You bemoan the lack of imagination though of the No side but do not appreciate that if people like what they have they do not need to have "imagination" as you put it. Can you not accept that a lot of Scots actually like the Union so will vote NO to preserve something they value. Unlike the Yes campaign there is no need for them to come up with fancy new ideas - they could just be content. I applaud the fact that you appear to have a very positive reason - for you - to vote Yes. You see Scotland as Brave New World where a newly independent nation can achieve a different and better society. If they vote Yes I hope you are right and get what you want. However to me it is still just a brave step into the dark. You are asking people to gamble their children's future on an outcome you hope will be good. However there is nothing to suggest that Scotland will move in the direction you hope. Is ther not just as strong a chance that once the Yes vote is achieved then the SNP will disappear as its Raison d'Etre is fulfilled. Perhaps a lot of them will return to the Socialist fold and you will simply have a Labour Scotland for ever - a hope many supporters of Yes seem to want. You want to overthrow 1000 years of elitism. Did you know Scotland has the most elitist landowning structure in the western world. 432 people own 50% of the private land in Scotland. There is a reform group active to try to remedy that but it does not need independence to achieve it - just a change in the Scottish law which is already completely within the powers of Scotland. Your gamble is that Scotland will prove richer economically than it has been as part of the UK and will use its wealth to create a fairer society. Could happen. Could not.
Yet staying within the UK is a certain risk to the country's children rather than a gamble. Under current conditions, the numbers of Scottish children living in poverty has risen year by year since 2010, and now stands at over 220,000. The one promise that Westminster has made that it can be expected to keep is the £6bn cut in the Scottish Block Grant, and that horrendous statistic will only rise because of it. Nothing to suggest that Scotland will move in the hoped for direction? There's plenty - that has been debated endlessly, and I guess you believe which ever side you believe in. But one thing that everyone has failed to include in that debate is the will, the skill and the ingenuity of the people who will be given opportunities to make it happen - that's what will make it happen. I have to say that I find that a strange comment to make. The SNP are a political party, at the moment the dominant political party in this country. Saying that they will simply disappear after fulfilling an ambition is akin to saying that the Tory party would disappear after fulfilling one of their ambitions. Like any party, they are accountable to the electorate. They may well disappear, but equally they may well prosper. I'd be surprised if he didn't know - and just as surprised if he didn't know that steps are in fact already in place to address that, although nothing can happen overnight. Any nation's wealth depends on productive use of a its assets â labour, capital and natural resources. Land is an important element of natural resource, and making it accessible to those who will make the most of it is the SG's aim. They already have a Community Empowerment Bill which to date has seen 500,000 acres of land transfer to community ownership and become productive. Their target is to double this by 2020. It's a long haul - but they hope to be in it for that haul.
Independent Scotland will easily reduce the poverty statistic, look how its measured, all they need to do and will do is reduce the median earnings...SNP will continue to exist but will morph into a national socialist party.
I wondered how long it would be before the Scots socialists trotted out their Poverty Joker. It is a good and emotive word as it conjures up children starving in Africa and 19 Century workhouses. But the truth is far from that. The most common definition of the poverty line, which has been adopted throughout the EU, is based on median income. Taking all of the earnings in the country, the median is the point where half the people have more and the other half have less. Those with less than 60% cent of median income are classified as "poor". By this definition poverty can never be eliminated and as Aberdeen says the best way of reducing the number is to lower the median salary for all. That is the stupidity of the definition. Joseph Rowntree Foundation which is a left wing Quaker originated group are a major organisation looking at poverty. Let us see what they say: So Scotland has fared “twice as well as England.”. Good old Union – baling out the Scots more than the English – and getting no thanks for it – and having people misquote statistics too. If Scotland fares badly from independence as many believe the ability to help the poor will diminish as you will not have England to bale you out. The SNP is about getting Independence and that is what attracted a lot of its voters – once achieved it has lost that. Of course it will not disappear completely but will need to morph into something else. They will carry on for some years organising the details of independence but then they have to find a new policy. Spurf wants to be rid of 1000 years of elitism – so he supports a country even more elitist in the hope that post independence that wil somehow become a policy in Scotland. Who says it will any more than it is today as part of the Union?
Today I was getting my education at a large valley where monkeys and apes are raised to be returned to the wild. It has been running for fifteen years and is very successful. Talking about the chimps they have there, the keeper told how the leader of the group had been sent to Australia to help with a breeding program there. One of the younger ones had now taken on the role of leader and kept as much order as possible. Not sure that the human world is so much different. Replace one leader, or group of leaders with another and you will still have a boss to tell you what to do. Many French still bemoan the fact that they got rid of royalty and have replaced them with professional politicians who have become the new elite. The idea at the revolution was that all of the population had a say in how their lives should be run, but nothing could be further from the truth with so many state employees wielding their little bit of power.
Whilst not being particularly fond of the Royal family, I find the SNP position on the subject very interesting. It would seem that to ensure the support of the more elderly of Scots they have no plan on this subject and propose the royal family remains the head of state in an independent Scotland. Yet this would seem to completely at odds with the left wing/socialist agenda of the SNP and the Yes campaign. I suspect if the Yes vote is secured, they would have a different position and the royal family would be booted out and Balmoral turned over to public ownership - well, at week-end pad for King Alex. As I said, I have no love of the royal family, but I would have expected the SNP to play a straight bat on this and campaign on booting them out.
The Queen remains Head of State in many independent Commonwealth countries. I don't think the two are inextricably linked. Independence does not necessarily go hand in hand with republicanism
Yeah, I know Lenny. But the key goal we are told by the Yes campaign is to produce a new democracy and that seems to be totally at odds with having the head of a rich family as your head of state. I suspect that the removal of the royal family as head of state of Scotland is part of a follow on plan that the SNP has locked away
Yet that same scenario has served Australia well for 113 years now, granted with regular rumblings of discontent - but never enough to effect change. I'm glad you qualified this as your suspicion - I'll go on record as giving my suspicion that the SNP have no such plan and that the status quo will remain.
If we can all have suspicions then mine is that the Scots seem to be slightly more pro-Royal than the English - the Welsh are quite anti on the whole.
This is a good post. The only arguement is a out elitism. One type may go but there will be a new type, finance, politic or something else. The only certain thing is todays elite will somehow be in tomorrows elite. USSR/Russia KambódÃa and even the revolution of Frakkland left some of the old elite.
I take my hat off to you leo - you excel in analysing statistics, and I suspect that this is why spurf likened you to a politician. However - there's always an however - you have something else in common with them in that you also excel in applying your own spin to statistics. Personally I don't particularly rely too much on 'figures', I prefer to consider the evidence of my own eyes, as well as those of others in my profession, who confirm what I see. Whilst I recognise that parliaments find it politically expedient to have a moveable bar in terms of definitions, I also recognise that those bars are a necessity - it's the honesty of those who manipulate them that is the problem, and the bigger the organisation the greater the numbers who are dishonest. A comparison of Westminster to Holyrood highlights that. You say that "In the ten years to 2011/12, the proportion of children in poverty in Scotland fell ten percentage points on both the âbeforeâ and âafterâ housing costs measures â about twice the fall in England (six and three percentage points respectively)" and then apply your claim to the reasons for that "Much of the fall in child poverty in both Scotland and England is due to a fall in the high poverty rate among lone-parent families" inexplicably providing none of your stock-in-trade stats to back that claim up. I can just as easily claim that for half of that time period, 2007 to 2010, the fall in Scotland was due to the policies of the elected Scottish Government - and that the sudden increase from 2010 on was entirely due to a change of power in Westminster. And a sudden increase in 2010 there most definitely was - ask any school, any teacher. Regardless of what you may see as the root cause for child poverty - and it's not simply because some unthinking politician decided to raise a bar - the fact remains that, since 2010, the number of children in my part of the world whose families cannot actually afford to feed/clothe them has almost doubled, and that is as of February this year, never mind what has happened since then. Children turning up at school on a daily basis having not been fed and relying upon the de facto food bank that schools have become for their main meal of the day - as well as teachers to dip into their own pay packets to provide breakfast - is an indicator of poverty. Children whose only hope of decent replacement clothing is through help from the de facto clothing bank that schools have become is an indicator of poverty. The SNP recognise this and have already redirected funds to schools to help address the problem - and are extending the entitlement of free school meals to all P1-3 children from January. So please don't try justify your argument to me by the use of stats - I use the evidence of my own eyes and knowledge of what the SG are doing to address the problem. I'm not aware of any such measures happening in England so shouldn't comment on the situation there - but will say that, from a distance, the UK government appear to be doing little else than abrogate their responsibilities. " Much of Scotlandâs additional fall in child poverty is due to a drop in poverty among working-couple parents. This is partly due to this groupâs shift towards âfullâ working (where both adults are in work and at least one of them is working full-time). This has not happened in England." That speaks volumes - a drop in poverty among working couple parents? The simple fact is that many working couples have no choice other than both to work as and where/as and when they can - and even then, their combined income is barely sufficient to survive. I would have thought that applies in England too, but apparently not. Which makes no sense of your "Scotland has fared âtwice as well as Englandâ claim. "If Scotland fares badly from independence as many believe the ability to help the poor will diminish as you will not have England to bale you out." If independence is gained, then it would indicate that even more believe the opposite, and also believe that the ability to help the poor will increase. One fact is patently obvious though - remaining in the Union will certainly see the ability of the SG to help the poor diminish. All three main Westminster parties have confirmed their intention to greatly reduce the Block Grant. The Scots are not, as Westminster would have you believe, too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after themselves. Neither are they, in the unlikely event that the need will arise, likely to ever ask England to 'bale them out' - they know all too well the draconian conditions that would be applied.
You are confusing my so-called spin - which is non existent ( I have opinions not spin - just the same as you ) with a direct quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation - those words you ascribe to me are theirs not mine - and they are a poverty "expert" organisation. I have edited my post to make it clear where the JRT quote applies Also you started with the statistics this time telling us your view of the rise in poverty since 2010.
Trouble is Bolton that "using your own eyes" means you can see what you expect to see. Statistics can be made to lie but they can also reveal the truth. You and the Yes campaigners are riding on the back of the economic crisis of 2008. So living standards decreased and poverty increased following that - who is surprised by that? You cannot however blame the Union for that. Some will blame the Labour party for economic mismanagement after 1997 onwards; others will blame big banks - and do not deny the Scottish connexions of the worst amongst them; others may not be pleased with 3 PMs with Scottish backgrounds - Blair, Brown and Cameron (another poor BBC ) and let's face it we all blame the groups we personally do not like. But do not blame the Union. The UK fared better than some smaller countries due to the ability of larger ships to ride the waves - look at Ireland and Iceland. Had Scotland been alone the Irish scenario may well be its closest comparitor. You do not like austerity - well join the club as nobody does - but sometimes it is the correct way out of a mess - ask the French who have resisted the Cameron approach how well their economy is faring compared to ours now. The Yes campaign simply uses everything it does not like to blame the Union without real thought - they are the politicians in all this. They twist everything - even slagging off the NO campaign for asking valid questions. Well if you are suggesting demolishing something that is not broke do not expect those that support the structure to ask questions about the outcome. And the answer that "it will be sorted out in the post "Yes" negotiations is not good enough.
Who says it is 'not broke' and why should I not believe in the evidence of my own eyes over the evidence of the written words - especially those written by the media? If it's not broke, then why do they spread lies and misinformation, why do they never admit the sin of omission by failing to report when those lies are revealed? In a previous post, you said that your brother was not aware of any media bias against the SG/SNP - yet it undoubtedly exists, as this shows http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ty-dozen-the-case-against-bbc-scotland-part-2 Perhaps a case of not using one's own eyes in case the truth is there to see?
The Scots have never really had a republican tradition Leo. The Republican tradition in England is stronger precisely because the 'English' never had a hereditary aristocracy - the whole thing being a 'Norman' imposition upon the Saxon majority. The Saxons originally having had a King who was voted into that position. All of our aristocracy are nothing other than the ancestors of the favoured officers of William's army in 1066, and is basically a foreign institution. There has never been an 'English' hereditary monarch - and the last Englishman ruling in anything like that capacity was Cromwell. Many of England's struggles for political rights through history - whether from Magna Carta, the English Revolution, the doctrines of the Levellers, the writings of Thomas Paine or the motivation behind the Tolpuddle martyrs had the idea of the recovery of the free 'Saxon' birthright in the background. Scotland does not have this tradition. Hereditary monarchy in the form which we have in Britain has no place in modern democracy. Maybe the 'cycling' monarchs of Denmark and the Netherlands fit that bill - but not ours. Every high court judge, every Member of Parliament, every high ranking officer in either the military or police takes an oath of allegiance to the woman calling herself Queen (and to her successors). The question of the abolition of the monarchy (or any changes in its political relationship to parliament) cannot be discussed within Parliament - because of this oath. Even republican MPs such as Caroline Lucas take this oath - albeit with fingers crossed at the time. Bearing in mind that the monarchy is nothing other than the head of the whole aristocracy - and that every title of land or title such as Lord, Earl etc. has been 'through their favour' and not through any actual legal land transaction - then a really Socialist government would declare all land gained in this way as invalid - ie. the Lairds would be screwed for every acre. I can but dream.......
Not what I see around here! How many of those kids are being dropped off at school by overweight parents smoking 20 a day and retiring to the pub to drink away their woes in preparation for voting Yes for more benefits?
I have to say that I am surprised at your response BB, I would have you down as a nailed on Republican, for both Oz and Scotland. I suppose we will both see in time where this road leads.
People who do not want to see the break up of the UK say it is not broke I guess. 3m Scots nearly and probably over 50m in the rest of the UK - you have to remember BB that although we do not get to vote on the break up of the UK thanks to Cameron the rest of the UK do actually count for something - even if the Yes campaign do not agree. I have heard of no significant movement outside Scotland to break up the UK - have you? Because it ain't broke. It is the Yes campaign who go on about lies and misinformation - and that can equally be levelled against them. Why do you think I would believe one media article you pick on to disbelieve another - crazy. I suppose you beleive the Yes campaign tell no lies nor give misinformation - not avoid the truth? To prove your point you actually have to give a fair example of articles from over 30 media outlets in Scotland showing them to be mostly against the Yes campaign. I said my brother believes the media is 50- 50 roughly - is his view wrong and your right. Like me he is not a great fan of any part of the media pro or anti independence. He is by nature anti-establishment and says he would by nature vote Yes but it is the lack of a coherent economic startegy and failure to answer necessary questions that will make him vote No. He cares more about the economic future of Scotland and that means voting No.
