Implications of Scottish Independence

[Rolfe]

A similar divergence was seen in opinion polls before the 2011 election. By the time of the election itself the women had caught up with the men and voted SNP in almost as large a majority.

This bland assumption that voting to see Scotland's wealth continue to be siphoned out of the country and settle in London and the south-east of England, to see control over social security remain with the parliament which has vowed to keep cutting to the bone, and to see the Scottish parliament remain vulnerable to having powers removed from it at a whim, is the safe choice is remarkably short-sighted.

There may be many reasons for voting No, but safety and sense aren't among them.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

From the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27656628


I'll be interested in the explanation of how this means 'they' are against more powers devolved to Scotland...

remember 1979?

 

[Francesca R]

Probably fake

 

[Rolfe]

Definitely fake. Several versions floating around for weeks.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

remember 1979?

Not quite the same. Then, they promised stuff we actually wanted.

This time, the offer is that we get to pay for massively increased bureaucracy to deal with a completely new way of collecting tax, but which merely nominal "powers" to vary the tax rate. So-called powers hedged around withn so many restrictions to prevent Scotland from "competing" that they're useless.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

Definitely fake. Several versions floating around for weeks.

Yes--just saw one with Danny A on it instead

 

[funk de fino]

Not quite the same. Then, they promised stuff we actually wanted.

This time, the offer is that we get to pay for massively increased bureaucracy to deal with a completely new way of collecting tax, but which merely nominal "powers" to vary the tax rate. So-called powers hedged around withn so many restrictions to prevent Scotland from "competing" that they're useless.

Rolfe.

My point to the poster was that, no matter what they say now, we may get nothing. So just because they say now that they support X, Y and Z it doesn't follow that it means they are telling the truth. Hence, they can still be against more powers while saying the opposite.

 

[Rolfe]

Was there any mention of anything of that nature in the Queen's speech yesterday? No there was not. Go figure.

Vague weasel-words about maybe looking at increased "powers" in the future are being massively spun by the pro-union media as "Scotland will get devo-max!" It's all moonshine. And what they've actually mentioned aren't increased powers at all, in any meaningful sense.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

Darling's recent interview has just filled me with rage. The man is a bare faced lying piece of crap.

 

[Rolfe]

It's less the interview which has filled me with rage, as the way the journalists are bending over backwards to let him off the hook.

He clearly acceded to the "blood and soil" description, and may actually have repeated it after the interviewer - the tape of the alleged "inaudible murmur" hasn't been released for anyone to judge. The article reporting him as having said it was available for many hours before anyone started backtracking, and the backtracking happened as a result of growing public outrage, not because he or anyone else from BT said, hey, that's not what I said and I would never say such an outrageous thing.

Now various media outfits are running around airbrushing over the entire thing, and going along with the story that it was all a mistake and he didn't say it after all and it was a transcription error. Whether it was or it wasn't, the fact remains that the corrected transcript as released shows him agreeing with the interviewer's suggestion that he is characterising the Scottish independence movement as Blut und Boden.

Contrast that with the treatment of Salmond's remark about Putin, which was in fact a statement that while there was a lot to criticise about Putin, he was an effective politician and he'd given the Russian people back some sense of national pride. That has been relentlessly spun for weeks as Salmond praising Putin and being an admirer of the man.

David Torrance even dredged up the time Salmond used the word "gauleiter" to criticise a minor official who was behving in a petty and obstructive manner - the very dictionary definition of the word. A lot milder than calling the person a "little Hitler", which is a fairly commonly-used phrase for the same thing. The press seized on the word's original derivation being from a Nazi functionary under the occupation and accused Salmond of calling the person a Nazi. And they wouldn't let up on that for weeks either.

If we had a press willing to go after both sides equally on their merits or otherwise, and to present or criticise both sides equally, this referendum would be a shoo-in for Yes. Instead we get a diet of nothing but lies and spin, designed to terrorise voters away from a Yes vote. If there is a small No majority on the back of this, and then it becomes obvious that we were lied to on an industrial scale (which it will), things could get quite unpleasant.

Rolfe.

 

[Craig B]

Did the government really produce this? https://www.gov.uk/government/news/12-things-that-1400-uk-dividend-could-buy Seemingly so. See later comment at http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nment-denies-patronising-scottish-voters-lego

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, seems they're actually going to come round to the house of everyone who voted No and hand them £1500 in used notes.

Rolfe.

 

[Aber]

Was there any mention of anything of that nature in the Queen's speech yesterday? No there was not. Go figure.
.

Perhaps because the Queen's speech is about legislation in this Parliament, while manifesto commitments are about what will be done in the next Parliament, after the general election.

 

[Aber]

My point to the poster was that, no matter what they say now, we may get nothing. So just because they say now that they support X, Y and Z it doesn't follow that it means they are telling the truth. Hence, they can still be against more powers while saying the opposite.

Because of course everyone knows that THEY cannot be trusted...

Is there ANYTHING that Westminster politicians could do to convince you that they are in favour of more devolution?

 

[MikeG]

Nobody has mentioned Barack Obama siding with the Better Together campaign. Why ever not?

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps because the Queen's speech is about legislation in this Parliament, while manifesto commitments are about what will be done in the next Parliament, after the general election.

You've seen a manifesto for the 2015 election then? Can I have a go on your crystal ball?

And suppose you had, do you really believe anything these guys promise/suggest/aspire to/vaguely hint at in these documents?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-common-sense-test/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/lets-make-this-simpler/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-times-dont-change/

Oh and this one.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/shakedown-1979/

Rolfe.

 

[Craig B]

Nobody has mentioned Barack Obama siding with the Better Together campaign. Why ever not?

If Texas threatens to secede will Cameron return the compliment? We are pretty much used to US presidents giving their opinions on how other countries conduct their affairs.

ETA why wasn't it a case of "better together" in 1776?

 

[MikeG]

Where would Rolfe be without Wings Over Scotland to quote from?

 

[Rolfe]

Because of course everyone knows that THEY cannot be trusted...

Is there ANYTHING that Westminster politicians could do to convince you that they are in favour of more devolution?

Not now, no. They've spent too long saying no, line in the sand, Salmond mustn't be given a consolation prize, no means no, all there is to do after the referendum is bayonet the wounded, losers should lose, and so on. Sudden appearances of vague hints of tomorrow-jam were expected and do not convince.

If they were in favour of more devolution, genuinely, they have had ample opportunity to deliver it. It is, after all, in Westminster's gift. Instead what we got was the Scotland Act which represented a watering down of what Calman proposed, and that commission itself only came about as a slightly panicked reaction to the SNP's 2007 election win.

That didn't stop the SNP getting a landslide in 2011, and they've been all over the place ever since. A U-turn then might have been suspect, but they could have carried it off, perhaps. Again they had the chance. Put together a commitment on further devolution and put it to the vote in the referendum alongside independence. The Scottish government stated it was absolutely prepared to accept an amendment to the referendum bill to accommodate that.

Instead they ran a mile from the very idea and insisted there was no way they would take up that offer. Then we had the various comments about lines in the sand and so on, and now some 11th-hour recanting which is about as believable as Lucy holding the ball and inviting Charlie Brown to kick it.

It is an observable fact that further devolution is only offered to Scotland as a ploy to head off a vote for the SNP and/or independence. Once we give up that trump card, hand it over voluntarily and declare that we have no intention of playing it, we're screwed.

They HoL has already casually removed powers from Holyrood almost without discussion. Powers that are actually quite important for the Scottish government's energy policy. They can do this again and again, whenever they like. Indeed, the poisoned chalice nature of the most recent "blandishments" should be enough to set even the most doubtful voter straight to a Yes vote.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

If Texas threatens to secede will Cameron return the compliment? We are pretty much used to US presidents giving their opinions on how other countries conduct their affairs.

ETA why wasn't it a case of "better together" in 1776?

You forgot to mention that Barack Obama actually didn't. He was fairly neutral, given that Cameron was twisting his arm for a pro-union quote. First Putin, now Obama. Cameron, who say's it's up to the Scots and he won't interfere, trawling round heads of state begging for a bit of support. It's demeaning.

Much more newsworthy is that Obama explicitly said the USA wanted to see the UK remain in the EU.

Scotland has a huge amount of support in the USA. Like they're going to ostracise a country in Scotland's geographical position when it's independent?

And then there's this.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/an-actual-letter-from-america/

Rolfe.