If you can't decide ask a 16 year old. They'll be getting all the facts at school.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21741448
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
YesScotland: not for cyclists
(118 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Only if they ask and hopefully they have no idea what I think about it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It would be very unfortunate if the outcome of an event with the same significance as the Declaration of Arbroath turned on the perception of the SNP's 2014 transport policy.
Perhaps it's too easy to dismiss the difference between this:
and this:
as merely the "perception" of the SNP's transport policy.
I prefer to consider it a bellweather (perhaps the prospect of having kids and trying to decide whether to move away to rear them somewhere more pleasant has coloured my outlook?)
At the end of the day, it's hard to believe that much which really touches me to that extent would change one way or another (I don't value the concept of self-determination particularly highly, as I think we're so manipulated in modern society that nominal questions of governance are of little relevance - although that's not a reason to oppose the vote or support it).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Too political... and short sighted
This is a vote for the future of Scotland, for years, centuries to come, not whether we should vote according to the SNPs record or indeed any political parties record in providing cycle facilities.
I would absolutely agree that on many issues the parties in Scotland have very little vision as too what they want our society to be like in the future, but independence is but the first step. If acheived and once the state "setup" stuff is sorted out, the political dynamics will change and practicalities will kick in, and IMO it is inevitable/necessary that transport policies will change for the better in terms of cyclists and pedestrians.
Cycle facilities have improved beyond belief in the last 30 years, through litle steps, some good, some less good, but generally in the right direction. As has been said elsewhere on this forum, as we get facilties that are simple and safe for your family to use, without doning masses of "safety" gear, society at large will move with it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Seems to me that could (and should) happen whether Scotland became independent or not...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I never got this thing where people do or don't vote for politicians based on whether they like them.
Our current student made the mistake of bringing up politics in the staff room and said that she didn't like one of the main parties. I asked her which policies she didn't like… she didn't seem to know any.
I like Ken Clark. I don't like jazz but I'm quite happy to listen to his jazz show on the wireless because he knows his stuff and makes it interesting. I suspect I have more views in common with him than many Tories these days. However, I'm not gong to vote for his party.
I'd probably enjoy a ruby with the first minister as we both like Star Trek, although he's wrong about Volyager. Deep Space Nine is obviously better. I guessed what film he really wanted to choose in the GFT last month but they had already shown it last year so had to take his second choice. Nonetheless I wouldn't vote for him just because he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of sci fi, impressive as it is.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Dave, I see more bikes in the bottom photo. (One as opposed to none in the other, assuming that is a bike powered food stand) So what is your point?
Does anyone think that cycling provision in Scotland got (significantly) worse since 2007, or indeed since 1999?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Deep Space Nine???? Surely thee jesteth. TNG all the way. Uncomfortable looking polyester costumes and all.
"Make it so". Need I say more?
:-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oh come on guys! All the new-fangled costumes and special effects have nothing on a good 'ass attack'
Posted 11 years ago # -
TOS, TNG and VOY never had anything like "In the Pale Moonlight".
A Starfleet officer deliberately fabricating evidence to fool the Romulans into joining a war. He wasn't happy to abandon the principles of Starfleet but he could live with it.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/In_the_Pale_Moonlight_(episode)
It had Garak, What side was he on?
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Elim_GarakAnd Eddington who pushed Siskp over the edge.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Michael_EddingtonEven Gul Dukut wasn't a simple bad guy. Sometimes he claimed that he wanted to help the Bajorans.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/DukatIt also had more Klingons than any other series.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Back on topic, I think that the SNP will probably dissolve post-independence, with some members staying, but most drifting off to Labour/Greens/Tories/Lib Dems. So policies on things like transport will be decided by other parties post independence. Yes, the SNP would maybe win the first election assuming they ride a wave of euphoria, but I can't see it lasting. And it would open Scotland up to influences from Scandinavia, the Netherlands etc, not just England.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I think that the SNP will probably dissolve post-independence"
There was a newspaper claim recently that the SNP would do this voluntarily - but it didn't seem to have any 'facts' in the 'story'!
I suppose people who hate the SNP (there seem to be some in the Labour Party) should vote "Yes"...
Posted 11 years ago # -
The leaked Swinney document is interesting because it sets out, quite candidly, how limited the scope for all this promised Scandinavian social justice is going to be and how, ultimately, the decisions of an 'independent' Scotland will be constrained by the monetary and fiscal policies implemented by Westminster and the Bank of England, which are themselves largely determined by the capital markets and supranational organisations like the EU, the IMF etc. That is, of course, why Alex Massie is cheered by it and why Conservatives should be less concerned about independence.
The question isn't so much whether cycling (or anything else) will be better or worse if Scotland becomes independent. The question seems more tactical - how can we use the fact of a vote on independence to press for improvements post-referendum, regardless of the outcome?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"The question seems more tactical - how can we use the fact of a vote on independence to press for improvements post-referendum, regardless of the outcome?"
Perhaps, but the "No" campaign seems to be relying more on scare tactics and not offering 'positive carrots'.
This isn't entirely surprising as the 'opposition' parties are not - and could not be - in power together at Westminster and enact any 'promises'.
The "Yes" campaign is seen as (and largely is) the SNP. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage - and the effect on the non-hardcore (both sides) won't be known until the day after the Referendum.
To be completely parochial (geographically and interest wise) independence or no' will not stop things like the QBC being inadequate.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The question seems more tactical - how can we use the fact of a vote on independence to press for improvements post-referendum, regardless of the outcome?
If it's a No then we have no bargaining chip. Westminster will see no threat. We were promised jam tomorrow in '79 and we know how that worked out.
This wasn't supposed to happen. Donald and Wendy set it up for a Lib/Lab coalition with no real effect. Westminster are not going to take a chance of this happening again. They risk losing their place in the UN, their nuclear weapons and… Prince Phillip might not have anywhere to shoot things.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Every time a quasi political debate springs up aboot YES or NO for independence, my mind generates the image of the beaten wife who just canny leave her husband coz "she loves him". I often think its a subconscious analogy for the current state of affairs in the UK, Scotland seems to be the "beaten wife" in my mind...
Thought i would share my thoughts,
{any psychological analysis feedback particularly appreciated }R :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not sure if it's psychological analysis but whenever I see the 'beaten wife' analogy it reads like the person using it views beaten wives with a combination of contempt and pity. It suggests they have little empathy or understanding of domestic violence and it pushes me a little further away from their implicit viewpoint - that Scotland (like beaten wives) should muster the courage and strength to stand up for itself. So really, it blames the victim.
Does that help?
Posted 11 years ago # -
If it's a No then we have no bargaining chip. Westminster will see no threat.
Yes. If we vote No then Westminster will see no reason not to abolish devolution. We got it as an anti-independence measure after all.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Realistically, dysfunctional partners seek each other out and embark on mutually abusive relationships, ensnaring and embroiling others into their drama along the way
eg the imperial british empire
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ Instography, Interesting insight and view on my post there, much appreciated. :-)
However, having spent a fair bit of my childhood in womens aid hostels with my mum and family,i suppose i have a bit more of an understanding of domestic violence than i would like to have.
I certainly dont view domestic violence with any measure of contempt but i certainly have sympathy and empathy.
I am probably still blaming the victim....Cheers
R :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
"If we vote No then Westminster will see no reason not to abolish devolution"
I don't think that would happen - though I can't think of any logical reason why I think that - apart from 'it wouldn't be worth the hassle'...
The next year and a half will be full of 'facts', 'not-facts', "tell us the facts" etc.
As has been pointed out above no-one knows what will happen about treaties, the EU, the 'Economy', the price of oil' etc.
I suspect a lot of people will not vote, because however much they have thought about it they will be genuine "don't knows".
So the decision will probable be based on fear or faith.
More of the same (Devo Plus/Max/etc.) isn't a ballot paper option and not really 'offered' by the 'better together' side.
Theoretically 'Scotland' could vote Yes and wake up the next morning and say 'right, and now we want an election - and none of the existing parties are allowed to be involved'. 'New Country, new way of doing things'.
But I think The Who had a song about it...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Alex Salmond is a Pinball Wizard?
Nah, voting no won't lead to devolution being withdrawn.
And the 'better together' lot were canny in not wanting to offer Devo Max etc. They know that people would likely have voted for that, and you wind up with a stepping stone effect that leads eventually to independence. By offering independence before most people are ready for it, and that alone, you can almost guarantee a no vote (I do think the no vote will win, just a gut feeling).
But I think there would be uproar if a no vote was taken as a cue to remove devolution (could have had an even more cluttered ballot paper by asking people if they wanted to vote not only 'no', but also to remove devolution, but again the 'better together' camp would know that that wouldn't be voted for, and could be used as a justification by the other side).
Ah, politics....
Posted 11 years ago # -
Better together were in a bit of a cleft stick with the devo max because they had no unified version of what it meant and couldn't really constrain a future Westminster government.
Devolution might not be abolished de jurie after a No but Calman would be implemented and the Barnett formula could be tightened up to make some of the things we currently enjoy more difficult to fund.
The subs in the Clyde would stay where they are, as would the ones rusting in Rosyth and we would be involved in whatever war Westminster next embarked upon.
George Robertson, and to a lesser extent Tony Blair, did sell devolution as a way to kill nationalism. As I remember they were under pressure from Europe to do something and the current settlement was the least they felt they could get away with. For all his (many) faults Enoch Powell had a better understanding of where devolution might lead. Tam Dalziel did too but he wasn't very New Labour so his concerns weren't addressed.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Interesting stuff wfb. Seems strange to me to think that people believed devolution would kill off nationalism. Maybe they thought the parliament would be utterly incompetent (whereas it's merely a bitty incompetent and therefore on a par with Westminster - I remember after the yes decision on devolution they said that politics up here would be brand new and not replicate the party political nature of the way of things down south. I laughed at the time).
Posted 11 years ago # -
What the "Yes" campaign needs to is for Dave, George, perhaps Ed and of course Prince Charles is to come up for visit and to open their mouths and see what comes out. Guaranteed yes win. Politicians like Michael Moore are too anonymous to stir up any anti-Westminster sentiment in swing voters.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You know that might have been unfair to Enoch Powell. At least he believed in something and said so, eloquently and with palpable conviction. While many people would quibble with his views I would be happy to have a few more like him.
We still have the likes of Dennis Canavan.
Labour in Hollyrood were the authors of their own demise in the lamentable quality of their current offering. They didn't allow members to be on both the list and constituency ballots. Many able candidates fell because of this. Andy Kerr might have got muddled on what mandatory meant but I would have preferred him to get the top job when Iain Grey fell on his sword. The only current member on that side who I retain any respect for at all is Malcolm Chisholm. I did wonder if Henry McLeish could stage a comeback but his recent comments are well outwith the current party policy.
Similarly I think the Tories made a mistake in not putting Murdo in charge but he might have upset too many apple carts.
Posted 11 years ago # -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robertson,_Baron_Robertson_of_Port_Ellen
In 1995, Robertson said that "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead" while he was Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.[7] This quote was designed to assuage fears that devolution would provide a greater platform for the Scottish National Party (SNP).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Maybe they thought the parliament would be utterly incompetent (whereas it's merely a bitty incompetent and therefore on a par with Westminster
I think that's mildly unfair on Holyrood. For all it's lack of ambition and vision for Scotland, it seems (on the face of available evidence) to be "clean" and relatively free of the worst sorts of Westminster politicians (lairs, cheats and criminals). I also think it's a far more businesslike and professional parliament than the ya-boo-sucks-to-be-you crap we get out of Westminster purely because the cameras are watching.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Going to have to agree to disagree on that kaputnik - I can't say I'm massively impressed by the quality of politics in Holyrood, and it's definitely (in my opinion) still mired in party political game playing.
[aside]Went for dinner once at the Holyrood restaurant with a friend who worked for the exec (and a few other folk). Walking back to come out we passed the debating chamber, and looking in through the window leant on the door and it was open. So. We wandered in. Not sure it's a claim to fame to say I've sat in the FM's seat...[/aside]
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
