When will indyref2 happen?

[KingRocketman II]

9 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

I got to say that I love Kinky’s dedication to the cause.

It is exactly why I also follow Historywoman on twitter - I love seeing the state that the Uber-Unionists wind themselves up into. It’s almost as if they think that pouring enough scorn upon their own country will persuade others to self-flagate too, not realising all it does is give us a good laugh.

It’s not about the past. It’s not about the English. It’s about the future, and us. Standing or falling on what we do.

Hope over fear.

am the same. I follow some Uber-unionists on twitter as well as some "moderates" (for want of a better word). Despite dalliances with economics, resources and voting representation, their argument always essentially returns to the same generic basis - if you want independence then you are anti-English. Desperate links, quotes and references to individuals who conform to that narrative are tweeted as if isolated utterances and fringe individuals are credible evidence of this. Our Uber-unionist boy does this on here also. it simply provides them with comfort in thinking that their beliefs are "good" and anyone who wants independence is "bad" as it is not because indy supporters wish to see self-determination resulting in hopefully a better fairer society with all key decisions made in-country, but its because they simply hate another group. 

it constantly comes back to this and until the union argument focuses on addressing why someone living in Scotland would not want their country fully governed from Scotland and moves away from what their erroneous assessment of what is driving support for independence, then they are howling at the moon

[DeeTillEhDeh]

am the same. I follow some Uber-unionists on twitter as well as some "moderates" (for want of a better word). Despite dalliances with economics, resources and voting representation, their argument always essentially returns to the same generic basis - if you want independence then you are anti-English. Desperate links, quotes and references to individuals who conform to that narrative are tweeted as if isolated utterances and fringe individuals are credible evidence of this. Our Uber-unionist boy does this on here also. it simply provides them with comfort in thinking that their beliefs are "good" and anyone who wants independence is "bad" as it is not because indy supporters wish to see self-determination resulting in hopefully a better fairer society with all key decisions made in-country, but its because they simply hate another group. 

it constantly comes back to this and until the union argument focuses on addressing why someone living in Scotland would not want their country fully governed from Scotland and moves away from what their erroneous assessment of what is driving support for independence, then they are howling at the moon

It's the point I was making with the flip stereotype of Rangers fans.

 

Kincy continually uses the most extreme supporters of independence as being the typical independence supporter - it's a deliberate ploy by uber-Unionists to tar all independence supporters with the same brush.

 

Anyone who knows me will tell you I am as far removed from the flag waving tartan gonk as you could get - I don't think that I will be particularly different in that way to other independence supporters.

 

[harry94]

25 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Scottish society probably is more moral than English society but that's a function of there being a greater proportion of more educated people in Scotland than England. There are more people living here who can be more analytical and more of them make it into positions in public life that can effect some change. They count on votes from a more educated population and so this incrementally builds to politics that are a bit better for everyday folk than in England. It's why all this 'how will you pay for it?' stuff just doesn't work.

I often wonder how much of the difference is down to poor messaging from the left England.

The last few Labour manifestos have usually been something like 'we'll gain more revenue, nationalise x, improve this benefit system, put more into social services.....' and quite a lengthy construct. The other team are always saying something similar enough that it can be zoned out. There's got to be something more tangible in terms of effect stated in understandable terms. Blair didn't often speak about x percent boosts to the education budget, he consistently stated classroom sizes which is something that can be easily related to.

I feel this is particularly important when the term 'nationalisation' enters the fray. Often you are looking at things where benefit won't be derived for a long time and the communicated benefit is often 'it's an essential resource and others shouldn't be profiting from it' just doesn't do enough. If your answer isn't striking enough that you can't save someone money (that they can easily understand) in a foreseeable time frame or give a noticeable benefit, it should be hidden in one of the back pages IMO.

I fear Starmer hasn't really grasped any of that and is simply trying to shadow the whole 'get Brexit DUN NOW' message rather than prep for winning in 2024. If there's no argument from this side that has effective direct messaging, these voters are at the mercy of whatever crap is thrown to them in print press.

[CambieBud]

There are two foundation stones upon which independence is built.  The first is an irrational loathing of The Basturt English and the second is the notion of Scottish exceptionalism.
The first is odious and the second is ignorant.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]even for you that is truly moronic kinky. Remember it has f all to do with you as you don’t live here. The
Mood has steadily moved and continues to move toward independence. All your foaming at the mouth unionist drivel will not change that.

[Eddie Hitler]

5 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Anyone going 'look at these bams, that's you that is' is essentially applying this trait, which evolved in a completely different setting to the modern world, and that is comforting to them because their brain is still the same as that of someone 80,000 years ago. I think the Yes campaign in 2014 was far too guilty of this and I remember saying daft stuff at the time like Scots were more moral because of our politics. Remember that graphic that was a football team with all the good guys on one side and then like BNP, UKIP, SDL, Combat18 on the other side? Does anyone think that did anything to persuade someone to go from No to Yes? All this stuff is just the equivalent of hitching up your animal skins and baring your arse at those guys on the other side of the valley.

Yes, I believe this is mainly caused by a tendency to feel the need to 'overstate' the case, i.e. 'we need to be the very best to even justify wanting to do this' which is not warranted or necessary. 

There are a couple of other ways this manifests itself. Screaming 'no more Tories in Scotland ever!'. Now I will be at the front of the queue saying I don't want to be governed by Tories from a parliament 400 miles away. I will also be at the front of the queue saying that an independent Scotland needs to make sure it strikes a far fairer balance between business interests and those of the rest of Scottish society, and doesn't allow the former to rip the pish out of the latter the way the UK Government so often seems to do. But it's not terribly realistic to, in effect, demand that there would be no party for business interests in an independent Scotland; they do have a role in society. I just hope their party wouldn't win untrammelled power in Scotland.

Along the same lines are appeals to history. To some degree, these have a role but people allow it often to be their sole justification for why Scotland should be independent. Again, I think it's because folk think precedent is needed to justify it. But actually I think it's not needed - I think Westminster does a shit job of governing the place, and is too far away to have concern for the needs of much of Scotland. To me, these are justifications enough to want a future free of rule from 'too far away', where we can attempt (at least) to have government that understands and responds to Scottish needs (and probably then there has to be more power delegated down to local government as well, who will know local needs even better). So while I think it's important to know your history, it isn't and shouldn't be the only justification for deciding how you want to be governed in future.  What's important is what's best for lives now and to come - no justification beyond that should really be needed.

[Eddie Hitler]

9 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Good post. Tories only get to enact the worst excesses of their most ghoulish members because of FPTP. Proper PR like most of the rest of Europe is what is needed to force compromise and humanity into their realistic policy goals.

Yes, as I say, I wouldn't want untrammelled Scot Tory rule (and preferably they'd never be the main party ever). But the 'no Tories in Scotland!' thing is silly. If a party didn't exist for them on Indy Day, one would pop up to fill the vacuum as that's just how political spectrums work. PR is good news, as you say. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Eddie Hitler

[Granny Danger]

56 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Good post. Tories only get to enact the worst excesses of their most ghoulish members because of FPTP. Proper PR like most of the rest of Europe is what is needed to force compromise and humanity into their realistic policy goals.

FPTP is indefensible.  Though it’s amazing the amount of folk who think a majority of people voted Tory at the last election.  Even in England it was probably under 50%.

[Richey Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

FPTP is indefensible.  Though it’s amazing the amount of folk who think a majority of people voted Tory at the last election.  Even in England it was probably under 50%.

The Tories retained power with 43.6% of the vote (with 13.9 million votes) while Labour got 32.1% (10.2 million votes).

In a country with a population of 66 million, for a party to get elected with a majority with only 13.9 million votes is madness. The majority of people did not vote for them.

[The_Kincardine]

12 hours ago, CambieBud said:

 

 

even for you that is truly moronic kinky. Remember it has f all to do with you as you don’t live here. The
Mood has steadily moved and continues to move toward independence. All your foaming at the mouth unionist drivel will not change that.

 

 

If you daft wee tartan gonks want to partition our nation state along ethno-nationalist lines it has f everything to do with me

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you daft wee tartan gonks want to partition our nation state along ethno-nationalist lines it has f everything to do with me

Even if that was true, why?

[Antlion]

15 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you daft wee tartan gonks want to partition our nation state along ethno-nationalist lines it has f everything to do with me

*Except from conferring the right to vote on it.

[The_Kincardine]

9 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Yes, I believe this is mainly caused by a tendency to feel the need to 'overstate' the case, i.e. 'we need to be the very best to even justify wanting to do this' which is not warranted or necessary. 

There are a couple of other ways this manifests itself. Screaming 'no more Tories in Scotland ever!'. Now I will be at the front of the queue saying I don't want to be governed by Tories from a parliament 400 miles away. I will also be at the front of the queue saying that an independent Scotland needs to make sure it strikes a far fairer balance between business interests and those of the rest of Scottish society, and doesn't allow the former to rip the pish out of the latter the way the UK Government so often seems to do. But it's not terribly realistic to, in effect, demand that there would be no party for business interests in an independent Scotland; they do have a role in society. I just hope their party wouldn't win untrammelled power in Scotland.

Along the same lines are appeals to history. To some degree, these have a role but people allow it often to be their sole justification for why Scotland should be independent. Again, I think it's because folk think precedent is needed to justify it. But actually I think it's not needed - I think Westminster does a shit job of governing the place, and is too far away to have concern for the needs of much of Scotland. To me, these are justifications enough to want a future free of rule from 'too far away', where we can attempt (at least) to have government that understands and responds to Scottish needs (and probably then there has to be more power delegated down to local government as well, who will know local needs even better). So while I think it's important to know your history, it isn't and shouldn't be the only justification for deciding how you want to be governed in future.  What's important is what's best for lives now and to come - no justification beyond that should really be needed.

The idiocy of this post is that it 1. decides government on the basis of distance and 2. regards Scotland as a politically homogeneous.

The first fails the Father Dougal large/far away test as we know parts of Scotland furthest away from London don't want rule from E'burgh and parts of Scotland nearest to E'burgh want to remain in Union.  You Natters simply have no sense of perspective.

The second is a little more invidious.  That you should treat Scotland as a single voting/social/political/economic entity is, I know, the wish of you Natters but this simply is not the case.  Scotland is too complex a place to fit in to your daft wee Natter view of the world.  We learned this when your thesis was tested in the only place that counts - the ballot box in 2014 - and was found wanting.

I know you want to rail against The English and The Tories.  Some Natters want to take it further, even on here, and resort to terrorism to achieve their aim.  It's all pretty pathetic, though.

Border guards at Gretna, eh?

Edited September 24, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Border guards at Gretna, eh?

You keep saying that and I don't know why.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-ed-miliband-raises-prospect-guards-along-border-if-scotland-votes-yes-9716639.html

Scottish independence: Ed Miliband raises prospect of guards along the border if Scotland votes 'Yes' in referendum

[The_Kincardine]

15 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Scottish society probably is more moral than English society but that's a function of there being a greater proportion of more educated people in Scotland than England. That's a product of a decision by the leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment to democratise education, while England maintained high barriers to entry. Ironically enough given these were in the main enthusiasts for the union, it's this legacy that drives the realisation in Scotland that our nominal tribe, Britain, isn't much good in the 21st century.

This is a funny half truth but that the idea of Scottish society being more moral than England's has no basis in reality.

On education.  Yes.  we were pioneers.  A school in every parish and a bible in every house.  Not so much an enlightenment idea as a reformation one.  And yes, we were very much ahead of the curve compared to our English pals.  Hence we post-reformation Scots dominating Empire.

What you Natters are trying to do, though, is deliberately dismantle education in Scotland in the 21st Century and, clearly, this is to deal with the truth that you acknowledged:  An educated population is a Unionist population.

[The_Kincardine]

17 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Kincy continually uses the most extreme supporters of independence as being the typical independence supporter...Anyone who knows me will tell you I am as far removed from the flag waving tartan gonk as you could get

Forgive me for not shedding a tear here.  You act in every respect as one of the worst Natters on here.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

If you daft wee tartan gonks want to partition our nation state along ethno-nationalist lines it has f everything to do with me

The idiocy of this post is that it 1. decides government on the basis of distance and 2. regards Scotland as a politically homogeneous.
The first fails the Father Dougal large/far away test as we know parts of Scotland furthest away from London don't want rule from E'burgh and parts of Scotland nearest to E'burgh want to remain in Union.  You Natters simply have no sense of perspective.
The second is a little more invidious.  That you should treat Scotland as a single voting/social/political/economic entity is, I know, the wish of you Natters but this simply is not the case.  Scotland is too complex a place to fit in to your daft wee Natter view of the world.  We learned this when your thesis was tested in the only place that counts - the ballot box in 2014 - and was found wanting.
I know you want to rail against The English and The Tories.  Some Natters want to take it further, even on here, and resort to terrorism to achieve their aim.  It's all pretty pathetic, though.
Border guards at Gretna, eh?

This is a funny half truth but that the idea of Scottish society being more moral than England's has no basis in reality.
On education.  Yes.  we were pioneers.  A school in every parish and a bible in every house.  Not so much an enlightenment idea as a reformation one.  And yes, we were very much ahead of the curve compared to our English pals.  Hence we post-reformation Scots dominating Empire.
What you Natters are trying to do, though, is deliberately dismantle education in Scotland in the 21st Century and, clearly, this is to deal with the truth that you acknowledged:  An educated population is a Unionist population.

Forgive me for not shedding a tear here.  You act in every respect as one of the worst Natters on here.

I feel guilty being entertained by this, when it's quite apparent you have a serious drink problem. Then I remember that you're still a bitter, bigoted *** and it's entertaining again. Keep it coming [emoji23]

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Forgive me for not shedding a tear here.  You act in every respect as one of the worst Natters on here.

 

Jesus wept.

 

As someone who abstained in 2014 I would doubt that very much.  

 

 

Would love to see any quotes from me that are in any way ethno-nationalist - you won't.

 

You truly have lost the plot.

 

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Kincy gets a lot of stick for being a drunk, but I think he's just high after huffing the farts of a dying empire.

[Wee Bully]

You can tell when the long weekend starts eh? Midnight on Thursday, early hours of Friday, and lo! Kinky reappears, dragging out his old tropes.

I see him giggling away, thinking “reeled them in again”.