Sturgeonland

[Red Zone]

Hating them and refusing to join in with a fantasy are two different things.


Anyway, we have still to find out what a Kate Forbes style Scotland will look like.

One that believes in realism would be a start.

I guess we will hear more over the next few weeks but it sounds like a Kate Forbes style Scotland, at least in the short-term, will place more focus on the economy/business and dare I say it competent Government and less emphasis on equality and social justice issues. It sounds like she will not be battering everyone over the head about independence on a daily basis but rather try to grow an independence majority through her approach to Government, also knowing that over time demographics will favour the independence numbers as well. My guess is she will pick her fights with Westminster much more carefully rather than looking to engineer disagreements at every possible opportunity.

[donsdaft]

Good thing too.

A Scotland where everyone pulls their weight is essential.

From each according to their ability etc.

Not just a heap of wasters with their hands out.

Before everyone jumps on me for that, it benefited the Labour Party for years and years to keep folk dependent.

Scotland has to pay its way, not the English Tory way but it has to pay its way regardless.

[InversneckieDob]

Hating them and refusing to join in with a fantasy are two different things.


Anyway, we have still to find out what a Kate Forbes style Scotland will look like.

One that believes in realism would be a start.

A realism rooted in the Old Testament?

As I say, if Forbes is professional enough to park her fundamentalist bigotry then crack on.
But I've met Free Churchers.....

[InversneckieDob]

From each according to their ability etc.

Did you miss out the second, more important, part of that line for a reason?

[donsdaft]

Aye, I'm not keen on religion myself.

But the Quakers didn't do too badly in the long term scheme of things, so there's hope.

[donsdaft]

Did you miss out the second, more important, part of that line for a reason?

Yes because needs seem to have grown somewhat.

[InversneckieDob]

Yes because needs seem to have grown somewhat.

Aye, that's Capitalism for you.
When the markets decide, needs grow.

[donsdaft]

No they don't.

Never mind, if that's the sort of Scotland you have in mind, a land of the needy then on you go.
Someone has to pay for it though.



Personally, I would have thought it was very Scottish, very working class, to be able to pay your own way.

It was Thatcher that changed that attitude, better leave that in the past.

[InversneckieDob]

No they don't.

Never mind, if that's the sort of Scotland you have in mind, a land of the needy then on you go.
Someone has to pay for it though.

I'd certainly like to see a Scotland where the mantra "let the markets decide" isnae the prevailing, default mantra.

But it's a recognised, economic fact that unfettered capitalism requires an underclass to function ("scroungers" I think is how you often define them?).
A hungry, readily available workforce/infantry.

You keep that underclass disenfranchised long enough it becomes generational and ingrained, yer basic sociology right there.

I find that morally unacceptable but I suppose it would be a more dull world if our moral compasses all pointed in the same direction.

[donsdaft]

A very English view of the world, which is one of the main reasons we want away from the bästards.

I call scroungers scroungers, I don't mix them up with people trying their best who need a little help.

Too many scroungers though, too many junkies, too many wasters.

An independent Scotland should be sorting that out by giving them hope, giving them opportunity, not just hand outs to keep them at the bottom.