Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Stiubhart O'Daighre · Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject:

If the SSP want to be regarded as a serious political party then they need to move on from Tommy Sheridan. This sort of story makes them look amateurish to say the least.
I do believe that some of the thinking and especially their use of modern medium to convey there messages are to be applauded, but the public perception is one of pure nonsense, they project the persona of a high school social studies class.

Neil · Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject:

Surely the fact that their other policies (income tax rises, £8 minimum wage for state employees only, jobs tax) are quite literally insane should count against them too?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

FALSYDE · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject:

Who cares what the SSP say. Obviously they have the democratic right to do so but frankly they will NEVER have any influence in government becasue there simply are not enough numpties around to vote for them. Most folk have travelled a bit and if they kept their eyes open they would realise socialism has never worked, currently isn't working, and it is reasonable to assume it never will.

The prospect of Scotland becoming a socialist republican valahalla, minus the sunshine is risible in the extreme. Never mind, if they are dicking about then it keeps them out of trouble unless they try to wing a new pair of specs under the parliament's expenses or a new cement mixer. Groan, groan, bloody groan.

It's like watching a group of adults in childrens bodies, the only thing missing are the romper suits and dummies in their mouths
_________________
Iain

Neil · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:19 am Post subject:

I think you mean children in adults bodies which is quite true. This is because they & their supporters have never had to take adult responsibility for anything & have always had the state to provide for them. The SSP (both wings) are the result of dependency culture.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

parkhead_rfb · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:48 am Post subject:

Good to know there were never famines before the invention of the limited liability company or under Stalin or Mao. Smile

It is arguable that Chavez would have less money to spend if he didn't have oil. If so he his socialism has little more to do with the creation of wealth than Tommy's.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

FALSYDE · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject:

ref Parkhead's post, in reply. You make my case entirely sir. If you knew ANYTHING at all about Chavez, Socialism or Capitalism you wouldn't babble such nonsense. I am a capitalist and what little, and it is little, is the product of 70 hour weeks for eight months of the year. I barely earn enough to make me eligible to pay tax. What generally is the case, but not always, those who can indulge their fantasies for socialism are usually those who do not work in the private sector, they have no need to worry about the salary cheques, they always turn up every month what ever they do. most undoubtedly work hard to earn it but those of who do pay tax, however meager, have to see it wasted by useless jobs.

Scotland's got the second highest % of its working population employed by the state in Europe at c. 52%, the only state with a greater percentage is the Vatican. All economists agree that when more than 35% are employed by the state the nation's economy suffers, and boy is ours suffering. The private sector has mostly no guaranteed index linked pension but everyone in the public sector does. Who pays for it? Not the public sector you can be sure.

The biggest drawback Scotland has is the high numbers of the economically illiterate, most of whom you will find as MSPs in the Numptorium, headed by the failed former leader of Stirling Council, no change there then but come May 3rd there probably will be. Please feel free to rejoin the economic debate when you have anything sensible to say.
_________________
Iain

Rinty · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: t

All ecomonists dont agree on your 35% rule only the ones that you agree with.

Public sector pensions are derived from contributions from the wages of the public servants. The vast majority of them get very little by way of a pension after years of contributions.

Neil · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:54 am Post subject:

Certainly an independent Scotland with the majority of the economy being a non-productive or even counter productive state sector would be a disaster. It is arguable that independence is the only way we can be given the necessary shock to reform but it would be harsh. I would prefer something gentler.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Neil · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject:

Rinty if your party is saying that index linked pensions on the same terms could be obtained by non-public employees for the same contributions then they have seriously departed from reality. I suspect the SSP economists who say we can have a successful economy with most of it being non-productive (in economic terms) are equally unrealistic.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Rinty · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: y

It might be a disater Neil, but it's beter if we stick to productive debate on how an economy should be run and not blanket slogans to cover all. Two legs good four legs bad is not the argument.

In an independent Scotland, if we were to have a growth/enterprise based economy it would definitely have to have state support to build it as business is flatlining in most sectors.

BUT to portray civil servants as lazy, greedy and living on handouts is wrong. Most civil and public servants receive pretty poor wages.

Neil · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject:

Well you don't seem to be claiming any longer that their pensions are economicly justifiable. Maybe incompetent (or even to be fair merely stuck in a system which doesn't encourage competence). Would you say that spending £750,000 to get rid of 690 hedgehogs, who replace themselves anyway, http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=245812007 is the way to go.

I am not exactly sure how the state would "support" business. Since the state produces nothing itself what extra would an SSP government do to support it, other than merely getting out of the way? Or are they inclined towards a negative growth economy?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

FALSYDE · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject:

Rinty I respect your sincerely held views, we have discussed various stuff here before but can only reiterate mine which are backed by the consensus views on economics. Ergo without productivity and incentives I would be as prone to the next to sit on my bum if there were no performance indicators to bench mark what I did. I used to work a long time ago for the Forestry Commission and worked with many very nice genuine people but it doesn't take long for them to drift into the manna bubble. I quit out of sheer frustration and boredom by the inertia. In existence since 1919 and following a Labour Party instigated performance assessment it was shown that the real rate of return on the public's purse was 1%, yet after nearly 90 years that's what they produced. If that was any private company it would have been closed down long before, or the directors would have been sacked, rightly.

I however return to my earlier point, there has never been a successful socialist economy, there currently isn't one any where therefor it is perfectly reasonable that Scotland under your prefer option will not become the first. However much you wish for it, the real world, painful as it may be, has no place for that. It's like a religious faith and about as much use too. That however is irrelevant as there, to use the Weegie patwa, is nae danger son. Sorry that's reality.

Another reality, despite my gagging for 2007 to be the year when Scotland resumes her place amongst the world's independent nations, I KNOW it will not happen. That is why we have formed the SEP because we also know it is entirely unreasonable to expect the SNP to deliver on its own. We will not stand against the SNP but will chase what second votes we can get. The SEP by the way is immenently to be formally registered, we have candidates, I am one, let hope we can make even a wee difference, if we get two MSPs even I would be chuffed. Thee SNP have never exceeded 25% of the nationalist vote and this leaves the other 25-30% not engaged, now between the Greens and the SSP, et al there may well be another 5-7% pulled together which leaves a lot of folk who are nationalists with no where to go.

In the light of the above should all Scots not stop the weenie bickering and think strategically? I have been down this road before as you know. We need and MUST all think and act strategically, the voting sysem is there for the savvy voters to 'work', if we don't we get what we deserve.

If any one can suggest another way forward then lets here it.
_________________
Iain

parkhead_rfb · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject:

so what dont i know about chavez then? have his policies not improved the standard of living. feel free to reply with a sensible point.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

FALSYDE · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject:

No they haven't. Read publications like the Economist and any of the financials. Chavez is caught on the rack of spending like water un sustainably and selling oil which is not of the same quality as the two standards, brent or texas, it is very high in sulfur and sells at a discount. What was a major surplus of reserves in the national bank is whittled down, if the oil price goes back down to $50US he is in trouble.

Why would he get himslef appointed to rule by decree fro the next 18 months? Democracy? I don't think so, these guys all go the same way. He idolises Fidel and you can see where that took Cuba even without US pressure once the Russians cut them loose.

Chavez is a one or two trick pony. Lets see what happens once he gets into the deep stuff. He is an educational and economic illiterate with mucho charisma supporter by oads of empty rhetoric from a large mouth unconnected to his brain, such as it is. Give it another five to seven years and lets discuss again. Once you sell the family silver, or in his case give lots of it away to head bangers elsewhere you are lost. Chavez is lost, he and his crazies can't see it yet because the pidgeons are still flitting around, soon enough they have to come in to land. Once more history repeats itself, the tragedy is, as usual, that its the ordinary NORMAL people who end up carrying the can, usually the ones least able to.

Actually I am quite amused you should pick Chavez, it rather makes the case. Eventually even you will see that, just a wee bit of patience laddie, a few of the opposition's corpses laying around in the streets or if lucky jailed in what are apparently the world's worst jails, by a mile. It takes a bit longer to f**k up an economy which was doing well than one which starts out in trouble.

Any other names of "successful" socialist regimes you want to entertain us with as examples?

Incidentally why do you quote daft wee slogans from a looser like Sands on your posts ? Is it some sort of feeble substitute for a rational debate by yourself or the lack of any original thoughts of your own? The ultimate looser, Sands is DEAD, there is no second chance, the first one was not a dummy run and the political geography hasn't changed one bit the way he wanted. His family have been hurt to no purpose and other innocent people too. Strouth!
_________________
Iain

Neil · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:04 am Post subject:

Wot he sdaid about Chavez. Anybody can have money if they have lots of oil at $70 a barrel but it hasn't stayed there.

As regards a successful socialist economy I would hold up Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew certainly started off as a socialist & the place does have a strong welfare state with public housing, quite a lot of government organisation of the economy (one major economist described it as a Stalinist economy) & some highly successful nationalised industries. Howevet this was achieved because Mr Lee was a genuinely sensible socialist who understood that wealth has to be created not merely spent & that competence in governmnet is as important & more difficult to achieve than in the private sector. Secondly even Singapore has movedmore to the private sector over time. Thirdly thry still have done worse than Hong Kong which has been run on an exuberant free enterprise with a minimum of interference.

I do not see any sign that anybody in any of the socialist parties here, let alone the SSP, is remotely as serious about economics rather than tantrums, as Singapore.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

FALSYDE · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject:

If Singapore is a socialist economy then I am the late Mr. Lee's daddy.

Singapore is one of the most successful city nation states EVER. Socialist it is NOT.

Check out the GDP ratios between state and private owned industry, they make my 35% case espoused by international economists exactly.

Without the slightest intention of being rude, can I suggest you might be in the trap of assuming that because a government, wherever it is, has a strong social ethic in its delivery and protection of the weak or disadvantaged that ergo it must be socialist. I consider that [a] I am happy to be called a centre right capitalist, and [b] would insist that I have a social conscience every bit as acute and fair as anyone else, far left, left, centre left, centre, centre right, or right. I would be surprised if those really on the far right had a social conscience but maybe shouldn't make value judgements about them, haven't met any, and don't particularly want to either.
_________________
Iain

Neil · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject:

If you look at the history of socialism from Robert Owen onwards you will find many people who called themselves socialists who had a non-doctrinaire acceptance of a measure, sometimes a high measure, of private ownership. I think virtually all socialists have accepted a trust in & need for a dominating state. On this point real liberals (such as I), anarchists & libertarians disagree.

I think both you & Rinty are making the same mistake - that socialists have to be doctrinaire loonies committed to the idea that 2 + 2 equals anything you want.

_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken