Thinking Scotland will be better off as a tiny part off a much bigger entity where it'll have next to zero ability to influence anything. You can just see it can't you, Germany, France, Spain going hang on a minute this isn't going to be good for Scotland we'd better change tack.
And to think people used to say that the problem with the EU was people didn't understand it...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236
Rather than being part of a smaller entity with zero influence? When that smaller entity the UK actively works against Scotlands interests?
Of course neither of those statements are true, Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in Westminster, in the EU it's MEPs would equate to 2% at best. And if you really think that rUK actively works against Scotland's best interests you should have a lie down.
And if you really think that rUK actively works against Scotland's best interests you should have a lie down.
Which way does the oil, whisky, farming, fishing and tourist revenue go? Which way does the renewable electricity go? Who pays most for electricity and fuel? Empires don't grow for the benefit of the fringes. London rule has and always will work for London's benefit. Doesn't matter if it's railway lines across India, Mineral mines in Australia or pylons beside the A9 in Perthshire. See also Rome, Moscow et al.
And if you really think that rUK actively works against Scotland's best interests you should have a lie down.
Plenty of evidence. Energy is the most obvious area where Scotland produces cheap electricity but because of the high access charges and UK policy we pay a high price for our electricity. Scotland was refused permission to build two new gas plants to give us energy security and black start capability.
Immigration is an other. We want immigrants but are not allowed them due to xenophobes in Westminster
Plenty of other policy areas
Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in Westminster, in the EU it's MEPs would equate to 2% at best.
Yes - and Sco0tland has zero influence at westminster as our MPS are ignored and activly7u so whereas in the EU we could make deals with like minded folk. Scotland has very rarely since WW2 voted for the government we get at Westminster
Name one occasion that Scottish needs were considered at Westminster?
It really is remarkable you Scots thinking you're getting a bad deal from the relationship. It's highly beneficial....mostly one way. Delusion is sad to see.
Benefits like having an energy surplus and paying the highest prices in the UK for energy? Always getting the governments England chooses despite that rarely matching Scottish voting intentions? If that's highly beneficial, I'll stay deluded. And if the argument is Barnett based.... anyone paying attention knows that Barnett was a sop to voters, created the year before the 1979 referendum to appease the natives. It's as much an illusion of prosperity as post Brexit sunlit uplands and has been similarly exposed as such many times since implementation.
And GERS methodology was created deliberatly to make the case that an independent ~Scotland was not financially viable - as admitted by its creator Lang ex secretary of state
Just out of interest, does every person who makes the indy/Brexit comparison think they are the first person ever to make this connection?
Obviously not. There is lots of evidence comparing and contrasting the two which are always interesting to read although I suspect you wouldnt be able to get through them.
I know you believe you are good and pure but guess ****ing what thats what many brexiteers think. Very few people will turn round and go "yeah I am a ****".
We can look at some of the sales pitches from the brexiteers about looking beyond the EU to see the exact match for your claims.
Fun fact: There is a correlation between drop in social media postings for Scottish Independence and Iranian internet outages.
Odd that. I wonder what we would have seen around the brexit referendum?
I know you believe you are good and pure but guess *ing what thats what many brexiteers think. Very few people will turn round and go "yeah I am a *".
Actually, it's kind of difficult to figure out what Brexiteers thought because the Brexit argument was all things to all people. The Scotland's Future white paper was 670 pages that laid out exactly what the aims of indy were and how it was going to work.
But yes, I'm sure Russian and Iranian bots were the ones making all the independence arguments, as opposed to the actual informed debate that went on and is continuing to go on.
If you know nothing about Scottish Independence (or Scotland in general) then I can definitely see how Indy and Brexit appear to be the same thing.
The Scotland's Future white paper was 670 pages that laid out exactly what the aims of indy were and how it was going to work.
Shame it didnt match reality and also well done for the Scottish exceptionalism in play suggesting that a)all independence supporters had read it and b)supported all of it.
Seems a tad unlikely to be honest.
But yes, I'm sure Russian and Iranian bots were the ones making all the independence arguments
No that isnt what I said but it is rather telling you are incapable of understanding that. This is very much the brexiteer "calling us all racist" approach.
No that isnt what I said but it is rather telling you are incapable of understanding that. This is very much the brexiteer "calling us all racist" approach.
Honestly, as soon as someone says something along the lines of, 'Scottish Independence is like Brexit' I find it difficult to put too much effort into understanding exactly what they mean.
They simply don't know what they are talking about.
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if Iran bot farms supported Scottish Independence. It just doesn't worry me (beyond the usual worries about online disinformation in general).
Both you and the Iranian state appear to think that Scottish independence will somehow contribute to the destabilisation of Western civilisation. I disagree.
Scotland knows what it wants out of indy, to be a small European country. Brexit was either a cry for help or a racist temper tantrum, depending on how charitable you're feeling. Brexit was thoroughly destabilising and I think the Iranians, not understanding the situation in much the same way most English people don't seem to understand it, assume Scottish independence will have the same result.
Honestly, as soon as someone says something along the lines of, 'Scottish Independence is like Brexit' I find it difficult to put too much effort into understanding exactly what they mean.
Yes its best not to think too hard about your positions. Stay in the safe space.
Both you and the Iranian state appear to think that Scottish independence will somehow contribute to the destabilisation of Western civilisation. I disagree.
You do struggle with understanding other peoples positions dont you?
Brexit was either a cry for help or a racist temper tantrum, depending on how charitable you're feeling.
Or if you cant be arsed to think.
Out of curiosity how do you understand how a English or Welsh for that matter (lets ignore the substantial numbers in Scotland) brexiteer thinks. What makes you capable of understanding them but English people not capable of understanding your position.
It seems, well, a bit Scottish exceptionalism.
@Dissonance The White Paper on independence has never actually been tested against reality since the no side won.
What makes you capable of understanding them but English people not capable of understanding your position.
It seems, well, a bit Scottish exceptionalism.
its obvious some of the commentators have little understanding because of the facile comments. Dont firg2et we have been debating this for years and can tell when unionists understand the issues and separitsts as well for that matter
Well, you've managed to tell me I can't think three times in your last reply. Seriously, you quoted three separate things I said and then just said, 'And that shows you can't think.'
Since we're finding equivalencies, it's very much reminiscent of when right wingers start struggling to come up with coherent arguments so they just start throwing out non-sequiturs like, 'Left wing people just generally have low IQ.'
I mean, OK. Should we just sit here arguing about whether I'm capable of thinking or not?
Out of curiosity how do you understand how a English or Welsh for that matter (lets ignore the substantial numbers in Scotland) brexiteer thinks.
As I said before, because prior to the vote no one bothered to define what a vote for Brexit meant, brexiteers probably thought at least half a dozen different and often mutually exclusive things.
But I got lost. Why do I need to think about how the average Brexiteer thinks for the purposes of this discussion?
I tell you what, why don't you give us your understanding of how the average Brexiteer thinks and then give us your understanding of how the average indy supporter thinks.
Or are you saying that I represent the average indy supporter and therefore the average indy supporter is incapable of thinking?
I'm honestly getting lost in your arguments. Have you been watching a lot of old Charlie Kirk videos recently because that's the debate style I'm getting from you.
I'm honestly getting lost in your arguments. Have you been watching a lot of old Charlie Kirk videos recently because that's the debate style I'm getting from you.
stumpy & diss are doing a fantastic recruiting campaign for our independence, perhaps they are undercover Iranian sleeper cells playing both sides?
The White Paper on independence has never actually been tested against reality since the no side won.
There were several parts which were as much fantasy as the brexiteers shit.
There were several parts which were as much fantasy as the brexiteers shit
You could say the very same thing about a lot of the No campaign
Seriously, you quoted three separate things I said and then just said, 'And that shows you can't think.'
I know facts are irrelevant here but "" means well you are quoting me vs making shit up. So lets run though them eh vs just lying.
The first one yes since you said "difficult to put too much effort ". Personally I try a bit harder but if I cant be arsed I wouldnt complain about someone calling me out.
The second I didnt state my own position but just the facts about the Iranian position. I know this is hard for you but lets try.
The third again yeah thats fair because honestly anyone who cant understand the variations in the brexit vote is somewhat who cant be arsed thinking. The pro brexit vote is really ****ing messy which is why they won. They could promise all things to all people despite that what group a got wasnt what group b wanted.
Thats why we are still in the mess we are since the farage and co are allowed to move seamlessly on to the next group to blame.
As I said before, because prior to the vote no one bothered to define what a vote for Brexit meant, brexiteers probably thought at least half a dozen different and often mutually exclusive things.
Of course and that was why they won. See "save our curry houses". Oddly enough that and some associated campaigns sort of achieved what they promised.
But I got lost. Why do I need to think about how the average Brexiteer thinks for the purposes of this discussion?
Because you said what they thought? Again if you make a claim someone might refute it. If you dont want that to happen dont make a claim.
Have you been watching a lot of old Charlie Kirk videos recently because that's the debate style I'm getting from you.
I think you are projecting again.
You could say the very same thing about a lot of the No campaign
True and thats the problem with any vote. Referendums in particular since its once and done (if it is yes) vs a normal vote where you get to respond next time round with "you lying ****"(maybe if we look at the US).
Although out of curiosity you say a lot. What do you mean?
The obvious one is the remain in EU but I would argue that was fair at the time. We just had Cameron getting high on him being a PR master and capable of swinging referendums to his will and ignoring that the press favoured him in the previous two.
stumpy & diss
Now that is something which is an odd combination. My political position and stumpyjon's really dont overlap. We have argued on multiple occasions, obviously I am right in all cases (terms and conditions apply), so as sleeper cells go it is really subtle.
Now that is something which is an odd combination. My political position and stumpyjon's really dont overlap. We have argued on multiple occasions, obviously I am right in all cases (terms and conditions apply), so as sleeper cells go it is really subtle.
And yet you are both approaching this discussion from the same point of view. You don't fully understand the debate and yet you wade in over-confidently rather than just sitting back and listening.
Someone on the previous pages said to me, 'I notice you don't even bother mentioning Wales.'
And that is 100% correct. I don't mention Wales because I'm not from Wales, I've never lived in Wales, and I have never taken the time to really dig into Wales specific news. I'm always interested in how politics and culture work in other countries, but I'm also very aware that me throwing my opinions around will rightly be ridiculed as uninformed nonsense.
So why am I confident commenting on English matters? Well, because there is no such thing as English matters. There may be regional issues within England, but as far as English issues goes there aren't really any because English issues are UK issues by default. Such is the nature of the relationship between the nations.
So, by all means, continue confidently throwing your opinions around as if they are facts. Just don't be too surprised when people point and laugh at you when you start making uninformed points.
So, by all means, continue confidently throwing your opinions around as if they are facts. Just don't be too surprised when people point and laugh at you when you start making uninformed points.
And it's this sort of dismissive arrogance that has aligned the heavens and got Diss and I arguing the same points. How do you know our points are uninformed?
You don't have to live in a specific location to have bothered to think about and educate yourself surrounding a topic. Your whole argument seems to boil down to you don't live here so you can't possibly have a valid opinion, that and a load of idealised nationalism, all very Brexity. You seen to have a very myopic view especially when you make comments like
There may be regional issues within England, but as far as English issues goes there aren't really any because English issues are UK issues by default
I know you won't agree but the reality is Scotland is really just another UK region with the more recent historical element of it was being a separate country hundreds of years ago, like most of the English regions were until they were pulled together by a French bloke.
Anyway it's all a bit moot, Scotland can't just decide to wander off by itself and with the ongoing issues across the world no UK government is going to go down the Scottish independence rabbit hole. Maybe it'll get looked at again when the oil runs out.
I think we should just go for it, if it works we could expand as far as York, that's probably far enough. And if it doesn't work we can just rejoin right???
How do you know our points are uninformed?
Because your arguments seem to boil down to, 'Indy is just like Brexit' and 'We are subsidising Scotland through the Barnett formula so Scots would be stupid to want to give that up.'
Those of us who have been discussing these issues for more than 10 years are far better informed. We've discussed these issues both within the indy movement and with unionists. We lay out in great detail why these arguments aren't relevant for the discussion and yet you continue to repeat the same points over and over.
Your point of view is UK-centric. Our point of view is UK-centric and Scotland-centric. We know and understand what you are saying. You don't understand what we are saying.
People discovering or rediscovering the indy debate and enthusiastically jumping in with , 'indy is just like brexit' and 'But the Barnett formula!' gets old after a decade of hearing the same thing over and over again as if it's breaking news.
That's why I think your arguments are uninformed.
But who knows. Perhaps you read the Herald everyday and you and your Scottish friends and family discuss the indy movement regularly.
I tell you what, why don't you tell us what sources you use to keep yourself up to date on the indy debate and how often you discuss it with the Scottish people you know?
Because your arguments seem to boil down to, 'Indy is just like Brexit' and 'We are subsidising Scotland through the Barnett formula
Last time I checked (2 mins ago) the Barnett formula is still in use and the thrust of the independence argument is you'd be better off splitting from your largest trading partner so you can take back control of your destiny from those faceless decision makers who dont understand or care about you feels pretty Brexity to me.
Things have changed since the Indy ref, the UK has proved splitting from your largest trading partner is not just a theoretically bad idea, oil and gas reserves in the North Sea are running out (500 licences granted by the Tories, only 20 found anything good and they weren't significant reserves) they world is moving away from fossil fuels, in the UK we are getting close to the tipping point where the link between electricity prices and fossil fuel prices will be broken, and thanks to Trump amongst others has made the world a less stable place.
All things outside the control of an independent Scotland that make independence even less of a good idea than it was 10 years ago.
and with that comment you prove your lack of knowledge of the issues.
I think this is reasonable description of the 2014 referendum
Because your arguments seem to boil down to, 'Indy is just like Brexit' and 'We are subsidising Scotland through the Barnett formula so Scots would be stupid to want to give that up.'
Nope thats not our shared position. stumpyjon can and will give their own position on this but that doesnt match mine.
Again I disagree with stumpyjon on a lot of political ideas so if you want to "win" the argument I would suggest putting forward one of many political positions which would have me and stumpyjon arguing. It really would be easy vs inserting words in our mouths.
Beyond that though I would suggest reflecting why both of us are asking similar questions. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is obviously rubbish but if you have two "political enemies" agreeing then I would suggest its time to pause for thought.
if you have two "political enemies" agreeing then I would suggest its time to pause for thought.
In this case all it shows is ignorance of the issues . Neither of you have actually engaged with any of the points made
