Woo feckin hoo a choice between the bullingdon club or that nice mr farage. I suddenly feel the need to return my wife to the land of her forebears. Grangemouth or Falkirk here we come.
Gimlet, I believe your actual expression was: "... used its Scottish votes to gerrymander an artificial majority for itself in Westminster" Now you say: "... I didn't say Scottish votes had given Labour a majority". May I suggest you take more care to make your words palatable, in case you have to eat them later.
You have clarified my meaning. You understand the distinction I am making perfectly well and I stand by it.
The true face of Scottish "Nationalism" 9 images revealing the truth about Scottish nationalism | Scottish Referendum 2014 The true face of the Labour Party
Gimlet I find your comments incredibly interesting however much I completely disagree with them. Then I looked at your avatar, which shows the union flag and the strap line 'no surrender'. Is this a UKIP design or your own? I ask as I'm interested in the use of the language and the image. 'No surrender' reminds me of the bad old days of the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland wasn't it used as a rallying cry? I am also aware that it is used by hard line English football 'fans' that I am only making an assumption are on the right of politics. Do you think that it is a fair reflection then of your own political leanings or ukips or is it just a phrase to define your own passion? The use of the avatar back drop is that of the union flag/jack call it what you will. Again you have previously stated that had you had a vote you would have voted yes for independence thereby destroying the union and changing the flag, so do you believe we should be unified under the flag you portray or do you believe that a better representation would therefore be the flag of St george with no surrender at its heart? Just interested.
Just saw this post on a different forum I frequent, never liked the Yes campaign and this about sums it up:
I think it is good that people outside Scotland take note of what happened, especially the role of the media and big business,then apply that to the EU referendum. However, Fred, you should not believe everything you read. The Scottish government DID attempt to engage with the UK government. This was the response from David Cameron- he would not "pre negotiate Scotlands exit from the Union". This was also the line of the electoral commission. BBC News - In quotes: Reaction to Scottish independence referendum report Only he could get clarification from the EU on continued membership of the EU. He refused to ask. Don't we pay taxes ? He refused to discuss currency. All Westminster parties refused. He basically treated with us with contempt - undeserving of knowing where we would stand. labour and lib dems connived in this. Which is why they will be pretty much removed from Scotland in coming elections. Being treated as the bad guys all the time gets really tiresome. Its rarely, if ever true. I reckon that in the 2016 Holyrood elections the SNP, SSP and Greens will take 80% of the seats and the parliament will declare independence.
It might have been an unfair tactic, but it was a useful tactic, to preserve union. By refusing to pre-negotiate stuff, uncertainty was created which served the unionist cause. Politics is like this: it's not fair, it's the manipulation of power to get what you want. Westminster didn't want Scottish independence, so they adopted a strategy that gave them the best chance of avoiding it. And it paid off. Sorry.
Very fair questions Baldyboy, which deserve an answer. I changed my avatar when Finm and I were having a light-hearted exchange of pro/anti Nigel Farage imagery. I admit it is uncomfortably confrontational and I've been thinking myself I probably ought to change it. It isn't my design, nor is it anything to do with UKIP. Its a graphic for a T-shirt by a company called Zazzle. As far as I am aware they are a just a clothing design company with no specific political affiliations. They do a line in anti EU slogans but also lot of non-political designs as well. Lets not beat about the bush, I am implacably opposed to the EU and Britain's membership of it. I believe it to be a delusional, anti-democratic vanity project and a bureaucratic dictatorship, riddled with corruption, waste and incompetence which has proved profoundly damaging to democracy and the economic potential and the culture richness and diversity of the nations of Europe. I support absolutely UKIP's policy of an unconditional referendum and with the country's approval, withdrawal. I support the party nominally because there is no other political party in Britain committed to such a policy, though I am far from convinced that UKIP are going the right way about securing a mandate for withdrawal from a referendum when one is held. They are in danger of making the same mistake Alex Salmond made of failing to discuss in detail how their objective should be achieved which may lead to a similar last minute loss of nerve among voters. This is particularly frustrating since leaving the EU and creating a sovereign nation from scratch are radically different propositions and a legal pathway to amicable withdrawal form the EU exists through Article 58 of the Lisbon Treaty, but UKIP never talk about it. Like Scottish secession, I believe there is an overwhelmingly positive and optimistic case to be made for rescinding our EU membership and becoming an associate non-member trading freely with the EU without entering political or monetary union or pooling sovereignty which would greatly improve our relations with our European neighbours as well as the quality of our governance and our economic prospects. There is no need whatever for the subject to carry so many doom-laden overtones or to be discussed in antagonistic terms. I would like to see more positivity in this regard from UKIP. Anyway, those are my personal opinions and personal political sympathies. I do not represent any political party or organisation at all. Others will disagree with my views strongly and I respect their right to do so provided that respect is mutual. I'm an opinionated person, it is true, but I dislike blind tribalism. Politics shouldn't be a polarising exercise in right and wrong or black and white. There are always limitless possibilities in between if people have the imagination. And it would be a dull world if we were all the same. I agree with you about the unhappy connotations the No Surrender slogan may have, particularly in Northern Ireland and for that reason more than any other I will change my avatar forthwith. In fact there is a version of this design which features the cross of St. George and even one with the red hand of Ulster, which I would have thought would be highly inflammatory. I chose not to use the St George version because though it pains me to say this of my national flag, it looked far too football hooligan. I detest hooliganism and I'm none too keen on football either. I wasn't aware that football hooligans used No Surrender; if they do that's another good reason to change it. I adopted this avatar in a spirit of friendly bravado and no offence was intended. If it has caused any I apologise. Yes I was in favour of a Scottish Yes vote, but I didn't think of it in terms of destroying the Union so much as creating a better and far more harmonious relationship between two sibling nations who should be better friends. There is always more than one way of seeing things. I don't see why an independent Scotland could not have retained the Monarch as head of State as other countries do, if that is what people wished, in which case the flag could remain as an emblem of British nations united under the crown even though they were politically separate and the flag was no longer a national flag. I rather doubt that Australia and New Zealand would have abandoned their use of it on the strength of Scottish secession, so why should we let a cracking design (which we all own) go to waste? Thanks for your civilised questions Baldyboy, I hope I've answered them satisfactorily. Now I've got to find a new avatar that isn't boring...
I understand your argument and I appreciate the time it must have taken to compose your response. Doesn't change my views on a stronger allegiance with Europe, and frankly if all pro no parties use the strap line better together for Scotland then surely the same should be true for our continued commitment to the EU. I don't dispute that there are problems with and within the EU. Personally I feel we are better as a shining light within than standing alone. I was surprised by the avatar as the eloquence of your argument did not appear to sit with it. But please don't feel the need to change it on my behalf.
I am pretty critical to everything I read, specially from private individuals on internet forums. But for me he captured much of the problem with the yes campaign. It is obvious to anyone that Westminster would resist giving anything away, it was down to Salmond and his gang to coax something out of them, or at least construct a solid plan. But after all this time they had nothing, zero. I find it amazing they got as many votes as they did. I'm not really bothered either way, but in general terms I don't like borders and bureaucracy. And I can't see how anyone would've benefited from a split. And that's the thing, most people didn't.
"Last minute loss of nerve"? Down all the months, years and decades that the SNP have been advocating independence for Scotland, there has never been anywhere near a majority for it. A substantial majority has always favoured keeping the UK together. The outcome of the recent referendum was entirely consistent with that very long-standing position, and was no surprise at all. It was astonishing that after nearly 80 years of arguing for Scottish independence, the SNP had not bothered to work out any of the important consequences which might follow if they succeeded. And it was slightly surprising that they managed to bounce as many as 45% into voting YES.
It is a rule of political life that during election campaigns each party or candidate always tries to trap their opponents into accepting the hypothesis that they are going to lose, and to frame the debate on that territory. The wise campaigner always refuses to accept that hypothesis and stoutly maintains that he is going to win. It is an extremely feeble criticism of David Cameron to complain that during the campaign he declined to provide his political opponents with ammunition.
there you go,iif you want change at parliament that's the part that should be changed, it's not ammunition it's information. if they don't want to continue the us and them change that part. i also disagree with "substantial majority.6% required. if the pensioners and everyone else had been given correct information,snp can create a bit o spin themselves cant say if it was poor communication from the snp or manipulation and lies from the better(not)together. alliance. then maybe i wont have pensioners coming in to my work carrying there life savings.
I wasn't surprised at all at the 45%. It has been brewing and gathering momentum for at least 2 decades that I noticed. I am more surprised it wasn't more. It is this inability of the current westminster parties not to notice this themselves that is in part responsible. Scotland feels disenfranchised and remote from government. This part of the Yes I wholly agree with and now that a mandate for change has been promised, I expect it to be honoured otherwise the Yes will increase greatly. It is westminsters continual failing to underestimate the Scots that got them where we are today. The Scots will only take so much before they take the country back themselves without westminsters approval. The turnout shows just how seriously they take this. I'm a No currently. But that can change if nothing happens and I can happily register north of the border and all my No scots friends and family will swiftly change too as they feel similar to me. The No vote is only giving the benefit of the doubt at the moment. Do nothing and that doubt evaporates. We want change and if it doesn't materialise we will make it happen ourselves. Fuck the consequences for the pound and europe etc. We will manage. We always have. Don't get me wrong. I still feel together, with a more inclusive and representative gov, that both of us are Stronger together. But the Scots are correct when they feel there is an unequal partnership going on currently. If it doesn't change this will not rest.
LOL. You're not. But I do want change. I also do not appreciate that everything is down south. Furthermore there should be HST straight to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast (via a fast boat). It is a very London focused union. I can see why and how it got there. But now we need to diversify. If only so that theres more room down here. The SE is filling up. Oh and fuck the HoL off. I feel like doing a guy fawkes to the fuckers myself.
