JImcee's off-topic independAnce thread moved from the main forum

[jimcee]

Well if they keep clear of all the IndependEnce mudslinging, it might be a pleasant experience for them

[NickB]

Well if they keep clear of all the IndependEnce mudslinging, it might be a pleasant experience for them

One or two of us are providing real facts and real information.

Others are slinging mud.

You need to be able to tell the difference before September if you are going to cast your vote in an informed way.

(Assuming Elaine doesn't succeed in having the 'over 80s' rule brought in in a Private Members Bill)

[jimcee]

There are some really daft notions being bandied about on the subject of independence and Elaine Rodger's one about excluding the over 80's (endorsed as a possibility by N. Bowles) takes the biscuit.
However, in the general spirit of adding to the fantasy here is another suggestion to add to the pile -
The SNP mantra is that decision on the future of Scotland should be up to SCOTS. There fore should it not be a requisite for a vote, that only those with a birth certificate with an address north of Gretna, should be allowed to vote, regardless of their present domicile.

[NickB]

. . . should it not be a requisite for a vote, that only those with a birth certificate with an address north of Gretna, should be allowed to vote, regardless of their present domicile.

It is a decision for the people who live here. Where you were born is irrelevant.

What you appear to be advocating is ethnic nationalism of the worst sort.

The independence movement in Scotland is all about civic nationalism, which is a different beast altogether.

[Innes Newton]

Having said that, there are a huge number of Scots who would say that if you weren't born in Scotland, you cannot be Scottish.

[NickB]

Having said that, there are a huge number of Scots who would say that if you weren't born in Scotland, you cannot be Scottish.

That has certainly not been my experience in the 46 years I have lived here.

The attitude you describe is usually held by expats too busy pocketing Southern money to know what is really happening in 'their' country. Real Scots will accept anyone who wants to live here and contribute to the country's future.

This is a subject for the Independence forum, not the main forum. Off-topic posts will be moved.

[jimcee]

Really!!!
I was just putting forward another daft notion to counteract that of Ms Rodger.
But our Administrator has to take it seriously and refute it.
This whole debate is bogged down with gravitas and lacks any levity to give it a touch of humour.

[NickB]

Really!!!
I was just putting forward another daft notion to counteract that of Ms Rodger.
But our Administrator has to take it seriously and refute it.
This whole debate is bogged down with gravitas and lacks any levity to give it a touch of humour.

You were not the first to put it forward by a long shot.

It has been put forward as a serious proposition by a whole variety of of expats who can't be bothered living here but who would hate to see the country change.

A loty of expats seem to want to remember some sort of Brigadoon version of 'Bonnie Scatland' as some kind of theme park rather than a real country full of real people making real decisions about their own future.

(For the worst example see this hideous video from John 'Torchwood' Barrowman - truly cringeworthy . . . have a bucket handy )

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0[/youtube]

I am however delighted to hear that you, Jimcee, were not serious when you made the suggestion.

[jimcee]

A message to our Administrator -
Firstly - this is getting a bit off topic and should probably be consigned to the propoganda department of the "unashamedely" Independence debate.
Secondly, to quote our administrator - " One or two of us are providing real facts and real information - Others are mudslinging"
Surely he must be among the latter category with remarks pertaining to his last video clip like "hideous", "cringeworthy" "have a bucket handy", abetted by his sidekick Ms Rodger with "boak".
If this is the way that this campaign is going to be conducted on this website, it will probably pander to the voyeurs seeking sensational titillation, but do little to win others to the cause which they espouse.

[NickB]

.
There Jim,

I've moved the offending posts.

Though I feel it is a bit rich you complaining when it was you who first went off-topic.

I don't really understand why you object to me giving my opinion of the Barrowman video. It was posted for people to watch it and form their own opinions. I have as much right to mine as you do to yours, surely. I found the video hideous, patronising and cringeworthy, not to mention insulting.

So come on then, what did you think of it ? Have you actually watched it ? Would you say that 'patronising ' and 'insulting' were reasonable adjectives to use?

[jimcee]

Your bias to thinking that anything which is issued by the Yes campaign is Gospel and cannot possibly be questioned, and anything produced by the opposition is absolutely rubbish, should be denigrated and consigned to the sick bucket, suggests that your mind is closed on this subject, and everything is either black or white.
While this may be a comforting view of the whole subject to have, it is unfortunately not how the cookie crumbles - for a subject of this nature there are pluses and minuses (you may refuse to accept that proposition) and that is how it is for a large swathe of the population.
It is an unfortunate fact that this subject has been a rich source of milking by the media for so long that positions have become entrenched, and neither side will concede an inch on the party line. When did you ever hear a politician or a spokesperson say of an opposition statement "Well, that's a good point -perhaps that needs investigation"?

Going back to the accusation that I went off topic on this thread, I only threw in the subject of Independence in a one liner to suggest that it might not be a good subject to promote the ongoing health of this Forum, but it only has the word Independence to be mentioned in any context, to get the whole thing hi-jacked by those with an axe to grind.

[NickB]

Your bias to thinking that anything which is issued by the Yes campaign is Gospel and cannot possibly be questioned, and anything produced by the opposition is absolutely rubbish, should be denigrated and consigned to the sick bucket, suggests that your mind is closed on this subject.

I find Barrowman's performance hypocritical and insulting to Scots to the point of nausea.

Even the fact that he adopts a Scots accent for the purpose when otherwise he generally chooses to use his American accent is dubious, while his ludicrous jacket (in the Anderson tartan as well) just adds to the boak index.

And the less said about his attempt to hijack Burns as a supporter of the NO campaign - a patently ridiculous notion - the better.

Have you watched it yourself?

Because unless you have you are not in a position to argue with me.

[Innes Newton]

and insulting to Scots to the point of nausea

Well, I have watched the video from beginning to end and managed to avoid being sick but only because I have a strong stomach. I don't like anyone to do too much of the pally, pally stuff. And personally, whilst I agreed with the message, I was less comfortable with the presentation, including the tartan jacket. But then again I find the sight of Alex Salmond doing his, "It will be alright on the night" impression complete with tartan trews is just as ridiculous too. I'm not sure either is insulting to Scots. You'll have to ask a Scot, and Nick is not a Scot.

I want to go back in time to something said in another thread, about how the Scots are generally greeted around the world with a smile, whereas the English are tarnished as war mongerers. Can I just say that, if a Scot meets a foreigner and announces they are Scottish, rather than English or British, that a smile emerges on the foreigners face not because they see them as friendly, but for another reason. What is Scotland famous for? Scots are famous in the eyes of the world because their men wear skirts, play strange looking instruments that make an awful noise, drink lots of whisky and worship a monster that no one is certain exists...except the Scots! Mention you are Scots, and all these things go through the foreigner's mind. That's why they start grinning at the ridiculous thoughts in their head. It's not the same thing as friendship!

Anyhow, what I really wanted to say was, don't alienate the "ex-pats", as they are branded on this site. How many people are there around the world outside Scotland who have Scottish blood in their veins? 15 million, 20 million? That's against approximately 4 million people with Scots blood in them who live in Scotland. It is insulting to people with Scots blood in their veins outside Scotland to suggest they have no interest in what happens Scotland. They cannot be ignored although they have no vote. So many of them have strong connections with extended family and relatives back home and they will have their say and try to exert their influence on the subject of the referendum.

Scots have historically gone out into the world (Even the Romans could not hold them back with the Antonine and Hadrians walls thousands of years ago, and an independent Scotland's border with England will not hold them back now). Those that went out into the New World then were adventurers, just as much as today's youth who leave to seek work and opportunities around the globe now. The Scots expansion across the Earth is acknowledgement of their success outside Scotland, where the stay at home Scots moan about lack of opportunity and inequality. If you want something in life you got to go and get it, not sit and wait and hope it come to you. The Scots that leave Scotland show spirit and drive to succeed. Those "ex-Pats" should be something that Scotland is proud of. John Barrowman may be just one of those successful Scots, but he has an opinion he is entitled to, and he will use it to protect the future of the land of his birth in whichever way he can.

[Tim Bowles]

Remarkable post, Innes. While telling us how successful emigre Scots are, practically in the same breath you tell us that in reality the outside world sees us merely as ridiculous. Can't help feeling some might find that insulting. Much more insulting than those ridiculous emigres not having a say in the political future of their ridiculous drink-sodden bagpipe-playing monster-worshiping (worshiping? really? People actually think we worship Nessie?) former compatriots in their ridiculous former homeland. If you are that ashamed of your ancestry I am surprised you make such a deal about it.

[jimcee]

An attempt to get some answers, and get this continuing debate back to the top of the leader board.
Yesterday I sent a request to our administrator to ask for an interpretation of the meaning of "PM sent"?
For some peculiar reason he ignored this request, and then removed my message from the forum page.
Surely it is only common decency to answer a legitimate question, regardless of how unwelcome the answer might be?

[Peter Connelly]

An attempt to get some answers, and get this continuing debate back to the top of the leader board.
Yesterday I sent a request to our administrator to ask for an interpretation of the meaning of "PM sent"?
For some peculiar reason he ignored this request, and then removed my message from the forum page.
Surely it is only common decency to answer a legitimate question, regardless of how unwelcome the answer might be?

Your are on the wrong thread, Jim. You asked admin the question on the Referenda on the Islands thread, which is where your question remains, and where admin has answered your question.

[jimcee]

Thanks Peter.
Unfortunately I was unaware that the topic had moved on to page 2 and it appeared that my posting had been deleted.
And you will see that our moderator has decided to add his piece on the subject.
Although I rather take exception to the view that because "It is only Politics", that the standards of decency can be ignored - also that "we are all adults here" -surely the readership is open to anyone with access to a computer, regardless of age.

[Herby Dice]

Jim,
My reference was to the people getting most excited in the thread in question - they are all, or purport to be, adults and capable of withstanding such slings and arrows without serious injury, I wold hope. Nothing on the thread was unsuitable for viewing by any passing children, and it will remain that way.
Be aware that you are sailing very close to the edges of the rule regarding discussion of moderation decisions, which are of course not tolerated. Sail no closer. The discussions on the matter if independence will sometimes get heated, it has become an emotive issue. I would rather it didn't get so heated, that people were able to maintain some kind of decorum, but all I can do is try to ensure minimum standards of decency. Beyond that you are on your own and anyone who cannot take the heat of debate should really try another topic or another forum. Sorry but that is simply how it is. My decisions are not, however, open to discussion and that is all there is to it.

[Innes Newton]

I must admit I have struggled to follow this thread with it being moved around and chopped, and I'm not 83. Threads do naturally digress and we are all guilty of going off-topic at times so lets show a little respect to our elders and betters. Now, what was the question again?

[jimcee]

Well - where are we now?
I am sailing very close to the wind, and it may be that this attempt will put me beyond the pale, and I will be excommunicated and henceforth have no further allowance to contribute to these pages.
However, in the interests of fair play and to reverse a downward trend of the mudslinging language that has crept into recent postings, I feel that the following points should be aired.
1) The administrator has more or less said that his word is law and that the forum is in no way democratic. Fair enough, he has set it up and to a certain extent, he can set the rules, and his decisions are irrevocable.
So he appoints a moderator who coincidentally avoids the need to declare his identity, and who is supposed to provide a buffer between his autocratic rule and the hoi polloi who deign to follow his rules (or not as the case may be). To my knowledge the moderator has once come in on my behalf against the administrator (thank you), and has now suggested that I am very close to overstepping the mark, if I proceed with any further criticism of either of the heirarchy. This raises the interesting point - in every walk of life in a democratic country there is always a loophole where one can legitimately complain about a percieved injustice , yet in this case it would appear that I have to shut up, or be excommunicated.
I had, what I thought , was a legitimate complaint about intemperate language being used on the forum, but it would appear that because this appears to be tolerated by the heirarchy there is no chance of this being addressed.
So, there we have it - for everyone who bothers to read these words, that is the situation as I see it, and if there are no further outporings from this source, you can assume that my option to contribute has been terminated.