Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

You called it rank hypocrisy a few posts ago

Are there distinct Green and SNP campaigns, in the vein of what Labour launched yesterday? I haven't seen anything?

Yes, they are called the SNP. They've been campaigning for independence for quite a lot of years and currently run the country. You might have heard of them?

[banterman86]

It hasn't been explained at all, why would Labour need their own distinctive campaign? Isn't the case for the Union perfectly straightforward?

see here

Eh? Clearly Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems all have different visions for the future of Scotland within the UK, they all simply agree on that it should stay in the UK.

Likewise, the SNP, the Greens and the SSP all have different visions for the future of Scotland as Independent, they all simply agree that it should be independent.

Seperate camapigns from the idnividual parties can still dovetail with the broad "coalitions" of BT and YesScotland

What is so difficult about that to understand?

Do you think Jim McColl and Tommy Sheridan want independence for the same reasons? Couldn't they have distinct arguments as to why they favour a certain constituional arrangement?

[H_B]

The thing is, had you not tried to be a c**t about it, I would have happily educated you in a nice manner.

There was no need to humiliate yourself in this way. It's an object lesson in the best way to gain information, or in this case, not.

[banterman86]

Yes, they are called the SNP. They've been campaigning for independence for quite a lot of years and currently run the country. You might have heard of them?

You're obfuscating here, is there an SNP campaign, seperate from YesScotland, in the vein of what was launched yesterday? And if so, what amkes them disticn from YesScotland?

[Baxter Parp]

This really has been a disaster for you hasn't it.

Not at all, I feel quite triumphant since Ol' Roland backed me up. Sound man.

[Baxter Parp]

The thing is, had you not tried to be a c**t about it, I would have happily educated you in a nice manner.

There was no need to humiliate yourself in this way. It's an object lesson in the best way to gain information, or in this case, not.

Talking to himself now ^^^^

[Baxter Parp]

Do you think Jim McColl and Tommy Sheridan want independence for the same reasons? Couldn't they have distinct arguments as to why they favour a certain constituional arrangement?

Sure, but if Labour wanted a distinct voice why didn't they set it up like that in the first place? Why back Better Together to the hilt and then suddenly discover they need a "distinct voice"?

Edit: we may be at cross purposes here.

[xbl]

You're obfuscating here, is there an SNP campaign, seperate from YesScotland, in the vein of what was launched yesterday? And if so, what amkes them disticn from YesScotland?

The whole reason for the SNP is independence. This is what they focus on. That is why Alex Salmond isn't in charge of Yes Scotland, but still talks about independence, and why the SNP have their own party political broadcasts that focus on independence, without being part of Yes Scotland.

Its why the SNP say "we will keep the pound", whereas people in Yes Scotland have a range of opinions (such as Canavan and Harvie). Not that this gets reported in the media of course.

[the jambo-rocker]

You called it rank hypocrisy a few posts ago

Without trying to contradict myself here, it kinda is, as they already have their own vision of the UK like you said, but starting their own party is nothing more than as I've said, trying to distance themselves from the big bad tories no matter how they dress it up (saying it is one thing, doing it however is clearly another).

Don't get me wrong, I see the Yes Scotland and SNP as somewhat similar also even though they try to distance themselves from each other at times. They should be looking to utilize more of the non-SNP voices but haven't really done enough to say otherwise. I am trying to look at it from both sides.

[Baxter Parp]

The whole reason for the SNP is independence. This is what they focus on. That is why Alex Salmond isn't in charge of Yes Scotland, but still talks about independence, and why the SNP have their own party political broadcasts that focus on independence, without being part of Yes Scotland.

Its why the SNP say "we will keep the pound", whereas people in Yes Scotland have a range of opinions (such as Canavan and Harvie). Not that this gets reported in the media of course.

The SNP are part of Yes Scotland and have stuck with it, without requiring a "distinct voice" despite the range of opinion on political policy within that campaign. Why do Labour require a new campaign when there is a campaign that was perfectly fine and dandy for them up until what seems to have been about a week ago?

[banterman86]

Sure, but if Labour wanted a distinct voice why didn't they set it up like that in the first place? Why back Better Together to the hilt and then suddenly discover they need a "distinct voice"?

Edit: we may be at cross purposes here.

Read this. Again.

Eh? Clearly Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems all have different visions for the future of Scotland within the UK, they all simply agree on that it should stay in the UK.

Likewise, the SNP, the Greens and the SSP all have different visions for the future of Scotland as Independent, they all simply agree that it should be independent.

Seperate camapigns from the idnividual parties can still dovetail with the broad "coalitions" of BT and YesScotland

What is so difficult about that to understand?

They can be in the broad "coalition" and also be distinct. This is really really straightforward.

Its why the SNP say "we will keep the pound", whereas people in Yes Scotland have a range of opinions (such as Canavan and Harvie). Not that this gets reported in the media of course.

Perhaps the lack of distinct campaigns is a problem then.

[banterman86]

Without trying to contradict myself here, it kinda is, as they already have their own vision of the UK like you said, but starting their own party is nothing more than as I've said, trying to distance themselves from the big bad tories no matter how they dress it up (saying it is one thing, doing it however is clearly another).

Don't get me wrong, I see the Yes Scotland and SNP as somewhat similar also even though they try to distance themselves from each other at times. They should be looking to utilize more of the non-SNP voices but haven't really done enough to say otherwise. I am trying to look at it from both sides.

But they have a different vision of what Scotland in the UK should look like from the big bad tories, they can't articultae that in BT (Much as Patrick Harvie can't articulate his vision in YesScotland) without confusing things. A seprate campaign allows them to say "We agree with them on the what, but not the why"

[Colkitto]

Labour are making a pathetic attempt to distance themselves from the Tories. It has all the hallmarks of that failed loser Gordon Brown.

Their tactics are obviously, don't vote for independence to get rid of the Tories as Labour will save the UK and the world when they get into power.

It's like the 13 years they had in power didn't happen

[Ad Lib]

Incidentally, anyone remember when HB and Ad Lib claimed that David Scheffer knew nothing about international law and was actually a criminal lawyer and clown? That would be David Scheffer, American Ambassador, who teaches international law, runs a large international law institute, and started his career practicing international law. But is also a "clown", a "nobody", and is less qualified than HB and Ad Lib.So I'd take their sneers with a degree of caution.

I never said he knew nothing about international law (though I said he was wrong). H_B said his specialism was criminal law (he served with the International Criminal Court, not public international law, which is a different field like microbiology is different from organic chemistry.

[the jambo-rocker]

But they have a different vision of what Scotland in the UK should look like from the big bad tories, they can't articultae that in BT (Much as Patrick Harvie can't articulate his vision in YesScotland) without confusing things. A seprate campaign allows them to say "We agree with them on the what, but not the why"

That's just it though, they haven't really convinced me that they do, as I get the impression that it's not about what they want as a vision for the UK, but basically for the sake of not what the tories want.

[banterman86]

That's just it though, they haven't really convinced me that they do, as I get the impression that it's not about what they want as a vision for the UK, but basically for the sake of not what the tories want.

Fair enough, we're going in circles here. I don't see it as hypocrisy, and it'll probably be good for targeting a centre elft Sctland (which YesScotland has clearly been trying to cultivate). I'm genuienyl supprised we don't see more disticnt campaigns from the pro-indy side.

That said, I did see a group called "Businesses for Independence" or such likes the other day, been meaning to look at them. Much as you could argue the No side has lacked a strong centre left voice, you could say the yes side has alcked a strong centre right one.

[Baxter Parp]

Fair enough, we're going in circles here. I don't see it as hypocrisy, and it'll probably be good for targeting a centre elft Sctland (which YesScotland has clearly been trying to cultivate). I'm genuienyl supprised we don't see more disticnt campaigns from the pro-indy side.

That said, I did see a group called "Businesses for Independence" or such likes the other day, been meaning to look at them. Much as you could argue the No side has lacked a strong centre left voice, you could say the yes side has alcked a strong centre right one.

There's "Labour for Independence" and you can't get more centre right than Labour.

[xbl]

Perhaps the lack of distinct campaigns is a problem then.

No, the problem is media lies.

[H_B]

I never said he knew nothing about international law (though I said he was wrong). H_B said his specialism was criminal law (he served with the International Criminal Court, not public international law, which is a different field like microbiology is different from organic chemistry.

It's also worth clarifying that neither of us claimed to be more qualified than Scheffer either. Despite this lie being repeated a few times.

His qualifications aren't a Batfink shield of steel from moronism and wrongness though. He's basically tried to breenge into an arena he isn't an expert in, and this is why he's been slapped down by the likes of Matthew Happold, James Crawford and Alan Boyle, who are actual top level experts in the field.

[the jambo-rocker]

Fair enough, we're going in circles here. I don't see it as hypocrisy, and it'll probably be good for targeting a centre elft Sctland (which YesScotland has clearly been trying to cultivate). I'm genuienyl supprised we don't see more disticnt campaigns from the pro-indy side.

That said, I did see a group called "Businesses for Independence" or such likes the other day, been meaning to look at them. Much as you could argue the No side has lacked a strong centre left voice, you could say the yes side has alcked a strong centre right one.

Little bit I was considering the point that could be Tory and LibDem individual campaigns, but it might look bad for the co-alition, or even then just as indifferent themselves.

Absolutely, although that said it's arguably more due the political landscape up here being centre left.