Should only be done in a social setting where the crisps are to be shared, imo. He was obviously lonely
.
Jim Murphy is new Scottish Labour leader.
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
Should only be done in a social setting where the crisps are to be shared, imo. He was obviously lonely
.DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
kick him in the shin by accident
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
thats an invite to help yourself to his crisps
gosub
~#
Only reason for doing it. Used to know someone who used to open one side, as opposed to an end. V weird and not sure how he did it
heinous seamus
Perfect in an empty room
He had his cronies with him but he didn't share. So much for socialist Jim 
Should only be done in a social setting where the crisps are to be shared, imo. He was obviously lonely
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
I'm fairly sure I would have had to have bought a hot beverage and accidentally spilt it in his direction. Or moved, complaining loudly about the people on trains now!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Who else would you propose I suit?
I still am. But the majority rejected it, and it is currently off the table. I hope it will be back on the table in the not too distant future, but for now we have to deal with the situation that faces us now.
Not quite correct. I prefer the status quo to the Smith Commission proposals. Do you think I should accept any package described as "further devolution", because something is better than nothing? A sort of constitutional blank cheque to accept any change simply because it's change, even if I think it's damaging change?
That's utter nonsense. It's the sort of thinking behind saying "you support PR? Well, we can't offer that, but we can offer AV; it's proven to be less proportional than FPTP, but at least it's change. And it's what's on offer."
Whoever goes for that line of "thinking" must buy all sorts of shit they don't want.
Em, yeah. What is your problem with that? I would like the tools to combat austerity, but we're not being offered them. (Incidentally I haven't had a "change of heart" - I still support independence).
Yes. Have you read my posts?
No, the oil price has no bearing on my dislike for Smith. I think Smith is a fiscal trap that will spin Scotland into a downward spiral of cuts and austerity of far greater severity than will be the case in other parts of the UK. I've said so quite plainly.
The oil price will fluctuate whether Scotland is in the UK or not. The price of a barrel of crude has been lower in the last decade - it's currently around $45. In 2008 it dropped to $30. The UK should have had an oil fund, it didn't - that's spilt milk. Incidentally Scottish Labour scoffed at the Yes campaign plans for such a fund, but is now actually proposing one itself!
It amuses me that oil is an asset to the UK, but would have been a terrible burden to an independent Scotland.
The reason for the current dip is not so much the production of fracked oil in the US, but OPEC's need to undercut that, to make it uneconomic. The market is flooded with comparatively cheap oil. There will therefore be job losses. But the price will rise again in the future.
Why would that make me want to accept a fiscal trap set by the Smith Commission?
As for the case for a "specifically Scottish economy" having collapsed, that's nonsense; oil is not all there is to the Scottish economy, inside or outside of the UK. What does your phrase a "specifically Scottish economy" mean anyway?
In conclusion, supporting independence does not necessitate supporting devolution (and indeed vice versa); they are two different things. And supporting devolution in principle does not necessitate supporting the specific proposals of the Smith Commission (or indeed the Draft Bill we expect shortly to emerge).
Here's an analogy - I generally approve of ice cream, but I actively dislike mint ice cream. If you offered me an ice cream but it turned out to be mint, I'd decline the offer. Hope that helps you with the concept.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
heinous seamus
Perfect in an empty room
That wasn't me.
newbie
undisambiguated
I think you're misunderstanding, I'm not arguing with you, or trying to persuade you for or against anything, just curious about how the changed circumstances of the oil price collapse are playing politically. Because if the referendum had been timed just a few months later the economic arguments would have been very different. Wouldn't they?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You are, though, confusing devolution and independence. The two things are different. Devolution is ice cream. Independence is a cup of coffee. It does not follow from ordering coffee that I'd necessarily want ice cream if no coffee was available. Nor that any flavour of ice cream would do.
As for the oil prices, that is irrelevant to devolution. Whatever increased devolution we do or don't get, the oil prices will be whatever they are.
gosub
~#
Frankie Jack
Not a bloke..
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
well, why did you say I'd had a change of heart? You said I backed independence, but now I was opposed to a specific devolution plan - why the change of heart? It isn't a change of heart. That's the kind of sloppy millimetre deep analysis that pisses everyone off up here.
As for oil prices and independence - I always knew oil prices fluctuated. It's hard to miss. Crude was $30 a barrel in 2008. It wouldn't have changed my vote. If you're arguing Yes would have lost by a bigger margin, then you're going to need a better understanding of Scottish politics than you possess.
newbie
undisambiguated
you're very touchy. It sure looked like a change of heart, to move from cheerleading independence to backing the status quo. But you've clarified that you're still for separation, the status quo is only preferable to the Smith proposals. And for that I'm grateful.
You've also clarified that in your view the oil price fall would not change independence referendum voting, either by you personally or in the wider Scottish population.
To me it seems the difference between 2008 and now is that the fall then was caused by reduced demand, now by oversupply. In 2008 resumption of demand to previous levels was a realistic aim, whereas now worldwide oversupply will only be resolved by attrition, and once closed an expensive facility like a North Sea field may never be reopened.
So I'm surprised, but then I have no understanding of nationalism. I come to threads like this to try to figure out how much of the desire for self-determination, whether through independence or through some form of devolution, is hard headed materialism. Given that the economic debate prior to the referendum was largely about the two key Scottish industries, oil and finance, and finance scaremongered that it would move to rUK, a large part of the pro-Yes economic case was that Scotland had a rosy future mostly reliant on oil.
You're now suggesting that the oil price collapse doesn't much matter, in political terms. Does that mean the appeal of independence is more romantic than material?
You've also clarified that in your view the oil price fall would not change independence referendum voting, either by you personally or in the wider Scottish population.
To me it seems the difference between 2008 and now is that the fall then was caused by reduced demand, now by oversupply. In 2008 resumption of demand to previous levels was a realistic aim, whereas now worldwide oversupply will only be resolved by attrition, and once closed an expensive facility like a North Sea field may never be reopened.
So I'm surprised, but then I have no understanding of nationalism. I come to threads like this to try to figure out how much of the desire for self-determination, whether through independence or through some form of devolution, is hard headed materialism. Given that the economic debate prior to the referendum was largely about the two key Scottish industries, oil and finance, and finance scaremongered that it would move to rUK, a large part of the pro-Yes economic case was that Scotland had a rosy future mostly reliant on oil.
You're now suggesting that the oil price collapse doesn't much matter, in political terms. Does that mean the appeal of independence is more romantic than material?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, I didn't.
There are differences, of course. But the North Sea has be "close to closure" before. We'll have to see what happens.
Are you under the impression that I'm a nationalist? No wonder you can't figure out my stance.
No, I am suggesting that you don't understand the motivation. That despite several very big threads you are still so wide of the mark that you could be that cartoon of George Osborne in a hospital saying "it's like a foreign language - WHO GETS THE MONEY"
For avoidance of doubt, the appeal of independence for me is to create an historic moment when the neoliberal elite is on the back foot and power is in the hands of the masses.
That, incidentally, cannot be created in a devolution programme, which is about political elites redividing the power they already have.
newbie
undisambiguated
for you, yes. But are you really asking me to believe that's the case for the wider Scottish voting population, which is what I was talking about?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, that's why I said "for me". I note you spotted that.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Also, I'm not "touchy", you prick; I'm cantankerous. And patronising.
Get it right.
Get it right.
In real, actually existing politics, the chances of such a radical shift of power if people had voted 'yes' in September, would suely have been minimal? Or at least very limited?
Not least because Alex Salmond/the SNP are part of the elite themselves ... just as much as all the other parties.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The point is not about who would have formed the government but their capacity to resist demands made of them.
The analogy I've used before is winning the welfare state after WWII. That wasn't granted by beneficent politicians, but won by a populace with more clout than previously.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Will, I've said all this many times over the years.
I know, but I might? be a bit more sceptical about how effective popular demands/clout would have turned out in reality.
All this is now counterfactual speculation though, I accept.
All this is now counterfactual speculation though, I accept.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Congratulate him on his ability to alienate potential Labour votes not just in Scotland but also in London.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You're entitled to be sceptical; it is, as you say, academic now anyway, and I feel disinclined this afternoon to reheat cauld kale.
Three pages on the correct pronunciation of this by tea-time.
newbie
undisambiguated
so enlighten me, I've already told you I don't get it. You've told me what motivates you towards independence, and clarified that that's not really what motivated some 45% of the Scottish voters to vote Yes. They're not trying to get rid of neoliberalism, even if you are. So what is their motivation, if it's remained unshifted despite the economic case changing?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Thread started 2012, fill your boots; it’s all there.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/
In 2006, I said this:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/break-up-of-the-union.114631/#post-3848991
Something I said about devolution in 2007:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/scotland-it-gets-stuff-that-i-dont.157226/page-2#post-5253091
A thread about nationalism from 2013:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/nationalism.307604/
My records aren't as good as pogofish's, though.
Similar threads
- Poll
