Anything Political

[Al Duff 21]

The evidence: where do I start? Scotland's history, its natural resources, its educational system (remember, since you keep accusing me of assertions without evidence, I cited its 4 universities to England's 2, with a 10th of the population, for 400 years)., etc, etc.

 

The onus is on you to produce evidence, since it is you who are denying the fundamental human right of national self-determination.

 

'Possibly'. No, probably. Look at the history of self-determination movements. Can you name any that failed?

 

'It's for me to judge'. Sure, I was only trying to help.

 

My time wasted? It's limited. I work more than full-time. But when I come across arguments against Scottish independence, I find it hard not to pitch in.

 

By the way, if you post long disourses, it is very hard for your interlocutors to respond adequately; there are too many strands. First rule of email.

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

3 hours ago, Al Duff said:

The evidence: where do I start? Scotland's history, its natural resources, its educational system (remember, since you keep accusing me of assertions without evidence, I cited its 4 universities to England's 2, with a 10th of the population, for 400 years)., etc, etc.

 

 And that is evidence of what exactly? It's history? Having 2 more universities than England 400 years ago? It gives Scotland kudos and bragging rights but are of little use today. 

The fact that England had a university (Oxford) 400 years before Scotland had one ( St Andrews) and Cambridge had its charter circa 200 hundred years before, proves what?

Absolutely nothing....

 

Natural resources? Coal, Whisky, Peat, Timber, Agriculture and a rapidly dwindling North Sea oil and gas. 

 

3 hours ago, Al Duff said:

The onus is on you to produce evidence, since it is you who are denying the fundamental human right of national self-determination.

 

 

No one is denying anyone their fundamental rights. You seem to have taken the position that we are against you, we're not and should a democratic vote go your way then good luck to you. I simply have an opinion that independence is not in Scotland's or the UK's best interest. Convince me I'm wrong...

 

3 hours ago, Al Duff said:

Look at the history of self-determination movements. Can you name any that failed?

 

You teach politics and ask that?

Failed states...  Cambodia - Zimbabwe - Haiti - Cameroon - Cuba? to name just a few. Ireland (I said this earlier), took almost a hundred years to get where it is today yet was still receiving  UK and  EU support in 2013. There are of course many reasons why they failed but they are irrelevant, the bottom line is - they did

 

3 hours ago, Al Duff said:

But when I come across arguments against Scottish independence, I find it hard not to pitch in.

 

 

That is rather the point of this topic. Discussing differences and trying to find common ground and consensus. You seem passionate about independence and that's fine but you have offered no facts or figures in support. The Brexiteers were similar, very  determined but could not for the life of them give valid reasons for why they wanted out - they still can't.

 

I've tried to keep it brief and bite sized but one more:

 

Simple question - What will Scotland gain?

[DJ360 6,733]

4 hours ago, Al Duff said:

The evidence: where do I start? Scotland's history, its natural resources, its educational system (remember, since you keep accusing me of assertions without evidence, I cited its 4 universities to England's 2, with a 10th of the population, for 400 years)., etc, etc.

 

The onus is on you to produce evidence, since it is you who are denying the fundamental human right of national self-determination.

 

'Possibly'. No, probably. Look at the history of self-determination movements. Can you name any that failed?

 

'It's for me to judge'. Sure, I was only trying to help.

 

My time wasted? It's limited. I work more than full-time. But when I come across arguments against Scottish independence, I find it hard not to pitch in.

 

By the way, if you post long disourses, it is very hard for your interlocutors to respond adequately; there are too many strands. First rule of email.

 

 

 

I have little to add that Brew has not already covered.

[Rob.L 1,090]

A good point if you ignore the fact that if the UK treats goods from EU countries differently from other countries in the absence of a trade agreement, those countries will have every right to demand the exact same treatment or they will take the UK to the WTO Courts. 

[Brew 5,423]

Not sure I follow you Rob.

 

Once out of the EU we can pursue trade agreements with whomsoever we choose. Post Brexit and sans agreements, goods imported from  the EU will be treated the same as any other non EU member.   I've not really got my head round all the ramifications of leaving without a deal.

 

As I understand it we will not be members of the WTO once we leave and will need to re-join as an independent nation. This raises  an interesting conundrum.  The EU as a whole is jointly and severally a WTO member state and therefore bound by the same rules as virtually all the rest of the world. Basically when we are members once more they can't  impose regulatory barriers on UK goods after Brexit without justification as long as product and safety standards remain in agreement, (my knowledge gets a bit wobbly here).

 

I may have over simplified the case but as I say I don't really have a handle on it yet.

 

Which countries do you think will make the demands on us and  for what?

 

 

[Al Duff 21]

On 7/19/2020 at 12:55 AM, Brew said:

 

 And that is evidence of what exactly? It's history? Having 2 more universities than England 400 years ago? It gives Scotland kudos and bragging rights but are of little use today. 

The fact that England had a university (Oxford) 400 years before Scotland had one ( St Andrews) and Cambridge had its charter circa 200 hundred years before, proves what?

Absolutely nothing....

 

It proves a lot. We live in post-industrial society where what counts is theoretical knowledge - fostered largely in universities - and its application to technology (Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, 1973. Manuel Castells, The Information Age, 3 vols, 2000.) And if the general population in Scotland is better educated than in England, because of a much stronger tradition of popular higher education, then Scots are more likely to be politically sophisticated and therefore to want national self-determination. Remember, I say this as an English chappie!

 

On 7/19/2020 at 12:55 AM, Brew said:

 

Natural resources? Coal, Whisky, Peat, Timber, Agriculture and a rapidly dwindling North Sea oil and gas. 

That's not bad though, is it? Also....water. And the fishes that swim around in water. What has England got that Scotland doesn't? Look too at the size of Scotland and ask yourself why such a huge country, with such resources, should not be able to stand on its own two feet.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 12:55 AM, Brew said:

 

 

No one is denying anyone their fundamental rights. You seem to have taken the position that we are against you, we're not and should a democratic vote go your way then good luck to you. I simply have an opinion that independence is not in Scotland's or the UK's best interest. Convince me I'm wrong...

So you are saying that you accept the people's right to self-determination, but you think you know better than the people? Even if it is not in Scotland's 'interests' , it whould still happen, if willed. Iustitia fiat et caelum ruat.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 12:55 AM, Brew said:

 

 

You teach politics and ask that?

Failed states...  Cambodia - Zimbabwe - Haiti - Cameroon - Cuba? to name just a few. Ireland (I said this earlier), took almost a hundred years to get where it is today yet was still receiving  UK and  EU support in 2013. There are of course many reasons why they failed but they are irrelevant, the bottom line is - they did

I once taught politics proper, I now teach, or try to teach, interdisicplinary. Yes, of course there are failed states but you are confusing them with the quite separate issue of thwarted national self-determination movements. Just like you are running this discussion together with Brexit, which is entirely unconnected. You need to separate out...just like Scotland does!

 

 

That is rather the point of this topic. Discussing differences and trying to find common ground and consensus. You seem passionate about independence and that's fine but you have offered no facts or figures in support. The Brexiteers were similar, very  determined but could not for the life of them give valid reasons for why they wanted out - they still can't.

 

I've tried to keep it brief and bite sized but one more:

 

Simple question - What will Scotland gain?

 

[Brew 5,423]

5 hours ago, Al Duff said:

It proves a lot. We live in post-industrial society where what counts is theoretical knowledge - fostered largely in universities - and its application to technology (Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, 1973. Manuel Castells, The Information Age, 3 vols, 2000.) And if the general population in Scotland is better educated than in England, because of a much stronger tradition of popular higher education, then Scots are more likely to be politically sophisticated and therefore to want national self-determination. Remember, I say this as an English chappie!

 

Sorry it proves nothing and obscure hypotheses are poor foundations. Your suppositions about being politically sophisticated is a bit of a stretch whether they're better educated than the English or not, (which is doubtful)

Bell makes some interesting points, I'm not so impressed with Castells Marxist view. Both these worthies offer a thesis, abstracts that, back in the day, were well received - but so far remain unproven.

I wonder if Thatcher gained her conviction about the economy from them - they're very similar in some respects?

 

The education in Scotland was good however since gaining devolved powers it has gone downhill with International scores (PISA) returning quite poor results

To quote John Swinney ' it makes uncomfortable reading' and "it needs radical reform if it is to become world-class again".  See also quote below.

Education is important but is hardly a major plank on which to base independence.

 

5 hours ago, Al Duff said:

Look too at the size of Scotland and ask yourself why such a huge country, with such resources, should not be able to stand on its own two feet.

 

Simple, it is clear the resources are not sufficient to sustain the economy. I think you just shot yourself in the foot Al

 

Why does this huge country with all these natural resources need our support? Scotland is a net recipient of English taxpayers money, second only to Northern Ireland. Also three of the top EU subsidy recipients are Scottish? You can't say you're standing on your own feet if someone else is propping you up.

You can blame the English if you like but do you not think that if were possible for Scotland pay it's own way Westminster wouldn't be jumping for joy?

 

You mention Scotland is big, over half the size of England in fact.  England has circa 55 million people, ten times more than Scotland. If there is all that land and all those resources why is the population so small? Why is it not in the tens of millions?

 

6 hours ago, Al Duff said:

Natural resources? Coal, Whisky, Peat, Timber, Agriculture and a rapidly dwindling North Sea oil and gas. 

That's not bad though, is it? Also....water. And the fishes that swim around in water. What has England got that Scotland doesn't?

 

It's not good though is it? Coal will be all but useless in the near future. I shouldn't have mentioned whisky, it's not a resource, it's a revenue stream, much like the military bases we maintain and are likely to disappear. The market for peat is I would imagine limited and whoever finishes up with the North Sea will need billions to dismantle the infrastructure when it's done.  Alex Salmond said " there is fifty years left" Scottish academics say ten if you're lucky, either way it's not exactly a long term prospect. Fishing is not the industry it once was and why mention English resources? what do they have to do with Scottish independence?

 

6 hours ago, Al Duff said:

So you are saying that you accept the people's right to self-determination, but you think you know better than the people? Even if it is not in Scotland's 'interests' , it whould still happen, if willed. Iustitia fiat et caelum ruat.

 

I never said different.

You seems to have a penchant for twisting or misinterpreting my words. I'm not so arrogant I think I know better than anyone, why would you say that? I said, quite clearly , it was my opinion that it would not be Scotland's or the UK's best interest. Incidentally the 'people'  at the last time of asking actually agreed with my view and voted no

 

By the way you can interpret the Latin as -  'Let it happen even though it may be a disaster'. Which seems a bit of a cavalier attitude.

 

Can I quote this from a Scots newspaper:

 

"But in truth the Scottish NHS is doing noticeably worse than the English NHS. In 2015, the Euro Health Consumer Index ranked England 14th and Scotland 16th out of 36 countries, despite the Scottish NHS’s spending £200 more per person than the English NHS each year. Scotland’s educational system is struggling under the SNP as well. The Scottish exam results — out last week — got worse for a fourth year in a row. More than twice as many disadvantaged English children as disadvantaged Scottish children attend university. The OECD report “Improving Schools in Scotland” found that “it is worse to be poor in Scotland than in any [other] part of the UK.”

 

And yet, the SNP is continuing its push for a potentially disastrous independence from the U.K., full steam ahead. Assuming that the EU did decide to welcome an independent Scotland back to the table as a smaller, much less powerful country, we’d not only have a new currency but trade friction with England — our biggest trading partner and, frankly, our economic life support — which would by then have left the Common Market."

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Al Duff said:

Yes, of course there are failed states but you are confusing them with the quite separate issue of thwarted national self-determination movements

 

You challenged me to identify failed states - I did and there are more I could mention. They are all states that came in to being as the result of struggles for independence from a colonial power or an oppressive government so not separate at all. A thwarted movement has by definition failed to make it's objectives so can't be a state.

 

I see a quite definite similarity  between your independence movement and Brexit, I don't see how you cannot. The gist of what I was saying is the  similarity with separatists and Brexiteers ability to explain why and what they have to gain - you still haven't told us

[Al Duff 21]

Sorry, Brew. None of your points stands up, but I cannot devote more time to proving this. If you'd like to organise a face to face debate, I'd be up for that, however. Best wishes.

[DJ360 6,733]

1 hour ago, Al Duff said:

None of your points stands up, but I cannot devote more time to proving this.

 

And yet you keep coming back to this thread and writing your stuff.  You have still provided precious little real evidence of how Scotland's economy would cope with independence or what shape that indedpendence would take.  Brew's observation that this is similar to the tactics of many Brexiteers is entirely valid.

 

It would also be helpful if you familiarised yourself with quoting portions of a post and responding to them.  It's not difficult.  Simply highlight the portion of text concerned using the left mouse button.. then release the button and a 'quote selection' box will appear.  Just click on that and your selected bit will appear in your reply.  Enure that you type your response outside the quoted selection.  Repeat if required.

[DJ360 6,733]

8 hours ago, Brew said:

And if the general population in Scotland is better educated than in England, because of a much stronger tradition of popular higher education, then Scots are more likely to be politically sophisticated and therefore to want national self-determination. Remember, I say this as an English chappie!

 

 

I spent a good portion of my Post Grad training in Scotland, notably in Grampian Region where I spent time in schools and colleges in Aberdeen, Mintlaw, Elgin, Peterhead and Buckie.  I was initially impressed by the fact that the already qualified people I was working with all had MA's, until I worked out that Scottish 'Highers' were only 1 year courses beyond 'O' Grades and thus Scottish youngsters went to Uni a year earlier and stayed a year longer..so that the nominal MA was a bit of a cheat.

Whilst I think I detected a little more respect for education in the more rural areas.. the school pupls were of generally the same range of ability and attainment as in England. I suspect most of the difference was down to the largely 'middle class' rural population and that I'd have got a different impression from the more deprived areas in Clydeside... for example.

[Brew 5,423]

3 hours ago, Al Duff said:

Sorry, Brew. None of your points stands up, but I cannot devote more time to proving this. If you'd like to organise a face to face debate, I'd be up for that, however. Best wishes.

 

You've not proven anything and it's pity, I'd have liked to see your responses ...

 

To sum up then Scotland will have independence because:

 

It started universities 400 years AFTER England

 

It has a tiny population

 

It has huge areas of land that are actually of very little use (pretty to look at though)

 

It’s natural resources apart from forestry and aggregates are rapidly dwindling

 

It will give up English and EU subsidies

 

You propose  intellectuals will run the economy/government in some sort Geniocracy,  Raelism?  - only without the flying saucers.

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

Raelism? Is that a reference to my favourite entry in the Directory of British Organisations. which I used to love dipping into before the days of t'internet?

 

Can't lay hands on my copy at the moment but tucked in there somewhere between the British Blue Nosed Sheep Breeders Assn and all the other stuff was the Raelian Society.. 'Followers of the Elohim  our Fathers From Space..who created all life on Earth' ...etc..blah...

 

No less believable than any other religion when you think about it.  Which says something quite profound...

 

[Brew 5,423]

One and the very same Col! The one whose symbol is a juxtaposition of the star of David and a swastika, David Icke must love it...Every MP to be genius level etc...

[DJ360 6,733]

Just watched the last episode of 'The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty'.

 

It was always obvious that the man was a power freak, a manipulator and quite likely ( in my view) psychopathic. Psychopathic in the broad sense.. not a killer,( at least personally), but entirely lacking in empathy and concerned only with his own ambition and gratification.

 

Whilst I've always known he was 'bad news'.. it's educational to see it all laid out chronologically so that it all makes better sense and all the threads are pulled together.  What an utter shit he is!!

 

And of course the documentary series..even if only half true.. clearly explained exactly what I've been saying for years.. that huge sections of the UK population ( and others.) have been manipulated by a far right, foreign and deeply malicious media mogul.

 

You can thank Murdoch for poisoning UK politics.

 

Discuss..

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

I have no issue with your deprecatory description of the man though I think it a stretch to assume  -

'that huge sections of the UK population ( and others.) have been manipulated by a far right, foreign and deeply malicious media mogul.'

No matter how hard we try Murdoch cannot take all the blame you attribute to him.  He is not the sole reason for the rise of the right.

 

When considering  Heaths "unacceptable face of capitalism" we have a few  to choose from, Rowlands, Soros, Goldsmith, Maxwell as well as Murdoch etc.  All had enormous influence, some overt,  some covert. It's worth noting also that at least two of those names were/are Labour supporters and Maxwell was even a Labour MP.

I wonder what your view would be if Murdoch supported political parties and policies you agreed with, would using his undoubted influence be good or bad if you subscribed to his views?

 

I also think people have more sense than to be unduly influenced to the degree you think they are. The famous Murdoch / Maxwell media war went on for years yet had little sway on the political front as far as voters were concerned, at least none that I saw. The media have influences of course they do but not to the degree they can be called malicious.

 

The point is Murdoch and his ilk are so far removed from reality it makes little to no difference what flavour the government is - they simply don't care. He was at one time opposed to Trump yet now they are buddies. If  Murdoch  thought it was  in his  interest to ditch Trump and favour his opposition he would do so in a heartbeat and not  look back.

 

I and many others think politics and politicians in the UK are in a somewhat parlous state at the moment and has been for some time. There are however  governments far worse than the UK's version of a right wing executive. We may endlessly decry the denizens of Westminster but -  all of us are actually doing rather well under it.

At least we can have a nice Pizo after we've had our rant at the TV...  

[DJ360 6,733]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I have no issue with your deprecatory description of the man though I think it a stretch to assume  -

'that huge sections of the UK population ( and others.) have been manipulated by a far right, foreign and deeply malicious media mogul.'

No matter how hard we try Murdoch cannot take all the blame you attribute to him.  He is not the sole reason for the rise of the right.

 

Well you know me Jim.  I like to throw in the odd inflammatory phrase to get things going... .

 

Of course he's not the sole reason.. but he is a very significant 'enabler'. Did you watch the programmes?

 

It seems to me he pretty much 'made' Farage and UKIP.  A task in which he was ably assisted by the BBC, who still confuse 'bias' and 'balance'.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

When considering  Heaths "unacceptable face of capitalism" we have a few  to choose from, Rowlands, Soros, Goldsmith, Maxwell as well as Murdoch etc.  All had enormous influence, some overt,  some covert. It's worth noting also that at least two of those names were/are Labour supporters and Maxwell was even a Labour MP.

 

But I'm not discussing them.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I also think people have more sense than to be unduly influenced to the degree you think they are.

 

I'm not convinced.

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

The media have influences of course they do but not to the degree they can be called malicious.

 

 

Really?  So do you regard Murdoch as benign?  He still owns Fox....

[DJ360 6,733]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

We may endlessly decry the denizens of Westminster but -  all of us are actually doing rather well under it.

 

Many of 'us' really aren't Jim.  I'm OK.. but I know many who are suffering.

[DJ360 6,733]

Meanwhile.. in other news.....

 

As the very thin veneer.. (such as it was....) of competence,  rapidly flakes off of Johnson.. his team.. no doubt led quietly but odiously from behind by Cummings ..has advertised for a 'Straight Man' to act as the Prime Minister's 'Spokesman'.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53568610

 

From which:

Quote

Boris Johnson has begun the search for a spokesperson to front daily White House-style media briefings.

The job, advertised on the Conservative LinkedIn page, is described as a chance to "communicate with the nation on behalf of the prime minister".

"Essential skills" include "excellent risk management and crisis communication skills".

The salary is "based on experience", but the Daily Telegraph suggests it is likely to be more than £100,000-a-year.

The successful applicant is likely to be an experienced broadcaster - and the subject of intense media scrutiny.

• PM plans daily White House-style press briefings

In the US, presidential spokesman such as Sean Spicer and Anthony Scaramucci became household names and sometimes found themselves at the centre of controversy.

 

 

So Bozo the Clown is looking for a stright man.. but also presumably someone who can lie with more fluency and assurance.. and less bluster and waffle.

 

This could be interesting!  I can't think of anyone even from the mostly openly Conservative BBC  broadcast team.. who would risk the rest of their career to go down fighting on behalf of Johnson.

[Brew 5,423]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But I'm not discussing them.

 

The subject was not only Murdoch the man but the degree of influence he exerts on the public consciousness and  ' poisoning UK politics'.

I brought the others into the discussion as examples of mega rich and media moguls who also try to use their influence to gain advantage. Politics have little to do with it. The media giants,  Murdochs included, are all pandering to and trying to play nice with China and Russia for example. They simply don't care about left or right, they only care about profit. Freidman argued that business has no empathy,  sympathy or social conscience, it's only responsibility is profit. Murdoch et al are living embodiments of this.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Many of 'us' really aren't Jim.  I'm OK.. but I know many who are suffering.

 

Suffering is such an emotive word. Measured against the disadvantaged, the starving and oppressed of this world where would the UK's poorest rate on the suffering scale?

 

Murdoch is not benign and I didn't even hint he was... I don't believe he has an altruistic bone in his body and suspect his charity donations are more about tax than anything else.

 

[Brew 5,423]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

So Bozo the Clown is looking for a stright man.. but also presumably someone who can lie with more fluency and assurance.. and less bluster and waffle.

 

Can i put your name forward Col?    

[DJ360 6,733]

I've already enquired..... 

 

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/new-job-anyone.243990/

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 7/30/2020 at 2:01 PM, Brew said:

The subject was not only Murdoch the man but the degree of influence he exerts on the public consciousness and  ' poisoning UK politics'.

I brought the others into the discussion as examples of mega rich and media moguls who also try to use their influence to gain advantage. Politics have little to do with it.

 

Jim.. Politics has everything to do with it.  I keep on saying that Politics is not just about parties and factions.. but ultimately about 'who gets what'.  It may well be that Murdoch and his ilk see themselves as floating above UK or other countries' Party Politics, but they are still engaging in Political action, by using their power, to gain advantage.  That is the very essence of politics.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 7/30/2020 at 2:01 PM, Brew said:

Suffering is such an emotive word. Measured against the disadvantaged, the starving and oppressed of this world where would the UK's poorest rate on the suffering scale?

 

That's a Cop Out  Jim.  It is disingenuous to compare only some UK citizens.. ( the poorest..) with those in the third world who are admittedly far worse off.

 

The salient point here is that the first duty of Govt. is to protect its citizens. ALL of them..  It is no longer.. (if it ever was..) acceptable to have people homeless, and in food poverty.. in one of the supposed richest countries in the World.

[Brew 5,423]

Politics in the sense you are using it means to campaign, influence, promote etc. It's semantics really but I used the word in it's generally accepted meaning.  I 'm referring to party politics and as such the mega rich / moguls really don't give a damn.