Scottish Independence and the UK State

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:30 am

Tee-hee!

Model in Better Together leaflet: 'I'm voting Yes'

Tom Gordon
Scottish Political Editor
Herald, Sunday 31 August 2014

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... s.25192401

THE face of 2.5 million pro-Union leaflets produced by the UK Government has said she supports independence, the Sunday Herald can reveal.

Actress Tracey Jenkins, from Glasgow, said she now felt "slightly embarrassed" at having posed as the mum in a family picture which appears in the 16-page leaflet What Staying In The United Kingdom Means For Scotland.

Hers is the first face voters see when they open the booklet. Her picture appears opposite the slogan "A United Kingdom. A united future." The UK Government has spent £720,000 on sending a copy to every household in Scotland.

But Jenkins said: "I believe we have a unique opportunity to create a better society for all the people of Scotland. This is why, without a doubt, I have decided to vote Yes."

She said the photoshoot was arranged by her agent a few months ago, and although she knew it was for the No campaign, she had no idea where or even if the pictures would be used.

"When I realised it was in a widespread UK Government booklet across Scotland I was slightly embarrassed," she said.

"It was just a job, ..."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... s.25192401
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:40 am

Well said, Billy Bragg. The galvanising effect on the English people and the English regions - this is a point that is too seldom made. (The whole article's well worth reading.):

Billy Bragg: how iScotland would help England rediscover its radical heart

By Billy Bragg
Herald, Sunday 31 August 2014


[...]

The ballot paper asks a simple question of the people of Scotland: should it be an independent country? But for those of us watching from the rest of the UK, the Scots will be addressing a question that has implications for us all: is it possible to do things differently, to re-organise how we run our society in order to create a better outcome for everyone, not just those at the top?

If the people of Scotland are willing to explore that possibility, if the answer to the question is Yes, then the tens of millions of people in England, for whom devolution has been nothing more than a spectator sport, will be suddenly galvanised.

Just as the referendum sparked debates about the Scottish identity, so independence will force the English to wake up and take a good look at themselves. A new constitutional settlement would be on the table, allowing activists to make the case for devolution under a system that makes everyone's vote count.

A debate about Trident would ensue, questioning not just the cost of retaining nuclear weapons, but also England's place in the post-Cold War world. Of course there would be tensions - like every nation, England has its share of xenophobes and misanthropes - but we've seen them off in the past and will do so again.

Scottish independence offers the English the opportunity to cast off their imperial pretensions and rediscover their Roundhead tradition - that dogged determination to hold absolute power to account that has surfaced in the crucial moments of our history. In the past it was King Charles that we rallied against. Today that absolute power rests with the corporations and financial markets that exploit our citizens without making any contribution to their welfare.

Westminster takes Scotland for granted, but, south of the Border, it has little respect for those of us who live outside of the marginal seats of Middle England. Our democracy has withered, leaving the majority of us with precious few ways to make a difference.

On September 18, our fate will be in the hands of the people of Scotland. If you vote in favour of meaningful change, you will write a new chapter in our island story.

Furthermore, by embracing independence, you will have given England the chance to be a nation again.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/c ... t.25189347
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby semper occultus » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:57 am

....yeah Ok.....it IS a stirring article...but is Salmond not intending to get into a Dutch auction on Corporation Taxes with the rUK ( genuine question ) and how does that square with this point...?

Today that absolute power rests with the corporations and financial markets that exploit our citizens without making any contribution to their welfare.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby RocketMan » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:28 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-scotland

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.


Go Scottish independence, let justice be done.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby conniption » Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:46 pm

RT

Ireland needed guns, but Scots only need a pen for independence

Bryan MacDonald is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and teacher. He wrote for Irish Independent and Daily Mail. He has also frequently appeared on RTE and Newstalk in Ireland as well as RT.

Published time: September 03, 2014

Image
Pr-independence goodies are distributed by supporters outside the Birnam Highland Games in Perthshire, Scotland, on August 30, 2014. (AFP Photo)

Support for Scottish independence has risen eight percentage points in a month, and momentum is firmly in its favor. Have the Scots now got the desire to become a nation once again?

It whisper'd too, that freedom's ark
And service high and holy,
Would be profaned by feelings dark
And passions vain or lowly;
For, Freedom comes from God's right hand,
And needs a Godly train;
And righteous men must make our land
A Nation once again!

- Thomas Davis, A Nation Once Again.


“A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh? Alba, táim in nGrá leát.” Only about 90,000 people will understand that question, or about two percent of the Scottish population, but the considerably larger (close to 2 million) number of Irish speakers will get the gist. It means, in English: “Can you speak Scottish? Scotland, I love you.”

I freely admit to a weakness for Scotland and while I can’t speak Scottish I think that I do understand most of the language. The problem has always been trying to find Scots who are sufficiently proficient to test that theory. Centuries of London rule have banished the tongue to the extreme margins and speakers are very hard to find.

The Scotland I adore is the land where Robert Burns wanted to love his “bonnie lass… till all the seas gang dry.” A place of pipe bands, tartan, highland dancing and shinty – from where my forefathers departed for Ireland for reasons I do not know.

Amid all the adulation of its culture and its unique people, the obstacle to true, unconditional love has always been its curious willingness to remain inside the United Kingdom, ruled from London and unable to make its own choices. For an Irishman, raised on tales of valor and devotion to freedom, this is almost impossible to fathom. Is it not better to make your own mistakes and stand by them without having failures imposed by others? Conversely, are glories not sweeter when they are created by thine own hand?

Ireland fought for centuries to remove English rule - in 1798 alone, anywhere up to 50,000 died in a failed rebellion and there were at least a dozen more attempts, all of which ended in disaster. Then, in 1916, an insurrection began, to be followed by a - democratically legitimate - brutal guerrilla war which led to formal independence for most of the island in 1922. The Ulster conflict - which wasn't approved through the ballot box - only officially concluded in 1998 and still simmers, with sporadic violent events a sad fact of life. The political status of what is known as Northern Ireland remains unresolved with Nationalist factions working towards reunification with the Irish Republic and Unionists clinging onto the province’s status within the UK.

The Nobel laureate W.B. Yeats called these struggles the ‘delirium of the brave’ and Scotland also had centuries of hostilities, but the last major uprising was defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1745 – and that was more about restoring a Catholic Monarchy in Britain than Scottish independence. Following that setback, while Ireland plunged into almost a century and a half of more-or-less continuous war, Scotland focused on harnessing the fruits of empire and economic progress.

As the 19th century passed, Scotland became closer to England and the UK became established as the world’s foremost power. By 1900, the British Empire stretched over two-thirds of the globe and, as most of Ireland departed the union, the remainder was solidified by the shared struggle of the Great War and, even more-so, during the Second World War. That conflict was arguably the high-water mark of British togetherness as the island rallied around Winston Churchill’s fiery leadership and the joint cause of repelling Nazi Germany. In the post-war years, the empire dissolved, rule Britannia rang hollow and it has been largely downhill since.

Scottish nationalist movements were active during the war years, yet deeply unpopular due to a perception that they were sabotaging the patriotic struggle against Hitler. However, once the fog of war lifted, their first political breakthrough came in 1945 when Robert McIntyre won a Westminster seat in a Motherwell bye-election. The strength of the SNP movement continued to grow and by 1974 they achieved almost a third of the vote. That success proved a false dawn as support slipped five years later.

Then, Scotland’s nationalists received their biggest ever boost – Margaret Thatcher. To say Thatcher was disliked in most of Scotland is like suggesting cats aren't fond of being splashed with water, it’s a serious understatement registering at 11 on a scale of 1-10. In 1979, her Conservative and Unionist party managed 31 percent of the vote north of the River Tweed, but after 11 years of ‘Maggie’ and almost 7 with her successor, John Major, they limped to 17 percent in 1997. The numbers are even lower now.

The Labour Party won that national election and, under Edinburgh-born Tony Blair, they introduced a Scottish parliament, with devolved powers, two years later. Though largely unforeseen at the time, it would lead to a rapid escalation in separatist feeling as Scotland became a bastion of left politics and England drifted further right. While their southern neighbor became more and more enamored with globalization, with London as its engine, Scots became focused on local issues and identity. The sons of Caledonia in the UK government grew ever more distant from their fellow countrymen as they espoused a ‘Britishness’ that was more resonant in England than at home. This reached its apex while ‘son of the Manse’ Gordon Brown was the steward of 10 Downing Street and spent so much time talking about being ‘British’ that he largely alienated his kith and kin.

While Scotland’s big political beasts were strutting around London and the world, Alex Salmond’s SNP were playing a different game, openly talking of independence and calling for a referendum. In 1999, they achieved a mere 28 percent of the Holyrood vote, but by 2007 they were the biggest party and in 2011, they scored 45 percent and took an overall majority in the Edinburgh parliament. Independence was no longer a pipe-dream; it was now a live prospect.

When David Cameron’s UK government agreed to a referendum in March 2013, support for separation languished at 33 percent and talk of a ‘Yes’ vote seemed fanciful. Today it stands at 47 percent, according to YouGov pollsters and, with the momentum firmly behind an aye, it looks increasingly possible that in a few short weeks, Scotland will decide to leave the United Kingdom. With that, a country, which a century ago ruled most of the world, will be no more.

Image
A pedestrian walks past the Yes Scotland campaign office in Maryhill, Glasgow on august 19, 2014 ahead of the upcoming referendum on independence which will be held on September 18, 2014. (AFP Photo)

Predictably, the Western political establishment is dead against it, with leaders from President Obama to inconsequential Eurocrats to Australia’s Tony Abbot interfering. This makes it even more of a good thing, in my view, because if they are opposed to it they probably fear it. It's also deeply ironic that the loudest opposition voices come from former British colonies, akin to enjoying the champagne while suggesting Scotland sticks to grog.

There have been threats to exclude Scotland from the EU, a ridiculous notion when Brussels desperately needs more ‘rich’ members to balance the poor east. Anyway, take it from me, Ireland will make sure you are accepted into the EU – you can bet your bottom dollar, or pound, when the English threat to withdraw it proves hyperbole. There is no way Dublin would countenance their natural Scots allies locked outside.

Just think about what independence would mean? Instead of the Union Jack, the saltire will fly over Scottish institutions worldwide, a Scottish seat would be prepared at the United Nations and passports would bear its name. Edinburgh would become home to the world’s second sovereign Celtic parliament (after Dublin) and Scottish folk could eye other around the world as equals, no longer 'servile' as Irvine Welsh depicted. The trappings of statehood would quickly follow, Edinburgh would become an international capital, with full embassies, not consulates, dotted around it and new national symbols and artistic bodies would flourish – the iconography of independence. At the next Olympic Games, when a Scots athlete takes gold, Flower of Scotland would replace God Save The Queen as they step up to the medals podium. As an Irishman, I wonder how any of my Celtic cousins wouldn’t want that.

For Scots afraid to take the plunge, I have this to propose: Take the short trip to Dublin and ask one random person on the street: “Should Ireland rejoin the UK?” After they had finished laughing at you, they’d probably suggest medical help of some sort. It’s a thought so crazy that, no matter what economic troubles (and we’ve had a few) prevail, it is never so much as suggested in Ireland, and if anyone was brave or stupid enough to advocate it they’d be looked at with both amazement and ridicule.

Our sovereignty makes us what we are. It unites Irish people, even those scattered around the planet, as one, single idea and it defines us. Through the zeniths and nadirs, we all know that we have a home, which we govern ourselves, that we can return to or happily stay in, no matter what. It goes beyond money or other fleeting factors – it’s about identity and a sense of place.

On Thursday September 18, Scotland has a chance to do with the stroke of pens what Ireland had to force through the barrel of a gun: a chance to be a nation once again.

Please, friends, say yes, or aye or gu dearbh or whatever way you wish, just make it affirmative and, I promise, you will never regret it.

“So, as I grew from boy to man,
I bent me to that bidding
My spirit of each selfish plan
And cruel passion ridding;
For, thus I hoped some day to aid,
Oh, can such hope be vain?
When my dear country shall be made
A Nation once again!”


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby Byrne » Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:05 pm

This looks like a scare tactic by Goldman Sachs to frighten folks from voting Yes. After all, Salmond (& Darling) has stated that the pound could still be used after a Yes vote?

Scottish 'Yes' vote could cause eurozone-style currency crisis, Goldman Sachs warns
Economist at bank warns of 'severe consequences' of vote in favour of independence
By James Titcomb
12:31PM BST 03 Sep 2014

Goldman Sachs has warned that the UK could fall into a eurozone-style crisis if Scotland votes for independence later this month.

In some of the most bleak predictions economists have made about independence, the Wall Street bank said a "Yes" vote on September 18, while looking unlikely, "could have severe consequences" for both the Scottish economy and the UK overall.

Goldman warned that public services would have to be cut if Scotland goes it alone, and that the country would face much higher borrowing costs.

But the most worrying consequence, the bank predicted, would be that uncertainty over a currency union would cause a run on sterling and a capital flight with echoes of the eurozone crisis.

More ...
Code: Select all
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/11072312/Scottish-Yes-vote-could-cause-eurozone-style-currency-crisis-Goldman-Sachs-warns.html


On the Yes campaign side, the Wee Blue Book is a doing the rounds:
Image
http://theweebluebook.com/

More info here:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/time-to-get-busy/
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:45 pm

semper occultus » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:57 am wrote:....yeah Ok.....it IS a stirring article...but is Salmond not intending to get into a Dutch auction on Corporation Taxes with the rUK ( genuine question ) and how does that square with this point...?

Today that absolute power rests with the corporations and financial markets that exploit our citizens without making any contribution to their welfare.


A vote for independence is not a vote for Alex Salmond, semper. Nor is it a vote for Niceness to Corporations. It's a vote for independence, no more and no less than that. A point well-made by Jeane Freeman here ("Independence is no party’s prize."):

Vote Yes for social justice, fairness and equality

THURSDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2014 20:26 2 COMMENTS E-mailPrintPDF
By Jeane Freeman

I GREW up supporting the Labour Party. For a time, I was a Labour member and for four privileged years I worked for the party when it was in government at Holyrood. What drew me to Labour politics were the values of social justice, fairness and equality.

And it is my continued belief in those values that leads me to support independence now, in 2014.


It is not a backward looking support, clinging to the ‘old days’. It’s not based on centuries-old grudges against ancient wrongs – real and perceived – or a romantic notion of a people ‘freed’. It is a pragmatic assessment of how best those values can be realised in my lifetime.

Scotland is a nation and for 300 or so years we have been part of a union. For many of those years, many people living in Scotland did well from that union. But successive Westminster governments have failed to use their powers to redistribute wealth, or to systematically and systemically deliver equality of opportunity to working people in the UK. Of course, improvements have been made and some progress secured over that time.

But not enough, because the fundamental political and economic model on which that union is based has remained largely unchallenged and almost totally unchanged.

Those who were rich have become richer, those who were poor have become poorer. In the middle, some have won through to the top but the majority has struggled and continues to struggle to keep their heads just above water.

We have not yet challenged the fundamental notion on which all of this is based – that if you just work hard enough, are ‘clever’ enough and try hard enough, you’ll do fine.

Now in 2014, as part of the UK, we are actively encouraged to keep on blaming each other. So unemployment is the ‘fault’ of those who arrive on our shores and take our jobs and food banks are the ‘fault’ of those who can’t manage their money responsibly. The financial crash and the justification that has been offered for austerity economics are the ‘fault’ of those of us who borrowed too much in mortgages or on credit.

The impact of zero contract hours, poor wage rates or the deregulation of banks and financial services is seldom coherently offered as underlying the employment position or the parlous economic state of the UK. The message is: let’s be divided and blame each other. And what of equality? We live in a union that is the fourth most unequal in the western world.

A union where the wages gap between men and women is the highest in Europe, and where our pensioners are the poorest and our childcare and transport costs the highest.

The alternative to independence? That the Union has always worked for us and always will? It hasn’t, it won’t and the hard won gains we have made in that union are increasingly threatened. That it will all be sorted if we only hold fire and vote Labour in the Westminster election in 2015?

Not with the UK Labour commitments already made to keep the failed economic model and the discredited political model of the past decades. That we should remember that the ‘real’ left is supposed to hate nationalism and that our loyalty demands a No vote?

Independence is no party’s prize. Independence is about asserting our own right to govern ourselves, and no party loyalty is greater than our loyalty to each other, ourselves and our values. That it’s not ‘our place’ to do these things, to take decision- making power into our own hands?

No, because in each of the past 14 years of devolution, we have shown that there is no one better able to make the right decisions for the people of Scotland than those of us who live here. Independence is about choice – choosing to trust ourselves, choosing to have confidence that we can run our own affairs, choosing to build our country anew – with power and wealth redistributed to benefit the many and not the few.


Courtesy of The Scottish Socialist Voice - A special referendum edition of the Voice will be free of charge as part of the SSP's contribution to the Yes campaign

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.ph ... d-equality
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:52 pm

A great article in the Guardian by George Monbiot (who is English & lives in England, btw). He makes many of the really essential points in very few words here -- the most obvious of them in the headline and sub-headline!

Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm

England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?

George Monbiot
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 September 2014 19.06 BST
Jump to comments (3931)

Image
Alex Salmond (R) first minister of Scotland and Alistair Darling chair of Better Together. ‘To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation.’ Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-scotland


The closer this referendum gets, the more excited I feel about it. I know my native country well enough not to romanticise it, but I also know that the tradition of social justice and the belief in economic equality are very strong there, as is the impatience with bullshit.

- By the way, Ahab: I still think the referendum will be stolen, if necessary. I've also seen more than one person make that very same point online in recent weeks, though I can't give you links. Unless there's a landslide Yes vote, the bastards'll just shuffle some pixels and nick it. I do not think that the UK, the USA, NATO, MI5, MI6, the CIA and the City of London Corporation will suddenly become all self-determination-loving, least of all in (end-)times like these.

"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:23 pm

Chunky Mark -- George Monbiot meets Extreme Noise Terror:

"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:46 pm

semper occultus » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:57 am wrote:....yeah Ok.....it IS a stirring article...but is Salmond not intending to get into a Dutch auction on Corporation Taxes with the rUK ( genuine question ) and how does that square with this point...?

Today that absolute power rests with the corporations and financial markets that exploit our citizens without making any contribution to their welfare.


That's a fair point. Corporation tax is one of the policies that I disagree with the SNP on. Salmond is no real lefty, that much is clear - though I do think he is sincere in at least some of his chat about social justice. He's probably a "Spirit Level" kind of guy - he sees too much overt wealth inequality as being bad for business, and harmful to capitalism, which (let's face it) is undoubtedly the economic system he favours.

As I said earlier in the thread, Salmond was still a believer in the Laffer Curve at a time when that theory was long past it's sell-by date even among large parts of the economic right. His corporation tax plans suggest he might still believe in it yet. He says he wants a 3p cut below the UK rate in order to "counter the gravitational pull of London." He has a point - it'll be important for Scotland to retain businesses here after a Yes vote, since any that choose to leave will be reported as if they are the heralds of the apocalypse (even though businesses come and go all the time, and always have).

Course, we'll want to attract new business and investment too. The SNP have done very well on that front so far. Foreign inward investment is at a 16-year high in Scotland, and small business start-ups are at their highest since records began - so much for the referendum causing uncertainty and capital flight, eh? But what if London cuts it's rate further still? A dutch auction, as you say.

And the worst thing about cutting corporation tax as a temporary measure (to attract and retain business) is that you get all manner of rich entitled buggers moaning at you the moment you try to return it to a normal rate.

Saying that, the Republic of Ireland having a lower corporation tax rate than the UK hasn't caused any kind of noticeable race to the bottom between the two states.

It's also a bit hypocritical of Ed Miliband to criticize Salmond's plans - saying a corporation tax cut will favour the wealthy and impoverish the poor - considering the fact that Ed himself served in a government which cut it twice, under that great socialist and epic liar Gordon Brown.

"We have cut corporation tax twice and I want to go further. We will reduce the tax again when we are able." - Gordon Brown.

Now Gordon is travelling the country under the Better Together banner, telling people that business will be "the only beneficiary from independence", despite the fact that the rest of Better Together is telling us independence will be bad for business, and they'll all leave.

Salmond's always been a bit of a contradictory sod. Expelled from the SNP for being a member of the pseudo-Marxist 79 Group, while still working at the same time as an oil economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland. He's a republican at heart, most likely, but appears to get on well with the Queen (they bond over horse-racing tips, some suggest). On the Donald Trump issue, he did himself no favours - though it's worth remembering that the original Trump deal went through in 2006, when Labour's Jack McConnell was still First Minister, and the SNP have been held to it since.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-1411242

There's no excuse for the later Murdoch courtship, though. Except maybe that it was far less intense and long-lasting than Murdoch's previous flings with Blair and Cameron - and immeasurably less embarassing than Ed Miliband's attempts to catch the Old Man's attention by flirtatiously posing with his newspapers.

Ach well, as Alastair Darling says, "Independence is forever." Salmond's not.
Last edited by AhabsOtherLeg on Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:51 pm

Christ, I don't half rabbit on sometimes.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:10 pm

MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:52 pm wrote:- By the way, Ahab: I still think the referendum will be stolen, if necessary. I've also seen more than one person make that very same point online in recent weeks, though I can't give you links. Unless there's a landslide Yes vote, the bastards'll just shuffle some pixels and nick it. I do not think that the UK, the USA, NATO, MI5, MI6, the CIA and the City of London Corporation will suddenly become all self-determination-loving, least of all in (end-)times like these.


It's possible. Shuffling pixels and nicking stuff is how the UK runs it's whole economy nowadays, so the capability is certainly there. The other states and orgs you mentioned are no different - and NATO in particular (meaning the USA plus proxies) has gone out of it's way to create a clear and present danger for itself in the East, which would perhaps make Scottish independence especially inconvenient for them right now - because of the GIUK Gap, Trident, Glen Douglas, etc.

Saying that, the UK's former ambassador to NATO, Dame Mariot Leslie, came out for a Yes vote the other day. Bit of a shocker. If the Union has even lost the love of NATO ambassadors with "Dame" in their name, it is in serious trouble. There are Orangemen who say they're voting Yes now - "we are a monarchist organization, not a unionist one." Could've fooled me mate, but welcome aboard. Strange times.

We know that vote fraud can occur, that it can be perpetrated by states and their security services as well as by parties or individuals, and we know we can't stop it if they choose to go down that route. We also know we'll be called all sorts if we even talk about the possibility. "Are you questioning the clearly expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland?" :lol:

So why bother worrying about it? It won't help. Don't get mad, get winning.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:42 pm

Ahab wrote:There are Orangemen who say they're voting Yes now - "we are a monarchist organization, not a unionist one."


Ffs! :lol: So who's gonnae be the next King of Scotland? Graeme Souness?

Image
Anagram: A gruesomeness

(I know, I know, Alex Salmond says he isn't going to ditch the Queen. But Salmond and an independent Scotland are two different things.)

So why bother worrying about it? It won't help. Don't get mad, get winning.


Of course you're right. In any case, I'm just commenting from the sidelines. Wish I could vote.

More generally: It seems to me that the fears being stoked in Scotland by the No Campaign (and no doubt actually felt, at least to some extent, by many Scottish people) are precisely the kind of fears that are being stoked everywhere by the same complacent caste of entrenched, corrupt rulers. And it strikes me that this is the kind of decision people everywhere are going to have to make, in the face of fear, in the decades to come. This is why a Yes vote despite Project Fear could have a galvanising effect far beyond Scotland's (and even Britain's) borders. Hope and change as more than a PR slogan. The danger of a good example.

It would be an extraordinary thing.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:02 pm

Btw, this from last month:

Intelligence agency GCHQ is able to spy on Facebook and Youtube users and can manipulate online polls, according to the latest documents allegedly leaked by fugitive CIA worker Edward Snowden.

Documents thought to have been provided by the whistleblower allegedly show that the Cheltenham-based agency has developed a set of software programmes designed to breach users' computers and manipulate the internet.

Among the listed tools are ones capable of searching for private Facebook photographs, sending fake text messages, changing the outcome of online polls, censoring 'extremist' material, and collating comments on Youtube and Twitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3CULzYOzZ


And of course, from 2008 (is it still a "conspiracy theory" when an Ivy League uni confirms it?):

Study: E-voting Machines Are Easily Hackable
By Todd R. Weiss, Computerworld

Oct 28, 2008 2:45 PM

With eight days to go before the presidential election, a report has been released by Princeton University and other groups that sharply criticizes the e-voting machines used in New Jersey and elsewhere as unreliable and potentially prone to hacking.

The 158-page report, which was ordered by a New Jersey judge as part of an ongoing four-year legal fight over the machines, says the e-voting machines can be "easily hacked" in about seven minutes by anyone with basic computer knowledge. Such hacking activity could enable fraudulent firmware to steal votes from one candidate and give them to another, the report said. ...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152949/e ... kable.html


So prepare to be hacked, Scotland. It's not as if you haven't been warned. (Sorry, Ahab, I can't shut up about it.)
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Scottish Independence and the UK State

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:25 pm

MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:42 pm wrote:
Ahab wrote:There are Orangemen who say they're voting Yes now - "we are a monarchist organization, not a unionist one."


Ffs! :lol: So who's gonnae be the next King of Scotland? Graeme Souness?

Image
Anagram: A gruesomeness


The last one was Idi Amin, so anything's possible.

There was a hilarious rumour that Ally McCoist had come out for a Yes vote a wee while back. According to the Facebook image that was circulated, he had a similar opinion to the Orangeman I mentioned - "As long as we keep the Queen, like Canada."

Probably made up by someone who wants him dead. :bigsmile

There's a surprisingly large segment of the Rangers support that are backing independence now though. You would expect a zero tolerance approach to the idea from 100% of them, but it hasn't turned out that way at all. Old barriers are breaking down, old certainties are being reconsidered, and it's often happening in the oddest ways to the oddest people.

MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:42 pm wrote:It seems to me that the fears being stoked in Scotland by the No Campaign (and no doubt actually felt, at least to some extent, by many Scottish people) are precisely the kind of fears that are being stoked everywhere by the same complacent caste of entrenched, corrupt rulers.


I know a guy who had an old woman ask him if we'd still get the Asda Price Check Guarantee in an independent Scotland. I thought that was hilarious, until I saw that Better Together had circulated a leaflet saying that Tesco prices would rise after a Yes vote. Tesco themselves had to come out and deny this, having obviously not been asked in advance if it was okay to use their company name in a piece of shameless propaganda. A bit like when Great Ormond Street Hospital had to castigate VoteNoBorders for claiming that Scottish children would no longer be treated there after independence - despite the fact that Great Ormond treats children from all over the world. Or like when the NHS Blood and Organ Authority had to step in and tell Gordon Brown to stop using them as a scaremongering tool.

Anyhoo, getting back to that Alex Salmond, it seems the UK's answer to Woodward and Bernstein - Alan Cochrane and Ben Riley-Smith at the Telegraph - have finally brought to light his true beastliness:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

By Alan Cochrane, Scottish Editor

7:27PM BST 03 Sep 2014


An example of precisely the sort of man Alex Salmond is and the arrogant manner in which he treats journalists who dare to ask him questions he won’t, or can’t, answer has been graphically displayed.

Scotland’s First Minister has a bullying side to his temperament that has long been obvious to those of us who’ve watched him for years but that he’s managed mostly to hide from public gaze.

No longer. In an astonishing display of pettiness on Wednesday which resulted from his inability to answer serious questions he decided to publicly insult and denigrate Ben Riley-Smith, this newspaper’s Scottish Political Reporter.

Riley-Smith, a 27-year-old Cambridge graduate, has been following Salmond around the country during the referendum campaign and has been trying for days to get straight answers on issues such as what an independent Scotland would use for currency and how it would pay its bills.

Instead of an answer, never mind a bit of respect for a reporter doing his job, Salmond began a deliberate campaign that sought to patronise Riley-Smith and thus devalue his ability in front of other journalists and, of course, the SNP leader’s ever-obsequious aides.

He had promised – threatened would be a better word – to bring our reporter a bag of sweets to his next press ‘huddle’ in Kilmarnock and, for once, he was as good as his word.

This is what happened:

First Minister: "I want everybody to witness this. It was a political promise and, as you know, we always keep our promises."

He then handed over a pack of Liquorice Allsorts, adding: "Ben, what can I say. I was going to get you the £2 pack but I don't want you looking like the way I used to look. It's the pound pack. It's [got] quite a few of the curly ones in there. You'll enjoy them, OK?"

Riley-Smith: "And you don't think it's condescending at all to give sweets to a junior reporter?"

First Minister: "OK."

At that Salmond took back the pack of sweets.


But there then occurred a question-and-answer session during which Riley-Smith, first of all, asked if Goldman Sachs were right to issue a series of warnings about Salmond’s currency plans and a run on the Scottish banks.

The First Minister disputed the reporter’s version of what they’d said and insisted that Goldman Sachs hadn’t given a corporate view, merely that of an individual. The report was written by Kevin Daly, the Wall Street bank’s chief UK economist.

Mr Salmond said: “This is Goldman Sachs analysts who as we use to say, when I was about your age eating Liquorice allsorts, [were] teenage scribblers.

“I presume it's the analysts at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs doesn't have a corporate position on that. There's a difference.

“Listen, Ben, if you write an article, right, you're a Daily Telegraph journalist. It's not necessarily the editorial policy of the Daily Telegraph …”

Riley-Smith: "So you're suggesting Goldman Sachs might have a different view from what the analysts said?"

FM: "No. Well, look, I'll read the report but I imagine that this is Goldman Sachs analysts. And then of course, if you forgive me and I know you will, I'll probably read what they've got to say and then if I want to comment on it I'll do that."

After the question and answer session ended, Salmond again presented Riley-Smith with the sweets and said: “[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?", to which Riley- Smith said: "It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn't it?"

First Minister: "That's OK, I'm perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There's no harm meant."

Riley-Smith handed back the pack of sweets: "I just think it's a bit patronising, given I'm just trying to be professional."

First Minister: "You mustn't get irritable."

The incident was not the first occasion that Salmond has tried to patronise his way out of his difficulties. Last week he used the same technique with Faisal Islam, Sky News political editor, who had pressed him repeatedly about his plans for a Scottish currency.

Trying desperately to shut down the question that its clear he cannot answer, he accused that experienced reporter of trying to impersonate Alistair Darling and sarcastically told him to “get with the debate, man.”

The message now must be a simple one: Reporters don’t want your sweets, Mr Salmond. But the voters want answers.


Pullizter Prize-winning stuff. I'm still shaking.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 153 guests