Just Say Yes

[jaggybunnet]

jaggybunnet,

 

As the impartial sceptic JeanieD previously noted, we two are atypical of those who shall remain deeply entrenched in our long established positions.

 

To revert back to our conversation, you came to the only logical conclusion that you possibly can - that you do think it's fair that Scotland's destiny is controlled by a government 500 miles away in London, even if, as they did in 2010, only 16.7% of the turnout voted for them. You say that's quite right since Scotland is merely a region of the UK.

 

Well, to me that's an absurd position. Theoretically, all of Scotland's 4 million voters could vote for Labour / Liberal / SNP with 0% Conservative and STILL be controlled by Tory policy.

 

Policies which, thanks to the rise and rise of UKIP, and Cameron’s fear of losing vote share, are moving ever further away from the economic and social interests of the people of Scotland.

 

Writing in yesterday’s Wings Over Scotland, Rev. Stuart Campbell had some great stuff to say on this:

 

“By common consensus the economic crisis has given the Tories the cover they need to do something they always ideologically want to do anyway – slash government spending and cut taxes in order to enrich the wealthy, who in turn fund them.

 

But if austerity worked, would Ed Miliband be any more pleased? If the cuts saved the economy, everyone would gratefully vote Tory again. Labour needs poverty, because without poverty its ostensible reason for existing is gone. The party, in fact, thrives on inequality – if that inequality vanished, so would its core vote.

 

The fundamental change wrought by New Labour was that without admitting it, the party politically abandoned the poor and vulnerable (safe in the knowledge that they had nowhere else to go) and instead aligned itself with the “aspirational” middle classes – exactly the same people targeted by the Tories. And the middle class, more or less by definition, identifies itself not in absolute terms, but relative ones.

 

The British middle class – as we’ve seen by the remarkably muted response to austerity, compared to the riots in other countries – can tolerate its circumstances worsening considerably, as long as it can still see the gap between itself and the wretched poor. Having to work longer hours or cut back on holidays and new cars is bearable as long as you can say “Hey, at least I’m not being forced to work in Poundland for nothing, or socially cleansed out of this nice area where I live”.”

 

In 15 months time the people of Scotland can decide the next move for Scotland:

 

a) YES. To step forward as an independent nation, a nation with no pandering to class systems, a nation rooted in social justice, with a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth, and a nation which is a respected trading partner in Europe.

NO. If they wish to continue as a mere region of the UK and be subjected to a non stop line of undesirable policies from a government which they never voted for, policies which are inevitably rooted in their pandering to middle England’s ever demanding selfishness.

 

No one cares more about Scotland's success than the people who live in Scotland.

 

Yes to Scotland as a strong, independent country.

No to Scotland as a poor region of the UK.

 

don't put stuff up that i have never said please, you just embarrass yourself

 

i will reply in more detail later but how do you think things will change if we are controlled (as you put it) by eck/europe (if they let us in), there will be no change and that's why i don't see the need for independence politicians are the same where ever you go and that's just life.

 

the rest seems to show that you have a chip on your shoulder about people that want to improve there life and finances.

 

IMHO the best thing we could do is get rid of holyrood and the European parliament could save a fortune

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[alx]

“By common consensus the economic crisis has given the Tories the cover they need to do something they always ideologically want to do anyway – slash government spending and cut taxes in order to enrich the wealthy, who in turn fund them.

But if austerity worked, would Ed Miliband be any more pleased? If the cuts saved the economy, everyone would gratefully vote Tory again. Labour needs poverty, because without poverty its ostensible reason for existing is gone. The party, in fact, thrives on inequality – if that inequality vanished, so would its core vote.

cotland as a poor region of the UK.

 

 

The Labour government actually took increasing inequality way too far, they also increased health inequality and promptly killed off their own voters!!!!

 

Ref: McCartney BMJ "Would action on health inequalities have saved New Labour?"

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3294?view=long&pmid=20573766

[alx]

i will reply in more detail later but how do you think things will change if we are controlled (as you put it) by eck/europe (if they let us in), there will be no change and that's why i don't see the need for independence politicians are the same where ever you go and that's just life.

 

Let's get one thing clear. The worst case scenario with independence is more or less the status quo. Obviously people would argue that the future would be way better than the status quo, it's up to Scotland to 'make it so' if we want. BUT - staying in the union means Tory chaos, disaster and destruction. NHS deid. Post office deid. Railways stay deid. Oil money deid. Life expectancy deid er reduced. If you're bothered about EU membership - maybe deid (I'm not bothered with that one I'm a Euro sceptic). The Tories might even be working up to a new war in the middle east.

 

Finally, didn't anyone notice that the tories gently mentioned this week that there would be an end to 'automatic pay increases' and an introduction of 'peformance related pay'. In some public sector areas, when people get promoted their wages increment for a few years until they reach the threshold for trying for promotion again. This is a sort of fair way of paying people in an environment that doesn't have annual bonus payments or sometimes even overtime payments for working extra hours. The Tories want performance related pay to cut wages for the umpteenth year in a row - there is no actual bonus for good performance. Anyway, the result of this policy? CHAOS in the UK, possible general strikes and riots.

 

We have to get out of this union, and get out quick. The alternative is frightening.

[jaggybunnet]

Let's get one thing clear. The worst case scenario with independence is more or less the status quo. Obviously people would argue that the future would be way better than the status quo, it's up to Scotland to 'make it so' if we want. BUT - staying in the union means Tory chaos, disaster and destruction. NHS deid. Post office deid. Railways stay deid. Oil money deid. Life expectancy deid er reduced. If you're bothered about EU membership - maybe deid (I'm not bothered with that one I'm a Euro sceptic). The Tories might even be working up to a new war in the middle east.

 

Finally, didn't anyone notice that the tories gently mentioned this week that there would be an end to 'automatic pay increases' and an introduction of 'peformance related pay'. In some public sector areas, when people get promoted their wages increment for a few years until they reach the threshold for trying for promotion again. This is a sort of fair way of paying people in an environment that doesn't have annual bonus payments or sometimes even overtime payments for working extra hours. The Tories want performance related pay to cut wages for the umpteenth year in a row - there is no actual bonus for good performance. Anyway, the result of this policy? CHAOS in the UK, possible general strikes and riots.

 

We have to get out of this union, and get out quick. The alternative is frightening.

 

would it? snp have never been able too prove that so what makes you different?

[jaggybunnet]

Let's get one thing clear. The worst case scenario with independence is more or less the status quo. Obviously people would argue that the future would be way better than the status quo, it's up to Scotland to 'make it so' if we want. BUT - staying in the union means Tory chaos, disaster and destruction. NHS deid. Post office deid. Railways stay deid. Oil money deid. Life expectancy deid er reduced. If you're bothered about EU membership - maybe deid (I'm not bothered with that one I'm a Euro sceptic). The Tories might even be working up to a new war in the middle east.

 

Finally, didn't anyone notice that the tories gently mentioned this week that there would be an end to 'automatic pay increases' and an introduction of 'peformance related pay'. In some public sector areas, when people get promoted their wages increment for a few years until they reach the threshold for trying for promotion again. This is a sort of fair way of paying people in an environment that doesn't have annual bonus payments or sometimes even overtime payments for working extra hours. The Tories want performance related pay to cut wages for the umpteenth year in a row - there is no actual bonus for good performance. Anyway, the result of this policy? CHAOS in the UK, possible general strikes and riots.

 

We have to get out of this union, and get out quick. The alternative is frightening.

 

they have been died for a while now, not financially viable for years and the NHS needs a major overhaul to even just keep it running and that doesn't mean throwing money at it

 

don't agree with any bonuses to be honest, keeping your job should be the bonus you really want.

 

no the thought of the snp being in power truly scares me, as it should you

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[The Jukebox Rebel]

don't put stuff up that i have ever said please, you just embarrass yourself

Jaggy, come ON. Are you still doing this nit pickety thingy? Let's get on with a positive debate man!

 

In post # 44 in response to my: "How can you justify continuing with a democratic system for Scotland that returns a controlling government which only garnered 16.7 of the relevant vote?"

 

You said (and I quote): "yes because we are part of the UK where snp only get 1.7% of the vote"

 

I think it's quite clear that you see Scotland's position in the UK as regional.

 

 

how do you think things will change if we are controlled (as you put it) by eck/europe (if they let us in), there will be no change and that's why i don't see the need for independence politicians are the same where ever you go and that's just life.

You then follow up your protest that I misquoted you by misquoting me. You're a classic! Where on earth did I say Scotland would be controlled by Europe? I said Scotland would be a respected trading partner within Europe. That's totally different.

 

Brussels does not collect all UK taxation and then decide how much it's going to give back. Westminster does that to Scotland. Brussels doesn't even set the rate of VAT, Westminster does that. Brussels doesn't have the power to insist we keep nuclear warheads on the Clyde. Westminster does that. We wouldn't have had to ask Brussels for permission to regulate our broadcasters, but we had to ask Westminster's permission to set up a Gaelic language TV channel, because Conservative MPs from Surrey need to be consulted before punters in Portree can watch Gaelic soaps. Brussels wouldn't have been able to commit a Scottish defence force to the invasion of Iraq, but Westminster tells us what countries we'll go to war with. Brussels doesn't have the power to tell us how much the state pension for the elderly would be or what administrative hoops disabled people have to go through in order to get benefits, only Westminster does.

 

If the UK decided to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, there would be an outcry if Brussels decided it would determine the timing and question of the vote, yet that's what Westminster wants to do in Scotland. Eurosceptics say within the EU we're dictacted to by an undemocratic superstate. Being dictated to by an undemocratic state is a perfect description of the situation of Scotland under the Union.

 

 

the rest seems to show that you have a chip on your shoulder about people that want to improve there life and finances.

IMHO the best thing we could do is get rid of holyrood and the European parliament could save a fortune

It might surprise you to know that I've been an entrepreneur for all of my days. That doesn't mean I can't have a social conscience too. You don't have to be left or right. You can just be fair.

 

If you want to turn your back on the European market of half a billion people then all I can say to that is - I'm glad you're no the minister for Scottish Exports! Our exports to the EU are up by around 15% to over £11bn in 2012! Only an independent Scotland will ensure that those figures continue to rise and prosper...

[alx]

would it? snp have never been able too prove that so what makes you different?

 

It's sort of SNP policy. They've been getting pelters from the lefties for being too pro-establishment, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy and so on. We can all vote for this stuff after indpendence anyway. As someone said recently (I can't remember who, alas) 'people need to establish the correct order of the horse and cart'.

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggy, come ON. Are you still doing this nit pickety thingy? Let's get on with a positive debate man!

 

In post # 44 in response to my: "How can you justify continuing with a democratic system for Scotland that returns a controlling government which only garnered 16.7 of the relevant vote?"

 

You said (and I quote): "yes because we are part of the UK where snp only get 1.7% of the vote"

 

I think it's quite clear that you see Scotland's position in the UK as regional.

 

only in your head we are a part of the uk if you want to call it regional or even federal then that's up to you.

 

You then follow up your protest that I misquoted you by misquoting me. You're a classic! Where on earth did I say Scotland would be controlled by Europe? I said Scotland would be a respected trading partner within Europe. That's totally different.

 

i was talking about the use of the word controlled

 

jaggybunnet,

 

 

To revert back to our conversation, you came to the only logical conclusion that you possibly can - that you do think it's fair that Scotland's destiny is controlled by a government 500 miles away in London, even if, as they did in 2010, only 16.7% of the turnout voted for them. You say that's quite right since Scotland is merely a region of the UK.

 

 

your quote

 

 

Brussels does not collect all UK taxation and then decide how much it's going to give back. Westminster does that to Scotland. Brussels doesn't even set the rate of VAT, Westminster does that. Brussels doesn't have the power to insist we keep nuclear warheads on the Clyde. Westminster does that. We wouldn't have had to ask Brussels for permission to regulate our broadcasters, but we had to ask Westminster's permission to set up a Gaelic language TV channel, because Conservative MPs from Surrey need to be consulted before punters in Portree can watch Gaelic soaps. Brussels wouldn't have been able to commit a Scottish defence force to the invasion of Iraq, but Westminster tells us what countries we'll go to war with. Brussels doesn't have the power to tell us how much the state pension for the elderly would be or what administrative hoops disabled people have to go through in order to get benefits, only Westminster does.

 

no brussles would control our interest rates which would have a massive impact on how we could plan our taxes

 

If the UK decided to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, there would be an outcry if Brussels decided it would determine the timing and question of the vote, yet that's what Westminster wants to do in Scotland. Eurosceptics say within the EU we're dictacted to by an undemocratic superstate. Being dictated to by an undemocratic state is a perfect description of the situation of Scotland under the Union.

 

again only in your head

 

 

 

It might surprise you to know that I've been an entrepreneur for all of my days. That doesn't mean I can't have a social conscience too. You don't have to be left or right. You can just be fair.

 

If you want to turn your back on the European market of half a billion people then all I can say to that is - I'm glad you're no the minister for Scottish Exports! Our exports to the EU are up by around 15% to over £11bn in 2012! Only an independent Scotland will ensure that those figures continue to rise and prosper...

 

the original reason for the eu was in some case ok with it being a group of countries that worked and traded with one another, that has gone and brussles now controls what happen in these countries. look at Greece for a start. we can still trade and work with them.

 

again you or the snp dont know this , there is no guarantee that Scotland would be accepted (common sense does not come into politics) and this could with all the subsidies that scotland gets for the renewables be disastrous.

[jaggybunnet]

It's sort of SNP policy. They've been getting pelters from the lefties for being too pro-establishment, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy and so on. We can all vote for this stuff after independence anyway. As someone said recently (I can't remember who, alas) 'people need to establish the correct order of the horse and cart'.

 

but that's my worry in this, we go for indepedance and it all goes wrong but that's ok because we (scotland) ****** it up.

 

i want to know whats happing before, not after when its too late

 

i see no point in voting yes if we are not going to be better off and thats not happened yet

[Norgethistle]

Aye, that's because Scotland 'belongs' to the UK, currently. Plus, the current plans are to retain the Queen as head of state, so they would still be swearing allegiance to the same person.

 

 

 

I know it would. That was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned negotiations with the UK government.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but you are speculating a lot there. I am sure a defence force would still atract recruits, as it would at least present a steady career that provides people with transferable skills. All those armies that Norgethistle quoted must be able to atract recruits from somewhere.

 

Sorry, but young men having the opportunity to die pointlessly before they reach their twenties isn't enough to make me vote against independence.

 

Attract????? They are press ganged, its compulsary national service, it has 20,000 including conscipts for the army, with a reserve force of a further 60,000 (Who couldn't keep weans out a close going by the ones I know), they are also active in Afghanistan and North of Norway defending the border with Russia

[Norgethistle]

It's sort of SNP policy. They've been getting pelters from the lefties for being too pro-establishment, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy and so on. We can all vote for this stuff after indpendence anyway. As someone said recently (I can't remember who, alas) 'people need to establish the correct order of the horse and cart'.

 

 

How????? We break free but decide tto keep the Queen, the pound, the British Army, maybe the passport, pile of nonsense.

If we decide to break it should be a clean break after all the YES campaign believes we can cope as an Independant country, so by the term Independant we should not be relying on the UK for anything

[twinny]

they have been died for a while now, not financially viable for years and the NHS needs a major overhaul to even just keep it running and that doesn't mean throwing money at it

 

don't agree with any bonuses to be honest, keeping your job should be the bonus you really want.

 

no the thought of the snp being in power truly scares me, as it should you

 

Unsubstantiated soundbites, exactly what the tories do best.

 

In what way has the NHS been deid for years? Earlier posts explained clearly how well the NHS compares with the rest of the world.

 

Performance related pay is a nightmare. Workers need to know how much they are going to be earning for the foreseeable future, otherwise there is a massive risk in buying a house, car, etc. Performance related pay will reduce confidence and in turn hurt the economy. Having a guaranteed basic salary that is topped up by a bonus (that let's face it, is a negligible bonus for most people) allows people to know what they are going to get a plan accordingly. The bonus is also used as something to keep people happy, as at the end of the day workers constantly working through fear of losing pay will affect workplace happiness and therefore productivity, whereas working towards a possible (performance related) bonus will increase drive and productivity.

[twinny]

How????? We break free but decide tto keep the Queen, the pound, the British Army, maybe the passport, pile of nonsense.

If we decide to break it should be a clean break after all the YES campaign believes we can cope as an Independant country, so by the term Independant we should not be relying on the UK for anything

 

Why would we need to decide all these now. With regards to the army, it's hardly the deal-breaker for me or most people. Passports, there can easily be a phased transition.

 

Anyway, I don't get what is wrong with keeping the Queen as a figurehead. It doesn't hurt Australia or Canada and although I'm against unelected heads of state I understand the benefits that a monarchy brings.

[Norgethistle]

Why would we need to decide all these now. With regards to the army, it's hardly the deal-breaker for me or most people. Passports, there can easily be a phased transition.

 

Anyway, I don't get what is wrong with keeping the Queen as a figurehead. It doesn't hurt Australia or Canada and although I'm against unelected heads of state I understand the benefits that a monarchy brings.

 

That's like stating I'll divorce the wife, but till I come up with a way of standing on my own two feet, she can still cook my dinner, and do my laundry, but I won't help with any of the bills or the decorating etc of the house.

 

Australia and Canada were never part of the united kingdom but are part of the commonwealth, we werent talking about having a figurehead but keeping the monarchy, completely different

[twinny]

That's like stating I'll divorce the wife, but till I come up with a way of standing on my own two feet, she can still cook my dinner, and do my laundry, but I won't help with any of the bills or the decorating etc of the house.

 

Australia and Canada were never part of the united kingdom but are part of the commonwealth, we werent talking about having a figurehead but keeping the monarchy, completely different

 

That's a terrible analogy. Any country that becomes independent can't make all these changes overnight. It would be daft to make 5 million people (or at least those of the 5 million that have passports) all apply for passports on the day the country achieves independence. British passport would still be valid for 5 years or until they expire and renewals would go to a new Scottish passport office. This is not an additional expense as has been made out, as taxes already go towards the infrastructure behind UK passport offices.

 

I really can't see the problem with keeping the British monarchy in an independent Scotland. I can see how it is a little incongruous but it isn't as ridiculous as some make out. Monarchy helps advertise a country as well as bring in tourism, and we can hardly just appoint a random guy as King, although we could always appoint Franz, Duke of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart throne.

[Norgethistle]

That's a terrible analogy. Any country that becomes independent can't make all these changes overnight. It would be daft to make 5 million people (or at least those of the 5 million that have passports) all apply for passports on the day the country achieves independence. British passport would still be valid for 5 years or until they expire and renewals would go to a new Scottish passport office. This is not an additional expense as has been made out, as taxes already go towards the infrastructure behind UK passport offices.

 

I really can't see the problem with keeping the British monarchy in an independent Scotland. I can see how it is a little incongruous but it isn't as ridiculous as some make out. Monarchy helps advertise a country as well as bring in tourism, and we can hardly just appoint a random guy as King, although we could always appoint Franz, Duke of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart throne.

 

The problem is not that it will be phased out the problem is we are talking about deciding all these things AFTER an independence vote goes through.

 

Thats like JFK stating "We choose to go to the moon, but we'll work out how to land and get back if we get there"

[jaggybunnet]

Unsubstantiated soundbites, exactly what the tories do best.

 

In what way has the NHS been deid for years? Earlier posts explained clearly how well the NHS compares with the rest of the world.

 

should have worded it better, sorry , i meant the post office and railways as a nationalised companies are died the nhs IS dying, it is too expensive and sorry but do you believe the data that comes out ref the nhs?? is that like the info coming from the watch dogs that was all about how it looked rather than how it is

 

Performance related pay is a nightmare. Workers need to know how much they are going to be earning for the foreseeable future, otherwise there is a massive risk in buying a house, car, etc. Performance related pay will reduce confidence and in turn hurt the economy. Having a guaranteed basic salary that is topped up by a bonus (that let's face it, is a negligible bonus for most people) allows people to know what they are going to get a plan accordingly. The bonus is also used as something to keep people happy, as at the end of the day workers constantly working through fear of losing pay will affect workplace happiness and therefore productivity, whereas working towards a possible (performance related) bonus will increase drive and productivity.

 

i dont get any bonuses so should i just sack it and not bother, you have a job you do your best you get a salary, you don't bother and don't work you get sacked, its not hard

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[jaggybunnet]

Why would we need to decide all these now. With regards to the army, it's hardly the deal-breaker for me or most people. Passports, there can easily be a phased transition.

 

thats like buying a house after only seeing a picture of the front door, only to find that is all there was. of course you need to know what's going to happen ref these and many other points

 

Anyway, I don't get what is wrong with keeping the Queen as a figurehead. It doesn't hurt Australia or Canada and although I'm against unelected heads of state I understand the benefits that a monarchy brings.

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[GrantB]

Stop being such a scaredy cat.

 

Independence will give Scotland the chance to stand and fall on her own decisions and own decisions alone. None of this 'blame the English' culture anymore which will allow us to have a more mature and grown up relationship with our friends and neighbours.

 

I don't need to see a spreadsheet for every outcome. I have enough faith in the people of this proud and ancient nation to have enough faith in our ability to cope.

[jaggybunnet]

Stop being such a scaredy cat.

 

Independence will give Scotland the chance to stand and fall on her own decisions and own decisions alone. None of this 'blame the English' culture anymore which will allow us to have a more mature and grown up relationship with our friends and neighbours.

 

I don't need to see a spreadsheet for every outcome. I have enough faith in the people of this proud and ancient nation to have enough faith in our ability to cope.

 

have you never heard of politicians before?

[GrantB]

have you never heard of politicians before?

 

Most are best avoided. I think we can both agree on that one

[twinny]

Jaggy, it's nothing like that house analogy. I think it's a given that there will be Scottish passports after a transition phase. What does it matter if it's one year or ten years?

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggy, it's nothing like that house analogy. I think it's a given that there will be Scottish passports after a transition phase. What does it matter if it's one year or ten years?

 

yes it is and i am not talking about passports, things like the armed forces, europe, the pound, they are important

[GrantB]

yes it is and i am not talking about passports, things like the armed forces, europe, the pound, they are important

 

Do you seriously think the EU are going to be difficult and stop the largest oil producing country from joining? Didn't see it putting up much of a fight when the likes of Slovakia joined.

 

Don't forget Scotland holds a lot of ace cards when it comes to negotiations.

[yoda-jag]

jb = perfect example of the no camp, complete negativity and unwillingness to acknowledge everything would go through a transition phase of differing periods (some short, some over a period of years); completely negative towards the depths of skills and talent in the country; dismissive of the raft of industries already establshed and what could be attracted to the country; ridiculing the income of utilising and maximising the wide range of resources (natural and manmade) the country possesses; blind to the extensive income and range and areas we already export to and emerging and existing markets we could increase ouir exports to; happy to ignore Scotland would be better off per head if freed from the union; and complete lack of belief in the people of Scotland being able to better themselves when their own destiny is in their own hands under independence.

 

If we could replicate him a few hundred times across all types of internet and media forums, it would guarantee a victory for the yes campaign, and independence for Scotland.