SNP could adopt strict liability as a manifesto pledge with debate on subject at party conference

notfastenough wrote:

Sorry, but I think you've made a number of assumptions about me. Listening to the no campaign was pointless because the risks, to me, were self-evident. I wanted to know the other side of it. The fundamental reason for the UK not joining the euro was that trying to run anything, let alone a single currency, by committee (chancellors in each country) is doomed. Just look at the eurozone finance issues, the the opposing agendas and bailouts of massive (and massively mismanaged) economies. Staying out of the euro was a decision within the control of the appropriate UK politicians, but allowing Scotland to keep the pound would have dropped rUK into that situation by default anyway, and I think the government thought that was worth fighting over, so assuming it would go in your favour is itself risky. In addition, that mortgages scenario didn't take into account state ownership of any of the banks, or the implication of owing your mortgage payment to a 'foreign' government. That rests on an assumption that the Scottish/rUK relationship remained benign- it might seem far-fetched to suggest otherwise currently, but stranger things happen in world politics.

As an aside, I'm focusing on actual issues whereas, reading your post, you expend a fair number of words to discredit me on a more personal level. That isn't helping you present a coherent viewpoint.

I wasn't trying to discredit you, my apologies if that was the impression you got, it's simply that what you - but even more so OldRidgeback - said earlier mirrored pretty much exactly what I have been hearing from No voters who were paying attention only to their selection of anti-independence sources and never actually looked into the responses from people on the pro-independence side with knowledge on the issues they were worrying about.

I'm not entirely convinced that staying out of the Euro really had such great benefits as you describe - there are good arguments to be made that joining the Euro would have been beneficial for us as well, it certainly hasn't been hurting Germany. I'm also not convinced the Euro area and a Pound Sterling currency union for rUK and Scotland are even comparable like that - we don't really have an equivalent to Greece in the UK, and if you are insinuating that Scotland is such a case because the SNP have somehow mismanaged our economy, you would be simply wrong about that: the fact is that Scotland's economy is doing quite well, and the numbers show it - unless you're indulging in tricks like the ones employed by the Treasury, i.e. not including oil revenues in the numbers for Scotland. The media has been trying to sell us this idea that Scotland is subsidised by the UK, when in reality it's the other way round and has been for more than 30 years.

And if you are not worried about the UK as is (which I assume you aren't, since you seem to think it's all going so well) and take into account that Scotland outwith the UK would even do a bit better once in control of its own revenues, I fail to see how those things would even start to become an issue.

That aside, let's say you are correct and assume that independence would have meant all those things that you think it would have meant - how does that stack up, in your opinion, against all the other issues that Yes voters including myself cared a lot more about? The democratic deficit, the hundreds of billions of pounds invested in useless defence projects while people go hungry and public services are cut and end up privatised, the constant snubbing of anything Scottish and the bias of the British state media? Looking at all that, I just can't see how anyone could possibly think we're "better together". The Westminster elite and their corporate friends certainly are better off if we're together, but are we?

The alternative, as seen from the Yes side, would have been a government with all the powers we need for our country to live up its potential, led by a party that is decidedly to the left of New Labour (who are really nothing but Red Tories nowadays) and accountable to its voters since we actually voted for them. No money thrown at the black hole that is Trident, the NHS guaranteed to be kept in public hands as opposed to being about to be ripped apart and sold off to US corporations, and finally a proper representation in the EU. I suspect you will disagree with all these things, quite possibly on principle if nothing else, but I still don't think you're looking at the Yes side's point of view properly or you would have understood how it went from a fringe group to 45% support (now over 50% according to latest polls). Hint: it's not because we're all idiots.

I'll gladly admit that you are voicing valid concerns. I'm just not sure they're not based on a lot of conjecture and assertions, and even if they weren't I certainly think you're setting your priorities in rather odd way.

Mind you, I'm not saying that none of what I listed isn't based on conjecture. Unless you have a functioning crystal ball and have looked into the future, you simply don't know what it's going to be like - but that cuts both ways. You don't know what the future for Scotland is looking like within the union either. You can however make an educated guess based on how it's fared in the past, and looking at the way we've been treated (not well) and exploited and ignored, I would much rather put my money on independence, to be honest.

OldRidgeback wrote:

My dislike of the SNP is entirely rational and has a lot to do with the lies it has spread over the years with regard to how a separate Scotland would cope economically.

The move to presumed liability in regard to cycling incidents will be a sop to the Scottish greens.

There are about 3,000 defence jobs just with British Aerospace in Edinburgh incidentally. All of the shipyard jobs in Rosyth and on the Clyde are defence orientated and there are several other companies too. I could spend several hours explaining why an independent Scotland would be an economic disaster area, but you've probably heard the arguments already and simply ignored them. If the no campaign was negative, that's because the effects of independence on Scotland (and the rest of the UK) would be entirely negative.

I'm pleased to see you dropping the confrontational tone In which case I'll be happy to retract my claws also.

I can see how your dislike of the SNP would colour the way how you perceive their initiative regarding presumed liability, but seeing how it's all still in a very early stage I would simply ask to wait and see what, if anything, comes out of it.

Regarding the defence jobs, the number I gave was from the department of defence, and it was the number of jobs that would directly be lost as a result of getting rid of Trident. Certainly a lot more jobs than that are connected to it, but since they don't directly depend on that particular project and the shipyards wouldn't just magically disappear with Trident, it's probably hard to make the argument that they couldn't possibly switch their focus to different projects.

TBH, I don't know enough about British Aerospace to comment on whether or not those jobs would actually have been in danger. And even if they were, it would be a few thousands out of several million. The problem I have with believing a statement like "an independent Scotland would be an economic disaster" is that I can't quite wrap my head around how the nation that has been effectively subsidising the entire UK for the past three decades would be worse off if it wasn't put in that position anymore. Better off, yes - but worse? How? Mind, I'll gladly take you up on your offer to explain to me how. I'm open to changing my mind on that one.

notfastenough wrote:

This was just mortgages; [...] and I never once heard how any of this would be addressed.

Is it possible that you never heard once how any of this would be addressed because you were limiting your attention to what the No campaign was saying? The currency topic especially was beaten to death over the months before the referendum, and if anything of that was left unanswered then it was probably because it wasn't seen as a credible threat.

You can certainly accuse the Yes campaign of staying vague on a number of issues. I agree that a lot more research could have gone into some areas, or - if that research was undertaken - the results could have been communicated more clearly. The campaign wasn't perfect, I can think of several things that I wasn't particularly happy about. But currency wasn't one of them.

Regarding the problem with mortgages in case of a currency union not happening: people can come up with a lot of scary scenarios and paint the consequences in the most complicated and confusing manner - but if such a scenario is entirely irrelevant to begin with, it merely serves as a distraction. Why is this particular scenario irrelevant? Because the whole "no currency union" thing was a bluff. And the markets would have seen to that bluff being called. Other than spite there would have been not a single reason why a currency union would have been denied. Such a move might well have hurt England more than Scotland.

The thing that I always find a bit amusing is that people are all too happy to deconstruct the use of propaganda devices by the other side - but then are either completely blind to their own side using the exact same mechanism or are happy to play along because in their eyes it's for a good cause, end justifying the means etc. - reading the responses of you two, you are using the No campaign's arguments literally word for word, not questioning it one bit, taking it all 100% at face value.

No one was 100% right or 100% wrong, not Alex Salmond, not Alistair Darling. And, in most cases, who you're considering to be more right or more wrong mostly depends on what beliefs you started out to begin with. It's called confirmation bias, and both sides were guilty of it.

OldRidgeback wrote:

All of the shipyard jobs in Rosyth and on the Clyde are defence orientated and there are several other companies too. I could spend several hours explaining why an independent Scotland would be an economic disaster area, but you've probably heard the arguments already and simply ignored them. If the no campaign was negative, that's because the effects of independence on Scotland (and the rest of the UK) would be entirely negative.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-...

How's that No vote working out for them shipyard workers then?

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's true that the moon's not made of cheese and nor does the tooth fairy exist.

The SNP brought together an unholy alliance of ultra-conservative bluenoses and Scottish greens, not to mention many other splinter groups. Following independence it'd have taken about 5 minutes before they all fell out and realised the economy was utterly f*****d and that they'd all have to go to London for jobs. The support for the SNP is a protest vote at the way Westminster is run, in much the same way UKIP has attracted support south of the border. But if you think the SNP was offering anything different from what Westminster had to offer, please refer to the first sentence in this post.

*sigh* Keep telling yourself that. But don't pretend you are approaching the subject in a way resembling anything remotely genuine and/or based on facts.

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's not that any of this has much to do with cycling.

Bit funny this, coming from the very person who just couldn't help his irrational hatred of the SNP and started derailing the thread in the first place.

truffy wrote:

The SNP is irrelevant to most of the UK population. Hopefully with the next referendum they will become even less relevant to rUK.

The way the Westminster scum have reverted on their independence referendum promises. The SNP will be unlucky not to take a full house next year.

The fact is, they are the third largest political party in the UK, so hardly irrelevant. I can't wait to see a ton of them in Westminster, vetoing everything that would benefit England (London) only.

Gkam84 wrote:

The fact is, they are the third largest political party in the UK, so hardly irrelevant. I can't wait to see a ton of them in Westminster, vetoing everything that would benefit England (London) only.

Third largest measured by number of members perhaps. A very long way off third by number of UK MPs or MEPs or, indeed, influence over UK policy decisions.

mike the bike wrote:

Third largest measured by number of members perhaps. A very long way off third by number of UK MPs or MEPs or, indeed, influence over UK policy decisions.

I wouldn't call six months "a very long way off".

Gkam84 wrote:

Think you all need to read this, it sets it out pretty clearly http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx

Yes and this link continues the ignorance of those who don't understand the large difference between Strict Liability and that of Presumed Liability. They are very different concepts.

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's yet more catch-all vote grabbing nonsense from the SNP liars. In itself it's not a bad idea, but I wouldn't trust anything the SNP says and I suspect this may be another attempt to pander to the Scottish greens in an attempt to bolster support. Luckily the arch villain wee Eck has promised to step down as leader but I doubt his replacement will be any more trustworthy.

An attempt to bolster support? By a party that has seen their membership more than triple recently and is way ahead of everyone else in the polls, both for Scottish voting intentions for Westminster and Holyrood? Hardly. In reality they're the first large party that puts this issue on the agenda at all.

Not going to comment on your spoonfed "liars" - "wouldn't trust anything SNP" - "arch villain" nonsense other than pointing out that a growing majority of Scots would laugh you out of the building for it. A bitter laugh, given what Red Tories and Blue Tories have done to this country.

userfriendly wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's yet more catch-all vote grabbing nonsense from the SNP liars. In itself it's not a bad idea, but I wouldn't trust anything the SNP says and I suspect this may be another attempt to pander to the Scottish greens in an attempt to bolster support. Luckily the arch villain wee Eck has promised to step down as leader but I doubt his replacement will be any more trustworthy.

An attempt to bolster support? By a party that has seen their membership more than triple recently and is way ahead of everyone else in the polls, both for Scottish voting intentions for Westminster and Holyrood? Hardly. In reality they're the first large party that puts this issue on the agenda at all.

Not going to comment on your spoonfed "liars" - "wouldn't trust anything SNP" - "arch villain" nonsense other than pointing out that a growing majority of Scots would laugh you out of the building for it. A bitter laugh, given what Red Tories and Blue Tories have done to this country.

The majority of Scots did not vote for independence and some of us Scots see through wee Eck's opportunist half-truths and recognise him for what he is.

Independence for Scotland would've seen all the banks move south, no currency and all the many well-paid defence jobs moving south too. Scotland would've been denied entry to the EU, not just by Spain but by France and Italy and maybe Belgium too. Now anyone who doesn't understand that, has fallen for wee Eck's smoke and mirrors.

Sorry for going off-topic and for anyone who hoped independence for Scotland was now dead and buried but unfortunately there are still many, many people in Scotland who seem to think that having lost they've somehow been cheated by the evil English.

OldRidgeback wrote:

The majority of Scots did not vote for independence

Hate to break it you, but the majority of Scots did not vote to stay in the union either. 47% did. As heartening as a turnout of 85% was, it's 15% short of the entire electorate.

OldRidgeback wrote:

and some of us Scots see through wee Eck's opportunist half-truths and recognise him for what he is.

...and are evidently quite happy to spout your own half-truths. Well, they would be half-truths if they were at least 50% true. Spout non-truths, more like it. Or, lies. Spoonfed to you by the British Bullshit Corporation.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Independence for Scotland would've seen all the banks move south

Yes, yes. Aaaall the banks would have moved south. Of course. You have to be a bit deranged to believe that, but hey ... if it helps you sleep better.

Of course, if you were interested at all in the facts of the matter, you would have known that the only thing happened in that regard was two banks announcing an administrative change of address, which would have involved moving a brass plaque, basically. The RBS CEO even went on record stating that this "move" would not have involved a single job loss.

But no, you make it sound like there would have been a massive closing of branches because of a Yes vote. Do you actually believe this bullshit yourself, or are you just happy to spout rich people's propaganda?

Oh, by the way ... RBS are closing over 150 branches over the coming year. But Scotland voted No, didn't anyone tell them that? Weird, huh?

OldRidgeback wrote:

no currency

Aye, no currency. None at all. We'd have been back to a barter economy. Because clearly we wouldn't have been able to keep using the Scottish Pound, currency union or not. Or adopt the Euro. Or a new currency with our own central bank. No, of course not. Because we're living in OldRidgeback's fantasy world where none of that would have been possible, as clearly every other country can do it just not Scotland. In OldRidgeback's fantasy world, Scotland is unique in that it's simply incapable of doing what every other country can do.

OldRidgeback wrote:

and all the many well-paid defence jobs moving south too.

All 475 of them? My, my. What a loss. Totally worth keeping the financial black hole that is Trident, and throwing many more hundreds of millions of pounds at it. Right?

OldRidgeback wrote:

Scotland would've been denied entry to the EU, not just by Spain but by France and Italy and maybe Belgium too.

The only official statement the EU made about that was that it would give an answer to that question if asked by the current representative of Scotland in the EU. The UK government. But they didn't ask for that answer, for some strange reason.

The Spanish PM is not "the EU". France, Italy, Belgium? You really aren't above just making shit up, are you?

OldRidgeback wrote:

Now anyone who doesn't understand that, has fallen for wee Eck's smoke and mirrors.

No, anyone who doesn't *believe* that has managed not to fall for blatant and easily refuted Westminster propaganda.

You have been living under a rock for the past few years and you're too afraid to crawl out from under it. Jockholm syndrome is the new name for this, I believe.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Sorry for going off-topic and for anyone who hoped independence for Scotland was now dead and buried but unfortunately there are still many, many people in Scotland who seem to think that having lost they've somehow been cheated by the evil English.

If only it was about the English. It's not. Only in so far that Westminster is in England and not in Scotland.

And no, independence for Scotland is anything but dead and buried. And that is anything but unfortunate.

What you don't understand is that no one wants independence for the sake of being independent. It's a means to an end. Or ends, rather.

I would be happy to talk about what those ends are, and why I think independence would help achieve them, but I very much doubt you would. You just want to paint anyone outside your unionist bubble an idiot and tell them to shut up, curl up and die. Lovely.

And then people like you go and cry about the divide this referendum has caused? Tell you what, analyse your own approach to the matter and to people involved in it, and you'll quickly see the cause for that divide.

HalfWheeler wrote:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but...

Is this necessarily a completely positive thing for cyclists? If we're in a collision with a pedestrian then strict liability will deem us as responsible. So if I'm out on the cross bike or mtb, going along a trail or path, and some yannie with an mp3 player steps out in front of me and a collision happens (those sort of near misses happen all the time) then regardless of who is to blame I'll be deemed liable.

Not really fair...

Of course shit will happen sometimes, just as it will to some drivers. But I worry a lot more about the damage an idiot in a car can do to me, than I do about clipping someone with the bike.

HalfWheeler wrote:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but...

Is this necessarily a completely positive thing for cyclists? If we're in a collision with a pedestrian then strict liability will deem us as responsible. So if I'm out on the cross bike or mtb, going along a trail or path, and some yannie with an mp3 player steps out in front of me and a collision happens (those sort of near misses happen all the time) then regardless of who is to blame I'll be deemed liable.

Not really fair...

It forces you to drop your speed where you can see any risk - a good example is during peak hours and you're zipping past cars in traffic. Pedestrians always walk out between cars blindly and nearly get wiped by the passing cyclist.

Not the cyclists fault really, but by making it strict liability it'll put it in the cyclists consciousness that they have to treat pedestrians like babies and be extra careful ie. slow down.

Same on a ski slope. You're taught that no matter what you're responsible for the person in front of you, even if the person is a complete tit and acting irrationally.