Ok, look. I do understand the sentiments involved here, we have our own independence campaign down here and yes, it gets discussed. And yes, there are valid reasons to consider it as I have already said.
My comment was tongue in cheek, for sure (which is why there was a winking emoji) but it's not trolling. I am not trying to wind you up, I am pointing out that what you say suggest an anti-English bias. You can deny it, but I am struggling to see how any independence position can't at least in part be anti-English by definition.
Comments like that are veering close to 'I'm not racist, but...' or any amount of Brexit rhetoric along the lines of 'I've got nothing against Europeans, but...'
If you really aren't anti-English* then this is something you have to square.
* or anti-Welsh but lets face it no-one else about them to they?
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
See this piece of rhetoric as well. Why do couples get divorced? Often because they have come to hate each other, so yeah one side will definitely be anti- the other.
molgrips
Full Member
but I am struggling to see how any independence position can’t at least in part be anti-English by definition.
If you want to see it you'll find it, it is there. But it doesn't define it, nor make up a significant part of it.
That IS a new variation on the too small/too poor argument Molgrips. Well played!
If you want to see it you’ll find it, it is there.
But just because you deny it doesn't mean it's not.
And I'm sure you're speaking for yourself not your whole country, right?
So it's impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
This feels kind of like saying anyone who opposes the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Seriously, it's like there are literally no actual arguments to be made in favour of the Union anymore so opponents of independence's only option is to imply that by supporting independence it inherently makes you a type of bigot and therefore a bad person.
So it’s impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
From some angles, but perhaps not all.
This feels kind of like saying anyone who opposes the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Well no. If (hypothetically) the current Tory government were voted out and the UK was run by social democrats for 30 years, would you still vote for independence in 2052?
Well no. If (hypothetically) the current Tory government were voted out and the UK was run by social democrats for 30 years, would you still vote for independence in 2052?
I've already laid out what it would take for me to vote against independence and it's rooted in my belief that smaller countries are just fundamentally more democratic.
In addition, FPTP and the House of Lords aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Once you've addressed those points then we can start talking about the total shit show that is the Tory party.
Comments like that are veering close to ‘I’m not racist, but…’ or any amount of Brexit rhetoric along the lines of ‘I’ve got nothing against Europeans, but…’
If you really aren’t anti-English* then this is something you have to square.
This is what I was referring to with my antisemitic comment.
There are no arguments to be made for the Union on its own merits so you have to resort to implying support for independence inherently makes us bad people.
The battle for independence will be won or lost in the middle ground, same as last time, those who are at either extremes aren’t going to change their minds if you tell them the positives or negatives, it’s the middle who aren’t interested in the bickering who will push the vote over or under 50%, and what will sway them is the best information they have on the day.
it’s rooted in my belief that smaller countries are just fundamentally more democratic
I agree with this. Also they can be more equal (tax-havens being the exception).
There are no arguments to be made for the Union on its own merits
No? A group of countries co-operating economically to make a larger economy? This did historically have a significant benefit for Scotland after the union, and I'm yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
molgrips
Full Member
If you want to see it you’ll find it, it is there.But just because you deny it doesn’t mean it’s not.
And I’m sure you’re speaking for yourself not your whole country, right?
F are you on about, I literally admit it's there in the post you quoted. 😆
And no I'm not speaking for myself, I have zero hatred for the English.
Yer like a dog with a bone man, when will you stop pushing this nonsense, are you expecting to get a result that says yes the entire nation of scotland hates the English? It's just not true fella, it's a pretty small minority of wallopers. It's not a driving factor in independence.
gie yersel a brek.
Independence is about being out of the union that isn't working for the majority (only borne out if the voting says so) not being independent of England (even though that happens to be the case).
BruceWee
Full Member
So it’s impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
We might as well go with this line of thought and declare anyone that's anti-independence as anti-Scottish, therefore Molly is anti-Scottish. That's the kinda logic we are dealing with here. It's ridiculous, comes for this school of logic.
Since witches are burned at the stake, they must be made of wood, since it burns as well. Wood floats on water, as do ducks. Therefore, if the woman weighs the same as a duck, she must be able to float on water, which means she is made of wood, and consequently must be a witch.
😆
I’m yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
As an English based British person, this is my concern for an independent Scotland - and for the rest of us you'd leave behind.
I totally understand all the flaws with FPTP, Westminster, Tories etc etc. I'd like to see all those addressed as well. My big worry is that independence would create two smaller, poorer, less viable countries, and I wouldn't want that for either nation.
Brexit has shown how hard it is to go it alone in the world.
F are you on about, I literally admit it’s there in the post you quoted.
Ok well your comment could be read a number of ways, I apparently read it the wrong way.
are you expecting to get a result that says yes the entire nation of scotland hates the English?
No. I'm just prompting people to think if they really really really aren't anti-English on some level.
Independence is about being out of the union that isn’t working for the majority not being independent of England
That's a better statement than many I've seen.
molgrips
Full Member
No. I’m just prompting people to think if they really really really aren’t anti-English on some level.
It's turning in to a tedious crusade. You've made your point(a billion times), mibbe move on?
Keeps coming up though, that's all.
Cause you keep bringing it up.
I quoted a post that I thought displayed it, I responded to it.
My big worry is that independence would create two smaller, poorer, less viable countries, and I wouldn’t want that for either nation.
"Smaller" is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/rmHgDKLQ/Screenshot-2022-03-09-154139.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/rmHgDKLQ/Screenshot-2022-03-09-154139.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
molgrips
Full Member
I quoted a post that I (wrongly) thought displayed it, I responded to it.
Fixed that for ye.
Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it's a driving factor behind the independence movement, what percentage of the Scottish population do you believe is anti-English?
“Smaller” is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.
I'm not sure Scotland - or the RUK - would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)
Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it’s a driving factor behind the independence movement
Whoah, I made no claims about numbers. I'm just commenting on the words I see here. But I'd be surprised if it wasn't a factor to greater or lesser extent in many minds.
Well...Not a lot I can do about your irrational prejudices I guess.
No? A group of countries co-operating economically to make a larger economy?
Yes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.
*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement.
BruceWee
Full MemberYes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.
Well mibbe, we'll need to have a discussion about that...
Well mibbe, we’ll need to have a discussion about that…
Sure, but if we really want to pursue the North Korea option we might as well stay with rUK.
@molgrips I think you're trying to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.
*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement
Buy land near Gretna, they have to put those lorry parks somewhere....
Not for the first time on this thread either. There’s a persistent pattern from one or two posters of deliberately seeking to misrepresent this as motivated by an ‘anti-English’ attitude which, for the most part, it quite clearly isn’t.
I just love all the posts after this that are just so, "civic"
errs big_n_daft looking for a bite. 😆
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
Let's pick a current one, it's maintains NATO's strength
Why?
Firstly there is no guarantee that iS will apply to join NATO and if it did the non-nuclear policy of the SNP is incompatible with membership.
The SNP defence plans for iS have inadequate resources for territorial waters and airspace, are rUK jets expected to scramble everytime the Russians test the airspace? What anti-submarine capabilities do the SNP propose? Etc etc
The UK occupies a strategic position and by it's size and investment a strategic capability that the smaller members of NATO are net beneficiaries of. Ireland just freeloads in the knowledge that it's geography means the UK does the work or it can rely on fishermen to try and disrupt Russian Martine military training
The SNP proposal is to make up for this by providing the field hospitals for the dead and injuried casualties of other NATO members https://www.thenational.scot/news/19762944.snp-mps-call-independent-scotland-world-leader-military-medicine/
Or iS may stay out of NATO after diminishing one of its key members
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-should-not-join-26397712
But don't worry about the Russian mapping of Aberdeen and Dundee
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/past-times/2889739/military-maps-show-how-the-german-and-russian-armies-knew-all-about-aberdeen-and-dundee/
Remember to stay "civic" when you tell me I'm wrong
What? The man your team would have made the president of an independent Scotland has been busy taking Russian money for years. Less corrupt? Aye right.
1. The policy of "his team" is not to have a president.
2. Out of interest way he taking money from the Russians when he was First Minister? I only associate it with his time after that.
3. The point of indy is not to appoint one person, or even party as "prime minister" but rather to give the people of scotland a better say in who that person is every 5 yrs.
I’m yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
the point you are missing though is many people in Scotland aren't focused on Wealth (or at least financial wealth). Are there enough of them to trump those who are all about the money and afraid of the financial risks? Who knows... ...that's kind of the point of having a referendum so people can discuss and decide for themselves, there are relatively few people who say Indy is guaranteed to bring bountiful riches and a land of milk and honey so it is to some extent a vote on ideals v's risks.
No. I’m just prompting people to think if they really really really aren’t anti-English on some level.
My views on Indy would likely be different if UK was saying they would become a republic, within the EEA where the representatives in the HOC were elected proportionately and a massively reformed HOL. Likewise, if the flavour of Scotland on offer was an entirely undermocratic/meritocratic second chamber + FPTP parliament that ruled out EU/EEA ties I'd be saying No. So does that mean I hate the English? I don't think so - although I do hate that the English voters and politicians don't see these issues as important enough to fix.
There’s a good percentage that do, and lots of unhappy couples stay together because of finances and the effect it would have on the family.
And it may well be an entirely legitimate decision to do so, of course often one party is manipulating the other to stay and any impartial friend would tell the other to escape. Certainly nobody would suggest that if you decided a few years ago to put up with it that you should never again be allowed to reconsider your position.
See this piece of rhetoric as well. Why do couples get divorced? Often because they have come to hate each other, so yeah one side will definitely be anti- the other.
Clearly you will take every example and try to turn it into hate. Obviously some people hate their husband/wife but others get divorced because they just don't love each other anymore, because their interests and values are no longer aligned because what they want from life had changed enormously since they got in bed donkey's years ago, because they quite fancy that fun, culturally diverse European along the road etc. I'd say of the divorcees I know the happy ones still care deeply for their ex's and get along well - the ones who really resent each other are the ones where one party really didn't want the other to go and tried to manipulate them to stay, often by throwing out language like "do you hate me" and when invited to listen to the reasons they are considering leaving respond "well that's who I am so basically you hate me" or "I don't want to be like that either, but I can't change - it's your problem that you can't tolerate it as well as I do".
On the above, would you go to a job interview without knowing the pay and conditions, or the role and what it entails, would you accept it if successful without still knowing the pay and conditions, with only a ‘we think it’ll be better than you are on currently’ as comfort?
I'm not sure its a particularly good analogy - not least because I don't think anyone is suggesting having a vote without a prospectus or discussion about the pro's and con's. Of course lots of people do jump jobs even with uncertainty, perhaps they are more inclined to when their current job makes them feel they can't thrive, or they don't like the ethos of their current employer. Many people have changed jobs for better money only to regret it - because money isn't the be all and end all. Equally virtually anyone who took a job with a performance bonus, commission or share options took a something uncertain. Some do it under the aspirational belief that they would get rich (or at least stood a good chance of it) but others looked at the total package and said, well even if those aspirations come to nothing the other attractions still seem worth it. The other reason its a bad analogy though - is it is usually fairly easily to leave a new employer if it doesn't go to plan - returning to the Union is unlikely to be an option if things get messy.
Remember to stay “civic” when you tell me I’m wrong
Only if you promise to keep up the wee digs? 😆
Big and daft - many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.
Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws
Well that has convinced me;this year the Ukraine; next Aberdeen and the 'shire. Keep trying to piss into the tent. I wonder where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course) I mean; the MP for Portsmouth said there were too many people close by for them to be located on the South Coast. Look on the bright side, they could make it a tourist attraction; an opportunity sadly under utilised here by everybody except CND.
It is strange just like last time all arguments against independence are absolutes. Yet we have a Tory government who have made it up as they went along for the last 2 years; usually a month late. For all their failings I know who I would rather have had in charge.
I think that Scotland should just be allowed to get on with it, then the SNP can start planning for Indyref3 then in 2030. This is never going away. I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don't change dramatically. So, Indyref2 will be bloody close around the 50% mark each way in reality (give or take 5% like last time). So, about half a chance of leaving - and genuinely good luck to Scotland if so - and about half a chance of keeping it is at is. Which means another couple of terms of the SNP demanding a third ref.
Whatever happens, I hope the terms of the ref are very clearly laid out with the pros and cons of each side and an actual commitment for how long it will be until the next one. The last two referendums in this country haven't really been very successful in making big political decisions...
Big and daft – many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.
A fine ambition, I wish the whole world could be, but you know, Putin etc
Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws
I would say we are the opposite, the lack of ability to parade around like Billy Big Bawes is what is getting everyone excited. I think the Ukrainian people want to be friends with a Billy to get help throwing out Vlad hence their despair at the lack of action
In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she's going to do something or insisting others do it. As a neutral country demilitarised what help would iS be able to give? Would there be any concerns about how a key member of NATO was reduced in capabilities etc etc
I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don’t change dramatically.
Actually, from the time the first ref was announced to when it actually happened, support for Yes went from 30% to 50% and then back down to 45% after the Vow (although, of course, the Vow had nothing to do with it).
Then, after the Brexit vote, 12-13% of Yes voters went to No and 12-13% of No voters went to Yes. That's a full 25% of the population changing it's mind.
There is a core support on both sides who will never change their minds. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't at least 50% of the population who would change their minds if the right conditions were met.
If there were a complete overhaul of the UK system of government that reduced the democratic deficit (which is where a lot of the support for indy is coming from, imo) then it wouldn't surprise me if the question of Independence was put to bed for good.
So yeah, ball's in your court.
Brexit has shown how hard it is to go it alone in the world.
Independence isn't about turning our back on the world like Brexit is, which is why we didn't vote for it.
And I'm more than happy to adopt a more demilitarised/neutral philosophy as a country, as opposed to the pretend patriots who still seem to think there's an Empire.
Note, the Suez Crisis was nearly 70 years ago, that's when the Empire 'officially' ended.
Like many other things, it's probably worth looking at Norway and how they organise their military/foreign policy to get some ideas about what our priorities should be.
I’m not sure Scotland – or the RUK – would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)
But, but, but... without having to subsidise Scotland, surely there are only sunlit uplands ahead for the rUK?
it’s probably worth looking at Norway
Too wee...
Too wee…
Too stupid as well. You know that instead of spending all the oil money on gold plated bath tubs they said that the revenue doesn't belong to a single generation and should instead be used to benefit future generations.
Morons.
where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course)
Hang on, I thought this was about ideals - you want rUK to pay you to take away the things you don't want?
(Playing Devils Advocate)
Yes - 9% of those subs belongs to Scotland. Of course the value would be a part of the negotiations same as any other joint asset
Big and Daft - Putin has really been deterred by scotland being in nato. Of course he got his aim of weakening the EU by brexit.
Brexit is much worse for european security that iScotland not being in nato
In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she’s going to do something or insisting others do it.
as a neutral demilitarised country she should do very little bar ensuring dirty russian money is not used in Scotland
You just do not get it - we do not want to play at being billy big baws
Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done? Indeed I would want iScotland to do more but its a low barrier to beat
