Last night attended the "Glasgow Skeptics - promoting science, critical thinking and freedom of expression" - a government sock puppet who were running a "debate" on independence. I have previously mentioned the "Skeptics" and their absolute objection to sceptical thinking and free debate
over alleged catastrophic global warming. So their decision to give places to the 5 cartel parties and undeniably Fascist and racist Radical Independencers
while excluding UKIP was expected. Such is normal of state funded puppets.
Jackson Carlaw (Tory) Jackie Baillie (Labour & Willie Rennie (LibDim)
for No and Patrick Harvie (Green), some woman (SNP) and the cofounder
of Radical Independence (Fascist).
took my seat and not before I put on the UKIP rosette.
Both the SNP and RI put
gratuitous attacks on UKIP into their speeches. When the second did it I stood
up and said “Mr Chair, I would like a ruling – is it proper that this is the
second speaker to have made a gratuitous attack on UKIP when UKIP has been
censored from the debate”. Well actually I only got the first few words before
being drowned out. So I repeated and repeated and repeated and……. Eventually
got the question out, at which time I was surrounded by bouncers, who explained
that I would have to leave. I sat down and said you’ll have to carry me which
they threatened to do but didn’t follow through. The chair obviously declined
to rule on whether it was proper to use the venue to attack UKIP when UKIP had
specifically been denied a chance to speak.
In the QandA section I did
get to speak – I pointed out that the Fascist (because that, and racist, is
what RI had proven themselves to be when they attacked Farage) had denounced
fuel poverty, but that none of the parties allowed to speak actually cared
about fuel or any other sort of poverty. That the only way to end poverty is to
increase national wealth and that while all of them knew how to do so – it was
fairly easy and UKIP are full of policies saying how (which is true – cheap
energy, save £170 bn out of the EU & cut parasitic government regulation).
I then pointed out the incongruity of some Yes supporters decrying poverty when
Patrick Harvie had said on TV that nobody should vote Yes in the expectation it
will produce any growth in the foreseeable future.
Harvie said this is not
exactly what he said – I said it was precisely what had said (& it was) but then went on to acknowledge that he was not a fan of growth
and would be happy if we were poorer but fairer. To be fair to him he does come
fairly close to saying what he means which puts him ahead of the rest, though “fair” is a very subjective word and I doubt if there are 2 people
alive who would totally agree in what it means, which is why politicos use it.
The only other one to say anything on my truthful charge that UKIP have the policies to end crerate wealth but none of them care was Willy Rennie. He denounced me for saying I want growth when I want to quit the EU. I put my
hand up, twice, and loudly asked the chair if I would be allowed to answer the
point but naturally wasn't. A voice for the audience said “No you won’t”
& I replied “That was rather my point”.
I was interested that 2 1/2 of the Yes speakers, and from the cheers almost all of this atypical audience, were resolutely opposed to nationalism (the 1/2 being the official SNP). This may not be entirely how the Yes campaign runs nationally but it is clear that the campaign has very little room for nationalists and patriots. It is entirely about various sorts of "socialist" promising each other that, come the revolution, there will be unlimited money to pay the unwaged, windmills, foreign aid, government employees, Gaelic programming, awareness raising activities, ensuring everybody working on Trident still gets paid etc.
2 audience questions interesting
more for the response than their originality.
One man said how could we vote
to stay in the union when we have the present electoral system, a position I
have a lot of sympathy with. Carlaw, who answered it completely misunderstood
the question, answering one about the English outvoting us. I am sure he was
not just deliberately choosing to answer a different question but just didn’t
get it. To be fair to Harvie again he acknowledged the probability that if we got separation the Scottish people will not use it to introduce all this unaffordable stuff. He is clearly intellectually head and shoulders above the kiddie "socialists" beside him, though that is not high praise.
Another asked the No
campaigners to say what vision they were offering. This has been asked
regularly because they have been unable to answer it but the fact they have
been unable to answer it shows how useless “better together” is. The answer is
we’re living in it. A no vote means we can promise to keep the £ (OK the SNP
promise it too but they can’t do so honestly); to keep Gretna free of border
inspectors; to keep the BBC; common citizenship; the right to a referendum on
EU membership; and the English subsidy of our windmills. That may not be the
offer of the vision of Utopia the SNP offer bit it has the advantage of being
real. Yet nobody on the No campaign has the gumption to say it.
That was pretty much it. The
audience was stacked with “socialist” evangelists and no doubt will have voted
overwhelmingly for separation, as they did going in.
I have written to Willie
Rennie inviting him to debate either in person or online - see tomorrow.
Labels: fakecharities, Glasgow, Media