Censored : the debate

jem16

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Project Fear...you guys really need some fresh ideas, it really puts me off that you can't discuss actual issues, just like Salmond last night wasting his 12 minute slot because of his playground tittletattle, come on, does he post on here?

Westminster has heehaw to do with the way this vote goes, it's sad that you believe your fellow countrymen are brainwashed sheep, you have no respect for other peoples concerns, the cornerstone of your vote relies on faith, not fact. Naive...you'd know all about that.

Maybe if the YES campaign weren't so arrogant they'd make inroads however I can't see any egos deflating until after the vote.

Liked this comment posted elsewhere;


Here is the script for the upcoming BBC Scotland interview with Wee Eck.
"Well Mr. Salmond how do you think the televised debate went?"
A. "It went very well, I made many clear points when asked specific loaded questions by my opponent, and as you can see from all the polls I came out on top"

Well the polls we have seen are saying the exact opposite other than the SNP conducted poll that unsurprisingly supports your view"
A "As I say my points made in the debate are clear and the only poll that matters is when the people of Scotland vote in six weeks time."

What will happen if you fail to win the vote?
A "We have no doubt about winning, all the polls show us rising rapidly so I don;t want to get involved in answering negative hypothetical question like that"

Hmm let's move on, Is the oil price of concern, and how will a falling price of oil affect your budget calculations?
A "There is no difficulty, we have plenty of easily extractable oil and at least twice as much as many in the oil industry are suggesting we have".

Why is your estimate and the oil industry estimate so different?
A "We have been extracting oil for forty years and know these things, the oil industry are only interested in profit not in reserves"

Isn't profit important, and if there is no profit why will the oil companies extract it?
A "An independent Scotland can make its own decisions and we will make sure the oil is used wisely and in sufficient volumes to meet the needs of the economy".

Does that mean you would nationalise oil?
A " I won't be drawn into answering silly hypothetical questions, when are you going to ask me a sensible question, something about the Tories in Scotland"?

Do you think the Tories are right to borrow the American press description of you.
A "If you mean the one saying I am a canny principled winning politician, yes"

No, I had in mind the one that said Alex Salmond is a complete F*** Up.

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

You are clearly just playing around and trolling and more fool me for encouraging it.

You state that the debate is defined by anti-English sentiment with no evidence for this whatsover.

You post about 'Flower of Scotland' in what feels like an endless loop.

You decide that SNP supporters will believe the problems with the STV player are due to censorship, regardless of the fact that no-one believed this.

You answer a point about the adversorial aspect of the debate (which I believe you have not watched) with a non sequitur about AS and AD being elected politicians.

I say much of the sentiment in favour of independence is based on hundreds of years of feeling inferior which has been translated into a level of hatred of the English.


The Flower of Scotland is a very good example as It's completely indefensible in the 21st century to adopt such a unpleasant (to the English) and demeaning (to the Scots) anthem:
similarly with the 'anyone but the English'
again the constant use of 'Westminster' rather than an actual discussion of the issue at hand.


They all need repeating until the Scottish confront these issues.


Sorry if repeating things that are true upsets you: however it makes them no less true.


The post about the STV was a joke:
although I am genuinely appalled that it was not broadcast on mainstream UK TV and that the STVplayer crashed for many people wishing to hear the discussion. In truth I don't know which idiots made those decisions but I was jokingly assuming the SNP would blame Westminster (it's not a very good joke but I don't really do humour).


We can have a general (non Scotland relate) discussion about the nature of political discourse and about governance if you so wish.
Adversarial politics is a feature of most (democratic) political systems and most real discussions where people have real views and passions.
In this case the entire point of the debate was to score points and win the voters over.
No sane person expected a reasoned debate about taxation rates, benefit levels, immigration policy, joining Schengen area, industrial and banking policies, transaction taxation etc


If you wanted to hear reasoned debate then better to get some economists from Germany, Finland, Holland to discussion the pros and cons.


You seem extremely uncomfortable with democratic political systems and the facing the truth about people motivation.

beecher2

CLAPTON wrote: »

You seem extremely uncomfortable with democratic political systems and the facing the truth about people motivation.

Haha, go back and edit the post about me being a socialist into an anarchist.

I am uncomfortable with the way politics is so out of touch with the way people in real life discuss matters and resolve issues. I have to hope that out of the limelight, they have a different attitude. I don't think shouting and pointing fingers is the way to encourage women to become engaged in the debate.

I did expect a more reasoned debate, and was perhaps naive in this. I've maybe been spoiled by some of the Women for Independence events. Some of my colleagues have made this point to me this morning too.

Please though, if you take anything from this debate at all, I hope you will realise that it is not based on racism at all. I do not hate the English at all and do find it very insulting when you accuse me of racism. I also do not feel inferior to anyone who is English, nor is my country in any way inferior to England.

This isn't about 'patriotism' and I don't care where people were born - this is about the people who live in Scotland.

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

Haha, go back and edit the post about me being a socialist into an anarchist.

I am uncomfortable with the way politics is so out of touch with the way people in real life discuss matters and resolve issues. I have to hope that out of the limelight, they have a different attitude. I don't think shouting and pointing fingers is the way to encourage women to become engaged in the debate.

I did expect a more reasoned debate, and was perhaps naive in this. I've maybe been spoiled by some of the Women for Independence events. Some of my colleagues have made this point to me this morning too.

Please though, if you take anything from this debate at all, I hope you will realise that it is not based on racism at all. I do not hate the English at all and do find it very insulting when you accuse me of racism. I also do not feel inferior to anyone who is English, nor is my country in any way inferior to England.

This isn't about 'patriotism' and I don't care where people were born - this is about the people who live in Scotland.

People throughout the UK were in denial about racism for many years.
It took a long time for people to accept that e.g. 'golly wogs' and the use of the 'N' word were unacceptable in a decent multi-ethic society.


Many said that the advocates of change were 'boring, repetitive and endlessly going on about it. After all it only said light heartedly etc.
Stuff like 'Some of my best friends are black and they don't mind being called 'n' :
All in total denial


See no evil hear no evil but it doesn't mean it's not there.
All a bit reminiscent of your boredom with and dismissal of Flower of Scotland issue.


I would have thought that events like 'women for independence' events probably didn't have too many people with opposing views present. If you're old enough to know it's all a bit like the 'Foot / Kinnock' effect.

beecher2

CLAPTON wrote: »

People throughout the UK were in denial about racism for many years.

See, it is posts like this which wind me up as you're telling me that I am in denial about my hatred for the English and it is a truly disgusting point of view. I have spent years fighting racism, so it is pretty much the worst thing you could accuse me of.

The Women for Independence meetings I've attended have targetted the undecided, and it is all very civilized. Once the macho politics is stripped out, and cake and tea is involved, it is amazing how different things are.

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

See, it is posts like this which wind me up as you're telling me that I am in denial about my hatred for the English and it is a truly disgusting point of view. I have spent years fighting racism, so it is pretty much the worst thing you could accuse me of.

The Women for Independence meetings I've attended have targetted the undecided, and it is all very civilized. Once the macho politics is stripped out, and cake and tea is involved, it is amazing how different things are.

Have you spend years objecting to
-Flower of Scotland being used as a de facto anthem
-Anyone but the English attitude


clearly denial is exactly the right word here.


Are you telling me that 'women for independence ' have an equal number of speakers both for and against 'independence' or is it a Kinnock meeting?

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

-Anyone but the English attitude

In my humble opinion, this is fertalised by the media.

vivatifosi

I don't have a problem with Flower of Scotland tbh. I'm not going to worry about a battle that happened hundreds of years ago. The whole point of a national anthem is that it stirs something in the soul of the national psyche (though heaven help us with the dirge that is God Save the Queen). If that's what floats the Scottish boat, it's up to them.

If it's racist, then surely we should rename Waterloo Station and do a whole host of other stuff lest we offend people regarding far more recent battles.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't have a problem with Flower of Scotland tbh. I'm not going to worry about a battle that happened hundreds of years ago. The whole point of a national anthem is that it stirs something in the soul of the national psyche (though heaven help us with the dirge that is God Save the Queen). If that's what floats the Scottish boat, it's up to them.

If it's racist, then surely we should rename Waterloo Station and do a whole host of other stuff lest we offend people regarding far more recent battles.

I would probably agree if the Flower of Scotland was a old song that dates back a few hundred years and has been used as the anthem for that time.
However, it's a recent song and only been used for this purpose in the 21st century and expresses current Scottish views.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In my humble opinion, this is fertalised by the media.

The Flower of Scotland is a recent Scottish choice


Some very high profile scots support 'anyone but the English' : no it's not just the media


When visiting Scotland one can buy a tea towel with a very unfriendly message/'joke' about the English : the equivalent in England would almost certainly be banned as racist (which of course it is).