[xbl]

renton, on Mar 28 2008, 11:30, said:

give me the example and I'll provide the counter argument.

Montenegro? No hanging about...they had a referendum in May 2006 and a few weeks later declared independence, peacefully and with Serbias full cooperation.

Oh, and also, what about the Czech Republic? Peaceful separation again.

This post has been edited by xbl: 28 March 2008 - 11:39

[renton]

xbl, on Mar 28 2008, 11:35, said:

Montenegro? No hanging about...they had a referendum in May 2006 and a few weeks later declared independence, peacefully and with Serbias full cooperation.

Landlocked, poor, they had nothing to export, nothing to lose. The fact that their entire economy is still controlled by Serbia (as is Kosovo for that matter) means that really, in the end, the status quo didn't change and their still as fucked as they were when they were part of serbia.

[The Old Northerner]

Quote

Montenegro? No hanging about...they had a referendum in May 2006 and a few weeks later declared independence, peacefully and with Serbias full cooperation.

Indeed they did. But they were starting from a position of federation rather than union and they have had a couple of decades watching the entire structure of Yugoslavia fall down around them with untold bloodshed. Slovenia might be a better example - they seceded at the start of the mess rather than the end of it

[renton]

xbl, on Mar 28 2008, 11:35, said:

Montenegro? No hanging about...they had a referendum in May 2006 and a few weeks later declared independence, peacefully and with Serbias full cooperation.

Oh, and also, what about the Czech Republic? Peaceful separation again.

Oh, you cheeky little edit monkey

The location is not a trivial matter, landlocked in central europe they face a completely different set of economic challenges (like the netherlands they have some major trade routes through their country which we don't), having the number one European economy on your doorstep must help as well. Besides, flip the coin, Slovakia as an independent nation hasn't flourished nearly as well as the czech nation.

[xbl]

renton, on Mar 28 2008, 11:43, said:

Oh, you cheeky little edit monkey

The location is not a trivial matter, landlocked in central europe they face a completely different set of economic challenges (like the netherlands they have some major trade routes through their country which we don't), having the number one European economy on your doorstep must help as well. Besides, flip the coin, Slovakia as an independent nation hasn't flourished nearly as well as the czech nation.

Aye, but the point is that they declared independence, and they went for it, for better or worse. It isnt some impossible matter that takes years to untangle, all it takes is a bit of get up and go! Thats really all I was trying to argue. Rons post seems to imply that it will take decades to get independence sorted, whereas Montenegro and Serbia did it in 6 weeks.

Plus, if you believe nu labour, we're poor, have nothing of value to offer anyone, and can't take care of ourselves. Regarding the federalism, it could be argued that having experience of devolution is a step in that direction.

Edited to add, I found this quote:

I always thought the best one was Vaclev Havel, the Czech premier when he said 'we may not have got all we wanted, but we got enough, and our independence.....'

This post has been edited by xbl: 28 March 2008 - 11:57

[kiwififer]

Interesting point that. If we are too poor/stupid/wee to go it alone, then why, even as an area of the UK, has it not been addressed?

You would want all areas making a profit and being economically viable, whether it is Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or where ever....

[renton]

xbl, on Mar 28 2008, 11:50, said:

Aye, but the point is that they declared independence, and they went for it, for better or worse. It isnt some impossible matter that takes years to untangle, all it takes is a bit of get up and go! Thats really all I was trying to argue. Rons post seems to imply that it will take decades to get independence sorted, whereas Montenegro and Serbia did it in 6 weeks.

Plus, if you believe nu labour, we're poor, have nothing of value to offer anyone, and can't take care of ourselves. Regarding the federalism, it could be argued that having experience of devolution is a step in that direction.

Getting independence in 6 weeks is one thing, making it work is a completely different thing, get up and go is one thing, a massively important thing as I pointed out on a previous thread. As I said about Montenegro and Serbia, the great thing about that was it was virtually no different to the status quo, a bit more beauracracy and different heads on the stationary but not much else. Scotland would face a much different task, we are very much integrated into this union, and we do have much to offer it, the complete schism of all our joint traditions and facilities would take a long time and would be far from acrimonious.

Economically we would be in a difficult situation, we are not on any kind of prime real estate- apart from the fossil fuel reserves. places like edinburgh would probably find it's massive financial sector - which is always trotted out by the nationalists as a big boon for us, would be damaged by the uncertainty caused by the independence issue, remember, these things are all based on confidence.

Our situation is infinitely more complex than Montenegro's or Slovakias, we have a lot to lose and potentially a lot to gain by it, but that would require a huge paradigm shift in people's attitudes and behaviours- something so fundamental and radical but it would have to come before independence.

[The Old Northerner]

Quote

Czechosolovakia lived under the soviet union...our union was and is slightly different

TBF, Czechslovakia was hacked out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI before the Soviets got their hands on it

[kiwififer]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 29 2008, 01:05, said:

lets all do a Ukraine...they are not getting shafted by Russia at all......shit who turned the gas off

That's the whole of Europe mind, not just the Ukraine.

[lichtgilphead]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 10:14, said:

well thats exactly what Salmond has done, as is shown by his backtracking on the major issues since he swept to power.

You make it seem like the SNP are a breed apart from other political animals and are in some way morally superior.

Where do I mention Salmond or express support for the SNP?

I was discussing your suggestion that independence/union is a simple yes/no matter. I don't believe that it is. As an example..........

Would you be prepared to accept a simple 2 choice referendum between:-

1) Going back to total Westminster rule & progressing to full political union with England (sharing the same legal system, education system, competing together as one team in sporting events etc)

and

2) Independence

If not, why not? Would it be because your own preferred option (closer union than is currently the case) would be likely to lose this hypothetical referendum?

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 10:14, said:

How can you fiddle the rules when it's a simple yes or no question?

I'm surprised that you don't recall the trick used in the 1979 referendum.

It's very easy to fiddle the rules. You put in a condition that the "Yes" vote must win an overall majority, but you add a further condition that the total "Yes" vote must be more than 40% of the (6 months out of date)voters roll.

That way, when "Yes" gets a majority (as it did), "No" still wins because you add all the non-voters to the "No" voters.

Can you give any reason why the unionists would be barred from deploying this fiddle again?

[strathspey thistle]

anyone got a message for our beloved gordon brown,pm me it and i,ll pass it on to him,iam sure i,ll bump into him in tesco,s tommorrow,or the wife will sell him some milk,maybe i,ll go and watch his gas guzzling helicopter landing up the centre tommorow

NOT

[lichtgilphead]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 19:20, said:

Would you want a country split by warrant of a mathmatical anomaly to produce a consensus?

In response, can I ask if you would want 2 countries to remain in political union when a majority within one country want a divorce?

IMO, the only way your views can gain a majority is by adding the supporters of limited devolution (like we currently have) to the supporters of full (or more complete)union like yourself.

I don't think it's a "mathematical anomaly" to try to determine the "least disliked" option & accept that as the will of the majority.

Imagine that we ran 3 seperate referenda on the same day and decided the winner of each by simple majority.

Question 1 - Independence v Return to Full Union
Question 2 - Independence v Devolution
Question 3 - Devolution v Return to Full Union

If any of the three options wins both of the referenda that it is involved in, then surely it is the preferred choice of the Scottish people - it has beaten both of the other options in a straight fair fight.

This system only fails if each system wins one referendum each, but IMO, that is unlikely. Probably "Return to full Union" would lose both referenda that it is involved in.

The decisive referendum would therefore be the choice between Devolution & Independence, but all three main positions would have had their chance to win.

Isn't that fair?

[longjohn]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 11:14, said:

I think it scares them becuase it is indeed possible that one man has managed to pull the wool over a whole country with vauous platitudes and alluded to a hollywood film as a means of stirring up the passions of a politcally juvenile nation.

GB knows that independence would cripple us for decades and create a massive headache for westminster.

Who honestly thinks that Westminster is gonna hand complete control of a resource discovered jointly by the UK to an independent Scotland possibly as early as 2011.

Seriously, who fucking actually believes and thinks that will happen?

There will be a long protraced battle between Westminster and the probable Salmond led government over probably two decades with toing and froing about settlements and compensation whilst week by week the actual supplies dwindle. We will be subjected to massive legal bills for cases in front of every European and world court imaginable as westminstewr draws the whole process to halt, which once settled will be a moot point as the oil will be long gone.

We will then have an acrinmonious relationship with our nearest neighbour and no future resource to back up the idiotic snp plans.

During this period of two decades of legal strife over oil we will be outfoxed at every turn by the civil service serving westminster. Our civil service, as now, will be second best to the brain drain to westminster which still happens to this day (look at scottish labours big hitters compared to the scots in real labour). Becuase of this we will be woefully misrepresented and lose out in all sorts of other ways wghen negotiating with europe.

Who honestly thinks that if we become independent the great minds of our civil service will come back up the road to lose both renumeration and prtestige in their jobs. I reckon three lower level teuchters will come back as they will be moved up beyond their capabilities.

We will be poorly represented in Europe and on the world stage for at least two decades as we are starting from scratch and our civil service has no idea how to best forward our views, which will be utterly marginal given our GDP in the european union.

We will then be subjecy to the homgenisation of our laws and taxes and the like by europe without a voice to veto or change policy due to our size and we will have to like it or lum it.

All that hassle and financial turmoil seems utterly incompatible with a the vision of a forward thinking successful nation fatty talks about.

The notion that indepoendence is a magic wand for sucess is just pure carbon filtered unadulterated concentrated pish. It's a recipe for turmoil and wasting our money on a ego trip for one sad fat fantasist picturing himself in full jacobean attire riding up the royal mile as the toothless kilted locals shower him with thistles.

As has been adequately shown before for scotland to rise from it's woeful place in the developed world standings is sort our our pathetic record on health.

Why can he not just admit that and let us get on with it.

I reckon that must be one of the most eloquent and persuasive posts yet on P&B. I do not agree with you but all credit to you for presentation.

[lichtgilphead]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:08, said:

it's pure supposition and fly's in the face of every poll on independence.

Do you really want me to go to the bother of finding recent polls that show a majority for independence? You know that they are out there. So do I.

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:08, said:

Least disliked is awful starting point to dismantle a 300 year old uber successful union.

In other words, you are describing the most popular choice of the three currently available.........

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:08, said:

What is wrong with just asking do you want scotland to become independent yes or no.

In principle, nothing. In practice, it doesn't reflect the options available. Life isn't black & white. There are shades of grey.

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:08, said:

If Salmond was in any way positive it would be a simple yes or no to independence but he is frantically looking for a back door to independence. Independence by a thousand cuts.

I thought that devolution was going to kill independence "stone dead"? Why do you appear to consider a gradualist approach to be a back door? Why do you still seem to be worried?

Personally, I'd rather see an immediate leap to independence, but I'll go the "thousand cuts" route if that's what it takes.........

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:08, said:

It certainly is a mathmetical anomaly to state a majority of a minority vote is an overall majority. You need to speak to a respected statitcian to resolve your misunderstanding I do not have the true insight to extrapolate the figures in a meaningful way for you.

How many times in living memory have the winners of a majority in the UK House of Commons won over 50% of the overall vote?

The winning party have the majority of a minority vote. This produces their overall majority of seats.

Why is it OK to use such a method to elect the UK Govt if, as you suggest, it is statistically invalid?

[kiwififer]

I've just read Broon's speach yesterday to the Labour conference on the beeb.

"Wendy Alexander will be the next First Minister in Scotland" - I seriously hope not, I wouldn't trust her to lead a pack of brownies never mind lead a country. She is a lame duck due to the cash donation fiasco, even though it was cleared by the electoral commission. And if she made a mistake with something as fundemental as that, would you really trust her with anything serious?

"And we will stand up against the SNP not only because their policy is wrong but they are depriving people of the best chance of a future for Scotland in this new global economy." - what has Labour been doing to position us in the global downturn if we are talking about a global economy? Paying off the national debt I would presume

"While those countries produced five million graduates, this country produced just 400,000." - comparing us to India and China. Of course they will have more graduates, China has a billion people in it ya incompetant bawbag.

I have a healthy distrust of all politicians these days, but out of the lot of them, I really hate Labour. You will not find a bigger bunch of smug, arrogant, self-serving arsewipes on the planet.

[lichtgilphead]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:48, said:

we get the chance to rectify any error every five years. should we go for independence it's a fait accompli for some considerable time. Thats a pretty good reason for demandign a true and unquestionable majority in a clear and concise vote on a single issue.

That's why a full range of options must be put to the people. Otherwise, there will always be a sizable group that will suggest that they have been disenfranchised because their own preferred option has not been included on the ballot paper.

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:48, said:

I would also take a return to westminster rule by a thousand cuts .

Thought you might :)

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:48, said:

I'd love you to find a poll with a majority supporting independence. If the SNP had that kind of ammunition they would be soaring.

Here's one

Telegraph Nov 2006 - Independence 52%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml. ..26/nunion26.xml

In fairness, here's a page listing all recent polls on this matter

http://ukpollingrepo...sh-independence

You'll note that the vast majority of polls acknowledge that it's far more complex than a simple "yes/no" question

[lichtgilphead]

Ron Burgundy, on Mar 28 2008, 20:48, said:

Might I add, without appearing to butter you up, it's refreshing to have a debate with a nationalist that does not descend into frothy splutterings about me not being scottish and hating my country.

Yeah, but I've just opened a bottle of wine & Braveheart's on the telly.

Seriously, I respect your views, but totally disagree with them. I can see why many people consider themselves to be both Scottish & British. I've never subscribed to that view myself, but don't consider someone that does to be any less Scottish.

[H_B]

lichtgilphead, on Mar 28 2008, 21:15, said:

Seriously, I respect your views, but totally disagree with them. I can see why many people consider themselves to be both Scottish & British. I've never subscribed to that view myself, but don't consider someone that does to be any less Scottish.

I have absolutely no idea why anyone cares one way or tother whether they are Scottish, British, Falkirkian, Central Regionian, Northern European etc etc.

Nationalism is such a tired outdated concept, clung to by the parochial and the weak.

Be a citizen of the world. National boundaries are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

[xbl]

Hieronymous_Bosch, on Mar 28 2008, 21:32, said:

Be a citizen of the world. National boundaries are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

Thats cool then, so you have no problem with independence as you dont care either way?