|
Post by bormes on Sept 28, 2014 12:16:59 GMT -1
Not a proper thought out financial idea from YES. Well I would like you to tell me Demo, what gives George Osborne the ability to be chancellor of the exchequer? If you compare that man to Alex Salmond it is a no contest in my opinion if comparing ability to properly understand the economical strategies of our country. I do despise Westminster and how it behaves keeping the status quo and allowing such hardship in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I live in France and have lived in a number of countries around the world and my experience, not from reading books, from living in other places and comparing them to the UK is not in the least favourable to the Westminster wasteful Government. They have used a huge benefit from oil and gas to be misused. It is the waste and mismanagement of various UK Governments that is so frustrating for Scots. Those of us that do think Scotland could and would have a better deal for our people will continue to vote for the SNP and hopefully continue to have more NO voters realise we CAN do better. Do you honestly think the Eton Boys Club of Westminster would have offered a single extra power IF it had not been for the sudden 51 percent for the YES group in a you gov poll? It was the arrogance of Westminster who refused to allow a third quetion, not the SNP. Regarding how you see my rather disrespectful idea of some NO voters, well that is your opinion. I do despise the greedy self indulgent people who support the points I mentioned earlier so if the cap fits.... If it does not, then perhaps you might understand why I and over a Million other Scots do want to run our own country? Why anyone would want another country to run their country just amazes me. Demo's post it hindsight and patronising in my opinion, however as you know I am not a Westminster supporter and it seems like Cameron wants a referendum to give the choice to leave the Eu, when Scotland seems so far to want to remain, which could mean another example of Scotland ending up having things forced upon us as a nation that we did not want, like wars etc., Final wee point yo Demo, where were the SNP caught with their trousers down? You have not explained WHY we could not use the Pound, it is the LIES of Westminster that they refused to agree they would HAVE to agree to a monetary union if YES had won, they LIED as a political pose.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 28, 2014 13:00:38 GMT -1
Trust me, I have no intention to patronise. I fully support your right to fight for your beliefs and espouse your political views. I merely point out that your language is sometimes not that of persuasion but frustration that others don't necessarily share your opinions. It is your choice to speak as you feel is right but to disparage won't win people to your point of view. Despite the way I voted I was genuinely willing to be persuaded otherwise and suspect that many No voters were in the same position. Alex Salmond was not the man to do so and should not have been allowed to dominate the campaign as he did. I understand your great admiration of Mr Salmond but he is the proverbial marmite politician. You either love him or you hate him and whilst he inspires his supporters he equally alienates his distractors. Attempts to state that a Yes vote was not a vote for the SNP and Alex Salmond fell on stoney ground due to the ubiquitous presence of Mr Salmond and Nichola Sturgeon on every Yes stage.
You mention Osbourne, Cameron and the Eton Boys Club but I was voting on the matter of removing Scotland from the UK, not to remove a transient group of politicians who could be out of power by next year. It is a mistake to represent such a massive decision as being a means of removing a political party that is abhorrent to you.
I have stated my belief that the last minute interventions had no bearing on the final result and I stand by the reasons I gave. The polls were hopelessly out of tune with the reality but did cause panic in the Better Together camp I agree. Did over 2m people change their mind because of these promises?
I understand your belief that I am talking in hindsight as I never posted on here but I must ask you to trust me that I expressed these views throughout the last two years. I genuinely would have liked to have been given a harder decision than the one I ultimately faced, that I wasn't displays the failure of the Yes campaign in my eyes.
I won't go into the question of the use of the pound in an independent Scotland as it's not the point I was making. There are many different viewpoints on how the currency issue would have panned out, however, it's all academic now. Alex Salmond was ambushed over the currency issue and didn't have an appropriate response or strategy in place. His cause suffered through that weakness and that's why I described the SNP as having been caught with their trousers down. You may feel he answered the question successfully but what I witnessed was him floundering to answer the issue when debating against a political lightweight. You say that there were many lies told over the use of the pound but the majority of voters were not as convinced as you. If you are correct then the SNP failed in getting across the truth.
Finally, the cap doesn't fit and I purposely avoided engaging you on your individual points so as not to deflect from my argument. I agree with some but not all of your points and don't see any of them as being a matter to be resolved by independence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 17:50:11 GMT -1
The reverse side of what you feel is the view I've heard many independence supporters voice of No voters. Deceived by Westminster lies, lacking the confidence to go it alone, older people letting down the younger generation ( a fallacy later exposed by more detailed and accurate research)......... I could go on but suffice to say these are all insulting and wrong. If you want to break Scotland from the rest of the UK then you should have an outstanding economic argument for so doing and should have the confidence in the intelligence of the electorate to share it with them in detail. The SNP didn't have that argument and failed to persuade the likes of me that independence was desirable and beneficial. Their failure to do so is the reason we're still part of the UK. Your posts are detailed and lengthy so I'd like to reply in brief to specific ones. To be honest, Demo, I do believe that: 1) Many NO voters were deceived by Westminster lies. Some examples might be: "misleading" elderly people that their pensions would not be safe with independence, orchestrating a campaign by supermarkets to declare price rises with independence, continual scaremongering over the old 'the oil will only last 40 years' myth, the threats that border controls would be set up on the English side, and finally, and possibly more importantly a degree of brinksmanship over currency union. 2) lacking the confidence to go it alone. I think that's also true of some NO voters. Many people tend to fear change. The NO campaign know that simple psychological fact and hammered it home through the constant reinforcement, in every statement, of the words 'uncertainty' and 'risk'. 3) Older people letting down the younger generation. I wonder if you're using the Lord Ashcroft exit poll as your evidence here? It was a very small sample and runs counter to all the research done by the YES campaign and other neutral parties in the run up to last week's vote. The 65+ age group voted NO by about 70/30. There's also plenty anecdotal evidence that this group were frightened of losing their pensions and/or investments, while some had a different view of the Union through life experiences during and post-WW2. In your personal view you say: If you want to break Scotland from the rest of the UK then you should have an outstanding economic argument for so doing and should have the confidence in the intelligence of the electorate to share it with them in detail.To answer that: in my personal opinion, that is a narrow view of the rationale of independence. Even the NO campaign admitted time and time again that Scotland 'could' succeed economically as an independent country. We can't ignore, surely, that 45% of people voted YES in order to positively address the very serious inequalities in our society by finding fairer ways to distribute our wealth. 45% voted against Scotland hosting Trident. 45% voted against always getting a government we haven't voted for. 45% voted to preserve our NHS, under the considerable threat as we all know. 45% voted to control our own affairs rather than hand power to a remote government, none of whom have the interests of the Scottish people as their sole raison d'etre. Can I ask you, as a No voter, what is 'desirable and beneficial' to the people of Scotland by remaining in the Union? What part of Better Together's campaign convinced you? Thanks for answering my final point, Demo. I look forward to your answering my other points above, given your sole raison d'etre for voting the way you chose appears-- thus far-- to be for reasons of economics and to maintain the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 29, 2014 2:00:01 GMT -1
I have just learned there was more than one political part involved in the yes campaign.
In our "Republic Referendum" there was more than one Republican "Party" After the vote they fell out playing the blame game, blaming each other for the failure. At the actual vote they got 41% and no states with a majority. Now it has dropped to about 30% if anyone bothers to bring it up. They were very fervent at the time.
Watch the same doesnt happen with the "yessers"
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 29, 2014 12:55:25 GMT -1
Apologies Rolo, I have twice tried to write detailed replies to your post only to have the website crash on me as they neared completion. Pressure of work precludes me from re composing them but I'll give a short answer to the point of lies being told. As I said earlier in this thread there were undoubtedly exaggerations, bluffs and lies on both sides during this campaign, that's politics for you. On many of the issues there are conflicting views given by supposed experts, some must be wrong but which ones? There was sufficient doubt for example of the longevity of the oil reserves to leave room for reasonable caution on the issue.
You highlight what you say is Better Together lies and who knows, you may be correct on some of them. What would you say to Alex Salmond's assertion that he would fail to pay Scotland's share of the national debt if he wasn't allowed a formal currency union? Utter and complete bluff I say or lies if you want to be harsh. Such a move would have reduced Scotland's credit rating to junk status and the former economist First Minister was never going to allow that to happen.
And then there is lying by omission. We'll retain the pound anyway, said Mr Salmond, in the event of being denied a formal currency union. What he didn't mention is that any other modern country taking this option has had to establish a large currency reserve to stabilise their economy. According to Mark Carney, in Scotland's case this would have run into billions of pounds. I didn't hear any mention of that when Alex Salmond was making his pronouncements after being put under pressure over the currency issue. Why did he even respond in the fashion he did when the Tory's, Labour and Lib Dems ruled out a currency union? Was it because he didn't believe it would happen? His responses didn't sound like someone who saw no threat from this pronouncement, he made hasty statements which could be construed as lies. There is no moral high ground to be had here, both sides said what they thought they had to to win the day. Reprehensible for sure but a harsh political fact.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 29, 2014 13:11:56 GMT -1
" Older people letting down the younger generation. I wonder if you're using the Lord Ashcroft exit poll as your evidence here? It was a very small sample and runs counter to all the research done by the YES campaign and other neutral parties in the run up to last week's vote. The 65+ age group voted NO by about 70/30. There's also plenty anecdotal evidence that this group were frightened of losing their pensions and/or investments, while some had a different view of the Union through life experiences during and post-" No not Ashcroft's limited poll. www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/referendum-survey-suggests-a-slender-majority-of-young-people-voted-no.25407723
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 29, 2014 13:27:01 GMT -1
Sorry, forgot to say anecdotal evidence doesn't really cut it with me, it can be used in any number of ways (most painfully in Ed Millibands conference speech). I prefer hard facts.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 29, 2014 17:40:33 GMT -1
Hard facts seem to be the most difficult thing to find as there always seems to be an "expert" produced to speak to either side's position!! I think what you might be missing Demo is that I and many others are not taking a financial position only, we truly wish for a fairer society and frankly between labour and tory just now there is very little. Some tinkering round the edges. Where is the reform ti get rid of the house of lords that has been promised by both sides as long as I can remember? We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Scotland could be with the natural resources we have and our exports, yet we have food banks and we have decent working people going out to work but still not being paid enough so they have to claim benefits. FFS. Surely that is just wrong. Don't misunderstand me I am not a SWP person, however when I see the unfairness in our society with London getting the fillet and the rest being thrown scraps I do get angry. I have never been political until recent years I was in the forces so took very little notice of politics I have to admit I just did as I was told. I am quite sad at that now as I am older and I have been and seen what our politicians have allowed and SUPPORTED in countries abroad and it was shameful and all done for cheap oil in most cases. I did say earlier that it comes down to trust and I believe that. I trust Salmond much much more than Osborne or Balls or any other current politician or if we look back I can not think of many I would trust and when you look at how our country is and how it has been mismanaged despite the bonus of oil, I am willing to take the chance to go it alone and as I say, it is NOT all financial. Now Demo reads like a very clever fellow and probably has a job like a lawyer as his writing is coherent and I admit very good and almost could have one reasses ideas but then when I look and read and listen to the dear old Eton Paedo Club, I just sigh and think, Thank Goodness I still think the same, despite the whole Establishment and their Media going against us, I still trust Salmond over the Boys Club!! However good try Demo!!
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 29, 2014 18:15:29 GMT -1
Why thank you sir!
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 30, 2014 9:44:24 GMT -1
This website doesn't seem to like long posts so I'll abreviate my style.
"The economy is a narrow view of the rationale behind independence". If you want to talk about the main reasons people vote the way they do then in most cases the economy will be the decider. I never said it was my only reason, I'm highlighting my thoughts on why the nationalist vote failed to win the referendum. The economy was the main deciding factor. The SNP failed to convince over 2m Scots that they would be in a better economic place under an independent Scottish Government. As not everyone shares a nationalistic ardour for independence the economy is an absolutely crucial battleground which was lost by the SNP.
I too would like a more just and fairer society but didn't feel that independence would deliver that and on the evidence thus far I am not convinced that the SNP are any more capable of delivering said society than any other political party. Such a society is not the sole preserve of an independent Scotland or the SNP as you make it sound.
The economy matters greatly to voters.
Of course Scotland could function as an independent country but that doesn't necessarily make it desirable. There's nothing really to argue on this point.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 30, 2014 10:00:01 GMT -1
"We can't ignore, surely, that 45% of people voted YES in order to positively address the very serious inequalities in our society by finding fairer ways to distribute our wealth. 45% voted against Scotland hosting Trident. 45% voted against always getting a government we haven't voted for. 45% voted to preserve our NHS, under the considerable threat as we all know. 45% voted to control our own affairs rather than hand power to a remote government, none of whom have the interests of the Scottish people as their sole raison d'ĂȘtre".
That's your take on why they voted for independence, I would argue that this is a far too simplistic view of the minds of the Scottish voters. I could substitute each 45% in your paragraph with 55% and make the assertion that over 2m people wanted nuclear weapons, the destruction of the NHS, to be ruled by a disinterested and remote Government and to continue all inequalities in our country. I could but it would be simplistic in the extreme and plain wrong. I just don't agree with you at all on this.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 30, 2014 16:28:23 GMT -1
Demo, Funnily enough a good number of my good friends all ex Forces are NO voters and surprisingly they like myself are anti Trident! I am not only anti Trident I am very anti Nuclear energy until a safe way is found to dispose of the waste from it. I think the minimum shelf life is around 20,000 years so in my opinion it is unforgivable that companies should be allowed to make money from this danger for future generations. It is just not safe and if you care to Google just now about the potential danger after Fukishima in the Pacific right now and continuing daily and try to ignore the doomsday scenarios, there is still plenty to worry about.
Now to return to your comments about how you do not need to be a YES voter to want a fairer society and a better spread of our wealth, however even as we write about this, another 25 Billion is being CUT from ordinary working people, NOT from Multi Nationals, who, after all, make their PROFIT in our country. It is not a fair system. WHY do we need a House of Lords? Why have we still NO written constitution? I seriously wonder how quickly tax avoidance would be sorted if Politicians were on the minimum wage until it was done? I have worked for my country all over the world for many years I then worked in a couple of jobs before starting working for myself and frankly the powers that be make working for yourself the hardest job I have ever done and are making it harder because they want to keep the status quo, they do not want upstarts making decent money, heaven forfend keep your place in society, tip your forelock do not get above your station, work for the Eton Boys Paedo Club and don't complain, OH wait, let's have a war and take these smelly people's mind off politics, they might actually vote us out!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 18:40:04 GMT -1
" Older people letting down the younger generation. I wonder if you're using the Lord Ashcroft exit poll as your evidence here? It was a very small sample and runs counter to all the research done by the YES campaign and other neutral parties in the run up to last week's vote. The 65+ age group voted NO by about 70/30. There's also plenty anecdotal evidence that this group were frightened of losing their pensions and/or investments, while some had a different view of the Union through life experiences during and post-" No not Ashcroft's limited poll. www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/referendum-survey-suggests-a-slender-majority-of-young-people-voted-no.25407723The YouGov poll you've quoted bears out exactly what I said, Demo. You stated this 'older people letting down the younger generation' as some kind of slur on No voters in your earlier post, then go on to prove that my assertion is true. Some argument! Those aged 65+ are parents of the 'younger generation' who voted YES overwhelmingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 18:49:11 GMT -1
"The economy is a narrow view of the rationale behind independence". If you want to talk about the main reasons people vote the way they do then in most cases the economy will be the decider. I never said it was my only reason, I'm highlighting my thoughts on why the nationalist vote failed to win the referendum. The economy was the main deciding factor. The SNP failed to convince over 2m Scots that they would be in a better economic place under an independent Scottish Government. As not everyone shares a nationalistic ardour for independence the economy is an absolutely crucial battleground which was lost by the SNP. I too would like a more just and fairer society but didn't feel that independence would deliver that and on the evidence thus far I am not convinced that the SNP are any more capable of delivering said society than any other political party. Such a society is not the sole preserve of an independent Scotland or the SNP as you make it sound. The economy matters greatly to voters. Of course Scotland could function as an independent country but that doesn't necessarily make it desirable. There's nothing really to argue on this point. On the contrary, I think there IS something to argue on this point, Demo. You say you would like a more just and fairer society. I'd love to hear how you believe that can be achieved with a NO vote? You also appear to have fallen into the trap, along with many NO voters, of presuming the SNP would be in power after what would have been Scotland's next general election. Were you not aware that there would be an open election post a YES vote? As in, we get the government WE vote for, not the government England votes for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 19:10:03 GMT -1
"We can't ignore, surely, that 45% of people voted YES in order to positively address the very serious inequalities in our society by finding fairer ways to distribute our wealth. 45% voted against Scotland hosting Trident. 45% voted against always getting a government we haven't voted for. 45% voted to preserve our NHS, under the considerable threat as we all know. 45% voted to control our own affairs rather than hand power to a remote government, none of whom have the interests of the Scottish people as their sole raison d'ĂȘtre". That's your take on why they voted for independence, I would argue that this is a far too simplistic view of the minds of the Scottish voters. I could substitute each 45% in your paragraph with 55% and make the assertion that over 2m people wanted nuclear weapons, the destruction of the NHS, to be ruled by a disinterested and remote Government and to continue all inequalities in our country. I could but it would be simplistic in the extreme and plain wrong. I just don't agree with you at all on this. Not really 'my take' on it at all, Demo, but very much the plurality of reasons given by YES voters over the past two years or more. As a YES activist, attending public meetings and campaigning out and about (in my spare time!) all of those themes were uppermost in YES supporters reasons. And while the economy is important, yes, it was absolutely NOT the deciding factor for the majority of Yessers. After all, we'd already been assured by NO that we could succeed as an independent country! The 55% effectively voted FOR: 1) Scotland hosting nuclear weapons 2) The continuing privatisation of the NHS 3) Being ruled by a distant government 4) The continuation, if not the exacerbation, of the inequalities that are the preserve of that distant government You can reverse the 'figures' all you like but essentially NO voters have handed Westminster the power to treat Scotland in whatever way comes up their hump. And given the rise of support amongst our neighbours for the extreme right wing combination of Tories and UKIP, while the Labour party has lost very significant support in Scotland, I really don't believe it's me that's being 'simplistic'
|
|