Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2012 18:24:14 GMT -1
Angus Robertson MP, and Campaign Director, gave an inspirational, intelligent presentation at today's meeting of Glasgow SNP members. What an excellent speaker he is; sussed, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and very droll at times.
It was standing-room only at Maryhill Burgh Halls. It's been a good week for recruitment since David Cameron went on the offensive last weekend and as a result of that and the highly negative, dismissive, biased media coverage this week, 800 people have joined the SNP in the last five days ;D
A really well-thought out plan's now in action. It's not a grudge match; it's about being pro-Scottish, not anti-English. It's about the right to self-determine what's best for the Scottish people in the here and now.
Interesting times ahead.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 15, 2012 19:33:07 GMT -1
good luck!!!! I was reading in papers here that, according to opinion polls, 59% of voters do not favour independence. I s this true or just another beat up?
|
|
|
Post by yonzabam on Jan 15, 2012 19:54:22 GMT -1
We all know the whole charade is a pointless exercise. 2 out of 3 Scots want to stay in the union, so the vote is a foregone conclusion. However, as the SNP exist to achieve independence, they're obliged to play it out with all the usual sham optimism.
I remember the devolution vote back in the . . erm 70s? Loads of optimism on the part of Margo MacDonald et al, that they would prevail, and Scotland would take a giant step on the road to nationhood. How mortified they were when they found they'd lost due to the apathy of the Scottish voting public who couldnae be arsed turning up to vote. Well, no' turning up to vote was equivalent to a 'NO' vote, so why miss a pint?
Anyways, how often do the SNP get to hold these referenda? If the voters vote to remain in the union in this election, is that it for ever and ever, or is there a 'decent interval' that the SNP will hold its fire for, before demanding another referendum? And what would that interval be? 10 years? 20? Anyone know?
And, for argument's sake, let's say that after a dozen such referenda, the SNP finally realise their dream and get a 50.1% share of the vote, securing independence for Scotland. Is that it for ever and ever, or do the 'antis' get to hold referenda to return us to the union?
And what aboot Shetland? I worked there for 2 years. Although they're governed by Scots law, they definitely don't think of themselves as Scots. They'll revolt against imposed 'Scottishness' and probably hold a referendum of their own to decide their own destiny. See what ye've started?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 15, 2012 20:11:31 GMT -1
We all know the whole charade is a pointless exercise. 2 out of 3 Scots want to stay in the union, so the vote is a foregone conclusion. However, as the SNP exist to achieve independence, they're obliged to play it out with all the usual sham optimism. I remember the devolution vote back in the . . erm 70s? Loads of optimism on the part of Margo MacDonald et al, that they would prevail, and Scotland would take a giant step on the road to nationhood. How mortified they were when they found they'd lost due to the apathy of the Scottish voting public who couldnae be arsed turning up to vote. Well, no' turning up to vote was equivalent to a 'NO' vote, so why miss a pint? Anyways, how often do the SNP get to hold these referenda? If the voters vote to remain in the union in this election, is that it for ever and ever, or is there a 'decent interval' that the SNP will hold its fire for, before demanding another referendum? And what would that interval be? 10 years? 20? Anyone know? And, for argument's sake, let's say that after a dozen such referenda, the SNP finally realise their dream and get a 50.1% share of the vote, securing independence for Scotland. Is that it for ever and ever, or do the 'antis' get to hold referenda to return us to the union? And what aboot Shetland? I worked there for 2 years. Although they're governed by Scots law, they definitely don't think of themselves as Scots. They'll revolt against imposed 'Scottishness' and probably hold a referendum of their own to decide their own destiny. See what ye've started? The seventies referendum was fixed from the start, were dead people for example were counted as no votes FFS How do you know that 2 out of 3 Scots are against independence, have you asked them? If you are going to quote some opinion poll please bear in mind that at the May 2011 election, no opinion poll foretold an SNP win never mind an overall majority. In fact they were saying a SCUM party victory Also out of the last 45 countries who had referendum on independence 43 achieved independence The two who did not were Quebec who were already a federal entity and Algeria I think. as you know Algeria went on to take their independence violently because the French gerrymandered sed referendum The folks I know from either Orkney or Shetland don't seem to share your view, but then again they have stayed there more than a couple of yeard. In fact they now get a better deal from Edinburgh than they ever got from the Scottish Orrifice. I've noticed that pish arising in the torygraph too divide and conquer I think they call it. The interval between referenda can be anything the proponent likes, but as the UK becomes a more dire economy, with Westminster and the south east shafting not only us but large tracts of England too things will change The UK is fukked it's only a matter of time until everyone realises that, we are just getting out first
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jan 15, 2012 20:22:30 GMT -1
Unfotunately many people think like Yonza, they have many reasons, from apathy, to a weird belief that they owe some sort of love/allegiance to the royal family. What a strange belief.
If people listened to Yonza's reason for not bothering, we would still have a labour government in Edinburugh.
I am not as well read as Yonza, however accepting the changes that have happened for a fact shows even me that change can happen.
Scotland is changing, like Estonia, Latvia and many other countries, we recognise we are a different nation and as such we should be our own nation if most wish it.
I do not doubt though that what ever happens, Scotland will have a much fairer deal whether we have full independance or not and that for me is a huge improvement. I detest these ill informed fools that say Scotland has a begging bowl and we live from English charity.
We have two years to fight the propaganda forced on us that we need the UK. That gives us two years to try counteract this and give a chance to have more people change their mind, just like the thousands and thousands who have already changed their minds and given us an SNP Government. Despite the system being set up to try to stop exactly that happening. Now if all these thousands of people who CHANGED their minds had been of the same opinion as Yonza and likes of his outlook, as I sdaid, we would still have McConnel and Alexader etc., telling us how lucky we are to be run by tory or labour, from LONDON.
Take a chance, listen to Mr Salmond and be fair about listening to him and the ideas of a Scottish nation coming back again. No one will deride you if you change your mind, honest, I mean some people have even changed their mind on really important things, like Global Warming, downgrading it to Climate Change !!
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 15, 2012 20:23:36 GMT -1
just to amplify Notas post.
We had a referendum to become a republic in 1999. It was defeated by popular vote and in all states.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jan 15, 2012 20:36:10 GMT -1
Oz If the opinion polls are anything like the BBC has been behaving, then I would not trust them. As Nota correctly said, the press and the BBC predicted a labour victory and that in a system wrongly allowed to be set up to never allow any party to do what the SNP actually did.
Do not listen to these people who denigrate Scotland and the great efforts by genuine people who CARE about Scottish people. The denigraters have their own reasons from stupidity to arrogance for bad mouthing this growing movement. If we manage to have an independant Nation, I suspect many, many English people would relocate up here and the denigraters, I wonder if they would stay and enjoy the benefits of a Nation who may have a fairer share of oil revenue and a better educational system and frankly a fairer society. That is some of the reasons people are trying for change. Prbably they would stay, as probably greed would allow them to accept the better conditions and they would quickly forget their denigrating our efforts.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 15, 2012 21:57:16 GMT -1
just to amplify Notas post. We had a referendum to become a republic in 1999. It was defeated by popular vote and in all states. Indeed it was My post though was concerning just being independent 43 out 45 is not bad going We'll be keeping queen Elizabeth the first as head of state, for the foreseeable future after independence jist like you guys. If a republic is wanted, like you guys it will go to a referendum.
|
|
|
Post by westender on Jan 15, 2012 23:31:32 GMT -1
(In haste) I'm surprised at you being so wide of the mark, mister... We all know the whole charade is a pointless exercise. 2 out of 3 Scots want to stay in the union Weasel words, and not the case. Evidence please. What do you mean by "the usual sham optimism"? ...Is the SNP usually full of "optimism"? Shame on you mister, and your twisting of what I am damn sure you know to be the facts of the '79 referendum. It's been 300 years of this damned union, but just a few years since devolution (in the face of the absolute destruction of Scotland in the post-WWII period, and most especially in our time.) And yet you are seriously demanding explicit answers to be forthcoming, immediately, in response to your cavilling and your multitude of questions; and expect to be taken seriously, that you will dismiss the whole thing because you're not getting your instant answers?? The stall will be set out in the next couple of years. There is much to be discussed. The answers you seek will be forthcoming as a result of (hopefully) decent, helpful, informative and detailed debate. "They'll revolt". Rubbish. Shetland does not 'revolt'. Shetland - and the Orkneys - does not give a shit what happens to the south; they do their own thing, and go their own sweet way. Always have. What a ridiculous non-point to try to bring up. You seriously think the northern isles are happy to be represented by London government? And even at that - if the islands *are* unhappy with Scottish rather than London rule, and wish to make their feelings known, they've a damn sight better chance opf being listened to & taken seriously by an independent Scottish government than by London. Scotland wants freedom. I don't believe it would deny anyone else their right to the same desire if they feel they are oppressed under an unfair yoke. The facts of this matter are very, very simple. Scotland is not legitimately or credibly represented in any way, shape or form at Westminster, and has not been for generations. The union is no longer anywhere near fit for purpose. There is absolutely no case to be made for Scotland continuing to be governed by the cabals of London and Westminster. Your questions can't be answered now, but will be answered in due course. Keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by yonzabam on Jan 16, 2012 8:08:03 GMT -1
The folks I know from either Orkney or Shetland don't seem to share your view, but then again they have stayed there more than a couple of yeard. Well, I've done a wee google. Turns out that the split between the YES and NO vote in the 1979 devolution was even slimmer than I recall: YES - 1,230,937 NO - 1,153,500 The turnout was around 62%. Since it was realised that not voting was equivalent to a NO vote, many who were against it would simply not have voted. So, the result didn't reflect the will of the people, who were obviously against it. More to the point, here are the figures for Orkney and Shetland: Orkney: YES - 2,104 NO - 5,439 Shetland: YES - 2,020 NO - 5,466 So, unless there's been a very profound change in the thinking of Orcadians and Shetlanders over the past 30 years, then the citizens of those islands that you (ahem) 'know' would appear to be pretty unrepresentative. Looks like Scotland is going to have its very own constitutional crisis to deal with if it ever gains independence.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jan 16, 2012 8:14:48 GMT -1
What a pity such a well read fellow is running away from the actual point, Scottish Independance. No one other than Yonza has as far as I can see, mentioned the Shetlands. I have read the media and listened to the TV reports and I still find no mention of the Shetland problem? mentioned by Yonza.
Funnily enough, maybe we are getting through as his last sentence seems to be supposing Scotland will have independance !!
|
|
|
Post by yonzabam on Jan 16, 2012 9:47:24 GMT -1
What a pity such a well read fellow is running away from the actual point, Scottish Independance. No one other than Yonza has as far as I can see, mentioned the Shetlands. I have read the media and listened to the TV reports and I still find no mention of the Shetland problem? mentioned by Yonza. Funnily enough, maybe we are getting through as his last sentence seems to be supposing Scotland will have independance !! Well, maybe it's because no one else is bringing the subject up, that I feel obliged to redress that. It's an important point, and not just because of the question of oil ownership. Despite what Westie might think, Shetlanders want to be ruled from London, not Edinburgh. When I was there, they talked about boats in the harbour being 'up from Scotland', in exactly the same way as they'd talk about boats being 'in from Russia', as if Scotland was as foreign a place as Russia. All the other points have been addressed in the media. For example: 1) What currency would Scotland use? If it's to be the English pound, don't expect a Westminster parliament to take a foreign country's interests into consideration when making decisions affecting its own currency. And if it's to be the Euro . . . well, that's just a different can o' worms. 2) Scotland would no longer be part of NATO, because of the SNP's stance on nuclear weapons - ie not allowing any NATO subs with nuclear missiles on board into Scottish waters will disbar it from membership. 3) How would Scotland's share of the UK national debt be assessed and transferred to Scotland? Would it be done simply on a per capita basis, or would a more complex formula be required, based on industrial output? And which body would adjudicate on this to the satisfaction of both governments? 4) Who decides what percentage of the UK defence assets, such as warships, planes, tanks etc Scotland gets? You can be sure that's going to be a pretty contentious issue. See what ye've started?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 16, 2012 11:02:10 GMT -1
What a pity such a well read fellow is running away from the actual point, Scottish Independance. No one other than Yonza has as far as I can see, mentioned the Shetlands. I have read the media and listened to the TV reports and I still find no mention of the Shetland problem? mentioned by Yonza. Funnily enough, maybe we are getting through as his last sentence seems to be supposing Scotland will have independance !! Well, maybe it's because no one else is bringing the subject up, that I feel obliged to redress that. It's an important point, and not just because of the question of oil ownership. Despite what Westie might think, Shetlanders want to be ruled from London, not Edinburgh. When I was there, they talked about boats in the harbour being 'up from Scotland', in exactly the same way as they'd talk about boats being 'in from Russia', as if Scotland was as foreign a place as Russia. All the other points have been addressed in the media. For example: 1) What currency would Scotland use? If it's to be the English pound, don't expect a Westminster parliament to take a foreign country's interests into consideration when making decisions affecting its own currency. And if it's to be the Euro . . . well, that's just a different can o' worms. 2) Scotland would no longer be part of NATO, because of the SNP's stance on nuclear weapons - ie not allowing any NATO subs with nuclear missiles on board into Scottish waters will disbar it from membership. 3) How would Scotland's share of the UK national debt be assessed and transferred to Scotland? Would it be done simply on a per capita basis, or would a more complex formula be required, based on industrial output? And which body would adjudicate on this to the satisfaction of both governments? 4) Who decides what percentage of the UK defence assets, such as warships, planes, tanks etc Scotland gets? You can be sure that's going to be a pretty contentious issue. See what ye've started? 1) There is no such thing as "the English Pound", the currency of the UK is Sterling. There is absolutely nothing to stop an independent Scotland (or any other country for that matter) using Sterling as a currency, it is after all just paper notes and metal disks - monetary policy is something entirely different - do not confuse the two. Many countries throughout the world share currencies, it is not an unusual matter. In fact up until it joined the Euro, Eire's Punt was allied to Sterling in a variety of ways 2) How do you know that the SNP will be Scotland's elected government after independence, the new government may have a different policy on NATO. In fact I duly expect that government to be deciding on what international clubs Scotland may wish to apply to for membership.Do you think kicking Trident out of the Clyde is a bad thing? 3) Indeed Scotland may have to take a share of the national debt on, but in saying that it would be also entitled to a share of the UK assets as well - only fair after all - nuke subs to sell, there's all the crown dependencies too, some of them are quite well off too. In fact it may even be argued that the assets add up to even more than the debt I'm particularly looking forward to the Elgin Marbles going back to Elgin. 4) See above -look at Norway's defence capability to see what Scotland could be like - they seem to manage fine As I said previously 43 out of 45 countries have managed it in recent years, Scotland in its wealth of resources and people is streets ahead of most of those, even as we position ourselves in teh starting blocks - we are NOT too wee, too stupid or too poor to move on. P.S Can you provide a list of the union benefits to Scotland?
|
|
|
Post by yonzabam on Jan 16, 2012 12:52:33 GMT -1
P.S Can you provide a list of the union benefits to Scotland? Bailoots. Hunners an' hunners o' bailoots. £45 billion to RBS £37 billion to HBOS If it wasn't for the Engerlunder taxpayers taking 90% of the hit, the total of £82 billion would have cost each and every Scot £15,800, or £62,400 for a family of 4. Technically, the bailoot money's a loan, but that's not the reality. The loss on the RBS 'loan', so far, amounts to £26 billion. The HBOS damage is harder to assess, as Lloyds took it over at the urging of the government. I don't think any English based bank would have touched HBOS with a barge pole if Scotland had been independent. And who's to say they won't need more money in future? The fact that they're international businesses is neither here nor there. They're the two main banks on the Scottish High streets, and we'd be in a worse state than Ireland if we'd had to bail them out on our own. Talking about Ireland, I remember Alex Salmond (an economist, himself) telling us in a speech how an independent Scotland could emulate the 'Celtic tiger' economy, as the Irish asset bubble was known at the time. But, hindsight's a wonderful thing. He's not the only one to have fallen for the hype.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 16, 2012 13:44:29 GMT -1
P.S Can you provide a list of the union benefits to Scotland? Bailoots. Hunners an' hunners o' bailoots. £45 billion to RBS £37 billion to HBOS If it wasn't for the Engerlunder taxpayers taking 90% of the hit, the total of £82 billion would have cost each and every Scot £15,800, or £62,400 for a family of 4. Technically, the bailoot money's a loan, but that's not the reality. The loss on the RBS 'loan', so far, amounts to £26 billion. The HBOS damage is harder to assess, as Lloyds took it over at the urging of the government. I don't think any English based bank would have touched HBOS with a barge pole if Scotland had been independent. And who's to say they won't need more money in future? The fact that they're international businesses is neither here nor there. They're the two main banks on the Scottish High streets, and we'd be in a worse state than Ireland if we'd had to bail them out on our own. Talking about Ireland, I remember Alex Salmond (an economist, himself) telling us in a speech how an independent Scotland could emulate the 'Celtic tiger' economy, as the Irish asset bubble was known at the time. But, hindsight's a wonderful thing. He's not the only one to have fallen for the hype. 1) Why would we have had to bail them out? 2) How do you know that in an independent Scotland, the equivalent to the FSA wouldn't have been a lot less of a light touch on regulation? 3) How do you know that in an independent Scotland Salmond and the SNP would be the elected government? I have asked you this one previously - funny how you haven't answered it....... 4) That's just two - whut are the rest - bear in mind that Northern Rock and the Bradford and Bingley were based souf of the border 5) The FSA and the Bank of England are the regulators - tehy are British based, westminster sancyioned bodies - it is their fault, this happened, they allowed it to happen. 6) The Icelandic banks were allowed to fail by their government, Iceland is recovering 7) The UK government is bailing out Ireland as we speak........ RBS & HBOS are shareholder owned, they sanctioned the madness of what their banks got up to....... Didn't here the UK government and the unionists complaining when they were getting the taxes in from the profits of these banks Now then what about the other points you "forgot" to answer"
|
|