THM – you’ve just lost too.

Nope, it’s the same with pointing out that UKIP talks blatant nonsense. The losers are those who are wiling to swallow the BS.

Rare for Ernie and I to agree that much – but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence. There is not an argument to lose, since none has been made at all.

Presenting fluff and fairly tales wrapped up in nonsense threats (eg debt) is not an argument it is the behaviour of little children. The argument was lost by yS from the start.

Plus, AS chose to underestimate the intelligence of women which is always a dangerous thing to do.

You been drinking? Had a bang to the head?

No clear as clear can be. Not fuddled by swallowing BS

Delusional then. Might be an idea to get someone to take you to the GP.

Fine doing a hours yoga instead.

What was it that you said to e_l BTW?

But do tell me, which is the more delusional, believing that sterlingisation is an appropriate option for a country with a large financial services industry or rejecting it as a non-starter? One party is a First Minister……

Rare for Ernie and I to agree that much – but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence. There is not argument to lose, since nine has been made at all.

You keep saying this, then whenever I or someone else gives you a case for independence you do the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

The case for independence (not a definitive list):

– A more democratic, representative government.
– Getting rid of the nuclear weapons.
– Safeguarding the funding and non-privatised nature of NHS Scotland.
– Keeping Scotland in the EU.
– Not engaging in any more illegal foreign wars.
– Using the oil wealth to build up a fund to benefit our children.
– Being able to spend more on national broadcasting.
– Getting rid of the second-largest unelected parliament in the World.
– Negotiating directly with the EU for a better deal for Scottish farmers and fishermen.
– Breaking the two-party system where the choice is between two right-wing parties.
– Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party.

I could go on, but a small person wants me to play with their balloon 😉

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t mean you’re correct.

I dislike nationalism. And patriotism. It’s just another case of ‘us and them’ that as a species we should learn to do without.

I expect nothing less than patriotism and a commitment to the nation from any citizen with a sense of community.

That is why the Tories under Thatcher, and since then, were and are deeply unpatriotic.

And this commitment to society should transcend all levels right down to local community level.

It’s only by working for the common good that we can build truly democratic autonomous societies.

– A more democratic, representative government. – really? no plans for PR, just more of the same with a more ‘local’ slant
– Getting rid of the nuclear weapons. – not really, just pretending that its NIMBY (don’t ask, don’t tell)
– Safeguarding the funding and non-privatised nature of NHS Scotland. – ‘safeguarding’? its already a devolved issue!
– Keeping Scotland in the EU. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
– Not engaging in any more illegal foreign wars. – not according to the white paper “A second naval squadron to contribute to NATO and other operations outside home waters”
– Using the oil wealth to build up a fund to benefit our children. – really? I thought it would provide lower taxes, how can it do both whilst declining?
– Being able to spend more on national broadcasting. – all together now: ”OHBC News”
– Getting rid of the second-largest unelected parliament in the World. – and replacing powerless people with experience with all powerful behind the scenes yes men
– Negotiating directly with the EU for a better deal for Scottish farmers and fishermen. I’m glad you accept you’ll be negotiating with the EU rather than being a part of it
– Breaking the two-party system where the choice is between two right-wing parties. you have to wonder where the SNP got the name the Tartan Tories
– Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party. Really? Marx said it was always a party of the bourgeois, set up to systematically dupe the workers

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

So we’ve already gone from “no case” to “two cases” 😉

Assuming you’re right – and I don’t think you are – but even if you are then the first two alone are a compelling case. In fact the first one on its own – a fairer, more representative democracy – leads on to everything else.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Succinct, well argued, backed up with academic references – how can one argue against such an argument?

Notice how Better Together have suddenly stopped talking about the EU? It’s because they got their fingers burnt by the new EU head who told them off in no uncertain terms.

Anyhow, for answers to your other arguments, I’ll refer you back to the Wee Blue Book.

Succinct, well argued, backed up with academic references – how can one argue against such an argument?

Well, you know, I went and took legal advice on the issue, but I can’t reveal it – what I can promise you is that everything I write is consistent with the legal advice I received…

– Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party.

Really? Marx said it was always a party of the bourgeois, set up to systematically dupe the workers
Which just goes to show how prescient Marx was, as he died a decade before the Independent Labour Party was founded and 17 years before the Labour Party was founded.

Maybe he meant Groucho Marx?

My apologies, I did of course mean to type Lenin but my brain and fingers were disconnected by a rather nice cup of java lava being poured for me by my darling daughter – obviously Lenin’s left wing credentials as a commentator are significantly weaker.. ah!

Lenin very strongly argued that the Labour Party should be supported, which partly explains why the Morning Star and the CPB still maintains this now frankly ridiculous policy of continuing electoral support for Labour, despite the fact that the Labour Party today isn’t even remotely recognisable, with regards to its aims and principles, to the Labour Party of a hundred years ago.

As a pragmatic rational individual who understood the need to apply logic and commonsense to the prevailing social and political conditions in such a way that they work in the best interests of working people, Lenin would never have supported today’s Labour Party, imo.

It’s the only serious policy disagreement I have with the Morning Star and the CPB despite the fact that they share many of my sentiments – it’s just that support for Labour is too ingrained. However knowing when to let go when something is beyond repair is a judgment call.

EDIT : BTW Z-11 chooses to bring up Lenin’s views on the Labour Party, whether falsely or correctly, with regards to the statement “Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party”, but he knows full well that not all socialists are Leninist, or even Marxist. Lumping them altogether as such is a deliberate strategy in an attempt to confuse, oversimplify, and discredit.

I like it that the no camp take solace in the fact that they lead in the polls. It’s fine by me, the polls all counted as yes/no/undecided. That’s very different from what will actually happen come polling day.

So for talking sake lets say roughly the polls as a yes/no are sitting about 53/47 all that is required is around 6 points to even it up. The undecided are sitting at around 10/15%. So everything is still very much to play for.

The polls are reasonably positive for the yes camp tbh. Lets hope the no camp continue in their false security of the polls! 😆

but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence

This is reminiscent of TJ insisting someone had not answered the question or persuaded him. Clearly a case has been presented I think you mean that you do not accept the case made.

Presenting fluff and fairly tales

Still waiting for your explanation of how “english” election results are both equal losses to scotland and also worse. I am sure this will be “free from fluff” as you are not a hypocrite.

Ben, to be clear, I was saying that since the first two points were wrong there was no point carrying on. I was not conceding them! The first two are false premises.

Hope the ballon games are fun!

BTW, if you want to talk about being told off, just see what the BOE said to yS this week!!!

There is no way the first one can be wrong

A more democratic, representative government

How is that one false?
What you would need to do is show that this current govt [ even with two parties] has the majority of scottish votes and the majority of scottish seats. If it does not it is clear that an independent country could improve on this. I do not see how anyone could reject this without deceit or denial being involved.
The current situation is clearly a govt they did not vote for, does not represent their wishes and has been decided by another country. This cannot happen in an iS so it must be more democratic/representative

And you say AS lies spins and attempts to pull the wool over people eyes.
Comedy gold as always this thread

A more democratic, representative government

Aye, right

However shit [and corrupt/inept/useless whatever] he is he still won the vote from the scottish people unlike thr current PM who was last of 4

So any actual facts to prove it would not be more representative/democratic or just a wee picture?

Well, for a start under either of the planned currency solutions the Scottish people will cease to have any democratic control or representation in the setting of fiscal policies, which will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government

Fiscal Policy Definition: Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates to monitor and influence a nation’s economy. It is the sister strategy to monetary policy through which a central bank influences a nation’s money supply.

So that’ll be that proven wrong them.

Next myth that you’d like debunked please?

However shit [and corrupt/inept/useless whatever] he is he still won the vote from the scottish people unlike thr current PM who was last of 4

Presuming we’re talking parties here… and how many voters in Scotland voted for each…..

Didn’t the SNP, Lib Dems and the Tories pretty much get the same number of votes at the last General Election, with Labour way ahead?

ernie_lynch – Member
…It’s only by working for the common good that we can build truly democratic autonomous societies.

…However knowing when to let go when something is beyond repair is a judgment call.

Both of which are reasons I am voting yes.

(Snippets from Ernie’s recent posts taken out of their original context, but true in their own right.)

Wanmankylung – even the supporters of independence and a currency union accept this is true

Donald Mackay’s letter the other day:

Fiscal policy within a monetary union would have to be based on symmetric rules for budget deficit and debt sustainability. Under a Conservative administration in Westminster after 2015 this would require a sustained period of prudence until the UK national debt level had achieved a sustainable level. The Treasury’s basic premise, that an independent Scotland in 2016 would inherit a chronically weak fiscal position, is unsustainable. It would be easier for Scotland to live within the fiscal rules, because the likely future direct and indirect impacts of North Sea oil and gas would be much greater than the Treasury suggests.

So much for your effort at debunking 😆

Yes but different elections [ which ninfan knew] so SNP won the scottish one [ 45 ish] so it must be fairer than them having CMD as PM as he did not win [ and was last – or his party more accurately
You are correct re the UK election with snp – libs – tories from circa 19% to 17 % about 1 % apart each – iirc snp got more votes but fewer seats than the lib dems]

Either way it is just not possible to put fwd any argument* [hence THM will ignore this] that shows that an iS wont be more democratic than now. Now they often get govts decided by another country so it is not hard to be more democratic than that.

* well I supect stw can come up with something specious

Seeing as you appear incapable of following the thread of a debate let me spell it out for you:

Well, for a start under either of the planned currency solutions the Scottish people will cease to have any democratic control or representation in the setting of fiscal policies, which will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government

Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates to monitor and influence a nation’s economy. It is the sister strategy to monetary policy through which a central bank influences a nation’s money supply.

Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates….

In an independent Scotland, the rUK government can’t adjust Scotland’s spending levels and tax rates. Therefore you are incorrect.

In an independent Scotland, the rUK government can’t adjust Scotland’s spending levels and tax rates. Therefore you are incorrect.

I suggest you read his letter again

Fiscal policy within a monetary union would have to be based on symmetric rules for budget deficit and debt sustainability. Under a Conservative administration in Westminster after 2015 this would require a sustained period of prudence until the UK national debt level had achieved a sustainable level.

Even if you get the monetary union that you want, then Scottish fiscal policy will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government, in which you will have less democratic representation than you do now!

You might also like to read this

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/reports/2012-2013/currency-banking.pdf

A question was raised as to whether there was any evidence, in the Irish example, of constraints on fiscal policy occurring as a result of the link with sterling. It was observed that Ireland inherited no debt when becoming an independent state, and that this is unlikely to be the case for Scotland should it become independent. In answer it was suggested that UK policy at that 3me fi4ed reasonably well with where
Ireland was, and that by and large it worked to Ireland’s advantage to be within the sterling regime. With regard to fiscal policy, it was observed that Ireland tended to look to the UK for changes to fiscal policy, and tended to follow the UK on this. The question of fiscal independence was not tested; there was no Irish involvement in the setting of UK monetary policy.

Have you read what you have written?

Wanmankylung – I appreciate that the DO deliberately makes it difficult to understand these topics, but I would really suggest (1) reading how monetary and fiscal policies work especially when you have currency union, (2) look at what has happened in Europe when you have one but not the other (and remember what mark Carney said about this) and (3) remember that the DO has already committed an IS to a corporate tax battle with rUK (although as it’s in the book of dreams that could well be just another fabrication to make companies think it’s a good idea) ie, setting tax rates below a level determined by rUK. You will then realise that your comments are somewhat off track.

Even the fiscal commission are clear on all this – it’s a simple read. You will not get currency union without clear fiscal targets and constraints set by rUK. That of course assumes that rUK wants a CU in the first place which it doesn’t.

Time for some simple lessons on how currency unions work both in theory and practice.

Either way, and IS will have considerable borrowing requirements at higher interest rates and with the volatility associate with oils prices. Hmmm, nice cocktail…..

You make it sound like having massive oil reserves is a bad thing. I bet that rUK would tear Scotland’s hand off if we said hat we didn’t want the oil because it was too volatile… But that’s not going to happen because that would be stupid.

May I suggest that rUK will retain their need for massive borrowing and that the interest rates they will be charged will increase and that is your main gripe about Scotland leaving the UK. I have no problem with the rUK’s economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent. Scotland has been subsidising the rUK for a lot of years.

I have no problem with the rUK’s economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.

🙄

I have no problem with the rUK’s economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.

It shows how little you understand then.

It shows how little you understand then.

Enlighten me.

I suggest you consider the interdependency of neighbouring states.

Especially ones with no effective borders and complete freedom of movement of people and goods.

The best you can hope for is a booming rUK.