Tuesday, January 31, 2012

It's still strictly platonic

You may, like me, have noticed that some people with a tendency to always seek the last word in an argument are terribly self-conscious about it, and try to disguise what they are up to with 'perfect' last words such as this : "you always like to get the last word, don't you? See if you can resist responding to this! LOL! LOL! LOL!" Yup, you've guessed it, I'm once again talking about the former and now deposed (a nation weeped) Poster of the Year at Political Betting, Ms. Plato. I had an exchange with her about the independence referendum this morning, after something I said agitated her so much that she stopped pretending that I don't exist for the first time in at least five months. I had to pop away, but when I had a look at the rest of the thread a few minutes ago, I was amused to spot this strikingly familiar riposte to my final post -

"Oh no - I'll just wait to hear tell of your 40000 word blog post on the subject.

Will it be entitled The Last Word, Part 88.9742?

Here's a test - don't reply to this"


Well, to her horror, I passed her test with flying colours (and with no effort whatsoever), and of course how can I now resist her yearning for another blog post devoted to her talents? After all, who needs the last word (or indeed to waste energy writing a fresh blog post) when you can simply let Plato's bafflingly muddled line of attack speak for itself? Enjoy...

Marquee Mark : Just how much is the yoke of Westminster preventing this better, fairer place actually happening today?

Me : By denying us control of tax, welfare, macro-economic policy, and refusing to remove inhuman weapons from our soil. By seemingly setting his face against Devolution Max, David Cameron has helpfully left independence as the only conceivable solution to these problems.

Plato : "By denying us control of tax, welfare, macro-economic policy, and refusing to remove inhuman weapons from our soil"

Taking these one by one, I'm sure many undecided voters would be interested in the thinking behind these.

1. Control of tax - Holyrood hasn't used its current tax varying powers. IIRC the reason given is that additional revenues would be deducted from Barnett payments. Is this true?

And what happens if Holyrood wanted to reduce their income tax rate to stimulate growth?

2. Welfare - what does this include?

Do the current rules actively prevent changes or is it about using the same money with a difference emphasis as already happens with 'free tuition fees' etc?

3. Macro-economic - unless Scotland has its own currency, ME policy will be set by the BoE or Brussels as they'll set interest rates/money supply.

How does independence change this?

4. Nuclear weapons.

Is this because it fears being targeted by Iran or AN Other, or because it doesn't like them in principle?

Has Holyrood asked the MoD to relocate their bases elsewhere.

Is this why leaving NATO is included in the independence bag?

Me : Superb - I agitated Plato so much that she just had to respond (first time in months?) but she still couldn't quite bring herself to be associated with my name by hitting the 'reply' button!

"1. Control of tax - Holyrood hasn't used its current tax varying powers...Is this true? "

Yes, because it would be regressive to do so. We need the powers to progressively vary different rates of tax.

"2. Welfare - what does this include?"

The benefits system - entirely controlled by Westminster, and now under siege.

"3. Macro-economic - unless Scotland has its own currency, ME policy will be set by the BoE or Brussels as they'll set interest rates/money supply. How does independence change this?"

Read the Scotland Act, Plato. Macro-economic policy is reserved to Westminster. Even under Devo Max, that wouldn't be the case.

"4. Nuclear weapons. Is this because it fears being targeted by Iran or AN Other, or because it doesn't like them in principle?"

The latter. And, yes, that's why the policy is to leave NATO - it's a nuclear weapons alliance.

Plato : I posed a number of questions - you didn't respond to:

1. And what happens if Holyrood wanted to reduce their income tax rate to stimulate growth?

4. Has Holyrood asked the MoD to relocate their bases elsewhere.

Re ME policy, unless Scotland has its own currency/central bank - how is it in more control than now? Joining the Euro/using Sterling wouldn't provide any freedom to set money supply or interest rates.

Me : Those weren't questions 1 and 4, both of which I answered. They were afterthought supplementaries, but I'll answer them anyway -

"1. And what happens if Holyrood wanted to reduce their income tax rate to stimulate growth?"

The Scottish Tories are free to give it a go, in the unlikely event that they're ever elected to office.

"4. Has Holyrood asked the MoD to relocate their bases elsewhere."

What a very slippery question. We're talking about nuclear weapons, correct? If so, then yes, the SNP majority at Holyrood has "requested" (I'd put it a bit more strongly than that) that Trident be removed from the Clyde.

Plato : I'll ask the question again - What happens if Holyrood wanted to reduce their income tax rate to stimulate growth?

What did the MoD say in response to Holyrood's request?

Me : "What happens if Holyrood wanted to reduce their income tax rate to stimulate growth?"

Firstly, income tax would be reduced. Secondly, we'd find out if Tory economic philosophy stacks up. Ah hae ma doots.

"What did the MoD say in response to Holyrood's request?"

No.

Plato : Have I missed the SNP view of how having Brussels or the BoE control their monetary/interest rate policies gives Scotland macro-economic independence?

If not, would a Nat like to explain how this works?

HD2 : Come on, Plato, Nits NEVER explain.

The Word is Freeeeeeeeeedoooooom...

It's called Freeeeeeeeeedooooooom, ye ken?

Me : She's just sulking because I managed to answer every single one of her distinctly odd menu of questions upthread.

Plato : Far from it James, you failed to answer both my question and SO's re macro-economics and independence.

I asked it again just a few minutes ago to see if any other SNP supporters would like to offer an explanation.

How is having interest rates and money supply controlled by Brussels or the BoE an example of *independence*.

Why would I be sulking? It's an immensely childish trait that I grew out of approx 35yrs ago.

TheUnionDivvie : What some of the red-faced stampers of feet demanding that the 'EthEnPee anther my qwethtionth now or I'll thqweem & thqweem & thqweem' don't seem to realise is that they don't have to be provided with anything. In the triage of political campaigning and discourse they're not even in the 'likely to die, regardless of what care they receive' category.

Me : "Why would I be sulking?"

I don't know, Plato. Only you know the answer to that.

10 comments:

  1. I know that you are trying to provide some truth to the casual reader of PB to counter the relentless racism of OldGreyHair(lol) and the Herd, but it does seem to resemble the small voices of sanity in the anti-Scotsman comment threads.

    Why does a woman who ,"knows nothing about Scotland and cares even less," spend so much time attacking this non-country?

    ReplyDelete
  2. James, you do deserve a medal sparring on Political Bitching.

    Came across this article - it deserves a wider audience.

    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be honest, James, you are rather perpetuating the tired old myth of the Cybernat. This is the second post you've made in a row devoted to an argument on a blog, which frankly I think you're crowing about a little too much.

    The trick with disingenuous Unionist questions is not to belittle or sidestep them, as you are doing, but to meet them head on and demolish them with the truth. The argument re the Bank of England setting Scotland's monetary rates is, in all seriousness, a fair one, and it's up to us nationalists to explain that the question misses the point and that fiscal independence is about policy direction, not interest rates.

    I've heard good things about your blog so I'm not giving up yet, but a bit more analysis and a bit less about back-and-forths on the internet would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Welcome, Craig. To answer your points : firstly, obviously the bottom line is that I blog about whatever I feel like blogging about (and not at all if I don't). I'm not planning to make any changes. Secondly, I don't know if you're familiar with PB, but Plato is notorious for her passive-aggressive repertoire, and I can assure you that her questions were not meant even remotely seriously. I could have gone into a 10,000 word dissertation on the subject of fiscal autonomy, and she would have picked up on one small detail and demanded "Link?" (usually something she knows is impossible to provide a link to, such as a ten-year-old TV programme) and then pretended that nothing I had written had any validity because of my failure to back up 0.000001% of it with a non-existent link. You can see the same pattern with the exchange I've recounted here - she completely ignores the fact that I did indeed address all of her questions, and in spite of what you say, although those answers were brief and treated the questions with the minimal respect they deserved, they were all genuine rather than 'side-stepping' answers.

    In the midst of this exchange with Plato, I also had another exchange on the same topic with a much more serious unionist poster called Southam Observer (one of the very few PB Labour supporters), and my answers to him were much more serious and detailed. But that was because I was talking to someone who was actually interested in engaging with what I said, not to someone who in TheUnionDivvie's words was determined to "thqweem & thqweem & thqweem" unless I answered yet another of her questions NOW!

    As for whether you should give up on this blog, I can only caution you that this post is not untypical (contrary to what you said, though, it's not actually the second in a row!). On the subject of the 'Cybernat' phenomenon, I associate that word more with abusive behaviour and talk of "traitors", etc., than with robust debate, but you may see it differently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Totally agree James. To call stnading up to the political betting groupthink "Cybernattery" is daft.

    By the way, I see you ruffled MrsB's feathers again last night!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, I think since my last encounter with her she's caught up with the Scottish government's consultation document, and realised to her dismay that all her "insurmountable practical objections" to votes at 16 have been dealt with!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice one James. She's so enraged she just had to respond in the end. I see she was using the phrase "Haggis Passport" on another thread.

    Frankly incredulous that your responses to her unionist trolling and bullying are described by Craig Gallagher above as perpetuating the myth of the cybernat?

    I suggest he goes over there and searches through Plato's comments about Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not just her comments, I had a read through that blog and dearie me what a load of keech.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course, I wouldn't argue with your right to blog about whatever you want. I just posted an aimless ramble about postmodernism the other day that garnered zero comments, so I'm hardly the one to talk.

    But nonetheless, your reply is more of the same. I'm not familiar with individual unionists on various sites, particularly Political Betting, mainly because I don't think this is an argument that can be won one-by-one. Yes, challenge falsehoods, destroy misleading and subversive arguments, but it's hard to see how you're doing that from what you posted. I maintain that treating others with contempt, however contemptible they may be, is not the way to win this marathon debate we're all embarking on.

    Thanks for replying though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "your reply is more of the same"

    It wasn't intended to be anything else.

    "treating others with contempt"

    I'm sorry, Craig, but that's an utterly ludicrous characterisation of what I said during the exchange. If you want to know what treating people with contempt really looks like, consider that the person we're talking about here is not merely (as others have pointed out) a serial troll on these matters, but has also made highly personal comments about me and others over a period of a couple of years. For instance, she once falsely claimed I was autistic, and on another occasion maliciously posted the full name and address of a prolific Labour poster, complete with Google Earth street photo. Knowing that, I hope you would accept that the level of courtesy I've shown her is more than sufficient. If not, then clearly we'll have to agree to disagree - I'm simply not of the school of thought that holds that if someone spits on you on the street, the correct response is to smile and offer to shine their shoes.

    ReplyDelete