ayrmad Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thanks for that insightful analysis. My original point was that most people who post on threads like this cherrypick anything economic that fits their preferred argument on a visceral identity politics level rather than genuinely looking at this pragmatically. Personally think that the SNP stopped making a convincing rational case for independence at around about the point where Jim Sillars lost the plot with his 90 minute patriots rant. Arguing for keeping the pound being a prime example of electoral expediency over making a genuine joined up intellectual case for independence. Understandable in a way given the way the euro has unfolded, but I suspect future generations will look back and question why if conditions weren't ripe for independence this historic opportunity wasn't used to push for devo max when there was a solid majority of public opinion behind it. Who's cherrypicking? List all the positives on the NO side regarding the economy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thanks for that insightful analysis. My original point was that most people who post on threads like this cherrypick anything economic that fits their preferred argument on a visceral identity politics level rather than genuinely looking at this pragmatically. Personally think that the SNP stopped making a convincing rational case for independence at around about the point where Jim Sillars lost the plot with his 90 minute patriots rant. Arguing for keeping the pound being a prime example of electoral expediency over making a genuine joined up intellectual case for independence. Understandable in a way given the way the euro has unfolded, but I suspect future generations will look back and question why if conditions weren't ripe for independence this historic opportunity wasn't used to push for devo max when there was a solid majority of public opinion behind it. I have never seen devo max properly defined but, seeing as it isnt on the ballot paper, nobody can vote for it. IMO, in a lot of ways, what the SG is pushing for is effectively devo max. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Who's cherrypicking? List all the positives on the NO side regarding the economy. I don't think he will be able to do that, as far as I can see there are no economic positives for voting No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I have never seen devo max properly defined but, seeing as it isnt on the ballot paper, nobody can vote for it. IMO, in a lot of ways, what the SG is pushing for is effectively devo max. So why not be honest about that and swing the 30% chunk of the electorate that isn't keen on having an international border on the Solway and Tweed but would go for full fiscal autonomy over to the yes camp? Answer: the nutters in the rank and file that are driven by visceral level emotions and don't view this stuff rationally would split away from the SNP and form a hardline independentist party and that could have a highly negative impact on the SNP's future electoral prospects, so better to get gubbed in this referendum and keep the SNP intact and wait for a Quebec style second chance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So why not be honest about that and swing the 30% chunk of the electorate that isn't keen on having an international border on the Solway and Tweed but would go for full fiscal autonomy over to the yes camp? Answer: the nutters in the rank and file that are driven by visceral level emotions and don't view this stuff rationally would split away from the SNP and form a hardline independentist party and that could have a highly negative impact on the SNP's future electoral prospects, so better to get gubbed in this referendum and keep the SNP intact and wait for a Quebec style second chance. Who says YES will get gubbed,NO will be running about like headless chickens if nothing major has changed by the summer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So why not be honest about that and swing the 30% chunk of the electorate that isn't keen on having an international border on the Solway and Tweed but would go for full fiscal autonomy over to the yes camp? Answer: the nutters in the rank and file that are driven by visceral level emotions and don't view this stuff rationally would split away from the SNP and form a hardline independentist party and that could have a highly negative impact on the SNP's future electoral prospects, so better to get gubbed in this referendum and keep the SNP intact and wait for a Quebec style second chance. Perhaps I misunderstood the whole process that led up to the Edinburgh agreement, but wasn't it the SNP that proposed to have Devo Max on the ballot paper, yet David Cameron didn't. Seems to me it was David Cameron that wasn't listening to the majority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Perhaps I misunderstood the whole process that led up to the Edinburgh agreement, but wasn't it the SNP that proposed to have Devo Max on the ballot paper, yet David Cameron didn't. Seems to me it was David Cameron that wasn't listening to the majority. I dont recall the SNP proposing Devo Max. Perhaps you have some evidence to support this claim? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Perhaps I misunderstood the whole process that led up to the Edinburgh agreement, but wasn't it the SNP that proposed to have Devo Max on the ballot paper, yet David Cameron didn't. Seems to me it was David Cameron that wasn't listening to the majority. Of course Cameron didn't want devo max on the ballot, that's exactly why a government that was genuinely representing the pragmatic economic interests of the Scottish electorate should have pushed a lot harder on that. Alex S appears to have ultimately got what he wanted. The precedent of a referendum being the outcome of a Holyrood majority for the SNP being set, for down the road when the yes side might have a genuine shot at winning a straight independence yes/no question. Odds on he sees that as the culmination of his generation's political efforts and it will be for the next generation of SNP politicians to get the job done about 20 to 30 years from now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I dont recall the SNP proposing Devo Max. Perhaps you have some evidence to support this claim? As I said perhaps I misunderstood but the SNP wanted the third option on the paper which I understood to be Devo Max 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 SNP constantly mentioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thanks for that insightful analysis. My original point was that most people who post on threads like this cherrypick anything economic that fits their preferred argument on a visceral identity politics level rather than genuinely looking at this pragmatically. Personally think that the SNP stopped making a convincing rational case for independence at around about the point where Jim Sillars lost the plot with his 90 minute patriots rant. Jim Sillars has criticised the campaign for independence and in no way shape or form speaks for the SNP. Still why let any facts get in the way. Why not provide evidence of 'cherrypicking on threads like these' rather than just claiming that 'most people' do so. It's not really an argument is it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Of course Cameron didn't want devo max on the ballot, that's exactly why a government that was genuinely representing the pragmatic economic interests of the Scottish electorate should have pushed a lot harder on that. Alex S appears to have ultimately got what he wanted. The precedent of a referendum being the outcome of a Holyrood majority for the SNP being set, for down the road when the yes side might have a genuine shot at winning a straight independence yes/no question. Odds on he sees that as the culmination of his generation's political efforts and it will be for the next generation of SNP politicians to get the job done about 20 to 30 years from now. Surely, as the SNP were elected on a monumental landslide, with a pledge to hold an independence referendum, then the will of the people is to hold a referendum on independence. Cameron, in my view was played like a fiddle in Edinburgh. If he allowed that third option on the ballot paper, independence was a dead duck. Salmond gambled on Cameron being against returning any more powers to Holyrood, and won. Now it's all or nothing for Cameron and the rest of Westminster. There is a real possibility of independence happening. Whether it will or not we will find out in September. But it will be close. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I had a good wee night last night debating with a few folk. A pal of mind 'came out' for the Yes side and I had a good chat with a solid No voter. He was a bit more drunk than me but admitted that I had won the argument. He wasn't convince or anything but I felt it was part of the softening up process. He's a bit right wing - but in an old-school Scottish conservative way. I appealed to this by saying that I think an independent Scotland needs a strong Tory element - Annabel Goldie style. I never want to see them anywhere near a government but they have an important role. The middle England type Tory is a different beast and one that I want nothing to do with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 As I said perhaps I misunderstood but the SNP wanted the third option on the paper which I understood to be Devo Max Right... you said that. Im asking what evidence you are bringing to the table here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Surely, as the SNP were elected on a monumental landslide, with a pledge to hold an independence referendum, then the will of the people is to hold a referendum on independence. No they weren't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Right, 45.5% of the vote. The d'Hondt system was designed to make Labour and Lib Dem coalitions a permanent fixture and keep the SNP in perpetual opposition, but ultimately it helped the SNP win outright when political circumstances changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Surely, as the SNP were elected on a monumental landslide, with a pledge to hold an independence referendum, then the will of the people is to hold a referendum on independence. Cameron, in my view was played like a fiddle in Edinburgh. If he allowed that third option on the ballot paper, independence was a dead duck. Salmond gambled on Cameron being against returning any more powers to Holyrood, and won. Now it's all or nothing for Cameron and the rest of Westminster. There is a real possibility of independence happening. Whether it will or not we will find out in September. But it will be close. Which is the why the talk from the self-loathers that there's a devolution commission (doesn't exist in my opinion but I'll happily be proved wrong) looking at more powers for Scotland is absolute nonsense. Cameron had a chance to get a Devo-Max option on the ballot paper and fucked it, so any talk from him and the nobodies fronting the No campaign about providing more powers can not be taken seriously. When you have people like Margaret Curran questioning whether Devolution is working now, then I think it's time to be worried. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 No they weren't. In terms of MSP's (which ultimately is what counts), they were, in a system that was designed to give no overall control to any party. So yes they were elected on a monumental landslide. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Right... you said that. Im asking what evidence you are bringing to the table here? I'm not with you here HB. Alex Salmond(SNP) proposed a third option on the ballot paper. That is the only point I have made. I was under the assumption that the third option on the ballot paper was so called "Devo-Max". If that was the wrong assumption then I have already said it was down to my misunderstanding. You appear to be looking for an argument that isn't there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I thought it was common knowledge Cameron refused to have a third option on the ballot paper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.