[DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!

Well, yeah, but that's just the problem Hexx; I'm not interested in how I appear or look. I'm happy with my position and have known enough over the years of studying the subject to know what my opinion is, I don't feel the need or care to show that to you, especially when you haven't anywhere near the knowledge on the subject than most Yes and No (and probably Undecided) voters in Scotland.

*shrug*

Moggy wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:I'm just gonna' refuse to take part in this little scrap of yours, I've got nothing to prove to myself of my merit in making up my mind.

You are more than welcome to make up your own mind. I have already said in this thread that I am not pro or anti independent Scotland, that's up to people living there.

But don't get pissy with people when they ask you to back up your claims. There is nothing wrong with people asking you for examples and evidence and you should not play the victim when somebody wants you to back yourself up.

I'm not playing any victim card? Jesus. You make it look like I give a gooseberry fool!

Which to answer Lucien's earlier post - it's not going to be over this year

Scotland could go either with after Independence (as could the remaining UK) it's a complex system of variables and no one can predict with any certain what will happen (and the likelihood of each outcome is open to debate)

But you've

[*]Independence Rejected : Constant whinges from the ProI whenever anything they dislike/disapprove of happens, or any negative happens to Scotland, regardless of cause. i.e. just like the last X many years.

[*]Independence Accepted: In all circumstances they'll be months+ of negotiations/propoganda as each party tries to decide what's "fair", with their own interpretation. (Bad feeling from the eventual position will go on for years)

A) Scotland does poorly. Years of blame on the UK (either due to settlement position, interaction of laws/currency union etc) from the ProI whenever anything they dislike/disapprove of happens, or any negative happens to Scotland, regardless of cause.

B) Scotland does well. Years of smug pricks explaining how anything good is the result of independence, regardless of actual underlying cause.

B) Scotland does "the same". Years of blame on the UK (either due to settlement position, interaction of laws/currency union etc) from the ProI whenever anything they dislike/disapprove of happens, or any negative happens to Scotland, regardless of cause. Years of smug pricks explaining how anything good is in spite of the UK, regardless of actual underlying cause.


(Note: You could also easily re-write the above to apply for UK people whinging at Scots. It's by no means a one way street)

But yeah - "settled this year" my arse

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:I'm just gonna' refuse to take part in this little scrap of yours, I've got nothing to prove to myself of my merit in making up my mind.

You are more than welcome to make up your own mind. I have already said in this thread that I am not pro or anti independent Scotland, that's up to people living there.

But don't get pissy with people when they ask you to back up your claims. There is nothing wrong with people asking you for examples and evidence and you should not play the victim when somebody wants you to back yourself up.

I'm not playing any victim card? Jesus. You make it look like I give a gooseberry fool!

Maybe saying that you played the victim is too harsh, but you are doing a terrible impression of somebody that doesn't give a gooseberry fool.

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:Well, yeah, but that's just the problem Hexx; I'm not interested in how I appear or look. I'm happy with my position and have known enough over the years of studying the subject to know what my opinion is,

And to be clear, when asked for justification to back up your assertion on a critical, if not the critical, issue your position was "I read the white paper".

Years of study and that's the best you could come up with.

It's probably a very good thing you don't care how you appear or look. (Although given your response to Moggy and others, you're not really giving that impression).

I'll live, trust me

Hexx wrote:Stuff

If you wanted a sensible debate with Scotty you might want to start from a position that doesn't assume all Scots are whining idiots who will be in the wrong regardless of outcome.

We're "smug pricks" if we're a success, we're bitter if it's a failure, we'll irrationally blame others for any faults or problems because that's what we do already, right? I realise more Cade forumites live in England than Scotland but even through this thread people have resorted to stereotypes - "lol Scotchland, nobody cares, they're jealous" which is usually followed by a barrage of opinion on a subject that they supposedly don't care about. I don't know if being condescending is a deliberate tactic employed in the same way wee boys throw rocks at the girl they fancy at school, but it sure comes across like it.

Ginga wrote:

Hexx wrote:Stuff

If you wanted a sensible debate with Scotty you might want to start from a position that doesn't assume all Scots are whining idiots who will be in the wrong regardless of outcome.

We're "smug pricks" if we're a success, we're bitter if it's a failure, we'll irrationally blame others for any faults or problems because that's what we do already, right? I realise more Cade forumites live in England than Scotland but even through this thread people have resorted to stereotypes - "lol Scotchland, nobody cares, they're jealous" which is usually followed by a barrage of opinion on a subject that they supposedly don't care about. I don't know if being condescending is a deliberate tactic employed in the same way wee boys throws rocks at the girl they fancy at school, but it sure comes across like it.

A) I didn't say all Scots, or even all ProI
B) I said in bold it applied just as much as UK/English (again not all) towards Scots.

Or is your position, genuinely, in answer the Lucien's point that it'll all stop and settle this year (regardless of direction) and there'll be no more public mudslinging/whinges/threats/blame?

But yeah. You and Scott are doing a wonderful job of countering the emotive Scots with a chip on the shoulder stereotype that's developed.

Scotty was asked to discuss like a proper grown up, and had a proper little tantrum. Can't help but talk to a child like a child.

Was speaking to someone today from an arm (although quite remote)of the Scottish government, and when I asked what would happen if the vote was no her response was, "then we will have to see at he next one".

So, screw democracy, we keep going on and on until we get the "right" answer?

I hate all of them, why can't I vote for telling every self aggrandising MSP to shut up and leave everyone alone? I'd rather be a citizen of google.

jimbojango wrote:Was speaking to someone today from an arm (although quite remote)of the Scottish government, and when I asked what would happen if the vote was no her response was, "then we will have to see at he next one".

So, screw democracy, we keep going on and on until we get the "right" answer?

I hate all of them, why can't I vote for telling every self aggrandising MSP to shut up and leave everyone alone? I'd rather be a citizen of google.

President Salmonds response when asked to the time-frame of a repeat referendum was 20 years or "a generation" which to me seems sensible. We did exactly the same thing with devolution. Unless something spectacularly bad came from Westminster towards Scotland in the next 5-10 years I'd vote no (in a repeat). The people of Scotland should decide, not be bullied into it by the SNP, Greens and Sociallists. They obviously wouldn't have another referendum that fast though as they'd be punished by the electorate, it's not in their interest to do it.

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

jimbojango wrote:Was speaking to someone today from an arm (although quite remote)of the Scottish government, and when I asked what would happen if the vote was no her response was, "then we will have to see at he next one".

So, screw democracy, we keep going on and on until we get the "right" answer?

I hate all of them, why can't I vote for telling every self aggrandising MSP to shut up and leave everyone alone? I'd rather be a citizen of google.

President Salmonds response when asked to the time-frame of a repeat referendum was 20 years or "a generation" which to me seems sensible. We did exactly the same thing with devolution. Unless something spectacularly bad came from Westminster towards Scotland in the next 5-10 years I'd vote no (in a repeat). The people of Scotland should decide, not be bullied into it by the SNP, Greens and Sociallists. They obviously wouldn't have another referendum that fast though as they'd be punished by the electorate, it's not in their interest to do it.

Her view was an annual event, but then that might just be the view of SFT.

I don't know about you guys but I find the atmosphere here awful, you can't say what you think without extremists from either side shouting you down. The whole thing has really made me doubt my faith in humanity and informed, reasoned debate.

Is there such as an acceptable defeat for Salmond&co in this referendum?
A strong yes vote should still be a strong platform to campaign to give more power to the Scottish parliament right?

Hexx wrote:A) I didn't say all Scots, or even all ProI
B) I said it applied just as much as UK/English (again not all) towards Scots.

Or is your position, genuinely, in answer the Lucien's point that it'll all stop and settle this year (regardless of direction)

But yeah. You and Scott are doing a wonderful job of countering the emotive Scots stereotype that's developed.

Scotty was asked to discuss like a proper grown up, and had a proper little tantrum. Can't help but talk to a child like a child.

You framed that as "pro-Independence voters" then sneaked in a disclaimer at the end about how it could equally apply to the UK/English as if it's all one and the same. It's not - there would be strong reason for some Scots to feel bitter about a "No" vote winning as they'd be denied the reality of change or the ability to properly control their own affairs, for good or bad. Too many ifs and buts, too many unanswered questions with a "No" vote for people to say "fair's fair" and pack the whole debate in. That's obvious to anyone, surely? I don't think it makes anyone smug or bitter, we wouldn't have changed anything so of course you'd hear the same arguments.

Anyway, you're saying the status quo south of the border remaining intact regardless of how the vote goes is the same as monumental political transformation in Scotland. We know what a "No" vote looks like as we're living it, so of course there would be frustration and debate if we're never to find out what "Yes" does for the country. So...I don't understand what you were trying to say or what your point was? You chose to go with "smug prick Scots" as the body text and complained that Scotty didn't want to discuss things like an adult. At best, you've made some vague "everyone's going to argue" point and at worse you've implied that we'll never be satisfied because of some anti-English bigotry.

What's weird is that you seem to think Scottish people being emotive about their future is laughable. I don't know if you're Scots, Hexx? If you're not then it does appear more than a tad hypocritical for you to be emotive and for it to be fine because you're disparaging something that won't impact you in nearly the same way.

Also, what stereotypes? I've posted three times in this thread - once asking for people to use facts instead of emotions or tabloid headlines (which is the complete opposite of what you're accusing me of...) and the second time replying to comments about Scotty not explaining himself. I think I'm right in saying that he's already discussed his position, in detail, on a few occasions throughout the forum. He's probably fed-up having to go through the same debates over and over just to sate someone's whimsical curiosity. If people aren't inclined to get into a debate it's possibly because it appears as though you've made up your mind and it feels more like an argument where you're happy to lump all Scots into "Och aye, Braveheart and shortbread" territory.

Let's be honest...you just want rid of the Tories so much that you'd like to be able to take part and vote them out forever. I mean, I couldn't blame you for that!

I don't see anything wrong with repeating referendums down the line. Opinions change as generations change, so if anything it would be undemocratic to say one decision holds forever. If at any time the majority wants independence then why not? Unions can also be reformed, broken, reformed, broken... it has happened all over the world through the centuries as nations are born and eventually die. The idea of some kind of eternal settlement is rubbish.

The government looks set to rule out a currency union in the event of a Yes vote

Can't say I'm at all surprised by this. A union just wouldn't really be workable on either side the way they wanted it.

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:I'll live, trust me

jesus christ you're annoying.

I find the SNP'S position comical, they want independence but virtually no control over their currency. If they want to share the pound, they are still leaving a vast amount of power with Westminster. It undermines their entire argument in my opinion.

Wow. Those non-existant discussions went terribly.

To be fair though, Osbourn can only rule out a formal union. As someone (meep?) said above any country can informally adopt any cuurency, you will just have no control/input over it.

We have a decent stable currency here, and giving over any control over it to a foreign government would be insanity, and at best an experiment. I have trouble believing that even Alex Salmond would be stupid enough to believe Westminster would be that foolish, I reckon they only talked about it so he could then pull the 'Bullying' card as a cheap political trick when it was refused.

Going independent means taking care of your own problems, including the headache and risk of starting up your own currency. To attempt to mitigate that risk by sponging off a neighboring state doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence for the prospects of an independent Scotland.

captain red dog wrote:I find the SNP'S position comical, they want independence but virtually no control over their currency. If they want to share the pound, they are still leaving a vast amount of power with Westminster. It undermines their entire argument in my opinion.

It's hardly comical. The pro independence campaign know full well that offering too much change upfront will reduce their chances of winning.