dazh,
There was a way to respect the vote and deliver brexit.

The result was a blow, but justified the softest brexit possible (Norway(ish)

That would have lost some hard leave support, but I (and I think maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of remainers?) would have ultimately got behind it to make the best of a bad job.

This thread would have died, keyboards would have been glad of a rest and people would have got on with their lives.

But then the red lines arrived, remainers became “citizens of nowhere” and “traitors”, the single market became a fools dream, and basically the leavers moved the goalposts so far that we’re no longer playing the same game.

And thats why the vote shouldn’t be treated as immutable. Leavers are now saying the “no deal” is the way forward, and even claiming thats what they campaigned and voted for, when the phrase wasn’t even in use during the referendum, and the concept was roundly criticised by everyone on every side.

Theres no way to honestly claim that either what Theresa has delivered, or what the ERG are pushing for is an attempt to “respect the result” or anything but an attempt to settle differences in the tory party.

On that basis they’ve taken what could have been a divisive but ultimately solvable problem and turned it into a winner takes all shitshow.

I can respect your respect for the vote, but we are in a different place now. Saying that the result should be respected back then was perfectly reasonable.
Saying it now (if a Norway style deal was on the table) would be perfectly reasonable.
But saying it when the possible choices are Theresas deal or no deal

How about nope.

seosamh,
I appreciate that you’ve put a new wrinkle on an old question, but I agree with the others who have said that it would not be practical.

Look at Brexit (oh god how I wish I would never have to say those words again), and just imagine how the “post vote” negotiations would go. The closer the margin (of any independence vote) the worse the recriminations and grandstanding would be. There would basically be a long period of continued campaigning, rather than a practical consideration of what is going to happen.

It would be better to try and find some honesty in the campaign stages so that people actually knew what they were voting for, but I think we’ve all seen that the state of the press and the standard of political debate in the UK (including Scotland) would make that all but impossible.

Requiring a supermajority for a major constitutional change (> 50% of the whole electorate, or maybe 60% of those who vote) would be simpler and avoid most of the disadvantages of the current “50% plus 1” of those who can be arsed turning up which has served us really badly recently. Your cooling off period would not be required, because the super majority would be unlikely to be swayed enough by passing events to change the overall direction of movement.

I think that both things (your cooling off period or a supermajority) would make independence less likely, but more likely to be a success if it happened.
(and more acceptable to people like me who think its a bad idea)

For example I have always been in favour of proportional representation. But when we had a referendum on it courtesy of the lib dems in 2011 the result was 67% against. Its a dead subject.

Thats what the scottish independence campaign should be aiming for. Not scraping across the line on a result that could change in a few weeks.

EDIT: Call me what you like, but I still prefer pudding.

I’ve just reread the first few pages of this thread for giggles.
I think I can safely say we are better informed now, but what a cost.

Someday in the far future the start and end of this thread could be the basis of a fairytale for children where the moral is “be careful what you wish for”.

Nobeerinthefridge Believe me I enjoy typing the same thing over and over about as much as y’all enjoy reading it.

I’ve had seven years of constitutional arsebanditry navel gazing and lies from politicians of all colours with all encompassing agendas and flag wrapped simple answers to complicated issues.

A turd wrapped in a flag (of any colour) is still a turd.

hamas
the ira
hezbolla
chukka
One of these things is not like the others.
Can you guess why?

taxi25

Again I think the point is missed. You could do all of that but in the context of the earth being flat.

You are missing the point. You couldn’t.
All of the things I listed are things that would look noticeably different on a flat earth.

A nearby sun and moon that circle above a flat earth would never set (probably never go below tens of degrees above the horizon) and would also visibly vary in size through the day (also it would never get dark, but lets leave that aside for the moment).
The seasons rely on the tilt of the earth towards the sun and at the extremes some parts of it being in shade from the sun months at a time, again impossible under a flat earth model.
The stars (on a “firmament” dome) could not rotate in the same way except for certain cases in the northern hemisphere. The rotation of the stars around southern pole of the earth would be impossible.
If gravity existed on a flat earth you could walk around the edge horizontally (perpendicular to someone standing in the centre). It is incompatible with gravity and therefore they claim it doesn’t exist. You would notice its absence.
Navigation should go without saying, especially if you want to fly from e.g. australia to africa.

You might be so used to seeing the world as it is that you can’t see that the way things look and behave is largely because of the actual shape of the earth.

Put simply, my argument is that if things were different they would look different.

You may not have the imagination to see that, but try not to tar everyone else with the same brush.

Fasthaggis, I think you’ll find that the original earthrise photo was photoshopped (15 years before the invention of photoshop 🙂

You can’t argue with stupid.

rob hilton, taxi25
“would it actually change how we live our lives”
It wouldn’t; for a particular subset of people.

That subset includes excludes anyone who;
Likes to see the sun and moon rise and set
Appreciates the passing of the seasons
Likes to watch the stars at night
Appreciates the presence of gravity
Ever needs to navigate anywhere
and a host of other things.

I guess it could include anyone whose definition “living your life” amounts to nothing more than turning food and oxygen into fertiliser.

But if you want to live your life like a waterbuffalo, after having the good fortune to be born in an era (last few 100 years) where we’ve finally developed the tools and ideas to see how things really work, then please carry on 🙂

leeroysilk

It would just change the nature of reality, the laws of physics, everything we’ve learned about the universe and ourselves over the last few hundred years.

All of that really doesn’t matter to you?

Takes all sorts I guess.

I missed it .. Someone tell me what reaction there was when Jezza stood up and supported a peoples vote?
It’s his party policy, No?

Cougar,
Maybe not behaving like a child and family grooming pederast would be a start.

Think of all the ways in which MJ could have put his detractors to shame by saying, “the parents were always in the room” or “of course I didn’t spend the night alone with someone elses children, and here are the parents to back that up” or “heres the CCTV”.

But he did none of that. So on balance I’ll believe the accusers for now.

I don’t think its cut and dried, and if this was just one accuser with a clear financial motive (like operation midland) I’d be a bit more reticent, but we are where we are.

For what its worth the most f’ed up thing about it, for me, was that the accusers came across like they still love him despite everything. He really did a job on them.

“Evidence”

So obviously the very strong circumstantial evidence of his behaviour throughout a large part of his life combined with a documentary showing the statements of two people who claim he molested them aren’t enough.

m’kay

Theres quite a contrast between the majority “hang ’em high” attitude on the thread about the Shoreham pilot (where there is a lot of reasonable doubt and many possible exculpatory issues and events).

And here, where two young men (who clearly and scarily still have confused and contradictory feelings about MJ who was at one point their best friend) are accusing someone of molesting them as children.

Doubts rule here and certainty rules over there.

For those who still think MJ innocent, I have a question.

What on earth would it take to convince you that he was guilty?

STOP THE PRESS
Conspiracy theorist believes convoluted unlikely conspiracy theory generated by well known conspiracy theorist.
AS YOU WERE

I notice that he obliquely mentions in paragraph 4 that his stage 1 conspiracy theories about Salisbury were vapourised by the evidence of the presence of the KGB chuckle brothers.

Predictably, this doesn’t mean he was “wrong” only that the “conspiracy goes deeper and is more convoluted than we previously suspected”.

He also thinks Alex Salmond has been framed.

I rest my case, under the fundamental legal principle of “man wearing clown shoes is a **** clown”.

Advantages of having a username based on a Homer Simpson quote 😉

thisisnotaspoon
Trying to create an equivalence between racism and this discussion is fractally wrong.

Put another way, the top “white” and “black” male athletes would still be well in front of the top female (who happens to be black).

Maybe the place for transgender athletes is in the paralympics?

Even to my own ears that seems like a weird thing to say, and I’m not sure if its an acceptable answer at any level.

But look at it this way.

The roll in the genetic lottery has given someone an advantage (or disadvantage) which makes them unable to compete fairly in certain types of competition (e.g. Think of a wheelchair competitor who would rule in the marathon, and be destroyed in the 100m).

The para sports system is (as far as I understand it) set up to make decisions like that about groups and categories.

Why not here?

Its by no means an easy subject, but theres a lot of useful stats in this LINK twitter thing.

The stand out bit for me is that there are 14 year old boys who could beat the fastest woman in the world at 100m. Maybe 1500 to 2000 male athletes who would win a 100m race before the best woman had a chance of a medal.

Its not discrimination (or bigotry) to want to discuss how you deal with it if one of those 2000 (or any of the probably vastly larger number of men who stopped running in timed races due to having no change of reaching the top) decides to transition.

This has (or should have) bugger all to do with toilets

Yup, the vote was advisory. If it had been otherwise the amount of illegal shennanigans that went on would have legally voided the result (according to legal twitter).

In any case if we want dazh to start arguing for stopping brexit i guess we just have to maybe get some blue vests and set fire to a few things .. That should be enough of an intellectual tour de force to get him to care what we think.

To be fair to dazh, the one thing that needs to be done above all is to take account of why people voted as they did.
Have a look at @femi_sorry on twitter. I like his attitude of going around talking (and listening) to people who voted for brexit. They’re not all racist nutjobs, not all unwilling to explain why they did it, and not all unwilling to say (when the truth is explained), that they may have made a mistake.

But as Jesus himself once said “The right wing nutters will always be with us. Ineffectual, impotent tossers the lot of em'”

Arrest them for what? Disagreeing with the government? Yes’s that’s going to go well isn’t it. I mean aside from the fact that we don’t have enough police or police cells to put them all in, it will pour petrol on the flames.

Nope, If they’re protesting peacefully, they can carry on.
If they turn violent, harass or threaten passers by, they can get arrested.
Like it should be in a free society :0)

You seem to be assuming that theres a lot of them? Have you actually seen the size of the “crowds” that the pro brexit munchkins have been able to produce on the streets?

Its not great, and their collective room temperature IQ doesn’t bode well for setting up any ongoing campaign that’ll frighten the horses.

In any case, you’ve again failed to say why we should be afraid of their reaction?
Also, you don’t explain why we shouldn’t be afraid of the far larger crowds on anti brexit marches.
Is it purely because, unlike the right, they don’t threaten to turn violent?

Thats a funny way to decide who to listen to?

dazh,
If we manage to avoid brexit and it brings out the worst in a segment of society, well at least we know who they are and we can arrest them.

The only possible reason for being worried about their nonsense is if you think those r’soles might actually be in a majority in the UK, and if thats true we’re all buggered anyway.

Imagine the protests though.
They might start blocking the roads in and out of Dover, as an example of our lost future.
Maybe they could encourage all the (nonUK) Europeans working in in the NHS to go home in another way until people start dying.
Maybe they’ll just run through tescos spraying chlorine on the chicken shouting “you could’ve had it all! You Fools!”

I think we’ll cope.

So the question is, are there ideas that, no matter how sincerely held, make you incompatible with living in normal society?

She thinks that a head in a bin doesn’t matter because of the ideas it once held. But she wants us to treat her head like the ideas inside don’t matter?

Remembering the stuff isis were putting online at the time she decided to go join them, its hard to say she didn’t know what she was getting into.

Turns out it was a bad decision, but it sounds like she’d still be there in a society based on religiously sanctioned slavery, rape and murder if things hadn’t gone whoopsie for the murderous little shits.

We should do for these people what we did for Hess after WWII. Give them a nice prison or island under international control, keep them safe, give them more than one book to read and make sure they don’t leave.

I’ll probably go to hell for using this quote in this context but: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Maya Angelou

Maybe the only good thing to come out of ISIS was that it let the worst people in the world stand up and single themselves out.

Lets do the only moral thing. Take them at their word and keep them away from everyone else.

athgray,
“pat on the back and a gold star”

Implying others are childish for dissing his imaginary fwend.

Sweeeeeeet 🤗

Maybe we need a new slogan to bring it back to basics.

ATHEISM. Existence matters.

Jeebus…
this is all getting a bit complex for a discussion over whether little Jimmy’s imaginary friend is real (spoiler:no) and whether little Jimmy’s going to go apeshit if you point out the truth (spoiler:**** yeah.. like you wouldn’t believe xo))

I just love the people who think that Prof. Dawkins doesn’t have the intellectual fortitude to tell you that mummy/daddy/nanny might have been making shit up.

If anything he’s been giving you too much credit.

Noone cares whether your imaginary friend is nice or nasty or weird or lovely or diabolical, whether he has inspired you to greatness, or just justifies your failures and offers you a sympathetic ear inside your head.

The point is that he/she is imaginary. Doesn’t exist, never did, never will.

Grasp that, take a walk, see that it makes sense, and then go out and be awesome to one another.

Cold hard science says that everyone you meet is just a temporary accumulation of stardust.

But a lot depends on perspective.

Others say that maybe we are the Universes way to know itself.

In many ways each person, or animal you meet is a miracle greater than any in your holy book.

It’s a wonderful world, so why waste your life on pish, lies and philosophical notions that predate the idea of washing you hands after you have a dump?

jj
time is short so I’ll just say….
Wow you really are full of it.
I’ve just spent a few weeks on a pro/anti Scottish independence thread and pretty much everyone there had more humility and self awareness than you.

Good luck with the big words.
Google ad hominem for useful information on how not to proceed.

jj,

to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.

You realise that you’re decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?

(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)

These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:

Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.

This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.

Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.

This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.

Makes perfect sense to me…..

In support of Woppit.
Heres LINK an area that religion wandered into and poisoned that was hidden for years. (I’m surprised its not still front page news today, weeks later, but I guess thats the times we live in)

An apparently small decision taken by a person with 1) the best intentions but also 2) an unfortunate fetish for elderly virgins and jewish zombies.

Result: monthly pain for countless women for 40 (?) years.

When you’re living in an environment where something like religion is the accepted norm, its hard to see all the little ways in which it influences things and all of the knock on effects.

Attitudes towards gay people, women, medical advances, politics, the right to live for some, the right to die for others.

All buggered about with, by idiots, on behalf of “beings” that don’t exist and don’t matter.

I agree with others that religion is not the only area where fundamentalism or dogma, can be a malign influence. But those other areas don’t claim extra special protection for their proclivities.

I’m free to go to school and tell teacher that I don’t want little jimmy taught about about “no damned queers” or whatever.

But it probably won’t result in worthy understanding articles in newspapers about the conflicting rights of bigots and teachers.

Why is religion different?

edited to correct parents to bigots 🙂

seosamh,
I’d settle for the “settled will of the majority” as well.

Sans falsehood, and wavy hands positive thinking.

Theres a genuine case for requiring > 50% of the whole electorate (whether they vote or not) or 60% of the overall vote for changes that are irreversible (again, see Brexit).

epicyclo,
Its a silly question. And it does not prove that independence is an ultimate good in its own right, which you seem to think it is despite not being a “nationalist”.
(Jeebus the irony nearly flipped my brain out my ear just then x-).

Its like the question creationists ask; Why is earth so completely suited to our needs if it wasn’t created by God?

But here are some answers;
1. Maybe the countries that get independence are the ones that really wanted it.
2. Maybe most countries that achieve independence live a long way from those from whom they obtain it and have little in common with them?
3. Maybe the only ones that would ever “regret” it would be those scoobied into it on the basis of a false economic prospectus?
4. Maybe Scotland would be the first of those?

Actually point 4. is wrong. If you view Brexit as being independence from the EU. I can show you a country that regrets it already on the basis of 3. (look down .. that one).

So, a positive view of your question depends on a majority that doesn’t exist in scotland, and it isn’t a universal law (see Brexit).

Good enough?

Also, apparently, from a quick google, this is true

Although Jamaica never actually voted for independence, an opinion poll survey from 2011 conducted by The Jamaican Gleaner found that 60% of Jamaicans believed that the country would have been better off remaining under British rule, with 17% disagreeing.

nobeer,
You seem to be mistaking my contempt for the lies of 2014 indy campaign, for approval of the lies of the brexit campaign.

I have equal contempt for both.

Do you have no comment on the economic position we’d be in if Yes had won in 2014?

seosamh
If the Scottish people had said Yes on the basis of the lies in the book of dreams in 2014 and then discovered how they had been misled, should they get a second vote, or would that be it?

Do you have no comment on the economic position we’d be in if Yes had won in 2014?

The more you guys talk the more it seems like independence is the only destination you care about. Doesn’t matter of you arrive scraping along the tarmac without your legs and only half a head.

Brexit squared.

Meantime though it’s a matter of recorded fact that many Scots( meaning people who live in Scotland) voted for independence and voted to remain in the EU.

Absolutely, I know many SNP voters are pro Europe (although I heard recently that a greater proportion of SNP supporters voted for brexit than supporters of any other party in scotland?< not 100% sure about that i’ll have to look it up).

But being out of europe was the reality of the situation, it was just a price that people were prepared to pay (or something that they actively wanted, to get out of the CFP for example).

Its not a simple situation.
It won’t be improved by more constitutional shennanigans.

Obvs. only speculation, but if scotland had gone for Indy in 2014, it probably would have led to no Brexit vote in the UK.

Just as seeing the brexit shitshow has opened peoples eyes to the immense difficulty of separation, and highlighted the economic lies that were told during the campaign, (and increased the pro european feeling throughout europe), the aftermath of a Yes vote in 2014 would have been a very close and immediate warning about the real costs of nationalism.

The unravelling of the book of dreams would have been a horrific thing to behold.
The “half a billion quid over 2 years” (or was it £200M?) to set up scotland as independent, would look a bit weak.
The record low oil price on “independence day” would probably have been blamed on an MI5 plot.

The rest of the plot can write itself.

So be careful what you wish for.

nobeer,
Not just a Spaniard.
Also, as I recall, “being out” was the default, the Spaniard was wheeled out to say we wouldn’t be allowed back in. (to avoid encouraging other independence movements).

I’m not saying that things haven’t gone Pete Tong since then, just that being out of Europe has gone from “doesn’t matter” to “central reason for our movement” among independence supporters.

Its almost like all they have is a hammer, and every political issue is a nail.

stevenmenmuir,
Yup.
Despite the SNP FUD at the time Scotland would have been out of Europe once it left the UK.

Nicola even threatened to bring the status of european citizens currently in scotland into the discussion over scotlands future relationship with europe. (May borrowed that one to good effect, and less kow-towing from the SNP).

Theres even a video of a nat spokesman saying “we’ll be out of europe for a long as it takes us to round up the europeans living here and stick them on a ferry”.

Good times. Happy memories. Lets do it all again!! :O)

(Those thoughts and plans were brought to you by “Not Nationalism®” and the number “we don’t do numbers they’re on the side of the yoons”).

epicyclo,
That describes how you and seosamh feel, and it’s all very noble (and clearly not the very definition of nationalism x-) but it fails to take into account that its not how the majority of people in Scotland feel.

It’s also not how the majority of catalans feel and the majority of welsh, cornish, alsatians, and the people of any number of other regions which were once independent and could be again if the will existed. Are they all “Yoons!”?

Personally, I think larger groupings with more diversity are better. I like the UK (without liking the current political situation) I like Europe (without obviously liking the current shitshow of our relationship to it).

You want independence for noble reasons (not nationalism®) , but as long as you can’t afford the social democratic paradise you’re fantasising about I’ll keep the uncomfortable reality and the ability to afford shoes.

Maybe if you understood just how much I HATE Brexit and everything it stands for, but that I still think Scottish independence would be a step in the wrong direction you would have a better idea about how I feel about political lies dressed up in flags.

Honestly, using Brexit to kick up a storm about Scottish independence is a bit rich when anyone who voted to leave the UK in 2014 also voted to leave the EU.

tired…..
sad…..
losing the will to live…..

You talk nationalism (we’re just better!) but deny exceptionalism.

You talk up having better social policy (in the future) , but fail to explain where the money will come from.

When challenged you shout “tory” but you willingly vote for the party in Scotland that has applied massive (>austerity) cuts to councils.

Please just give your high horse a rest.

Or admit it was a unicorn all along.

Yes, I’ve definitely been saying that the UK/Brexit can do no harm. Thats the entirety of my argument. Nothing more for me to do here …………………………………..

Read back. I’ve been saying that both the UK and indy could do financial harm to the place where I live and the people I care about.

Looks like I might be getting the harm from one against my will, but I’ve potentially got a choice about whether I get the other (and I’ll say no), you seem to be keen to get both?

The second isn’t the cure for the first. <<< HINT Thats the point I’ve been making

For all that you guys love scotland you seem to have little faith in its parliament to use the money it has now to do any good?
You are also apparently sure it’ll do better (for the people of scotland) with less money because. Why exactly?

Good luck with that (smells like brexit from here).

Anyway, don’t worry I’m sure salmond will find a few more sand dunes to sell to his american chum to make up the shortfall.

I expect that pointing out any potential downside to indy makes me
a) a tory
b) trump supporter (?)
c) anything else?
ho hum.

In the meantime have a google for sesame street. I’m sure there must have been an episode where they explained the subtleties of “good, better and best”, or “bad, worse and worst”.
At the moment you seem to be stuck at the level of “independence is the answer, now what’s the question.”

I get it now.
I accept the (honestly frightening) predictions of the brexit hit to the UK.

But, also accept that, outside of a no deal, they would be considerably less than the hit to scotland of leaving the UK.

Thats fantasy.

But your claim that everything would be better after indy is what exactly?

I’m seeing people who simultaneously think that :
a) they have a good economic argument, and
b) refuse to accept the best economic information available, and
c) would take us all along for the roller coaster ride no matter what the consequences.

Are you smelling the “Eau de nationalism” radiating from yourselves yet.

epicyclo
No cost would be too much? Really?

Well at least you’ve decided.

Although I see you’ve come straight back with a misleading economic argument, as if you know deep inside that economics* are more important to most people than to you.

BruceWee
Why don’t you answer the same question in reverse. (as above)
What potential cost in would be too high for you to knock indy on the head for now?
Or to think that its not worth the effort?

For me, for what its worth, an independent Scotland inside Europe with the rest of the UK, with the ability to financially support at least the social services we have now would be a start to convincing me its not flags all the way down.

I’ve been told thats available (in 2014 and since) but only by people with more faeries than brains fluttering between their ears.

Brexit squared is not brexit halved.
Do you think a Scotland outside the EU and outside the UK, with the deficit you’ve apparently now accepted, would be some sort of paradise.

Current trade something like 60% with the UK and 10% with Europe.

How far into the partition process would indy supporters be before they had to indysplain the decimation of services and pensions? How long before they start explaining that the “benefits” of big flag (or “returning to normal” as some might call it) might appear in 25 or 50 years (as the brexitters are now saying), and not be immediate.

You all claim to want independence for a better society, but your mates in power (whose job, you seem to be forgetting, is to insulate us from the worst excesses of the tories) haven’t even got the balls to get behind their favourite slogans, and thats right now, when they have 10 or 20% more cash than they would then!

Offering the hope of a better society, without the means to deliver it is so much hogwash.

A true believer or movement, of any stripe, who doesn’t consider the cost of their actions (not just the intentions but the actual consequences) isn’t worth much to anyone, and is hardly a positive force for good.

Do you want independence regardless of the cost?
If not, what cost would be too high?
Any idea?
No?
If theres no number, then don’t tell me you care about the ill, poor, old and disadvantaged.
You just care about independence.
Well good for you, but stop claiming your nationalism is “different” or “better” :o)