Poll

Soar Alba?

Aye
18 (62.1%)
Naw
6 (20.7%)
Don't care
0 (0%)
Delete topic
5 (17.2%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: och i the naw (maybes)  (Read 40975 times)

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #30 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:33 PM »
Being English and living in England I obviously don't get to vote about this but the 'them and us'( ie Scots versus English as opposed to ordinary people v the twats in control) feeling being encouraged in some quarters does frighten and dismay me.   Obviously that's not a reason not to hold a vote but its scary all the same.
That is something we have to take real pains to avoid. It's not a them-and-us, it's just that this country needs to stand on it's own feet to save itself from slowly decaying.

kwaing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1620
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #31 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:33 PM »
sorry, that wasn't my full argument, i just got f#cked off with my digital keyboard ...

if you're campaigning for a change, and can't come up with a single valid argument for that change (other than change itself), then the only task for the opposition is to keep demanding to see the figures and to guard the status quo.

there is no unified scotland, there is no line runs from north of carlisle to north of berwick-upon-tweed, and until there's a radical change in politics to vote "yes" for in an independent scotland, i'd rather side with all those across the uk who don't lean on nationalism to drive home their lack of any other argument.

this is a tiny island we live on, scotland acts as a counterbalance with the north of england against the south, and the danger is that when it goes tits up we'll sign up to an even worse deal to get back in.

this is all about money, and those that stand to pocket from it will try and drive it forward. let's make decisions for the land we leave behind us, and not for the sake of greed. let's remove the question of oil by voting for shetland's independence, then see who wants to break from the uk.

sorry for the north of england? let's see how long that patronising stance lasts when we're all clamouring to move there.

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #32 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:05 PM »
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism.  Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?


FilthySwan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #33 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:10 PM »
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism. Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?

Aye but we have to keep Cumbernauld, Lulu, George Galloway and River City. Swings and roundabouts.

DemonInDisguise

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #34 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:17 PM »
Hi Demon,

I don't think the finances are going to get worse at all.   Independence would mean a rebalancing of the economy, which at the moment is pretty much run for the benefit of London.   It's boom town.  It staggers from one massive project to the next sucking in capital and depriving the rest of the UK.  Think Olympics, Crossrail Project, HS2  Rail (which they pretend is for the benefit of Northern England, but will just suck more resource into London) just to begin with.  We are clearly not all in it together.  A couple of recent emergent small facts:

This from the BBC News:
Central government spending on arts and culture in the capital amounted to £69 per resident in 2012-13, compared with £4.60 per person elsewhere in England.

This From The Spectator:
the per capita state spending on transport infrastructure comes out at: south-west £215, north-east £246, Yorkshire and Humberside £303, north-west £839, London £4895.

This is one of my biggest problems with the UK and it will never change.   I like London, I like Londoners, but they should do their thing and we should do ours.  I feel very sorry for the North of England, but we at least have the opportunity to break with this obscene glorification of London. 

If you don't want Independence, then you are doing your country no favours.  We have been told we are a charity case for decades, what does that do for our self esteem?  Apart from the fact it's a lie.   The civil service lied to us for years about the amount of oil, always downplaying it hugely, under Labour, and under the Bastards both, and they are still doing it, constantly referring to Peak Oil having passed.

Things like Trident too, are things we should have no part of. And I don't just mean the huge cost.

Tir na nog I mentioned as a joke but it means Land of Youth and maybe we should think more about their future.  Look at the colossal waste of resources keeping so many of them unemployed, and the morale sapping horror of their reality.  I would like to think independence would reanimate and re-energise this country.  We might have to work a bit harder but that is no bad thing.  I'm afraid I cant furnish you with figures on Scotlands output, but even The Financial Times admits its a goer.

We may well be punished for a while for having the nerve to leave the UK, but we will definitely be punished if we stay.  Death by a thousand cuts.

Thanks for your response - interesting reading. To be honest, I'd actually ordered a hard copy of the White Paper so I can give it some serious consideration, but it's still not arrived. Can't read much more than a page electronically.

I still remain to be persuaded. My personal view is there are faults with any system but there's so much uncertainty about independence that it's a huge risk that I'm not sure I want to take. Europe is not a shoe-in by any means. All the YES campaign can promise is that they'll negotiate. The mutterings from Europe seem to indicate that there would be no special treatment or fast track for us.

How do the prospects look without the oil revenue cause that's not a cert either.

Oh well, we'll see later in the year.

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #35 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:17 PM »
OK fair enough.  The game's up.  It's No then

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #36 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:19 PM »
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism. Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?

Aye but we have to keep Cumbernauld, Lulu, George Galloway and River City. Swings and roundabouts.
Whoops, forgot the quote.

OK fair enough.  The game's up.  It's No then

Deegers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #37 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:21 PM »
I have to say that I am with Franz here, I would hope that the nation would prosper and flourish, money be available to have a better healthcare system, support the arts and sport but to achieve these things they have to be within our control.

I'd rather have a shot at trying to build that legacy for the future generations than the current situation.  But it will of course require effort and hard work, and be filled with ups and downs but that is something I can get behind.

I don't think that Scotland counterbalances anything Kenny, we have moved on and the opportunity is now there is do it differently, re-nationalise, safeguard the industries, rebuild what the last 40 years of successive Westminster governments tore down and decimated. 

It is the North of England that will ultimately suffer in all of this.  Maybes the clamour will be to move per the border, Northwards? 

Who knows! 

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #38 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:26 PM »
Nobody can counterbalance the City of London and the financial bozos. Pass the champagne.

Uncle Ellwyn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #39 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 21:23 PM »
I have no business posting on this subject, being born and raised in the states, BUT I can give you my reasons for being disgruntled with my politicians in the USA.

Whether or not you can take anything from this and apply it to your situation is another thing altogether.  Here is what I’ve learned from the past six decades.

I live in one of the most hated countries in the world because the leaders of both political parties here are in bed with the military/banking/industrial complex.  The power in Washington resides in the power structure that lives in DC and controls both parties, regardless of which one is ‘supposed’ to be in power. The military, the lobbyists, the bankers and the huge corporation leaders have controlled the situation to where a politician can say anything while campaigning but will always be powerless to change the gravy train that rolls along faster and faster towards this country’s destruction.

I’m amazed how the opposing political parties constantly flip flop their positions in their bad pol/good pol games, all the while hiding their similarities.  What do you think - which party is better for civil rights for minorities?  Which party is more pro- big business?  Which party wants a larger military? This has flip-flopped at least three times in the past century.  The answer is neither – or both. 
The true answer depends on which stance better serves a particular party in getting more power, and has little or nothing to do with helping anyone. 
 
For example, a group of conservative republicans are arguing for a $12 minimum wage with the SUPPORT of some huge companies like Walmart.  Do you think they’ll make any progress against the party leaders?  Heck no.  And the liberals will publicly argue for increases while fighting in private to keep the minimum wage increases as low as possible.  It is so frustrating for me because we need to get the min. wage increased and everyone is for it and yet almost nothing gets done.

AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.  Do you see my point? 

1)    In general, the smaller the government - the better it works.
2)   The closer you are to your representatives – the  better they will represent you.
3)   Local decisions should be handled locally.  The national government should be limited to deal ing only with nationwide or international affairs.
4)   Power corrupts.  The more power that politicians acquire - the more corrupt they become.
5)   Bureaucracies tend to grow until they strangle the state.
6)   The media can more easily influence national politics than locally.

My county commissioners do a pretty good job.  When they screw up, as everyone does, their party leaders aren’t able to spin the issues to mislead the public, and they get removed from office.
These commissioners are elected on their own merits.  They are paid peanuts and have few perks and can usually be described as public servants. The voters tend to know these people personally and don’t have to rely on publicity campaigns to decide how they will serve.

On the state level it starts to go downhill.  You may  know your district representative but the others are just names. 
By the time you get to the national level I can guarantee you that nothing gets done because the rule in Washington is ‘don’t rock the boat’.

Jackie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1135
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #40 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 22:45 PM »
I have to say that I am with Franz here, I would hope that the nation would prosper and flourish, money be available to have a better healthcare system, support the arts and sport but to achieve these things they have to be within our control.

I'd rather have a shot at trying to build that legacy for the future generations than the current situation.  But it will of course require effort and hard work, and be filled with ups and downs but that is something I can get behind.

I don't think that Scotland counterbalances anything Kenny, we have moved on and the opportunity is now there is do it differently, re-nationalise, safeguard the industries, rebuild what the last 40 years of successive Westminster governments tore down and decimated. 

It is the North of England that will ultimately suffer in all of this.  Maybes the clamour will be to move per the border, Northwards? 

Who knows!
Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #41 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 22:59 PM »
Jackie wrote:
"Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?"

I think the North of England already suffers. The further you are from the centre of power, the more marginalised you are.  Here in Scotland we at least have a bit of freedom with devolution to make a difference, but we have always been able to wield a bit of influence in London because of the spectre of independence if they dont pay some attention.  The North of England doesnt have that benefit.

czefski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #42 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:13 PM »
Someone said earlier that they don't care about the personalities involved, I'm obviously a lot shallower than that as I hate Fat Eck with every bone in my body. His fawning to Trump and allowing him to run roughshod over the Menie Estate and the Scottish citizens who lived there in order to cosy up with big business was a disgrace which the bit him in the arse when Trump proved to be a bit more streetwise. Then sticking his nose into the Union Terrace Gardens debate, which is a local issue and not within his remit as First Minister, in order to try and keep Sir Ian Wood and the Oil companies on side with the Yes campaign was a shocking misuse of his power. Salmond and Cameron are two sides of a hideous coin as far as I'm concerned.

franzkafka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
    • owen edelsten
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #43 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:20 PM »
A vote for independence is just that.  It's not a vote for Eck personally.  If there was a real Scottish Labour Party, they might well see him off in the elections which would be called after gaining independence.  Or whoever. Lord Sutch?

Anyway, the Scottish Parliament has just voted for gay marriage.    Well done them, but get your wellies and your brollies oot.

kwaing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1620
Re: och i the naw (maybes)
« Reply #44 on: Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:56 PM »
best thread in an age  8)


but i'm not convinced - the money boys rule, and it'll be easier pickings once we've got less clout. the cost of borrowing will rise, and donald trump is just the thin end of the wedge. how much of scotland does scotland actually own? how likely is it that those in power are going to sell off whatever's left as a short term way to balance the books, extend our "be a nation again" celebrations as nothing changes around us, just gets more expensive and more shoddy?

and all this pish about using independence to get the green party in or whatever ... we could've been voting green party or whatever all along. a new scottish labour party then? new scottish tory? think it'll be anything other than the usual suspects squabbling for crumbs?

what was that flyer that fell through the door? "independence will be better for scotland and the people of scotland" from the mouth of some tv actor? such a winning argument. let me think long and hard now ... got it ... "independence won't be any better for scotland and maybe a whole lot worse for the people of scotland".

eh? that oughta do it  ;D