Forum menu
Norway, and many other Scandinavian countries built that over the last couple of generations since the end of WW2, Scotland has the infrastructure it has, it has the capitalist network that it has, and it has to manage that without causing issues or panic at the start.
And that is exactly the sort of decision the people of Scotland should be entitled to make. Do they want to invest over the next 50 yrs to transform the country, or do they want to stick to the infrastructure they have?
What vision for Scotland is the No campaign actually presenting?
Military wise, Norway would not be a good example, they have spent a fortune on military over the years, and still do, they are part of NATO, and in the last couple of decades have moved away from being more defence force minded to international collaborations/coalition forces, as well as peacekeeping. I’d say Ireland would be the role model for an independent Scotland to start with.
And is that not the point that an independent Scotland would be free to determine its own defence approach? Ukraine may well have shifted peoples views on that - but that's the point on democracy. I mean even if there was a written constitution that said "Scotland will not host nuclear weapons" there would be nothing to stop the appropriate democratic process from ammending the constitution.
As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there’s a border,
who said it would? I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or actually think people believe that on Indy Day Scotland becomes a utopia? The difference I believe a lot of people want is to live in a country where when politicians are corrupt, lie or fail to deliver their promises voters can cast their vote and have some impact.
That democratic deficit doesn't just apply to ousting the corrupt and the liers, although for the Conservative and Unionist Party to fail to recognise the impact their Ministers behaviour have on retaining the Union is ironic - Starmer could probably save the union with a credible major reorganisation, but back bench tories and even tory party members could make a big difference by standing up to those at the top when the cheat and lie. Currently its virtually impossible for a Scottish voter to have any meaningful impact on the UK stage because devolution actually means Scottish/Welsh/NI and English voters are actually selecting the UK government on totally different things. What matters to a typical English voter on poling day? Education, Healthcare, Social Care, Housing, Transport, Criminal Justice... all devolved issues. Even taxation - in Scotland is partially devolved. So English Westminster voters are selecting the government on totally different criteria to Scottish voters. Informed Scottish voters are picking their Westminster MPs on Constitution, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Defence issues...
Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done?
Well he has been such a massive walloper that he has out trumped Trump.
Something that iScotland would of course be too wee to do, too poor to do and not quite stupid enough to do. *
*that last might be a close thing
You’re misquoting again, what a surprise.
No, i was generalising, as for the past few pages it seems that one of the big reasons to leave the UK is due to westminster corruption and cronyism, as for the 'what a surprise' i am neither for or against independence, as it's not even being sold yet.
And that is exactly the sort of decision the people of Scotland should be entitled to make. Do they want to invest over the next 50 yrs to transform the country, or do they want to stick to the infrastructure they have?
And for this you're asking a generation to pay for this, at a time when the world is as unstable as it's ever been. That is what needs to be clearly stated.
It's all good and well having ideals, but they have to be paid for, every initiative that is good to some, will be a 'vanity' project to others, it's human nature you're going up against, so for every £2 billion for more social housing being seen as a great thing, you'll have the 'but what about me, my mortgage and struggles'.
In my view the monarchy bit is a distraction or even a red rag. Constitutional reform can be achieved with a monarchy unless you want the US/ French system where the head of state holds political power. Just place the monarchy within the context of a codified constitution, you will get many more folk on-side if you do it that way. I am no monarchist by the way, but the presence of a monarch is not the cause of our constitutional woes, nor is abolishing it their solution.
I am no monarchist by the way, but the presence of a monarch is not the cause of our constitutional woes, nor is abolishing it their solution.
In Scotland there is quite a lot of people who are not a fan of the Queen and republican at heart, same as those on the other side who are partial to the Queen, the union jack and have a dislike for the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon. It would just cause more arguments among people who enjoy arguing with each other!
Scotland can't be independent because it contains people with a variety of views? Cool. Call off IndyRef.
add it to "too wee. too poor, too feart.
add it to “too wee. too poor, too feart.
I have genuinely only ever heard that line from independence supporters. Not sure why they keep repeating it? Scotland is capable of supporting itself as an independent nation. I don't know any pro-union people who think it isn't, myself included.
kenny - its what the usual reasons given for opposing independence are. Been used on this thread. Big and daft has made the too small and the too poor point and so have others. Its what most anti independence arguments boil down to
Of course Scotland would be a rich country if independent
I have genuinely only ever heard that line from independence supporters. Not sure why they keep repeating it? Scotland is capable of supporting itself as an independent nation. I don’t know any pro-union people who think it isn’t, myself included.
Treat the opposition like idiots and wherever possible talk down to them, it worked well through Brexit and many other times over the last decade, should be a roaring success this time round.
Scotland can’t be independent because it contains people with a variety of views? Cool. Call off IndyRef.
Where does it state that, again, it's about how the proposals are put prior to the vote.
Argee - you have made the "too small, too poor, too feart argument"! As for talking down and treating folk like idiots remember the no campaign last time. Pure baloney project fear
I think yo are missing something. some of the things you want answers to acannot be given now. financial position for example depends very much on how hardball westminster plays. Much of what you want to know are policy decisions for the first government of an iScotland
The SNP can set out two things - constitutional arrangements and their position on the post independence policies.
Other parties will not put out any post independence policies. thus the SNPs position becomes the default but it is not the only option
I always see the line used by independence supporters. An SNP supporting friend did once admit to me (after a few beers) that it was a debating point used to give the impression that pro-union supporters were keen to denigrate Scotland.
My own view is (and in my experience it's a widely held view) is that Scotland is a great country that is quite capable of doing well as an independent country. It's got loads going for it. However I am also of the view we're better off as part of a bigger nation hence the reason I won't vote for independence until I see a compelling argument that is focused mainly on economics. I couldn't care less if the person that represents me does so at Holyrood or Westminster.
For me it's a case of is Scotland a well-off country, or a well-offerer country. And what party is going to do something about our appalling language skills!!
Fair point Kenny - you like me are in those 30% or so in the middle - willing to be persuaded but not ideologically wedded to independence or unionism
There are plenty of examples of the too poor too wee too feart argument being used on this thread tho
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/analysis/who-would-pay-the-bills-in-an-independent-scotland
A reasonable overview with the only bit that needs a comment/correction is:
Which leaves Scotland with yet another question to ponder: if Boris Johnson is unlikely to grant Scots a second referendum, would he (or any successor) be likely to allow the newly independent country permission to use the pound
Note, no country can actually stop another country using their currency. Whether you'd want to, is a totally different discussion.
There are plenty of examples of the too poor too wee too feart argument being used on this thread tho
This may sound pedantic, but "too poor" suggests we are already a poor country. In global terms Scotland (and the UK) are rich. For me independence comes down to comparative levels of wealth.
For other people that's maybe not such a big thing. I actually understand the reasons people want decisions taken at Holyrood. And it's probably the right thing that certain things are. But I also prefer other decisions to be taken at a national level (and yes, that sentence was phrased to conflate "national" with "Britain", that's me cheekily trolling).
As for the so-called "Project Fear", the union position basically has to be that by the nature of it being the view defending the status quo. It's saying "if you vote for independence you will be worse off", which I think is a quite valid thing to be afraid of. Whether we would be worse off or not is really a matter of opinion. Anyone who says we 100% would or wouldn't be is a fibber.
tjagain
Full Member
Argee – you have made the “too small, too poor, too feart argument”! As for talking down and treating folk like idiots remember the no campaign last time. Pure baloney project fear
Can you post a quote to where i do this, will wait out for a response.
The reason i focus on finances is that those who want independence for the reasons you mention, well they’re pretty much in the Yes camp, and have been for years. As per an earlier post, it’s the swing voters in the middle who will decide this, and they aren’t that interested in FPTP, choosing Scotlands own premier every 5 years or the likes, they will be the normal folk, lower middle class or whatever we call them these days, the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won’t go down well.
As for all the Norway discussions, that ship sailed a generation ago, an independent Scotland would start life with a proportion of the UK national debt and a lot of work ahead, i think most of the oil fields are leased out for years anyway, and again, to follow Norway requires a lot of initial funding. The focus needs to be a lot wider than that, or turning any IndyRef2 into some type of slagging match, learn from the mistakes of the Brexit vote, and the US election that Trump won, belittling some of the population hasn’t worked well in the last decade for elections!
This has thre "too poor" arguement in it as well as hints of "too wee"
Yeah, government (SNP/Greens) rather than parliament, but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in Scotland, even more so now than in 2014, as the UK, and the World has changed significantly since then, and not in a good way unfortunately.
too poor and too wee again
These aren’t trick questions, nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are, most are worried of increases to tax to pay for the initial costs and what happens to the companies, departments, services, etc that will be affected by a hard border between Scotland and England, and the potential loss of relationships between them between the two countries.
So in short, with everything costing more, is independence going to take more money out of their pockets or not, and will services be the same level, or will there be reductions for some, or many?
too poor again
big_n_daft
Free Member
Large scale supply of AT missiles (short and medium range) and training, supply and training on MANPADS, massive ISTAR resources, positioning of troops in vulnerable NATO countries from the top of my head, I’m sure there is lots more.
Take in their fair share of refugees?
nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are
Actually many folk do - or the intangible benefit of independence is enough. a significant % of the population are for independence under any circumstances. We have a couple of them on here
This has thre “too poor” arguement in it as well as hints of “too wee”
At no point does it say 'too poor', it is a clear statement that any proposal requires the finances to back it, so not a 'too poor' statement, a 'financial clarity' question.
too poor and too wee again
This one isn't even about finances or size, it clearly states the provision of proof about the benefits of independence.
too poor again
And again, requesting financial (and services) clarification, no mention of 'too poor' or 'too wee', in fact you can read in the summarisation at the end is asking for clarification again on the effects.
Again, i'm arguing with someone who is 100% in the Yes camp and not even thinking of hard facts regarding the risks for the people of Scotland relating to Independence, it's a bit like arguing with a brexiteer a few years back about the risks involved in exiting the EU.
Errmmm - I am a very reluctant independence supporter. Its far from my ideal position. I am certainly not ideologically driven for it. I have however read and thought a lot about finances and my belief is an independent Scotland would be richer. Wewould no longer be subsidising the rest of the UK, we could have immigrtion and financial piolices that suit scotland not london, we could borrow to invest and so on
all of those quotes you are insinuation Scotland is too poor and too small to be independent.
the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won’t go down well.
assuming an independent scotland would be poorer - the "too poor" argument etc etc
I guess you do not even realise you are doing it but you certainly give the impression you believe Scotland is too wee and too poor to be independent
Its what most anti independence arguments boil down to
No it isn't.
I don't fully understand the 'democratic deficit' argument. We had a vote and the majority chose 'No'. Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!
Those pro independence are forever berating anyone not convinced, for not agreeing with them, but at the end of the day you're going to have to convince enough of those who have yet to decide.
I don’t fully understand the ‘democratic deficit’ argument. We had a vote and the majority chose ‘No’. Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!
It's the bloody electorate. They keep voting for pro-independence parties! Bastards!!
Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!
Two years later after the brexit vote which changed the whole foundation of the debate. We were told the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK - well we voted 60+ % to remain in the EU sand dragged out against our will - yhat changes everything
Also the fact that in Scotland we have not voted for the tories to be the largest party for the last 70 years but have had to put up with tory governments the majority of that time
Both things have caused immense damage. Damage limitation means we have to be independent
No it isn’t.
What other arguments for unionism have you seen? Because everything I have seen is a variant on too small too poor too feart
I suppose "tradition" could be one but a pretty weak one
so please - educate me. Explain what other reasons you have seen
Out of curiosity, has this specific thread (with more than 6,000 posts) convinced anyone who change their mind, in either direction? Or even made them consider changing their minds?
I've found some of the pro-independence arguments do make sense, but not enough to convince me we wouldn't be worse off by breaking away from the UK.
Wewould no longer be subsidising the rest of the UK,
How much do you subsidise the rest of the UK? Citation please.
we could have immigrtion and financial piolices that suit scotland not london
Once people choose to settle in the UK they essentially have freedom of movement within the UK, they disproportionately choose London, and more choose areas like Oldham than Scotland. What policy is going to attract immigrants to an independent Scotland preferentially to rUK and London?
What financial policy differences would iS fundamentally have to current UK? MMT? Has the currency question been settled yet?
we could borrow to invest and so on
At the same or higher government bond rates than the UK has now?
Damage limitation means we have to be independent
Or does it compound the damage? Which market is the biggest for Scotland. RUK would need to treat iS as a "third country" in regard to the post Brexit trade deal, friction is implicit
I must admit I'd like to see the evidence of Scotland 'subsidising the rest of the UK'. My understanding, as a Northerner from England, is that the South East is the part of the UK that does the subsidising. Or at least that's the historic trend.
Can you cite it TJ? Genuinely interested.
9.1%of UK tax revenue came from Scotland
8.3% of the UK population live in Scotland
£10,000 tax per head in Scotland
£9,200 tax per head, rest of UK
: Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267
Plus you have all the exports especially oil improving the balance of payments so improving the UK economy and of course the Gers figures are deliberately intended to understate the scottish financial position
I suppose “tradition” could be one but a pretty weak one
so please – educate me. Explain what other reasons you have seen
It doesn't matter how weak you think the argument is though, if it's enough to convince someone to vote against independence, that's all that matters - at least to them.
For me, it's just that we have more in common with each other than that which separates us. We're on an island - it seems sensible to me to all group together. Now, they may be the weakest of weak reasons, but I still get to vote.
Fair enough.
I don’t think I get to be the first king of iScotland
I'd vote for you. No wait, you don't vote kings in, you'd have to take the throne by force.
What are your strengths in that department ?
What are your strengths in that department ?
Hmmmm - I am taller than Bonnie Prince Charlie? Better hair than James 6th? Less pox ridden than Elizabeth the first? Take less morphine than Queen victoria?
I am useless with a sword but they say the pen is mightier than the sword. trouble is I can hardly use a pen. will being a keyboard warrier do?
will being a keyboard warrior do?
I reckon so, keyboards have nasty sharp edges.
Can we decree that all statues of TJ1st be based on the pic of him in the train carriage holding aloft a tin of cider.
will being a keyboard warrier do?
You also have a dogged persistence and unwavering faith in your convictions - that must count for something 😉
Your wish is my command! As king of Scotland i am the servant of the people
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/1950/31377919958_478114dfd9_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/1950/31377919958_478114dfd9_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/PNL3pY ]DSC_0621[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr
Not Mcewans Export. Imposter!
9.1%of UK tax revenue came from Scotland
8.3% of the UK population live in Scotland
£10,000 tax per head in Scotland
£9,200 tax per head, rest of UK
Remind me, there are higher personal taxes in Scotland to pay for extra devolved spending
You also seem to be pointing out that Wales and NI are need investment to improve
What proportion of spending does Barnett allocate per head?
it’s a bit like arguing with a brexiteer
Stay "civic" please
9.1%of UK tax revenue came from Scotland
8.3% of the UK population live in Scotland
£10,000 tax per head in Scotland
£9,200 tax per head, rest of UK
: Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267Plus you have all the exports especially oil improving the balance of payments so improving the UK economy and of course the Gers figures are deliberately intended to understate the scottish financial position
Plus you have all the exports especially oil improving the balance of payments so improving the UK economy
These “negative tax flows” totalled £2m in 2015-16 and £359m the following year – more than oil and gas firms paid the UK in tax.
Yes thats the snapshot now. Now look at the last 70 years post war?
also remember that the gers figures deliberately understate scottish revenues. that's deliberate as said by the scottish secretary when it was set up
GERs includes loads of stuff that we have to pay for but do not want and receive no benefit from like nuclear weapons, like aircraft carriers with no aircraft, like dodgy adventurings over seas. Like all the corruption over PPE etc.
Look into the numbers properly and you will find out that since the war Scotland has subsidised england hugely. Yes a few years recently that hs not been the case ( but much lower deficit than GERs will have you believe.
I guess you do not even realise you are doing it but you certainly give the impression you believe Scotland is too wee and too poor to be independent
I've got absolutely no impression yet, i live down south now, due to jobs shifting from Scotland to England, same as a load of us had to do, a few of us ended in the south of England, a few more in lovely places like Australia, Nigeria, etc, wherever the work was.
All the family are still there, they'll wait out any Yes/No vote until they see the evidence, that's all the questions i ask, it's an evidence based vote, same as Brexit was, same as every vote. If i was still up there, i'd wait for the evidence, it doesn't have to be conclusive, but it does have to have some thought about it.
Big and daft - you really do live up to your name - balance of payments does not have owt to do with tax take. Its about exports v imports.
If i was still up there, i’d wait for the evidence, it doesn’t have to be conclusive, but it does have to have some thought about it.
Perfectly reasonable - I want better answers on money and defense this time around.
You do realise all this was published in 2014?
Your posts really do give the impression you believe the too small too poor too wee line tho. Perhaps thats not your intent.
GERs includes loads of stuff that we have to pay for but do not want and receive no benefit from like nuclear weapons, like aircraft carriers with no aircraft, like dodgy adventurings over seas. Like all the corruption over PPE etc.
And that all gets factored in to any prospectus/campaign/etc, the reality is that the above statements would mean losing a lot of work at Faslane, Scotstoun, Rosyth, Glasgow, etc, etc, again, flip side, that's votes going to the no side if people feel their job, house and life could change dramatically with independence.
gaus - it makes sense, right up until you apply that logic about a union that includes NI...
For me, it’s just that we have more in common with each other than that which separates us. We’re on an island – it seems sensible to me to all group together. Now, they may be the weakest of weak reasons, but I still get to vote.
But I do think the big issue, bigger than the currency, is the border precisely because of the "all on the same island together" issue. Given the chaos Brexit made of the Irish border issues, it is the one thing that makes me hesitant.
GERs includes loads of stuff that we have to pay for but do not want and receive no benefit from like nuclear weapons, like aircraft carriers with no aircraft, like dodgy adventurings over seas. Like all the corruption over PPE etc.
Dodgy UK adventures were often led by Scots in Westminster
Lots of Scots seem to enjoy a career in the forces and the supporting services
Etc etc
the reality is that the above statements would mean losing a lot of work at Faslane, Scotstoun, Rosyth, Glasgow,
those jobs are hugely expensive to create. the same money spent on house building for example would provide a lot more employment and a lot more utility thats the sort of independence bonus we would have. More jobs at good wages doing something productive rather than pissing it away playing at bully big baws
gaus – it makes sense, right up until you apply that logic about a union that includes NI…
By the same simple logic, the island of Ireland being one country makes most sense to me. But, I wouldn't want to offend anyone. I accept it's a very (perhaps overly) simplistic view.
Stay “civic”
I nearly choked there. Oh the irony.
n a leaked memo the then Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Lang wrote "I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.”
some discussion on the limitations of GERs here I cannot vouch for its accuracy discussion raises some good points
Some discussion in the scotsman - an overtly unionist paper ( to make up for the wings link)
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/gers-figures-out-today-what-are-they-2952984
Wings is a daftie on many things but again some discussion over GERS
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/
By the same simple logic, the island of Ireland being one country makes most sense to me. But, I wouldn’t want to offend anyone. I accept it’s a very (perhaps overly) simplistic view.
I know, prima facie, with none of the history it seems logical. But the only logical solution is to let the people decide. But when you start pulling that thread... if the Northern Irish can decide why shouldn't the scots. If the northern Irish chose to stay separate from the Republic of Ireland (whether part of the UK or not) why would it be any weirder if Scotland did the same with its big southern neighbour? And if they chose to have a unified Ireland, that's the end of the Union anyway so worth reviewing the whole lot. So no matter which way I look at it - whilst geography seems a really logical basis for defining boundaries it just seems to fail. Would we tell the Portuguese they should just merge with Spain, or Canada to USA or Norway to Sweden, or Singapore and Malaysia - because on a map they would be sensible?
Now it is different because we are (sort of) the same country at the moment. But there's lots that IS different: Education, Law, Courts, Some bits of Taxation, a layer of government, some bits of culture/language/music etc. But I completely understand some people feel as though the whole of the UK is really one homogenous country and want to keep it that way. That's not my experience - to me it genuinely is more like a union of nations, and the similarities between England and Scotland are not that much stronger than with many of he EU nations.
But I completely understand some people feel as though the whole of the UK is really one homogenous country and want to keep it that way.
It seems to me that that view is held by non scots residents by nad large on here. the scots residents know see and understand the differences every day
and the similarities between England and Scotland are not that much stronger than with many of he EU nations.
Personally I feel closer to the low countries and the scandenavian ones than england - something do do with the political consensus? mybe just me? I feel no kinship to a country that keeps electing tories
Can we decree that all statues of TJ1st be based on the pic of him in the train carriage holding aloft a tin of cider.
We could get folk to put old bike helmets instead of cones on his head?
Moley; comparing pro indy Scots to brexiteers: the too thick argument that doesn't apparently exist.
Its nothing like brexit nor are the arguments for it the same - but then you are being deliberately insulting
For me, it’s just that we have more in common with each other than that which separates us. We’re on an island – it seems sensible to me to all group together. Now, they may be the weakest of weak reasons, but I still get to vote.
And presumably you vote for the ones the majority of Scots don't, which is why your happy with the situation?
And presumably you vote for the ones the majority of Scots don’t, which is why your happy with the situation?
I'm unclear what you mean. I always vote and seldom does the person whom I vote for win. I can't even win a vote in my own home.
It always puzzles me that most people want more local power and then complain of a postcode lottery when another group has made different choices. I'm more inclined to a more central government, that works for the needs of everyone - but resigned to never getting what I want.
Its nothing like brexit
It's exactly like Brexit, you want to reclaim sovereignty, then decide how you are going to use it
It's the same "not this" vote to leap into the unknown as Brexit was as everything gets sorted out later and it enables multiple narratives to run at once to play to different concerns regardless of the contradictions (currency, EU membership, taxes, rUK border etc)
The issue isn't that it's a referendum, it's understanding that it isn't a vote for a defined future. It's dump this and deal with the consequences later.
Let me think, just like Brexit
It seems to me that that view is held by non scots residents by nad large on here. the scots residents know see and understand the differences every day
I know Scots who have been in England for a long time and don't see the difference.
I know Scots who live in Scotland and don't see the difference.
I know Scots who have never lived south of the border insist it is a different world.
I know English people who have never even crossed the border tell me that its just the same.
I know English people who live in Scotland who insist it is a different world.
I know English people who live in Scotland and don't see a difference.
In many ways it depends where in England and where in Scotland you are comparing. Its not like the whole of England is homogenous in itself. Its clear though that a big part of the Scottish population don't want to leave the UK - and that is a problem. If the vote falls convincingly one way or other its far easier to get on with it.
It’s exactly like Brexit, you want to reclaim sovereignty, then decide how you are going to use it
It’s the same “not this” vote to leap into the unknown as Brexit was as everything gets sorted out later and it enables multiple narratives to run at once to play to different concerns regardless of the contradictions (currency, EU membership, taxes, rUK border etc)
Had someone said there isn't going to be a white paper this time?
The issue with Brexit was it meant different things to different people - the white paper presents a clear vision. There are bits of that vision that Indy supporters won't like (e.g. i suspect a lot of people don't want to keep the monarchy) but they will accept to get the freedom to then have the power to change those policies at some point in the future. My frustration with Brexit, more than the outcome itself was people could vote yes believing it was a leave EU but stay in EEA, a soft brexit, a harder brexit still in the customs union, a deal, no deal and WT tariffs etc - and then once it was "won" nobody had the balls to say no we need to sort out this fundamental and even parliament didn't seem to have the ability to decide those things with its new found sovereignty. In contrast my expectation is the Scot Gov are going to lay out their intention, albeit its a plan some of which needs other people to cooperate, and vision.
I'm not sure sovereignty and self-determination are the same thing.
the white paper presents a clear vision.
But there will need to be a post independence election, the white paper might be one party's manifesto (but not necessarily) but they need to win the election to implement.
So it's still a leap into the unknown, promises before can't be cashed after
Just like Brexit
It’s exactly like Brexit
It's exactly like Brexit except it's the opposite.
Brexit was fueled by England's desire to become more insular and reclaim past glories.
Indy is about trying to get back to being a normal country rather than whatever the UK is trying to turn itself into.
It’s the same “not this” vote to leap into the unknown
Actually, Indy is about returning to the known rather than stay on the magic unicorn ride the UK is currently on.
The issue isn’t that it’s a referendum, it’s understanding that it isn’t a vote for a defined future. It’s dump this and deal with the consequences later.
Indy has a degree of the unknown, yes. Not nearly as much as Brexit fueled Britain has though.
Let me think, just like Brexit
Yes, but the complete opposite.
Brexit was fueled by England’s desire to become more insular and reclaim past glories.
Really, is that what you tell yourself. Nothing to do with a kickback against the status quo by areas essentially abandoned.... And all the other reasons that have lots to do with poverty and feeling forgotten and nothing to do with being insular and some view of a golden age?
Indy has a degree of the unknown, yes. Not nearly as much as Brexit fueled Britain has though.
Currency?
EU membership?
RUK border?
NATO membership?
Etc etc
Lots more uncertainty by the looks of it
Yes, but the complete opposite.
Nope, exactly the same "not this" leap into the unknown, on steroids
Chaps. Big and daft s only purpose on this thrad is to belittle and annoy. I suggest dont feed the troll.
I know Scots who have been in England for a long time and don’t see the difference.
I know Scots who live in Scotland and don’t see the difference.
I know Scots who have never lived south of the border insist it is a different world.
I know English people who have never even crossed the border tell me that its just the same.
I know English people who live in Scotland who insist it is a different world.
I know English people who live in Scotland and don’t see a difference.In many ways it depends where in England and where in Scotland you are comparing. Its not like the whole of England is homogenous in itself. Its clear though that a big part of the Scottish population don’t want to leave the UK – and that is a problem. If the vote falls convincingly one way or other its far easier to get on with it.
I've lived in many places, about 50% of my life in Scotland, and rest in England, mainly the Southwest, reality is that regions have a lot of differences, but in the main, people tend to be similar due to the structure across the countries.
It's the same as England isn't all toryland, it's just the nature of the demographics we have just now, and how the whole political spectrum turned around over the last decade or so. It's the same in any town, more affluent areas, or those with a higher average age will be more aligned with Tory policies.
Anyway, we'll have a long time until we see any real firm evidence on the independence line, it's all guesswork just now, and only the extremes at either end have cast their votes already.
Really, is that what you tell yourself.
Yes, that is what I tell myself. In the same way you tell yourself that Brexit and Indy are the same. That's because these are our opinions.
Opinions are not facts no matter how much you try to present them like they are.
Nothing to do with a kickback against the status quo by areas essentially abandoned….
I've never argued against the fact that the roots might be the same, ie, the democratic deficit.
However, the two movements took very different directions. One decided it wanted to be the best wee country it could be. The other decided it wanted to rule the world again and get rid of the foreigners while it was at it.
Currency?
EU membership?
RUK border?
NATO membership?
Etc etc
Currency: What is the GBPEUR exchange rate going to be in three years time?
EU membership: What is the UK's relationship going to be with the EU in three years time?
rUK border: What is the situation going to be at the Irish border and at the Dover Calais crossing in three years time?
NATO membership: Given that Boris Johnson is a Russian asset and the UK has no written constitution, what is the UK's relationship with NATO going to be in three years time?
Obviously, I can't just take your word for it so you'll have to provide proof that all your answers will be 100% guaranteed.
Chaps. Big and daft s only purpose on this thrad is to belittle and annoy. I suggest dont feed the troll.
And there it is again. I am happy to believe that both BruceWee and Big_n_daft are being genuine. Big_n_daft draws parallels with Brexit which ring true with me at least, but rather than provide a reasoned counter argument he is decried as a troll. The independence argument appears little more than smoke and mirrors to many people. As someone suggested above, no one appears to have moved an inch on the subject, despite ~6400 posts.
Guass - big and daft is not being genuine. His intent is clear its to belittle and his aim is to get someone to lose their temper. He deliberately keeps on making the same baseless assertions. This has been going on for years. for a while he was deliberately attempting to make me lose my temper on every thread I posted on with his snide comments. I suppose I should be flattered but actually I find it rather sad
I have many times refuted his arguments and proven this. The parallels with brexit are deliberate trolling - he knows it is not true in any way
i am perfectly happy to debate with anyone on any side of the fence. I will not feed trolls who's only intention is to belittle and mock
I have many times refuted his arguments and proven this. The parallels with brexit are deliberate trolling – he knows it is not true in any way
i am perfectly happy to debate with anyone on any side of the fence. I will not feed trolls who’s only intention is to belittle and mock
Brexit is neither exactly the same as Brexit, nor the exact opposite - but to deny there are strong similarities like big_n_daft suggests, appears incredible.
Well I am certain there are non bar perhaps the "disenfranchised left behind" but that is not a major driver
Independence for Scotland is aspirational, inclusive and outward looking. Brexit is none of these
If you think the parallels are there then explain why?
I think the roots are the same (the democratic deficit). However, two things can share the same ancestor but evolve in very different ways.
And yes, I'm aware that they are not really opposites since when you're discussing politics opposites don't really exist. My point was more that my opinion differs from big'n'daft's in almost every way.
And yes, I even presented my opinion as fact but it was more to mirror big'n'daft's proclamations.
Really, is that what you tell yourself. Nothing to do with a kickback against the status quo by areas essentially abandoned…. And all the other reasons that have lots to do with poverty and feeling forgotten and nothing to do with being insular and some view of a golden age?
And remind us, how's that working out for them?
I see you're still avoiding answering questions and just throwing out the same statements in the same snidey tone you have been for the last 160 pages.
That's why people call you a troll. You're not interested in discussing anything. You just want to state your opinions as if they were facts and wind people up.
Biggest questions for me are simple, if Scotland got independence would it mean merging the different sides, i.e. would there be a conclusive answer to whether it should be called square sausage, or lorne sausage, same with roasted or toasted cheese, all these and more need to be answered!
I was asking Gauss not feeding a troll
A yes vote puts an international border at Gretna, but you don’t know how it will work etc
Hopefully it would turn Gretna gateway into a lorry park, that place has gone proper downhill over the last 20 years, used to be decent with good discounts, back when the cadbury's shop actually had discounted chocolate, Tag Heuer had a discount shop and you could get some nice stuff cheap :o(
You can then add in, you don’t know what currency, whether you will rejoin the EU (half on here say yes, half say no), whether you will join NATO (some say yes, some say no)
I asked you all these questions on the previous page except the subject was how it relates to the UK.
As you have been doing for the last 160 pages you ignored these questions and repeated the same statements you've been making all through this thread.
You are not discussing. You are trolling.
I doubt any prospectus would talk more than applying for EU member status, which will be a few years in the making, NATO is pretty much hand in hand with that, and could be a bigger pre-requisite with the way it's looking to the east of the EU, but again, part and parcel of the EU application i'd guess.
EU status is rather more than that. Scotland would be compliant with requirements and would be welcomed back enthusiastically this has been said by various top EU folk
they cannot give an official answer to the Scottish government only the UK government. funnily enough last time around the UK government refused to ask officially so we did not get a definitive answer. Post Brexit the rules may be different
I wonder why the UK government refused to ask?
Nato - personally I do not want to be a member and I think it badly misguided of the SNP to alter policy on this to retain membership