May 2011 Election

[renton]

The point being that if the increase is "steady" there should not be periodic increases above the norm. If there is no recurring increase above the norm there is no period, which is precisely the point I am making. In short: it's not a wave function.

Depending on the time frame you choose then you can look at the last 30 years and see a steady increase in magnitude over the periods of events where decisions on the issue required to be made. That is, roughly, a standard increment in agnitude of support above and beyond the periodicity of the events that lead to the deicsions being made.

Oh I agree.

fantastic

And it's been gradual and sustained. Not periodic unless you take the period to be...the entire century in question.

79 referendum for Home Rule (not independence). 97 referendum for Devolution (not independence). 07 election for composition of government (also not independence). Demand for autonomy is distinct from demand for separation.

depends on your time frame, in the last 32 years we've had three events, at 18 and ten years apart where deicsions made have led to greater autonomy, given the unexact science involved, that's as good a peridicity as your gonna get. In that time we have forced a referendum, then exacted a positive result froma referendum and then voted in a governemtn with a seperatist agenda. Demand for autonomy and demand for seperation are simply aspects of each other. Autonomy implies the devolution of deicsion amking, the sepration of powers. The extent of that seperation is yet to be tested to it's limit, but seperation it is.

[vikingTON]

I'm sure renton's done an admirable job on yet more of your drivel trash talk but this is just ridiculous:

It was this bit I was was throwing a gauntlet of scepticism at. There's nothing "periodical" about the maybe one or two swells in sentiment favouring "independence" in the last 300 years.

Ehhh, Westminster politics didn't take account of the majority of public opinion until 1918!

In 1914 a plan for Scottish Home Rule was firmly on the Westminster agenda, since then there has formed the current Scottish National Party, two more Home Rule campaigns resulting in a devolved parliament and greater push for extended powers. There is also a clear-as-day shift in national identity away from British towards Scottish over the long term.

If you cannot grasp the historical significance of Scottish nationalism over the last 90 years then you are a lost cause. If it isn't periodical it is alternatively a growing continuous feature of Scottish politics.

[H_B]

Their referendum failed by 50.6% to 49.4%, thats how close it was!

Indeed. But the majority of Quebecers belive that the matter is now settled. That close defeat might have been expected to lead to future referendums and clamour for Independence - it hasn't.

But if you can see the parallels, does this mean you are in favour of a referendum in order to finally get this out of the way.

Yes, absolutely. I'd have no issues with it being a repeated process every 20 or 25 years even. I'm all for the people making decisions, not being told by politicians what they want.

[Ad Lib]

Depending on the time frame you choose then you can look at the last 30 years and see a steady increase in magnitude over the periods of events where decisions on the issue required to be made. That is, roughly, a standard increment in magnitude of support above and beyond the periodicity of the events that lead to the decisions being made.

A steady increase in the rate without a degree of cyclic impact cannot infer a wave function. That's just exponential increase.

fantastic

Incredible, isn't it!

depends on your time frame, in the last 32 years we've had three events, at 18 and ten years apart where decisions made have led to greater autonomy, given the inexact science involved, that's as good a periodicity as your gonna get.

For pushes for increased autonomy.

In that time we have forced a referendum, then exacted a positive result from a referendum

Pushes for increased autonomy

and then voted in a government with a separatist agenda.

That's like saying that the populus is in favour of the immigration cap because they voted in a government which introduced it. It doesn't naturally follow. Further the proportion of the popular vote for the separatist party wasn't even that high. As pro-independence folk on here have been keen to point out (correctly) SNP support for specific office cannot derive specific support on the independence issue

Demand for autonomy and demand for separation are simply aspects of each other.

Autonomy is an integral part of most separatist movements, but vice versa does not hold. You cannot infer separatist sentiment from pushes for greater autonomy.

Autonomy implies the devolution of decision making, the separation of powers.

Well, not necessarily. It implies fewer degrees of separation between decision maker and those subject to it. The separation of powers doctrine is more of a horizontal phenomenon

The extent of that separation is yet to be tested to it's limit, but separation it is.

Disagree.

[Ad Lib]

Ehhh, Westminster politics didn't take account of the majority of public opinion until 1918!

Therefore it is absolutely impossible to infer any sort of cyclical (i.e. periodic) pushes for "independence" except within the last 90 or so years. Even then you can't establish even two "periods" of a wave function.

In 1914 a plan for Scottish Home Rule was firmly on the Westminster agenda

That would be before your majority of public opinion criteria then? Home Rule does note equal independece.

since then there has formed the current Scottish National Party

Yes, because that represents "Scotland" pushing for "independence", rather than a minority faction organising itself.

two more Home Rule campaigns resulting in a devolved parliament and greater push for extended powers.

Again, not independence.

There is also a clear-as-day shift in national identity away from British towards Scottish over the long term.

A decline, certainly. A long-term sustained trend is not cyclic (i.e. periodical) though. Which was my point.

If you cannot grasp the historical significance of Scottish nationalism over the last 90 years then you are a lost cause. If it isn't periodical it is alternatively a growing continuous feature of Scottish politics.

I've been saying that it's the latter!

[vikingTON]

That would be before your majority of public opinion criteria then?

The 'New Liberals' enjoyed considerable Scottish support and was the springboard for political power for generations. So, no, not really.

If you wish to keep trying to pass it off as mjust squalid little minorities playing politics with constitutions, fine. Stick that to your crappy little politics blog and leave the real historical debate to people who are even remotely qualified - either by knowledge or just a basic fucking grasp - to know what they're talking about.

[xbl]

Yes, absolutely. I'd have no issues with it being a repeated process every 20 or 25 years even. I'm all for the people making decisions, not being told by politicians what they want.

Indeed, but the Unionist parties think we should Know Our Place.

I hardly think: "Uh no, not really" on an internet forum in response to an exerpt from an article you cited on this website constitutes "attacking" "us" or "having a wee tantrum".

Do you still hold to this? You are into your second page of arguing about the article's use of one word!

[H_B]

Indeed, but the Unionist parties think we should Know Our Place.

I don't support any political party. I also don't agree with this stance at all. I find it quite insulting actually.

I see nothing at all wrong with the SNP looking for a referendum on Independence. I'd be happier if they had a current majority to push it through.

[Ad Lib]

Do you still hold to this? You are into your second page of arguing about the article's use of one word!

Ah, so discussing something at length constitutes "attacking us" and "having a wee tantrum"?

Okay.

[renton]

A steady increase in the rate without a degree of cyclic impact cannot infer a wave function. That's just exponential increase.

A*e^(xt)*sin(wt+theta) - an exponential growth over a cyclic period. Thus you can have a periodic event with an equivalent incremental growth in magnitude.

Albeit it's a purely semantic argument.

Incredible, isn't it!

You should try it more often

For pushes for increased autonomy.

Pushes for increased autonomy

Increased seperation of powers from the UK government.

That's like saying that the populus is in favour of the immigration cap because they voted in a government which introduced it. It doesn't naturally follow. Further the proportion of the popular vote for the separatist party wasn't even that high. As pro-independence folk on here have been keen to point out (correctly) SNP support for specific office cannot derive specific support on the independence issue

Quite, but it does still represent a shift in the argument, and one that is landmark enough to count in our cyclic calender. It's a platform for the SNP to build upon, something they've never had previously, and their election at least counts as a level of dissatisfaction with the then ruling UK government.

Autonomy is an integral part of most separatist movements, but vice versa does not hold. You cannot infer separatist sentiment from pushes for greater autonomy.

In so much as greater autonomy requires greater seperation from the alrger ruling body, I can.

Well, not necessarily. It implies fewer degrees of separation between decision maker and those subject to it. The separation of powers doctrine is more of a horizontal phenomenon

Difficult to apply that rationale to Holyrood. Scottish voters ahd the same rights and privelages as English voters when voting for westminster, it's less about a degree of seperation, and more about the exclusive privelage of certain powers seperated from the British state to the Scottish executive.

Disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement.

[xbl]

I don't support any political party. I also don't agree with this stance at all. I find it quite insulting actually.

Indeed. Lets not forget "the settled will of the Scottish people" (thats our current Lib-Con government), when presenting a bill that had been decided by Calman.

Ah, so discussing something at length constitutes "attacking us" and "having a wee tantrum"?

Okay.

Give over. This is exactly what you often do. You pick a word, and then stamp your wee feet when you use a different definition to the rest of the world, proclaiming that the whole world is wrong and you are right. All this over nothing.

[vikingTON]

If trying to build a serious point around the lack of a wave function in, err, political support for independence isn't a wee temper tantrum I don't know what is.

Granted it's a very middle-class, sheltered-life tantrum, but here we are.

[xbl]

By the way, can I check, is the Guardian an English paper, or a British one? Just wondering, because in the light of Iain Gray, the flu jabs "scandal", the trade deals with China, the panda agreement etc., I thought I'd have a quick look at the Guardian's Scottish Politics page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/scotland

Their latest stories...

Tommy Sheridan to sue NoW and Met over phone hacking

6 Jan 2011: Disgraced Scottish politician demands to know how tabloid spy Glenn Mulcaire got private details including phone pin codes

Tommy Sheridan faces prison after conviction for perjury

23 Dec 2010:

46-year-old who served in Scottish parliament for two terms found guilty of lying under oath by a majority verdict

Tommy Sheridan, the socialist firebrand laid low by sex and lies

23 Dec 2010: News of the World prepares to recoup £200,000 libel damages after Sheridan convicted of perjury

The real tragedy of Tommy Sheridan

23 Dec 2010: Gregor Gall: By lying about his personal life, Sheridan let his energy be diverted from the socialist fight he once fought so admirably

Sheridan trial put spotlight on News of the World phone hacking scandal

23 Dec 2010: Notebooks appear to show investigator working for paper recorded Sheridan's mobile pin number

Glenn Mulcaire's notebook extracts shown at Tommy Sheridan perjury trial

23 Dec 2010:Notes made by Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective who worked for the News of the World, were shown to the high court in Glasgow during the Sheridan trial

...and so on and so forth, through six other Sheridan stories, before:

Wouldn't changing our clocks make our lives better?

20 Dec 2010: Patrick Barkham: We would be happier, healthier, richer and less accident-prone if we put our clocks forward to match Europe. So why are some people still gloomy about the idea?

So is the Guardian a British paper?

[Ad Lib]

Give over. This is exactly what you often do. You pick a word, and then stamp your wee feet when you use a different definition to the rest of the world, proclaiming that the whole world is wrong and you are right. All this over nothing.

Definition of the word "tantrum" - a fit of bad temper

Definition of temper - a tendency to become easily angry or irritable

There is no anger or irritability in my semantic disagreement.

If trying to build a serious point around the lack of a wave function in, err, political support for independence isn't a wee temper tantrum I don't know what is.

Granted it's a very middle-class, sheltered-life tantrum, but here we are.

Let's chuck some stereotypes and straw men together and use it to cover up the absence of substance

[vikingTON]

Your blog tagline?

[Pink Freud]

I don't support any political party. I also don't agree with this stance at all. I find it quite insulting actually.

I see nothing at all wrong with the SNP looking for a referendum on Independence. I'd be happier if they had a current majority to push it through.

This is why it is next to impossible to have a rational conversation with xbl, or indeed Swampy or VT on this issue.

Basically, a unionist is a unionist is a unionist in their eyes. They must be: cringing, anti Scottish, arrogant, ignorant of the facts and in denial. THe fact that most unionists that I know voted for devolution, and quite a few voted for the SNP at the last SCottish elections(as I might well have done) because they thought they were the best politicians to look after Scotland's interests in Holyrood is anethema to the dogmatic seperatist. THe fact that many unionists are pro Europe doesn;t get mentioned. The fact that there are psycho anti English involved with the seperation movement is brushed away as a mere minority, but all of us unionists are de facto imperialist apologists.

It's like they see themselves as the rebels in Star Wars. Utterly laughable.

[vikingTON]

This is why it is next to impossible to have a rational conversation with xbl, or indeed Swampy or VT on this issue.

Basically, a unionist is a unionist is a unionist in their eyes. They must be: cringing, anti Scottish, arrogant, ignorant of the facts and in denial. THe fact that most unionists that I know voted for devolution, and quite a few voted for the SNP at the last SCottish elections(as I might well have done) because they thought they were the best politicians to look after Scotland's interests in Holyrood is anethema to the dogmatic seperatist. THe fact that many unionists are pro Europe doesn;t get mentioned. The fact that there are psycho anti English involved with the seperation movement is brushed away as a mere minority, but all of us unionists are de facto imperialist apologists.

It's like they see themselves as the rebels in Star Wars. Utterly laughable.

You should stop trying to put the words of your utterly infantile generalisations into other peoples mouths Pink. Maybe this is the reason you've been careering around this site gibbering nonsense about Mussolini for months on end, I don't know.

[renton]

You should stop trying to put the words of your utterly infantile generalisations into other peoples mouths Pink. Maybe this is the reason you've been careering around this site gibbering nonsense about Mussolini for months on end, I don't know.

On the other hand you can actually imagine XBL rationalising Iain Gray as emperor Palpatine in his head.....

[xbl]

Let's chuck some stereotypes and straw men together and use it to cover up the absence of substance

Have you ever had a Rorschach test? And if so, did the tester ever express amazement that every single ink blot looked like a straw man?

[xbl]

This is why it is next to impossible to have a rational conversation with xbl, or indeed Swampy or VT on this issue.

Basically, a unionist is a unionist is a unionist in their eyes. They must be: cringing, anti Scottish, arrogant, ignorant of the facts and in denial. THe fact that most unionists that I know voted for devolution, and quite a few voted for the SNP at the last SCottish elections(as I might well have done) because they thought they were the best politicians to look after Scotland's interests in Holyrood is anethema to the dogmatic seperatist. THe fact that many unionists are pro Europe doesn;t get mentioned. The fact that there are psycho anti English involved with the seperation movement is brushed away as a mere minority, but all of us unionists are de facto imperialist apologists.

It's like they see themselves as the rebels in Star Wars. Utterly laughable.

Actually, I think you'll find that I mentioned that I was aware that some Unionists voted SNP, yesterday. On this thread. But yes, those Unionists are always so reasonable, its the independence supporters who are the extremists. Shame on us.