Yes?..er..maybe not..

[Pentlandpirate]

I also meant to comment on something Longshanks touched on. With Alex Salmond having got greedy and bitten off more than he could chew by pushing for 'full' independence, when he should perhaps have gone for Devo Max, and now that the prospect of 'full' independence is beginning to fade, as Longshanks suggests, increasingly it looks like their vision of an 'independent' Scotland is evolving into "Indie Lite" where so many of the fundamental powers originally required for an independent Scotland are watered down to a point where "Indie Lite" in some respects may be a more muddled solution for Scotland than Devo Max.The whole thing is degenerating into a ridiculous, wasteful and devisive shambles.

[NickB]

The whole thing is degenerating into a ridiculous, wasteful and devisive shambles.

Oh no it isn't!

[longshanks]

Independence: Scots voting for Scottish representatives which deal with Scots issues, in Scotland, i.e. having a say in our own affairs is all the ‘Independence’ that we need.

Agreed.

But is that being offered by the Yes campaign ?

Head of State ? - no, we get no say and no vote.
Agriculture, fisheries etc etc etc ? - That'll be Brussels deciding.
Defence ? - That'll be NATO deciding.
Interest rates, money supply etc? - That'll be London deciding.

My fear is that the Yes campaign is going to totally fall apart for three reasons.

The core membership of longstanding SNPers are rebelling because the age old principles of our independence dream are being dumped. Two SNP MSPs have alreadt resigned over NATO, more are threatening over currency.

The public are getting wise to the tactic of shouting that any possible pitfalls of independence are "just unionist scare stories". Scots are discerning. We would respect more an approach of honesty eg "okay, that may be a problem but here's how we plan to solve/mitigate it".

Status quo apathy. Every referendum since 1945 in the West has seen a 10/15% swing to the status quo in the last month before polling.

Shankers

[MonaLott]

You two (Ls & PP) are enough to get us all voting Yes. Like Cameron & cronies, you should consider the consequences of sneering negatively down your noses and of demanding certainty in a world where there is none on a topic to which heart and head must both contribute. The major Yes documents have not been published yet you complain about lack of info in a small advance leaflet. Meanwhile the good ship UK under Cameron & Osborne sadly flounders visibly by the day. The Yes campaign for Scotland is a positive one, while the No campaign is endlessly negative. It can even turn plusses like Scotland's natural resources into minuses. There's a long long way to go until voting day &, as in a good athletics event, the Yes campaign is holding fire and timing its finish. Just wait and see.

[NickB]

Head of State ? - no, we get no say and no vote.
Agriculture, fisheries etc etc etc ? - That'll be Brussels deciding.
Defence ? - That'll be NATO deciding.
Interest rates, money supply etc? - That'll be London deciding.

The core membership of longstanding SNPers are rebelling because the age old principles of our independence dream are being dumped. Two SNP MSPs have alreadt resigned over NATO, more are threatening over currency.

Superficially this is a fair comment and of course it is conceivable that the YES campaign could flounder because it is being too cautious in its attempt to not scare the horses.

However, 'even' independence-lite (if you want to call it that - not my phrase) provides a solid future platform for leaving NATO, becoming a republic and launching the groat if these policies do indeed turn out to be the will of the Scottish people. Staying in the UK on the other hand ensures that any chance of doing any of these has gone for good.

I believe that most people are sensible enough to realise this.

[Pentlandpirate]

I don't feel I was sneering in any sort of way, and I suspect LS will say exactly the same thing in his own special way. If one campaign is called the "Yes campaign" it is impossible for those of the 'No' campaign to sound anything other than negative if you are of the opposite persuasion. And it is wrong that anyone who questions something is considered 'negative'. Debate between both sides is positive, and 'for' and 'against' arguments will come from both sides. The Yes Campaign doesn't want nuclear weapons, doesn't want to be part of the UK, doesn't want to be ruled by Westminster. That doesn't make them negative, in the same way that the 'No' campaigners who believe in the benefits of the Union, believe in frontline membership of NATO, believe in the benefits of keeping Britain PLC could quite rightly be considered as the 'Yes' campaigners. The SNP might be seen as splitters, traitors to the nation (that is the UK), selfish and parochial. The whole process is divisive, and never should have been started setting neighbour against neighbour.

Looking around the world there are many young small nations by geographical size or population. The majority of these are breakaway states from within the old Soviet Union. Is the world really so stable that you would bet on them still having their independence in, say, 20 years?

[NickB]

Is the world really so stable that you would bet on them still having their independence in, say, 20 years?

Yes.

[longshanks]

You two (Ls & PP) are enough to get us all voting Yes. )

If you genuinely believed that, Mona, you would be encouraging our posts.

you should consider the consequences of sneering negatively down your noses

Now you are well out of order making a false accusation like that. You show us an example of where I have sneered negatively down my nose. When you fail to do so a simple apolgy will suffice.

Its a shame you decided to interject in the thread in the aggressive way you did. What is needed is a mature and open discussion and we were heading that way. Your kneejerk insulting reaction says a whole lot about you and nothing about those you seek to insult.

It clearly illustrates a point I was making which is the Yes side will start to gain the "don't knows" (who are the key to the outcome) only if we react maturely and positively to the otherside's point of view. With reports of death threats being made to the Calman girl for her joking routine about independence one begins to despair what the undecided are beginning to think of the Yes campaigners.

[NickB]

Said reports of death threats towards Ms. Calman appear to be greatly exaggerated . . . Not one has actually been seen.

It was yourself Longshanks who earlier said you preferred to get your information from the mainstream media did you not, yet here you are apparently reporting unsubstantiated Twitter tittle-tattle. Perhaps we should stick to facts.

[longshanks]

It was yourself Longshanks who earlier said you preferred to get your information from the mainstream media did you not, yet here you are apparently reporting unsubstantiated Twitter tittle-tattle. Perhaps we should stick to facts.

I can proudly say that I have never used Twitter.

I read about the threats made against the comedienne in The Guardian. Pretty mainstream no ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/ma ... dependence

[NickB]

It was yourself Longshanks who earlier said you preferred to get your information from the mainstream media did you not, yet here you are apparently reporting unsubstantiated Twitter tittle-tattle. Perhaps we should stick to facts.

I can proudly say that I have never used Twitter.

I read about the threats made against the comedienne in The Guardian. Pretty mainstream no ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/ma ... dependence

Calman herself doesn't mention death threats anywhere, either in the article or in her own linked blog entry. You seem to have been misled by the headline - or to have not read the 'article' under it very carefully.

Sadly this has not prevented both the Guardian and the Scotsman gleefully publishing headlines featuring these 'death threats' that Calman herself did not mention and that no-one has apparently seen. The 'mainstream media' have done themselves no justice with this one . . . it is a classic smear against the dreaded 'cybernats' and by implication the YES campaign.

This is not the first time recently that the Scotsman in particular has published misleading headlines that bear no relation to the content of the referendum-related article they appear over. Now it seems the Guardian has joined in the game as well.

[Tony the Toad]

This’ll be the daughter of Sir Kenneth Charles Calman, convenor of the Calman Commission on devolution.

[longshanks]

This’ll be the daughter of Sir Kenneth Charles Calman, convenor of the Calman Commission on devolution.

Yes.

[longshanks]

Calman herself doesn't mention death threats anywhere, either in the article or in her own linked blog entry. You seem to have been misled by the headline - or to have not read the 'article' under it very carefully.

Oh well:

Some of the less offensive comments directed at Ms Calman drew attention to the fact that she is the daughter of Sir Kenneth Calman, the medical professor commissioned by the pro-
union parties to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Other web users accused Ms Calman of “lying” over the currency issue, “talking down” Scotland, making “insulting” comments, “hating her country” and “self-loathing”.

Ms Calman’s blog observed that she had been accused of “betraying my country, of being racist towards my own people”.

She went on to argue that all politicians in Scotland should be fair game for satirists. “Comedy plays a vital role in informing and lightening the mood somewhat,” she said.

“We are over a year away from the vote. If we don’t start laughing soon it’s going to go horribly wrong. The idea that because I’m Scottish I should, in some way, protect my nation by not criticising it is appalling.”

She added: “If we could stop the random name-calling, the swearing, the death threats (real or otherwise) then perhaps we could get somewhere. Bullying is not a way to stop people speaking out. Bullying is the last resort of those who don’t want to enter into a reasoned argument

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2914670

[Tony the Toad]

Here's a link to the actual Calman blog. She makes some good points:

http://www.susancalman.com/blog/politic ... that-funny

[NickB]

She added: “If we could stop the random name-calling, the swearing, the death threats (real or otherwise) then perhaps we could get somewhere. Bullying is not a way to stop people speaking out. Bullying is the last resort of those who don’t want to enter into a reasoned argument

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2914670

Yes Longshanks, I am fully familiar with the content of the article in the Scotsman. I was slightly misleading when I said Ms Calman does not mention death threats. What I meant was, nowhere does she say she has received any herself. She makes a throwaway comment on the subject, but of her owon teratment by social media nutters aftyer her performance the article specifically says:

Some of the less offensive comments directed at Ms Calman drew attention to the fact that she is the daughter of Sir Kenneth Calman, the medical professor commissioned by the pro-
union parties to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Other web users accused Ms Calman of “lying” over the currency issue, “talking down” Scotland, making “insulting” comments, “hating her country” and “self-loathing”.

Ms Calman’s blog observed that she had been accused of “betraying my country, of being racist towards my own people”.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2914670

I suggest you also read Ms Calman's own blog entry on the subject.

I am sorry, but if you believe that Susan Calman recieved death threats after performing a sketch featuring some mickey-taking of figures in the independence debate you are wrong.

I feel the need to make things slightly clearer:

NOWHERE HAS SUSAN CALMAN CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED DEATH THREATS HERSELF AS A RESULT OF HER PERFORMANCE.

THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WAS THE CASE HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE USE OF DELIBERATELY MISLEADING HEADLINES IN BOTH THE GUARDIAN AND THE SCOTSMAN.

This is disgraceful behaviour by our so-called 'mainstream media'. The Scotsman in particular has become a joke in its reporting of the independence debate.

[NickB]

Here's a link to the actual Calman blog. She makes some good points:

http://www.susancalman.com/blog/politic ... that-funny

Sorry Tony, our posts crossed. Yes, her blog entry is worth reading.

As I said, she does not claim in it that she has received death threats.

[NickB]

.
Talking of hatemail from the twittersphere, what do you make of this:



This is Glasgow solicitor and Labour party activist Ian Smart commenting on the likely actions of his fellow Scots following independence.

Smart was invited onto STV's Scotland Tonight last night to discuss his allegedly racist comments last night and was, I am afraid, utterly unrepentant.

This isn't a tweet from some dyed in the wool nobody nutter - this is from a former President of the Law Society of Scotland.

[Pentlandpirate]

Talking of hatemail from the twittersphere, what do you make of this

I'm not sure what I make of it. It doesn't seem to make much sense. As for 'racist' one of the 'P' words shouldn't have been used, but who is denying they know what it means?

With most matters we get to vote on we get a chance to change our minds when the next election comes along if things don't work out the way we hope (How I rue the day I voted for Tony Blair). But with the vote on independence it is something you need to know you are getting right as there is no likelihood of getting a vote again to put things back the way they were. There is a danger of a backlash if things don't go well for an independent Scotland and people wish they had stuck with the union. There is a further risk that if the result of the vote is 'No' that Scotland is hung out to dry in the knowledge that their leadership did not represent the views of the people and can be ignored, and they are impotent in the near future to do anything about it. Alex Salmond has set Scotland on a risky path without thinking out the pitfalls.

[NickB]

With most matters we get to vote on we get a chance to change our minds when the next election comes along if things don't work out the way we hope . . . But with the vote on independence it is something you need to know you are getting right as there is no likelihood of getting a vote again to put things back the way they were

Rather similar to the increasingly likely IN/OUT referendum on the UK's EU membership, you mean?

Alex Salmond has set Scotland on a risky path without thinking out the pitfalls.

Seems to me that David Cameron has set the UK on a risky path without thinking out the pitfalls.