EU In or Out

[Charles Bannerman]

I may well vote Leave but have not fully made up my mind. To me, the main political threat remains the separatist one, so voting Leave would also potentially contribute to providing the Nats with an excuse for a second bash. On the other hand, voting Leave within Scotland also helps to neutralise the Nats' grudge and grievance capacity, whilst also backing the political independence of the UK.

[robbylad]

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I may well vote Leave but have not fully made up my mind. To me, the main political threat remains the separatist one, so voting Leave would also potentially contribute to providing the Nats with an excuse for a second bash. On the other hand, voting Leave within Scotland also helps to neutralise the Nats' grudge and grievance capacity, whilst also backing the political independence of the UK.

You're on the horns of a dilemma sir

[Kingsmills]

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I may well vote Leave but have not fully made up my mind. To me, the main political threat remains the separatist one, so voting Leave would also potentially contribute to providing the Nats with an excuse for a second bash. On the other hand, voting Leave within Scotland also helps to neutralise the Nats' grudge and grievance capacity, whilst also backing the political independence of the UK.

May I suggest you put aside you prejudices against those evil 'separatists' and vote on the merits of the question subject to referendum...

[Charles Bannerman]

52 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

May I suggest you put aside you prejudices against those evil 'separatists' and vote on the merits of the question subject to referendum...

The chance would be a fine thing but, with the said "evil separatists" hellbent on another Scottish referendum and desperate for an asymmetric Eurovote as an excuse, it's not as simple as that. Once again, the separatists' refusal to take NO for an answer on a now long resolved question continues to undermine the political process.

[robbylad]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The chance would be a fine thing but, with the said "evil separatists" hellbent on another Scottish referendum and desperate for an asymmetric Eurovote as an excuse, it's not as simple as that. Once again, the separatists' refusal to take NO for an answer on a now long resolved question continues to undermine the political process.

Does that mean you will cast your vote worrying about another independence referendum that hasn't been called and could quite likely have the same result if it is. Or are you going to vote for what you think is best for the UK? Must be a dilemma for sure.

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, robbylad said:

Does that mean you will cast your vote worrying about another independence referendum that hasn't been called and could quite likely have the same result if it is. Or are you going to vote for what you think is best for the UK? Must be a dilemma for sure.

I thought I had already answered this in response to Kingsmills but never mind - here we go again.

I am going to vote for what is best for the UK and especially for Scotland - where the importance of staying in the UK far exceeds any European consideration. Unfortunately it is not possible for these two issues to be considered separately because the SNP have conflated them by way of their stated intention to use any asymmetric European outcome as an excuse to call another Scottish referendum. This is despite having been decisively told where to place their single obsession little more than 18 months ago. It is hence far more important for Scots to vote for the good of their country - in a way which will help to thwart the SNP's wrecking agenda. Similarly, I voted NO in 1979 and 1997 not because I am desperately averse to some decisions being taken in Scotland but because (unlike George Robertson) I realised the dangers of offering the SNP a soapbox.

If the SNP had respected the democratic will of the Scottish people as expressed in a referendum called at their request, at a time of their choosing and under their rules, then we would not be plagued with this constant tedium and could get on with our lives - whilst taking the Euro referendum at its face value. I do, however, suspect that Sturgeon has to some extent been making these bellicose noises just to appease the Mel Gibson wing of the party.

Meanwhile we have another five years of them failing to give due attention to the people's real needs in order to concentrate on their "idee fixe". Presumably the next bit of excitement will be the impending latest clearout of ministerial incompetents where I would imagine that the likes of Richard Lochead and the unbelievably useless Angela Constance will join the ever lengthening list of failures such as Alex Neil, Fiona Hyslop, Stewart Stevenson, Kenny MacAskill, Michael Russell, Old Uncle Tom Cobley And All......

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Charles Bannerman

[Alex MacLeod]

So, as I always suspected, Charles is not only a Tory but an anti-Cameron one. Suppose there's some good in that but following the ideals of Boris is also to follow the ideals of Nigel. Kind of dangerous for the good of this UK he so loves.

[Charles Bannerman]

Interesting bit of Old Firm thinking there - if you are not one of our suppprters, you must be one of THEM!

[+Feb82000]

[Oddquine]

For those who are still not sure which way to vote in the EU referendum.......maybe it would be helpful to read the Wee Bleu Book from the two SNP MEPs.  There are articles cited for figures etc.

http://www.scotlandineurope.eu/wee_bleu_book

[+DoofersDad]

It is difficult to take too seriously a document which starts off with such a spectacularly incorrect and divisive statement as "On 23rd June Scotland and the UK go to the polls..."  Scotland is not a separate entity to the UK.  Whether the SNP like it or not, the people of Scotland recently agreed that Scotland should remain part of the UK.  It is the UK which goes to the polls, or even Scotland and the rest of the UK, if you like.  This constant undermining of the democratic decision of the Scottish people really is rather tiresome.

Having said that, there is some useful background information in the document, although the overall impression simply serves to undermine the fundamental inconsistency of the SNP's position in relation to the UK and the EU.  Substitute "UK" for "EU" in much of the text and you get a good case for Scotland remaining in the UK. For instance, having condemned the so called "project fear" of the "No" camp in the independence referendum with regard to some of the uncertainties of Scotland leaving the UK, they argue the case for remaining in the EU by citing the uncertainties of the UK leaving the EU.

But putting those contradictions to one side, it is actually not very helpful for people deciding which way to vote because it only gives one side of the argument.   For instance, they quote figures for trade of farmed salmon with the clear inference is that if we left the EU, that market would disappear.  Of course it wouldn't - just like trade with England wouldn't stop if Scotland left the UK.

In addition, they point to the subsidies Scottish farmers get from the EU, but given that the UK currently pays in more to the EU than it gets out, who's to say that farmers wouldn't actually be supported better by the UK Government outside of the EU?  And talking of subsidies, it is unlikely that the EU would have stepped in to support the oil industry in the way the British Government has.

On a slightly different note, it was interesting watching Salmond's antics on the TV debate this week.  Being assured of a vote to remain from Scottish voters, he adopted the tactic of undermining the remain campaign in the UK as a whole.  This, of course, is so that they can get a UK vote to leave and justify another independence referendum.  Salmond went on to say that in that scenario there would need to be a referendum within 2 years.  It seems he and his party need constant reminders that they lost the Independence referendum.  We voted to remain part of the UK.  The whole of the UK is now going to vote on whether it wants to remain in or leave the UK.  If the vote is to leave then the whole of the UK leaves.  We voted to remain as part of the UK and therefore we abide by the choice of the UK electorate.  If the SNP want to help people make up their minds about the EU, the most helpful thing would be to simply accept the choice of the Scottish people in the independence referendum and to honour their agreement of that being a once in a generation event.  We could then focus on the real issues and people would find it a bit easier to make up their minds on the UK's place in Europe.

[Kingsmills]

On ‎23‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 10:18 PM, DoofersDad said:

But yet in your 3 posts you haven't raised a single thing yourself.  As a number of posters have pointed out, it is the SNP who have high jacked the referendum to drum up further grievance for their independence campaign.  Only Alex has tried to defend the SNP position by pointing out good reasons for Scotland to be part of the EU, but he seems to miss the point that these are also reasons why Scotland is also better being part of the UK.  

It would be helpful if the SNP would actually accept the will of the people as expressed in the independence referendum and respect the democratic process that follows. We voted to be part of the U.K. and therefore must accept the will of the UK as a whole.  Only when the SNP can show a bit of leadership for a change and honour basic democratic principles can there be any hope of having a proper debate in Scotland on the issues which matter.

I see nothing at all inconsistent in Alex's position perhaps, to be fair, because it largely reflects my own. It is entirely consistent to argue and believe that Scotland would be far better served by having it's own seat at the EU table than remaining part of a post colonial United Kingdom where what benefits Scotland is increasingly very different from what England seems to want and perhaps, to be fair, what England needs.

You yourself seem to have used this thread for repeated Nat bashing rather than offering any argument either for remaining in or leaving the EU.

[+DoofersDad]

2 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

I see nothing at all inconsistent in Alex's position perhaps, to be fair, because it largely reflects my own. It is entirely consistent to argue and believe that Scotland would be far better served by having it's own seat at the EU table than remaining part of a post colonial United Kingdom where what benefits Scotland is increasingly very different from what England seems to want and perhaps, to be fair, what England needs.

You yourself seem to have used this thread for repeated Nat bashing rather than offering any argument either for remaining in or leaving the EU.

If I am perceived as Nat bashing then that is perhaps a reflection of my frustration at the way they are constantly distancing themselves from the UK in an attempt to manipulate things to deliver the one thing they really care about - independence.  Regardless of the arguments for and against independence, one thing that we must surely agree on is that it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland within the EU to have their closest neighbours and biggest trading partner also in the EU. The Priority for pro-Europeans in Scotland at this moment therefore must surely be to work to ensure that the UK remains in the EU.  

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SNP could set aside their hatred of all things Westminster for a while and share a common platform for a common goal?  That would surely strengthen the case for the remain campaign and demonstrate a bit of positive leadership for a change.  Putting aside bitter differences about independence to campaign together for remaining in Europe would maybe bring home to some people just how fundamentally important political leaders throughout the country think the EU is.  It would be a powerful message.  

But instead, we have the SNP sniping at the UK remain campaign as part of this appalling unwritten tactic of hoping for an excuse to hold a 2nd independence referendum on the back of the UK voting to leave Europe and Scotland voting to remain. It is further evidence of the "independence"at any cost mentality and not what is in Scotland's best interests.

As for arguments for staying in the EU, it's basically the same as the case for remaining in the UK - we're better together.

[Charles Bannerman]

4 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

If I am perceived as Nat bashing then that is perhaps a reflection of my frustration at the way they are constantly distancing themselves from the UK in an attempt to manipulate things to deliver the one thing they really care about - independence.

 

The Priority for pro-Europeans in Scotland at this moment therefore must surely be to work to ensure that the UK remains in the EU.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SNP could set aside their hatred of all things Westminster for a while and share a common platform for a common goal?

 

As for arguments for staying in the EU, it's basically the same as the case for remaining in the UK - we're better together.

And if I am perceived as Nat bashing then that is possibly a reflection of my longstanding realisation that, in Scotland, the Nats are actually the problem and the threat to the future happiness and prosperity of us all, so need to be stood up to. Quite frankly, the outcome of the EU referendum is of modest significance compared with the decisive outcome of the September 2014 referendum, which the Nats are now desperate to overturn before their rapidly deflating bubble finally disappears.

As for "pro Europeans in Scotland", I'm actually not all that sure that the Nats really fall into that category. I think their stance is "right lads - what EU  result is best for the only thing we are capable of thinking about? Reckon it must be 'Scotland in - Rest of UK out' ...so we'll just say we're 'inners' and maybe get a few more Scottish votes that way and then we can get righteously indignant and offended if the Rest of the UK says 'out'."

Please don't be deluded into the belief that the Nats are pro-European. Apart from the fact that many of them are actually anti, this is merely a side issue for them to try to exploit. Meanwhile, just like the previous questions of currency and oil revenues, they fail to give us satisfactory answers about why they whinge about powers resting with Westminster whilst claiming to support powers resting with Brussels.

Oil revenues! I was reminded of what a damp squib these are by reports that the public purse is to make a net LOSS on oil of £39m. It was away back in the 70s that the Nats started telling us that "It's Scotland's Oil" - so if that's the case, then maybe the £39m loss should be taken out of Holyrood's block grant? Alternatively it could perhaps come from The 113 Dollar Man's royalties for Mein Banff.

So maybe Alex was right after all about Grand Theft Auto being worth more than the oil!

Edited May 30, 2016 by Charles Bannerman

[Laurence]

The SNP are by nature a confrontational party

The other day a Nat spokesman in the House of Commons was championing the cause of an Australian family ( based in Dingwall )  threatened by deportation under immigration rules. Instead of approaching the subject with a degree of diplomacy to the position of the minister. He just had to dive in with both feet .

Sometimes in the words of Baden Powell " softly softly catchy e  monkey "  . Making a major issue in parliament is not always the right course of action, if you want a result

Virtually every time an SNP MP  speaks it is  "in your face politics" , time they calmed down.

[Charles Bannerman]

Oh God I am fed up with Politics! Straight after the 2010 General Election we had the 2011 Scottish Election which in turn begat three years of mind numbing 2014 Neverendum followed by the 2015 General Election followed by the 2016 Scottish Election followed by the Brexit Referendum. That's six unbroken years of politicians of all hues getting up on their soapboxes and spouting the kind of disingenuous self -interested bollox that we have become accustomed to get from them.

This Brexit referendum campaign has been utterly tedious and a virtual clone of the Neverendum with the side wanting a change making unsubstantiated assertions that the grass will be so much greener on the other side of the fence and vilifying Brussels (for which read Westminster). Meanwhile the side wanting the status quo express reasonable caution about the unknown of change, get accused of "scaremongering" and respond with exaggerated extra claims amid howls of "talking Britain/Scotland down." Then, for Alex Salmond, read Boris Johnson since both sets of seceeders seem to need their in-house buffoon.

I think the problem may also partly be that the Neverendum showed the whole of the UK the kind of complete mince that politicians can get away with stating and as a the rubbish that has been talked about this time has plumbed new depths. Some of the stuff makes Salmond's $113 a barrel look positively pessimistic!

Roll on June 24th!

[Kingsmills]

47 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Oh God I am fed up with Politics! Straight after the 2010 General Election we had the 2011 Scottish Election which in turn begat three years of mind numbing 2014 Neverendum followed by the 2015 General Election followed by the 2016 Scottish Election followed by the Brexit Referendum. That's six unbroken years of politicians of all hues getting up on their soapboxes and spouting the kind of disingenuous self -interested bollox that we have become accustomed to get from them.

This Brexit referendum campaign has been utterly tedious and a virtual clone of the Neverendum with the side wanting a change making unsubstantiated assertions that the grass will be so much greener on the other side of the fence and vilifying Brussels (for which read Westminster). Meanwhile the side wanting the status quo express reasonable caution about the unknown of change, get accused of "scaremongering" and respond with exaggerated extra claims amid howls of "talking Britain/Scotland down." Then, for Alex Salmond, read Boris Johnson since both sets of seceeders seem to need their in-house buffoon.

I think the problem may also partly be that the Neverendum showed the whole of the UK the kind of complete mince that politicians can get away with stating and as a the rubbish that has been talked about this time has plumbed new depths. Some of the stuff makes Salmond's $113 a barrel look positively pessimistic!

Roll on June 24th!

All these exercises in democracy....what on earth is the world coming to..Your being 'fed up with politics' doesn't seem to prevent you from being by far the most prolific poster on any political thread.

[Charles Bannerman]

Nothing inconsistent there at all. Two of the "exercises in democracy", the referenda comprising Alex Salmond's ego trip and a civil war in the Tory Party, have been a complete waste of time and have overloaded the system and hence devalued it. The result is that the last six years have represented a constant stream of publicity opportunities for that generally execrable bunch of self interested opportunists who are our politicians - of various parties.

Indeed it's the notion of political parties which is the root of the problem since they exist far more for the benefit of politicians than the electorate. One other problem is that all of this recent politicking has taken place in the current bizarre and febrile world political climate of irrational anger which has led to prominence, which would otherwise be a pipe dream, for all manner of cranks and fringe groups who have been thrust into the limelight. I rest my case on that one with two words.... Donald Trump.... but other manifestations range from the Greeks' complete inability to grasp economic reality to the recent expansion of the SNP and vagrant camps outside Holyrood.

And therein lies the Scottish problem. The SNP. By taking advantage of a Scottish political vacuum and conning the electorate with vacuous assertions they have a majority in Holyrood, have had their referendum and won an embarrassing (LITERALLY!) presence on the Westminster Y-front conveyor belt. Now they hope to hijack the Brexerendum for their own political purposes if that goes the way they really want - UK/leave, Scotland/remain. They are hence in our faces the whole time so need to be stood up to despite current politics overload.

Indeed if there's one thing the SNP really needs it is to be stood up to, despite that current political surfeit. Appeasement doesn't work so, however unpleasant the consequences, the need remains - on here and anywhere else - to maintain our guard.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Charles Bannerman

[Kingsmills]

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Nothing inconsistent there at all. Two of the "exercises in democracy", the referenda comprising Alex Salmond's ego trip and a civil war in the Tory Party, have been a complete waste of time and have overloaded the system and hence devalued it. The result is that the last six years have represented a constant stream of publicity opportunities for that generally execrable bunch of self interested opportunists who are our politicians - of various parties.

Indeed it's the notion of political parties which is the root of the problem since they exist far more for the benefit of politicians than the electorate. One other problem is that all of this recent politicking has taken place in the current bizarre and febrile world political climate of irrational anger which has led to prominence, which would otherwise be a pipe dream, for all manner of cranks and fringe groups who have been thrust into the limelight. I rest my case on that one with two words.... Donald Trump.... but other manifestations range from the Greeks' complete inability to grasp economic reality to the recent expansion of the SNP and vagrant camps outside Holyrood.

And therein lies the Scottish problem. The SNP. By taking advantage of a Scottish political vacuum and conning the electorate with vacuous assertions they have a majority in Holyrood, have had their referendum and won an embarrassing (LITERALLY!) presence on the Westminster Y-front conveyor belt. Now they hope to hijack the Brexerendum for their own political purposes if that goes the way they really want - UK/leave, Scotland/remain. They are hence in our faces the whole time so need to be stood up to despite current politics overload.

Indeed if there's one thing the SNP really needs it is to be stood up to, despite that current political surfeit. Appeasement doesn't work so, however unpleasant the consequences, the need remains - on here and anywhere else - to maintain our guard.

What we need to maintain our guard against is xenophobia, racisism, homophobia, casual references to the appalling regime that was the Third Reich and absolute intolerance of any views that don't reflect ones own narrow minded prejudices.

[+DoofersDad]

I saw a clip yesterday of the young David Dimbleby chairing a discussion prior to the referendum which took us into the EU.  The politicians from the opposite side of the argument were Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins.  Now those were two principled politicians who would argue their case passionately but yet would listen to their opponents respectfully before picking up on a point or two to argue.  It seems those days are gone.  These days it is sound bite statements rather than rational arguments and politicians and interviewers alike do not posses the common courtesy to allow people say what they have to say if they don't like what is being said.

In addition, there is now so much data available from a wide variety of sources that it is almost impossible to be sure of what the real facts are and even harder to extrapolate relevant conclusions from them.  This allows politicians to selectively quote statistics only to be shouted down by someone else quoting statistics which lead to a quite different conclusion.  It seems the politicians are too dim to understand that nothing puts the voters off more than a shouting match. It all makes for desperately poor debate which means that at the end of the day, voters really only have their gut feelings on which to base their decisions.

I'm looking forward to Thursday's debate which pits Boris Johnston against Nicola Sturgeon.  The other 4 panelists are all women so it will be interesting to see whether a woman dominated debate results in a more respectful discussion.  The polls are very close and there really is a need for a notable upping of the level of debate.

P.S.  Note - no NAT bashing! 

Edited June 8, 2016 by DoofersDad

[Charles Bannerman]

59 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

What we need to maintain our guard against is xenophobia, racisism, homophobia, casual references to the appalling regime that was the Third Reich and absolute intolerance of any views that don't reflect ones own narrow minded prejudices.

 Sounds like you're not long back from one of your "Nats for Political Correctness" rallies. Tell me... what was the highlight? Sticking needles into voodoo dolls of Jeremy Clarkson dressed in Euro 2016 Crusader suits?

[Kingsmills]

5 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

 Sounds like you're not long back from one of your "Nats for Political Correctness" rallies. Tell me... what was the highlight? Sticking needles into voodoo dolls of Jeremy Clarkson dressed in Euro 2016 Crusader suits?

No. Simply common decency, courtesy and respect for all reasonable opinions and life styles.

[Charles Bannerman]

37 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

No. Simply common decency, courtesy and respect for all reasonable opinions and life styles.

So I can easily guess which of the following you would use to call a spade:

A - a spade.

B - a f*****g shovel.

C - soil transportation technology.

[+DoofersDad]

19 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

So I can easily guess which of the following you would use to call a spade:

A - a spade.

B - a f*****g shovel.

C - soil transportation technology.

This is an illustration of what I was talking about with people putting different interpretations on what may or may not be facts.  Confusion results, not least amongst those who bandy these statements about.  In the example above, the only feasible option is A - a spade.  B is clearly wrong because a spade and a shovel are two distinctly different tools.  A spade is used primarily to cut into and loosen earth etc whereas a shovel is used to scoop up and move stuff- hence the upturned edges to hold the soil in place.  If Charles has been using a shovel for the purpose for which a spade is more appropriate, it is little wonder he feels calling it a f*****g shovel is a valid option.  C is also not an appropriate option because whilst a spade can be used to transport soil, that is not it's primary function and if used for that function, the user will find that not much soil can be transported on a spade and that much of what was placed on the spade initially is likely not to be still on the spade when you reach the intended transportation destination.

My message to Charles is that you are in a hole,  so put your spade down and stop digging.  Pick your shovel up and move the soil to build a ramp to help you get out of the hole.  Then when you are out of the hole, get back on topic and engage in some sensible and constructive debate on what is a very important subject.

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

My message to Charles is that you are in a hole,  so put your spade down and stop digging.  Pick your shovel up and move the soil to build a ramp to help you get out of the hole.  Then when you are out of the hole, get back on topic and engage in some sensible and constructive debate on what is a very important subject.

Much more fun to sit in front of the TV, watching a bunch of politicians having a nonsensical and destructive shouting match.... and imagine how you could most gratifyingly deploy the f*****g shovel.

DD... we've now had six more or less unbroken years of disingenuous, self-seeking chancers of all parties and persuasions in our faces and boring the backsides off us making transparently nonsensical statements. It really is becoming quite difficult to take politics and politicians seriously any more - especially since this Euroref is simply becoming a clone of the dreadful Indyref, right down to the respective sets of seceders becoming visibly more and more embarrassed at having Alex Salmond/Nigel Farage in their ranks. It just gets to the stage where you have to take the rip for light entertainment but at the same time stand up and protest in the hope of damage limitation. It possibly also helps fondly to remember the last time we had a significant politician to whom pro bono publico was more important than self advancement. That in my view was Labour's John Smith who died in 1994.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Charles Bannerman