|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 18, 2017 21:23:27 GMT
And for all the interest in Indyref2 for Scotland that isn't the biggest mid to post Union Brexit problem, Northern Ireland is, and no one outside the province seems to give a flying f**k about that. At least not that we know of.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 18, 2017 22:46:24 GMT
I don't think it's clear cut at all, and right now a vote could go either way, but if Scots do vote to stay in the UK it will create a interesting dilemma at the heart of Scottish politics, in that the electorate keep electing a party whose whole reason for existence is to get independence for Scotland, but those self same electorate keep voting against. If the SNP were to loose a referendum for a second time, it makes me wonder if their might be a movement within the SNP to back away from out right independence and/or if The Scottish Labour Party could adapt itself to steal the political ground of those that want a strong Scottish identity but not to leave the British Union. The question is why are the Scottish voting in the SNP Are they unhappy being less than 9% of the population of the UK and thus having only a small proportion of political power and want to break away and be independent? Are they simply so prejudiced against the English they want to dissasociate themselves? or do they want to stay in but with greater powers to govern their area? or do they simply not like any of the major UK parties at the moment and see the SNP as a credible alternative to vote for? My guess is that different people have different reasons (and suspect the SNP themselves are dominated by prejudice) Though I am NOT saying all Scottish people are prejudiced or that Scottish people are any more prejudiced than anyone else (though I do find it odd and extreme that some Scottish entertainers are so prejudiced they refuse to allow their works to bee available in England). I will add, relating to the last possibility I listed, many people in Engalnd don't like any of the major UK parties either but don't have a credible alternative so the ONLY meaningful option to vote against the Tories, the other Tories calling themselves Liberal-Democrats and the even worse Tories pretending to be Labour was by voting for Brexit (I'm not saying it was a good option, just the only option)
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 18, 2017 23:49:05 GMT
I don't think it's clear cut at all, and right now a vote could go either way, but if Scots do vote to stay in the UK it will create a interesting dilemma at the heart of Scottish politics, in that the electorate keep electing a party whose whole reason for existence is to get independence for Scotland, but those self same electorate keep voting against. If the SNP were to loose a referendum for a second time, it makes me wonder if their might be a movement within the SNP to back away from out right independence and/or if The Scottish Labour Party could adapt itself to steal the political ground of those that want a strong Scottish identity but not to leave the British Union. The question is why are the Scottish voting in the SNP Are they unhappy being less than 9% of the population of the UK and thus having only a small proportion of political power and want to break away and be independent? Are they simply so prejudiced against the English they want to dissasociate themselves? or do they want to stay in but with greater powers to govern their area? or do they simply not like any of the major UK parties at the moment and see the SNP as a credible alternative to vote for? They are less than happy not being a sovereign nation with control over their own destiny beyond what Westminster deems it okay for them to have. They could be 1 % of the UK population and that wouldn't change. The other parties (and read Davygallagher's comment re the Greens and so on) are quite obviously not credible alternatives since they see themselves as adjuncts of the "real" party in Westminster rather than acting in Scotland's interests. Desiring independence is not coequal with prejudice against the English even if some individuals are. And considering the media response in England it at least goes both ways if not more against Scotland. If Scotland had a population of one person and that person wanted independence then they have the right to aspire to that and it has nothing to do with hating others. I know I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I wish and if I'm offending then please understand I'm not trying to.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 18, 2017 23:53:02 GMT
I will add, relating to the last possibility I listed, many people in Engalnd don't like any of the major UK parties either but don't have a credible alternative so the ONLY meaningful option to vote against the Tories, the other Tories calling themselves Liberal-Democrats and the even worse Tories pretending to be Labour was by voting for Brexit (I'm not saying it was a good option, just the only option) I don't understand that since that was not a party political vote. The only meaningful option was to vote in the general election for the candidate you preferred most in your constituency, if there was one. If voting to leave was a vote against all the mentioned parties then those people were voting on a false premise since Brexit did nothing to affect them, save to helpfully speed the demise of UKIP since they have literally no reason to exist anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 0:03:39 GMT
It's rather telling that in your list of hypotheses on why Scots are voting SNP consistently, Mondas, none of the potential answers are "They govern well". Which is the experience most seem to have with them hence winning the 2007 and 2011 elections when a referendum still seemed massively unlikely. Then when they lost the referendum's Yes vote, the SNPP still won the next election and all but cleaned up for the Westminster seats. Policies like free prescriptions, a free lunch for all P1-3 kids, protecting bursaries for disabled students while England abolished them, a baby box for every newborn, protecting Scotland from the bedroom tax and many, many others may not be sexy enough to get coverage elsewhere outside Scotland but this nonsense that the SNP just sit about focusing on independence doing nothing else isn't just a lie, it's wilfully ignorant. They do well enough to get No voters to back them to govern, because of policies like the above and many others, I think that says enough. They govern well. It's not some anti-Sassenach agenda - they do a good job with schools, hospitals, policing. That's why they win so heavily.
I really don't know where an opinion like "I suspect the SNP themselves are dominated by prejudice" comes from if not The Daily Mail or some other Tory rag, as it has no real basis in reality though it does answer why you didn't include the possibility that the electorate just like the SNP's work in your post. Again, like the press I mentioned above this line of thought is informed by nothing and has zero insight into policy or track record into what the SNP have actually done in a decade of power. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. To be pro-Scotland's Independence is not to hate England.
I'm glad Charles is posting - as an an Irishman he appreciates perhaps more than anyone the spin that is done when a country is perceived to be anti-England in any way, shape or form and how the entire weight of the establishment suddenly works against you.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 19, 2017 0:31:04 GMT
I'm not attempting to demonise anyone on here who is posting and looking for an answer to the issue, no matter where they are from or what they support. But a lot of the questions are framed in such a way as to direct the narrative against Scotland. They are, if not straw men then at the least very leading. And it's typical Westminster tactics to try to get the enemy to agree to their rules, that's how they work, that's how they've always worked. It's sad. It really is.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 19, 2017 11:30:30 GMT
The dilemma I see at the heart of the SNP and voters relationship with the SNP, is not based on the quality of the job the SNP are doing, or some belief that the SNP has tunnel vision (a term I had not heard applied to the SNP before Teresa May used it a week or so back), the SNP do seem to be doing a good job and indeed have policies that personally appeal to me.
The dilemma I see, is that the SNP (if it looses another referendum) is pushing at a closed door, one that the electorate are not willing to open. The SNP has defined itself as the party of Independence but is now no longer a fringe party.
If the SNP continue to aim at independence whilst the electorate keep rejecting it they create a gap that others can exploit, if another party were able to occupy the same space as the SNP but without the independence drive they could start to appeal to electorate, and that emergent party could then itself start to paint the SNP as closed minded and wanting to overrule the democratic will of the people.
There are those in the SNP who will I'm sure have already spotted that danger, perhaps even the current leadership, and some within the party may be willing to start a movement to remove independence as an aim of the party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 11:55:31 GMT
The SNP were only able to push for a referendum in the first place through winning an overall majority in 2011. The Additional Member System was never supposed to give them a snowball's chance in hell of winning that, since they struggled in Glasgow and other large areas Labour had locked down meaning the maths was unlikely at best. So when the SNP won a minority government in 2007 it was considered as good as it got - and still meant they couldn't table anything on Independence since there was a Unionist majority, and likely would be going forward. Yet the job they did in power managed to convince enough people to vote for them who were old school Labour voters - and this was prior to the Labour collapse nationally.
I don't see that the SNP can't continue to win power based on that alone - that they managed what they have perfectly well. If, as you say, Indy came off the table after a second No vote...well, they'd be exactly where they were from 2007-2011: no prospect of being able to push for Independence electorally but able to govern Scotland and push for as much autonomy as possible. You'll struggle to find much Indy talk from Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney et al from 2007-11 because it was a fight they had no prospect of fighting any time soon. For those years, essentially, it didn't matter who was Unionist and who was Nationalist in Holyrood because there was no prospect of a referendum. In the event of another No, there's no indication that wouldn't be the status quo again. Indeed, if there was a Unionist majority at Holyrood as there always had been till 2011, that would be the case right now - an SNP government but Indy off the table. They'd just tone the rhetoric down, as they've been able to do as a minority government before. It wouldn't be a problem or a dilemma - they've already had to do it. There's no need to start a movement, to split or to take any drastic action - they just take Independence off the table. Nicola and co know that's the case f they lost 2 in 5 or 6 years anyway - they're not fools. They know this really is the last chance for a while.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 19, 2017 11:58:29 GMT
The question is why are the Scottish voting in the SNP Are they unhappy being less than 9% of the population of the UK and thus having only a small proportion of political power and want to break away and be independent? Are they simply so prejudiced against the English they want to dissasociate themselves? or do they want to stay in but with greater powers to govern their area? or do they simply not like any of the major UK parties at the moment and see the SNP as a credible alternative to vote for? They are less than happy not being a sovereign nation with control over their own destiny beyond what Westminster deems it okay for them to have. They could be 1 % of the UK population and that wouldn't change. The other parties (and read Davygallagher's comment re the Greens and so on) are quite obviously not credible alternatives since they see themselves as adjuncts of the "real" party in Westminster rather than acting in Scotland's interests. Desiring independence is not coequal with prejudice against the English even if some individuals are. And considering the media response in England it at least goes both ways if not more against Scotland. If Scotland had a population of one person and that person wanted independence then they have the right to aspire to that and it has nothing to do with hating others. I know I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I wish and if I'm offending then please understand I'm not trying to. Firstly, I did list "a desire from independence" as a seperate thing to "prejudice" While I am certain that prejudice exists and that such people would vote to leave I did not claim to know whether they were a large or small proportion and I did not claim that Scotland was any more prejudiced than England (and doubt they are). I am in an unusual position of growing up in a town which is basically a Scottish colony in the heart of England where the people maintain strong ties to their (ancestral) homeland and have an annual Highland gathering (though I gather they have difficulty coping if they actually try to move to Scotland). While I am not (significantly) of Scottish descent myself, growing up surrounded by people who are has left them seem normal and commonplace than they may seem to people elsewhere in England (obviously they seem normal because they are normal) and sheltered me from much of the prejudices that exist elsewhere in the country (though I still see the national papers claiming that things are disproportionally in favour of Scotland rather than England -or at least some regions of England). The struggles of the people of the town is how I know of the ban of sales to England from some prejudiced Scotsmen. And a breakaway would make things harder for them. The numbers are significant because in democracies minorities will normally be outvoted by majorities. Should every minority secede if they dislike the results of a vote?
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 19, 2017 12:16:23 GMT
@davygallagher I don't disagree with anything you've said about the SNP and it's abilities, but the SNP is the party of independence, it has defined itself as such for a long time and the vast majority of its membership believe in independence and see the SNP as a great vehicle for delivering independence, now sure, the SNP can itself not talk much about independence, but it can't always control the agenda, and as I say, if an alternative party can occupy pretty much the same ground as the SNP on just about everything but independence, it can be that party they keeps dragging up the subject, that party can exploit what my might otherwise be a none issue.
The dilemma I see is not about the abilities of the SNP, it is about what another party, positioning itself for power can exploit and whether the SNP would want to leave the exploit open. The Labour Party had for many years "clause 4" which embodied an aim The Labour Party had long before in reality abandoned, but which other parties kept using to expose and undermine The Labour Party with. The Labour Party could have just continued to ignore the clause and get on with the job at hand as it had done for years before, or it could remove the exploit, remove the thing that other parties exploited. The Labour Party removed the clause and continued on much as it had and was, but other parties lost the ability to exploit and undermine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 12:36:10 GMT
They are less than happy not being a sovereign nation with control over their own destiny beyond what Westminster deems it okay for them to have. They could be 1 % of the UK population and that wouldn't change. The other parties (and read Davygallagher's comment re the Greens and so on) are quite obviously not credible alternatives since they see themselves as adjuncts of the "real" party in Westminster rather than acting in Scotland's interests. Desiring independence is not coequal with prejudice against the English even if some individuals are. And considering the media response in England it at least goes both ways if not more against Scotland. If Scotland had a population of one person and that person wanted independence then they have the right to aspire to that and it has nothing to do with hating others. I know I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I wish and if I'm offending then please understand I'm not trying to. Firstly, I did list "a desire from independence" as a seperate thing to "prejudice" While I am certain that prejudice exists and that such people would vote to leave I did not claim to know whether they were a large or small proportion and I did not claim that Scotland was any more prejudiced than England (and doubt they are). I am in an unusual position of growing up in a town which is basically a Scottish colony in the heart of England where the people maintain strong ties to their (ancestral) homeland and have an annual Highland gathering (though I gather they have difficulty coping if they actually try to move to Scotland). While I am not (significantly) of Scottish descent myself, growing up surrounded by people who are has left them seem normal and commonplace than they may seem to people elsewhere in England (obviously they seem normal because they are normal) and sheltered me from much of the prejudices that exist elsewhere in the country (though I still see the national papers claiming that things are disproportionally in favour of Scotland rather than England -or at least some regions of England). The struggles of the people of the town is how I know of the ban of sales to England from some prejudiced Scotsmen. And a breakaway would make things harder for them. The numbers are significant because in democracies minorities will normally be outvoted by majorities. Should every minority secede if they dislike the results of a vote? Who are these businesses who prefer being anti-English to making profit? I've certainly never heard of anything like that and I suspect if it were proven there would have been both legal action and media attention given the nature of tensions over the past 5 years or so. "Some prejudiced Scotsmen" is about as vague a basis for opinion as I can think of. I think your last sentence entirely misses the point of the entire debate and movement - if a minority can secede because it's will is usually different to the majority one...why wouldn't they at least consider it? That's not a terribly difficult concept. The " but then every minority should secede if they lose" argument bears no fruit either - as Charles says above it's strawman stuff. I read the "My town can't go Independent just because we never get what we voted for" nonsense all the time - if your town has an economy worth around £160-£200billion GDP? Go for it. If your town has an infrastructure based on major banking and financial services, construction, education, entertainment, fishing, biotechnology, transport equipment, oil and gas, whisky, and tourism? Go for it. If your town has a political systems with pre-devolved areas such as healthcare and already independent education and justice meaning the logistics are already in place? Go for it. Otherwise that line of debate is facile at best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 12:44:12 GMT
@davygallagher I don't disagree with anything you've said about the SNP and it's abilities, but the SNP is the party of independence, it has defined itself as such for a long time and the vast majority of its membership believe in independence and see the SNP as a great vehicle for delivering independence, now sure, the SNP can itself not talk much about independence, but it can't always control the agenda, and as I say, if an alternative party can occupy pretty much the same ground as the SNP on just about everything but independence, it can be that party they keeps dragging up the subject, that party can exploit what my might otherwise be a none issue. The dilemma I see is not about the abilities of the SNP, it is about what another party, positioning itself for power can exploit and whether the SNP would want to leave the exploit open. The Labour Party had for many years "clause 4" which embodied an aim The Labour Party had long before in reality abandoned, but which other parties kept using to expose and undermine The Labour Party with. The Labour Party could have just continued to ignore the clause and get on with the job at hand as it had done for years before, or it could remove the exploit, remove the thing that other parties exploited. The Labour Party removed the clause and continued on much as it had and was, but other parties lost the ability to exploit and undermine. I know exactly what you're saying, but I think your suggestion that the SNP leadership themselves will know all this already - that they have to adapt in the event of a second No because the landscape will have changed - is more likely. If nothing else, with only 129 seats in Holyrood up for grabs there's less chance of a successful party wanting to lose that power by splitting in two informally (though that seems to be working for the "divided" Tories in England) or by having a new party formed. While there's an SNP government in place I think there won't be too much change. Once Indy is off the table one way or the other, all parties will have to be judged on their merits more than their policy on Independence, though it may take a few terms to settle down. Either way we could spend forever guessing about the hypotheticals, time will tell I guess.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 19, 2017 14:18:49 GMT
It's rather telling that in your list of hypotheses on why Scots are voting SNP consistently, Mondas, none of the potential answers are "They govern well". Which is the experience most seem to have with them hence winning the 2007 and 2011 elections when a referendum still seemed massively unlikely. Then when they lost the referendum's Yes vote, the SNPP still won the next election and all but cleaned up for the Westminster seats. Policies like free prescriptions, a free lunch for all P1-3 kids, protecting bursaries for disabled students while England abolished them, a baby box for every newborn, protecting Scotland from the bedroom tax and many, many others may not be sexy enough to get coverage elsewhere outside Scotland but this nonsense that the SNP just sit about focusing on independence doing nothing else isn't just a lie, it's wilfully ignorant. They do well enough to get No voters to back them to govern, because of policies like the above and many others, I think that says enough. They govern well. It's not some anti-Sassenach agenda - they do a good job with schools, hospitals, policing. That's why they win so heavily. I really don't know where an opinion like "I suspect the SNP themselves are dominated by prejudice" comes from if not The Daily Mail or some other Tory rag, as it has no real basis in reality though it does answer why you didn't include the possibility that the electorate just like the SNP's work in your post. Again, like the press I mentioned above this line of thought is informed by nothing and has zero insight into policy or track record into what the SNP have actually done in a decade of power. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. To be pro-Scotland's Independence is not to hate England. I'm glad Charles is posting - as an an Irishman he appreciates perhaps more than anyone the spin that is done when a country is perceived to be anti-England in any way, shape or form and how the entire weight of the establishment suddenly works against you. Please make allowances for me being English and thus not used to anyone governing well. I would like the whole UK to be governed well. If the SNP were wanting to bring good governmentot the whole UK I would cheer them on. In the run up to the last general election they were speaking well - however I could not support them by voting for them as they did not have any candidates standing in the East of England. I am left with the impression they are not about bringing about good governments but about stirring up arguments and bitterness - and that is what I don't like. Good Government should not be a Scotland only thing - it should be for everybody
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 19, 2017 14:23:08 GMT
I'm not attempting to demonise anyone on here who is posting and looking for an answer to the issue, no matter where they are from or what they support. But a lot of the questions are framed in such a way as to direct the narrative against Scotland. They are, if not straw men then at the least very leading. And it's typical Westminster tactics to try to get the enemy to agree to their rules, that's how they work, that's how they've always worked. It's sad. It really is. My questions are genuine questions to seek knowledge. I am not the best of writers and only have limited access to the internet (weekends only, I've got to rush off to the bus soon and it took me over half-an-hour to connect) I worry that people are looking for a "fight" and imagining agendas not intended by me and use them for straw man arguments or similar against me. Come on, lets be friends and try to debate in a civilised way rather than putting words into other people's mouths
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 19, 2017 14:25:13 GMT
I will add, relating to the last possibility I listed, many people in Engalnd don't like any of the major UK parties either but don't have a credible alternative so the ONLY meaningful option to vote against the Tories, the other Tories calling themselves Liberal-Democrats and the even worse Tories pretending to be Labour was by voting for Brexit (I'm not saying it was a good option, just the only option) I don't understand that since that was not a party political vote. The only meaningful option was to vote in the general election for the candidate you preferred most in your constituency, if there was one. If voting to leave was a vote against all the mentioned parties then those people were voting on a false premise since Brexit did nothing to affect them, save to helpfully speed the demise of UKIP since they have literally no reason to exist anymore. sorry, no time to explain - the short answer it sends a message that people want to be heard, they want their vote to mean something while the Tony Blairs of this world oppose that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 14:59:56 GMT
It's rather telling that in your list of hypotheses on why Scots are voting SNP consistently, Mondas, none of the potential answers are "They govern well". Which is the experience most seem to have with them hence winning the 2007 and 2011 elections when a referendum still seemed massively unlikely. Then when they lost the referendum's Yes vote, the SNPP still won the next election and all but cleaned up for the Westminster seats. Policies like free prescriptions, a free lunch for all P1-3 kids, protecting bursaries for disabled students while England abolished them, a baby box for every newborn, protecting Scotland from the bedroom tax and many, many others may not be sexy enough to get coverage elsewhere outside Scotland but this nonsense that the SNP just sit about focusing on independence doing nothing else isn't just a lie, it's wilfully ignorant. They do well enough to get No voters to back them to govern, because of policies like the above and many others, I think that says enough. They govern well. It's not some anti-Sassenach agenda - they do a good job with schools, hospitals, policing. That's why they win so heavily. I really don't know where an opinion like "I suspect the SNP themselves are dominated by prejudice" comes from if not The Daily Mail or some other Tory rag, as it has no real basis in reality though it does answer why you didn't include the possibility that the electorate just like the SNP's work in your post. Again, like the press I mentioned above this line of thought is informed by nothing and has zero insight into policy or track record into what the SNP have actually done in a decade of power. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. To be pro-Scotland's Independence is not to hate England. I'm glad Charles is posting - as an an Irishman he appreciates perhaps more than anyone the spin that is done when a country is perceived to be anti-England in any way, shape or form and how the entire weight of the establishment suddenly works against you. Please make allowances for me being English and thus not used to anyone governing well. I would like the whole UK to be governed well. If the SNP were wanting to bring good governmentot the whole UK I would cheer them on. In the run up to the last general election they were speaking well - however I could not support them by voting for them as they did not have any candidates standing in the East of England. I am left with the impression they are not about bringing about good governments but about stirring up arguments and bitterness - and that is what I don't like. Good Government should not be a Scotland only thing - it should be for everybody So if they were the same party but UK-wide you'd be all in favour...but because the Scottish National Party only run in Scotland, you go from "I would cheer them on" to "they're about stirring up arguments and bitterness"? I'm not sure that's a very well thought out position. "The Scottish National Party only run in Scotland so they must be bitter and want to cause arguments with England which is a shame because I'd vote for them if I could" - and I defy anyone to read the above post and not conclude that's your point - is the kind of thing you get in reactionary Daily Mail comments sections and not relevant to otherwise good debate about serious matters. While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 19, 2017 16:33:53 GMT
I'm not attempting to demonise anyone on here who is posting and looking for an answer to the issue, no matter where they are from or what they support. But a lot of the questions are framed in such a way as to direct the narrative against Scotland. They are, if not straw men then at the least very leading. And it's typical Westminster tactics to try to get the enemy to agree to their rules, that's how they work, that's how they've always worked. It's sad. It really is. My questions are genuine questions to seek knowledge. I am not the best of writers and only have limited access to the internet (weekends only, I've got to rush off to the bus soon and it took me over half-an-hour to connect) I worry that people are looking for a "fight" and imagining agendas not intended by me and use them for straw man arguments or similar against me. Come on, lets be friends and try to debate in a civilised way rather than putting words into other people's mouths I'll clarify that further for you. I don't doubt that you are interested in a huge thing that is affecting where we live and are genuinely seeking answers to it. However the majority of questions that are posited by the Westminster government and the media ARE leading and attempting to dictate the narrative in particular way. It's propaganda. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth but if you or anyone else repeats or attempts to use these straw men questions then I'll civilly call them on it. And that's it.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 19, 2017 17:21:03 GMT
Please make allowances for me being English and thus not used to anyone governing well. I would like the whole UK to be governed well. If the SNP were wanting to bring good governmentot the whole UK I would cheer them on. In the run up to the last general election they were speaking well - however I could not support them by voting for them as they did not have any candidates standing in the East of England. I am left with the impression they are not about bringing about good governments but about stirring up arguments and bitterness - and that is what I don't like. Good Government should not be a Scotland only thing - it should be for everybody While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality. When it comes to politics, there are no facts, because the facts are always changing. In today's world, what we believe to be true today, can become an act of fiction tomorrow. That is the reality we live in. We do have fake news, I notice it bout every day. Seen a news story on yahoo bout how a fast food worker saved a cops life, that was true, then seen the same headline on another story and while a life was saved, it wasn't a cop, and it was a totally different story, but the headline got attention, and that seems to be what most sites like yahoo want, just to get you to click and check it out. All opinions are equally valid, just because what you call fact, could be pure fiction for someone else. You could probably walk a few blocks and find that someone who you might consider your neighbor lives in a totally different world than you do, because of the circumstances of their life. Their reality is that what may benefit you, really hurts them, when it comes to politics that is magnified immensely. Example: Obamacare is a great idea, and it's helped millions, but it also has hurt millions and made them make hard choices they really shouldn't have to make. The fact is, that the only way federally mandated healthcare can work, is if the government picks up the check on every person for every penny. Otherwise, someone will always be on the wrong end of the equation. It's the same with food, electrical power and water, all of those things are things that should be human rights, but they are not. And never will be in my lifetime.(this whole example is another thread) We all live in a world where we have our priorities in a different order, my number 1 changes all the time, but usually runs along the lines of protection for me and mine, and right now, dealing with that nutjob in North Korea is near the top. I'm not going to argue bout the politics in the UK, cause I have no idea, and it's not even on my list. That would be like me caring for local politics in a small town in Greenland. Doesn't effect me in the slightest. Just as if Scotland pulls out of the UK, wouldn't have any effect on me, whatsoever. But no one, has the right to tell someone else what their own facts are, until you are in the exact same situation as that person, and that is just something no one else will ever be, that is the only hard fact that I believe in this whole thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 17:45:15 GMT
Nonsense. Some things are facts even in politics and they help people inform their opinions. If you want to find fault in the facts posted by myself and others - fine. But don't just pretend they're irrelevant because you can't disprove them. People who don't know what they're talking about on an issue have a less informed opinion than someone who has knowledge of it. I'm guessing you were never part of a debating society at school as this is quite fundamental to how kids learn to form independent thinking. I try and form opinions based on fact, knowledge, understanding and application. If someone else wants to make them up - such as the ones about the SNP upthread - they're not as valid.
This "you don't have the right to tell people the facts" gibberish tells me you have the the absolute perfect President for your world view - where there are no "facts" and opinions are all equally valid no matter how ill-informed and spurious. Nothing if not yawningly, tediously predictable.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 19, 2017 17:56:38 GMT
While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality. When it comes to politics, there are no facts, because the facts are always changing. In today's world, what we believe to be true today, can become an act of fiction tomorrow. That is the reality we live in. We do have fake news, I notice it bout every day. Seen a news story on yahoo bout how a fast food worker saved a cops life, that was true, then seen the same headline on another story and while a life was saved, it wasn't a cop, and it was a totally different story, but the headline got attention, and that seems to be what most sites like yahoo want, just to get you to click and check it out. All opinions are equally valid, just because what you call fact, could be pure fiction for someone else. You could probably walk a few blocks and find that someone who you might consider your neighbor lives in a totally different world than you do, because of the circumstances of their life. Their reality is that what may benefit you, really hurts them, when it comes to politics that is magnified immensely. Example: Obamacare is a great idea, and it's helped millions, but it also has hurt millions and made them make hard choices they really shouldn't have to make. The fact is, that the only way federally mandated healthcare can work, is if the government picks up the check on every person for every penny. Otherwise, someone will always be on the wrong end of the equation. It's the same with food, electrical power and water, all of those things are things that should be human rights, but they are not. And never will be in my lifetime.(this whole example is another thread) We all live in a world where we have our priorities in a different order, my number 1 changes all the time, but usually runs along the lines of protection for me and mine, and right now, dealing with that nutjob in North Korea is near the top. I'm not going to argue bout the politics in the UK, cause I have no idea, and it's not even on my list. That would be like me caring for local politics in a small town in Greenland. Doesn't effect me in the slightest. Just as if Scotland pulls out of the UK, wouldn't have any effect on me, whatsoever. But no one, has the right to tell someone else what their own facts are, until you are in the exact same situation as that person, and that is just something no one else will ever be, that is the only hard fact that I believe in this whole thread. I THINK I know where you're coming from, and that's respect each other and put yourself in someone else's shoes before making rash decisions. However all opinions are not equally valid. All facts ARE true, if they're not true they're not facts. Fake news thrives on people not knowing better or not bothering to do as you've done and check the story out. My late father used to read about six newspapers a day from across the political spectrum and try to get a grip on what the "actual" story was -- he was pretty sharp -- and even he said "start with the sports results, seeing the truth helps". If the UK does go for a referendum on Scottish independence then I for one want it as fair and equitable as possible, whatever the outcome. But right now it isn't and all I see in the south is how childish and ridiculous the Scots are to want it, and if anyone gets called on that then out comes the "Scots are anti-English and prejudiced and ungrateful". And some levels of support for Scottish independence seem only to exist to take potshots at the Tory government's handling of the thing rather than having any intrinsic belief in it themselves. Now, not everyone is like that and we've been having a civil enough debate here with a mostly reasoned level of ideas so let's keep on that way.
|
|