Jump to content

Rangers fans for yes


MisterC

Recommended Posts

iv said it before any ranger fan that votes yes is NO RANGER FAN AND SHOULD BE SHUNNED AND NEVER EVER GO NEAR THIS GREAT BRITISH INTS THEY ARE SIMPLY REPUBLICAN SCUM AND WORSE THAN THE PEDO ACROSS THE CITY SO FUCKIN STAY AWAY FROM MY BRITISH FOOTBALL CLUB THE GREATEST IN THE WORLD

Obv here on the wind up. Jog on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake, a Yes vote will mean stuck with the SNP for years to come and no way back.

I disagree. A yes vote means a fairer and more democratic society. If the electorate of Scotland vote in favor of the SNP in 2016 following a yes vote, so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the personal reasons why I wont vote for Independence there is also the fact that we can look forward to utter chaos in every aspect of our lives because , and its not a bluff, THE REST OF THE UK WONT SHARE THE POUND

Most Nationalists take an emotive view of Independence and totally ignore the fact it will cost jobs by the thousands starting with shipbuilding on the Clyde , followed by thousands more when Faslane/Coulport close.

After that we can look forward to the end of the Nuclear Power Industry and Coal powered power stations.

So when lights don't come on because its a dull,calm day and the Solar/Wind/Wave generators don't work you will know who to blame.

Apart from all that we wont even know what we will be paid in

All to satisfy the SNP ideology. Not for me they can Fuck off.

They are facists dressed in tartan who will kill Scotland

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be quite happy if yes voters never stepped foot in Ibrox again.

I could be churlish and state that I'd be quite happy if those aligning themselves with the Rangers Haters - i.e. George Galloway, John Reid, Brian Wilson et al - never stepped foot in Ibrox again...

....but I won't!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be churlish and state that I'd be quite happy if those aligning themselves with the Rangers Haters - i.e. George Galloway, John Reid, Brian Wilson et al - never stepped foot in Ibrox again...

....but I won't!

Even those fuckin 3 realise that it is better for Scotland (with more powers) to remain in the UK
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know full well what I mean. Surely this debate has been going on long enough for you to know what I'm alluding to.

For years I have heard separatists make statements about independence without facts, evidence and on fantasy.

Anyone can make statements but at least back it up with evidence. So what are you alluding to ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscot...samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscot...ocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Blimey (tu):7326:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Sorry I lost interest.

That's like the longest post ever. Take a bow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscot...samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscot...ocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Tarrier, linking Wings Over Scotland confirms it
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Is there even any facts in there?

And I'd ban your arse for using two WoS articles aswell as giving you a boot in the baws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscot...samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscot...ocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

WingsoverScotland ffs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presume those going on about WoS know what "ad hominem" means. He's a fud when it comes to football, but the political stuff is generally meticulously sourced. And the Trident article isn't even him

Whoever asked, aye, plenty of facts. McCrone is a fact. The 40% amendment is a fact. The myth of subsidy is a fact. The ineffectiveness of Trident is a fact. Plenty of others to choose from as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it...

It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already.

So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer.

History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it.

That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate.

Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland.

Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland.

One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism.

There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords.

There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate.

We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

Lot of words but nothing here to make me take a jump into the unknown. No thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No cut from a 22 point lead to a 6 point lead in a new YouGov poll

Depends what story you want to believe

THE SNP have showed signs they believe a Yes vote is beyond their grasp as senior civil service sources tell the Daily Record the nationalists are making plans for a No vote.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...