellent insight into the Nationalists' "Plan B" (they've got one at last!!!!      ) to undermine the process of enhanced devolution and display the said cynical contempt for the Scottish people as they pursue an outcome which these same Scottish people have told them they do not want. If they don't like the answer, it was their decision to ask the question.

[gordieict]

 

 

 

While it might not be have been the large majority that voted yes it was still a large percentage of the country that voted for an independent country, for a lot of these people this dream will never die, do you give up in something you believe in passionately Charles?

 

 

 

 

Passing through Dingwall earlier this morning, I spotted this house with a large Yes placard still in the window along with a sign saying -

 

"Day #35 and still no extra powers"

 

Must be owned by the guy I saw a couple of seasons ago storming out of Victoria Park when County went 2-0 down against Celtic and could hardly have been back over the bridge before Grant Munro scored en route to a 3-2 County victory.  Or alternatively, Alex Salmond has rented the place as a holiday home.

 

Either way, this gives an excellent insight into the Nationalists' "Plan B" (they've got one at last!!!!      ) to undermine the process of enhanced devolution and display the said cynical contempt for the Scottish people as they pursue an outcome which these same Scottish people have told them they do not want. If they don't like the answer, it was their decision to ask the question.

 

 

What utter dross Charles, I hope you teaching was not as blinkered as your politics. Have you ever tried to get your point across without sarcasm? 

Edited October 23, 2014 by gordieict

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

What else was it but cynical contempt for Scottish opinion from Cameron, when  the option of Devo-Max, which had by far the biggest backing in polls before the Edinburgh Agreement, was not allowed to be included

 

 

Having three options on the ballot paper with the option getting the most votes being implemented would have been a dreadful betrayal of the democratic process.  It might have resulted in independence with less that 40% of those voting wanting independence and the rest voting for one of the two unionist options.  It was never a serious option - it was just the SNP playing politics and showing contempt for the people.

 

As you point out, some form of Devo-Max seemed to be the preferred option of the electorate so why did the SNP not acknowledge that and seek to negotiate further devolved powers to put to the Scottish people?  By insisting that the referendum be about independence rather than an extension of devolved powers it is, in fact, the SNP that have shown contempt for the Scottish people. 

 

This contempt was made worse by the fact that we were not given the opportunity to vote on any negotiated separation terms.  You may argue (as you have in the past) that the Westminster Government was not prepared to negotiate ahead of the referendum but then there is no good reason why they should negotiate on something that they have evidence the Scottish people don't want.  Now, if the Scottish Government had asked the electorate whether we, the electorate, would mandate the Scottish Government to negotiate terms of independence to put to the people in a referendum, then I might have voted "Yes", and if the Scottish Government received the mandate to negotiate, it would have been very difficult for the Westminster Government to refuse.  We could then have had a referendum in which we actually knew what we are voting for!

 

And their contempt for the electorate continues.  This desperate push to hold the Unionist parties "to account" over their absurd vow is utterly pathetic.  Most would agree that some increased level of devolution is appropriate - so what's the rush?  Let's have some mature discussion, take our time and get it right. The push to rush things is further political posturing and point scoring and is not in the interests of the Scottish people.

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

 

Don't think the problem is politicians per se...but the political party and election system, starting with the undemocratic FPTP Westminster system (and I'm not overly keen on the FPTP element in the Scottish set-up either).  I agree that the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/home areas better places, according to their definition of "better".....but they used to do it, and still do mostly at community council level, as a personal service to the community, and not just as the first step on an earning curve/career ladder. Once on the ladder, though, and into the representing of a political party, as opposed to the aspirations of the local voting population, it all changes, because the demands of the party subsumes the good of the people..and from unitary councils on, we pay politicians to do what the party tells them to do, and not what we want them to do.

 

 

There is really rather too much in your reply to respond to so I will restrict myself to this.  Apart from the insidious involvement of the trades unions in the labour party, political parties reflect the popular viewpoints.  I don't accept that it all changes when individuals start to represent rather than just support a party.  The policies of the party are decided through processes within the membership and the membership is made up of voters who are attracted by what the party stands for.  If the members don't like the changing views of the party they can leave it, whilst if the candidates don't meet the aspirations of the electorate the electorate won't vote for them. 

 

The strength of the "party line" is that you know what you are voting for.   Years ago a colleague who had recently moved into the area and who had very left wing views, had mentioned that she was attracted by the concept of "independent" councillors in Highland and had identified a candidate whose election leaflet had quite appealed.  She indicated that she might vote for him rather than the Labour candidate.  I pointed out that the candidate might be standing on an independent ticket but was actually the chairman of the local Tory constituency association!  The party system has it's faults, but as long as you accept that both candidates and voters have to make some compromises on the way, you know what you are voting for and in general the parties deliver on what they aspire to do to the extent that factors outwith their control allow.

 

Following on from that, it is important to understand whilst we may all have some political aspirations, practical politics is the art of the possible.  People are attracted to politics with strongly felt beliefs on social justice or whatever.  They feel a strong urge to do something about what they see as wrong in society and get frustrated that parties that would appear to reflect their views, are not doing enough about it.  It is only when they get into the mechanics of government in some way that they realise  things are usually not as straightforward as they might at first have appeared.  A pragmatist's compromise is an idealist's sell-out.  Politicians therefore get criticised by their opponents for doing the wrong things and by their own side for not doing enough of the right things.  It's a tough life being a politician!

[Charles Bannerman]

 

And their contempt for the electorate continues.  This desperate push to hold the Unionist parties "to account" over their absurd vow is utterly pathetic.  Most would agree that some increased level of devolution is appropriate - so what's the rush?  Let's have some mature discussion, take our time and get it right. The push to rush things is further political posturing and point scoring and is not in the interests of the Scottish people.

 

What's the rush? Because they think they can stir up more discontent that way.

[IBM]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While it might not be have been the large majority that voted yes it was still a large percentage of the country that voted for an independent country, for a lot of these people this dream will never die, do you give up in something you believe in passionately Charles?

 

 

 

Gordieict, that says it all for me and many others no mater what happens my view on independence will not change!

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

What else was it but cynical contempt for Scottish opinion from Cameron, when  the option of Devo-Max, which had by far the biggest backing in polls before the Edinburgh Agreement, was not allowed to be included

 

 

Having three options on the ballot paper with the option getting the most votes being implemented would have been a dreadful betrayal of the democratic process.  It might have resulted in independence with less that 40% of those voting wanting independence and the rest voting for one of the two unionist options.  It was never a serious option - it was just the SNP playing politics and showing contempt for the people.

 

As you point out, some form of Devo-Max seemed to be the preferred option of the electorate so why did the SNP not acknowledge that and seek to negotiate further devolved powers to put to the Scottish people?  By insisting that the referendum be about independence rather than an extension of devolved powers it is, in fact, the SNP that have shown contempt for the Scottish people. 

 

This contempt was made worse by the fact that we were not given the opportunity to vote on any negotiated separation terms.  You may argue (as you have in the past) that the Westminster Government was not prepared to negotiate ahead of the referendum but then there is no good reason why they should negotiate on something that they have evidence the Scottish people don't want.  Now, if the Scottish Government had asked the electorate whether we, the electorate, would mandate the Scottish Government to negotiate terms of independence to put to the people in a referendum, then I might have voted "Yes", and if the Scottish Government received the mandate to negotiate, it would have been very difficult for the Westminster Government to refuse.  We could then have had a referendum in which we actually knew what we are voting for!

 

And their contempt for the electorate continues.  This desperate push to hold the Unionist parties "to account" over their absurd vow is utterly pathetic.  Most would agree that some increased level of devolution is appropriate - so what's the rush?  Let's have some mature discussion, take our time and get it right. The push to rush things is further political posturing and point scoring and is not in the interests of the Scottish people.

 

 

No, it wouldn't.unless you are a Westminster politician....or brain dead (which comes to much the same thing)   See....the status quo is a vote for no change (which is a downright fallacy as nothing remains unchanging forever (but my mind ), and in Government  things change from year to year or even from month to month or day to day.....but people do seem to believe downright fallacies)...and that is what  Westminster thinks that 2 million plus of us voted for.....same old, same old......and that  is pretty much what we will get (imo).    I'll agree with you that Devo-max would ever have been considered  a "Unionist" option if that is what is offered after the Smith commission discussions (as Cameron has not ruled it out completely) but I am not holding my breath.

 

On the other hand, devo-max and Independence would both be a vote for change..and in a three way option, a  majority voting for change would prevail, so the status quo would lose by default....and a majority would have voted for change....we all know that....so the option for change which got the most votes would have been the one to be implemented. Given that the base pro-indy vote in polls before the referendum campaign stood around 25%, and the  pro-Union vote stood at around 35%....and we know that in polls which gave the additional devo-max option, both base votes reduced....then in a three way split..we'd have gone in the majority for devo-max.....I might even have done so myself on the belt and braces premise, that if devo-max (as in all but monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence being delivered to Scotland's control) was crap......independence would likely be as crap.

 

It appears you haven't been paying attention, DD. The SG, in their white paper in 2009, before the bill which wasn't presented in Holyrood in the end, because they knew that Wendy Alexander and company would vote it down (that was before she did her strident "bring it on" fudge, btw) put the Devo-Max option on the table. It was Cameron/Moore who removed it during the Edinburgh agreement discussions...not the SNP.because at that stage, Westminster were convinced that a straight yes/no option would give them a large majority. Devo-max was never on the Westminster horizon.

 

DD, which part of  "an informed decision" do you fail to grasp?   The only reason for not pre-negotiating anything was to ensure that the Scottish voter could not make an informed decision, because that would perhaps have moved them to YES.  Westminster was quick enough to draw a red line on currency, which was not a pre-negotiation, but complete refusal of negotiation, (on much the same lines as Netanyahu does when "negotiating " with the Palestinians, as  in Israel excludes any consideration of stopping building settlements on Palestinian land.but whines to the US (and the UK) when the Palestinians object ) regardless of the fact that Scotland  did, and still does have billions sitting  in the Treasury backing Scottish Bank notes (in what is akin to a currency board)..and is also entitled to a share of the little Gold Reserves that numpty Gordie Broon left unsold. (Please note, he wasn't a numpty for not selling it all.he was a numpty for selling what he did sell cheaply to rescue an American Banking Conglomerate)

 

Into the bargain, Westminster could have ascertained the EU and NATO situations regarding an independent Scotland as definitively as was possible, so we could have made an informed decision....after all, they were the only ones who could ask for  clarification......but instead  they did picky and choosy among individuals within or once within those institutions and came up with individuals who agreed with their take on Scotland's prospects (and misrepresented the opinions of those who went off message, like Lucinda Creighton), while equally qualified and competent people, who contradicted their opinions (which was all they were...opinions) got no media attention at all.....unsurprisingly.

 

DD...which part of "the "vOW" had bugger all to do with us"  have you not quite got your head around? And, if you were to be completely honest........ if you were looking at the situation from where we sit, rather than from where you do, having just been handed a Westminster brain-fart on a plate, would  you be keeping your mouth shut and accepting any offer made......or  holding Westminster to  their panic-stricken promises?  Honestly?

[+DoofersDad]

Oddquine, are you seriously suggesting that on a three option referendum it would be acceptable for Scotland to become an independent country when over 60% of the electorate voted to remain within the UK?   If so, then presumably in a 3 option referendum, if 35% had voted to maintain devolution powers as at present, 33% had voted for independence and 32% for devo-max you would uncomplainingly have accepted that as an endorsement of the current position despite a majority (including you) voting for some level of change.

 

Also, if, as you maintain, the reason for Cameron to refuse to negotiate a settlement was "to ensure that the Scottish voter could not make an informed decision," then surely that was all the more reason for Salmond to put pressure on the Westminster Government and force their hand on this?  That is precisely why I made the suggestion that rather than rush into a referendum the SNP should have sought a mandate from the people to negotiate a separation package to put to the electorate - a point you conveniently ignore in your response.  And of course, the reason why the Scottish Government did not take this responsible course of action was that they knew that giving the voters an informed choice would make a "no" vote more likely.  Not only did they not seek a mandate from the electorate, they didn't exactly try very hard to get a draft settlement.  There really can be no doubt at all that the SNP absolutely did not want a draft settlement. 

 

Anyway, back on topic - I am glad to see today's proposal for a reduction in the legal blood alcohol limits for drivers.  This is something positive the SNP is doing for the Highlands and, indeed, the rest of Scotland. 

 

 

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 

No, it wouldn't.unless you are a Westminster politician....or brain dead (which comes to much the same thing)  

 

So Oddquine obviously HAS heard that Alex Salmond, his mission in Scotland having failed, is thinking about going back where he came from at Westminster

[Oddquine]

Oddquine, are you seriously suggesting that on a three option referendum it would be acceptable for Scotland to become an independent country when over 60% of the electorate voted to remain within the UK?   If so, then presumably in a 3 option referendum, if 35% had voted to maintain devolution powers as at present, 33% had voted for independence and 32% for devo-max you would uncomplainingly have accepted that as an endorsement of the current position despite a majority (including you) voting for some level of change.

 

Also, if, as you maintain, the reason for Cameron to refuse to negotiate a settlement was "to ensure that the Scottish voter could not make an informed decision," then surely that was all the more reason for Salmond to put pressure on the Westminster Government and force their hand on this?  That is precisely why I made the suggestion that rather than rush into a referendum the SNP should have sought a mandate from the people to negotiate a separation package to put to the electorate - a point you conveniently ignore in your response.  And of course, the reason why the Scottish Government did not take this responsible course of action was that they knew that giving the voters an informed choice would make a "no" vote more likely.  Not only did they not seek a mandate from the electorate, they didn't exactly try very hard to get a draft settlement.  There really can be no doubt at all that the SNP absolutely did not want a draft settlement. 

 

Anyway, back on topic - I am glad to see today's proposal for a reduction in the legal blood alcohol limits for drivers.  This is something positive the SNP is doing for the Highlands and, indeed, the rest of Scotland. 

 

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the  Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced  that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail, given the levels the polling showed it was at in 2012 and given their belief that the majority of the undecided would boost that winning margin by settling for the devil they knew.....and the Westminster thumb could happily stay on the Scottish neck without any change at all.

 

Before the Edinburgh Agreement removed the Devo-max option, polling had YES and NO pretty much eexie peexie at around 25%,  with Devo-max at 41% and the rest undecided....so not enough undecideds to make the result either independence or the status quo.  Without the Devo-Max option included, NO, before the Edinburgh Agreement, had a 28% lead and there weren't enough undecideds to pull YES ahead even if they all went for YES.

 

Care to explain just how Alex Salmond, or any Scottish Government FM, could put pressure on the Prime Minister of a sovereign UK Parliament to do anything he doesn't want to do?  Might come in useful for future reference.

 

Was pleased to see the intended reduction  in blood alcohol limits..but I think it should have been reduced to zero....though I can't see that it is going to stop drink drivers anyway. What might do more good would be to stop treating vehicular manslaughter as if it was a "road traffic accident", when it is no accident that people drive dangerously and/or with drink/drugs taken......it is a deliberate act on their part..and the people they kill are just as dead if they had taken a knife to them on the street. 

[Charles Bannerman]

 

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the  Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced  that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail

I think it is more likely that it wasn't included because, after the vote, the SNP Handbook Of Groundless Assertions would have declared that enough Devo Max voters in a two option referendum would actually have voted for independence to give Yes a majority. In other words, given that many separatists are unable to accept defeat in a Yes/No situation that would have been far more the case after a three option poll.

The two option poll also has the benefit of (despite the nationalist denial machine) producing an unambiguous result - which turned out to be a clear majority against separation.

And if Devo Max had been on the ballot paper and been the option attracting most votes, you would also have seen that roaster in Dingwall I spoke about yesterday and his fellow conspiracy theorists going absolutely pure dead mental if Devo Max hadn't been delivered within 35 days or whatever.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[Oddquine]

 

 

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the  Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced  that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail

I think it is more likely that it wasn't included because, after the vote, the SNP Handbook Of Groundless Assertions would have declared that enough Devo Max voters in a two option referendum would actually have voted for independence to give Yes a majority. In other words, given that many separatists are unable to accept defeat in a Yes/No situation that would have been far more the case after a three option poll.

The two option poll also has the benefit of (despite the nationalist denial machine) producing an unambiguous result - which turned out to be a clear majority against separation.

And if Devo Max had been on the ballot paper and been the option attracting most votes, you would also have seen that roaster in Dingwall I spoke about yesterday and his fellow conspiracy theorists going absolutely pure dead mental if Devo Max hadn't been delivered within 35 days or whatever.

 

 

You do like talking crap, don''t you, Charles?  Pro-indy people have much more commonsense than you give us credit for.....we would have happily accepted and gone along with devo-max..albeit in the conviction that, eventually, it would lead to independence, and we'd still work towards that......because independence would be the only way available  to stop our soldiers (and other countries' civilians)dying to make  profits for UK and US big businesses.....and the only way to remove the UK/US nuclear weaponry from Scottish soil.    (But in the meantime, Westminster has very kindly allowed the publishing of a petition for its removal.....as if that will do any good!)

 

Rather feel that moving the pretty much O/T posts on this thread, into a thread of their own would be one separatist action that might be useful... ..given a lot of the posts on here have less to do with what the SNP has done for the Highlands.and more to do with what the SNP has done to the shake the complacency of Westminster politicians generally, NuLabour politicians particularly...and annoy the NO voters who think that NO in the circumstances of this referendum means NO forever........like the article in LabourList which says, among other things....It should therefore be announced as soon as possible as a headline commitment in next May’s General Election manifesto that no Labour government will agree to a new Scottish independence referendum: not in the next Parliament, not ever.”. 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Oddquine