Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

The EU isn't perfect, but then, what is? There is a reason why no country wants to leave the EU.

[Mr.Bojangles]

I've never seen him ignore the fact the UK is in the EU.

I take it you are a part of the Arbroath shiny shiny coin collective?

Read this. Scotland shouldn't touch those crooks with a shitty stick if by some utter miracle the SNP begin to run a coherant campaign and appeal to people beyond their rump support and manage to gain separation..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10135734/Another-shameful-day-for-Europe-as-EMU-creditor-states-betray-South.html

We're not joining the Euro. I'm fairly sure the plan is to use the GBP for a few years until we float our own currency. I would imagine that any independent Scottish government wouldn't allow their banking sector the Carte Blanche the New (neoliberal) Labour Party did. More lefty countries like Canada didn't suffer during the banking crisis because they had a strong control of their financial sector.

EDIT: I may have missed your point. I'd be happy with being outside the official EU if we were able to have free trade and movement, and I'm fairly sure that would be the fall back position in any negotiation where we were significantly at a disadvantage in terms of our sovereignty. Our politicians (other than Lamont) aren't fools.

[oht]

Please provide the figure for the candidate saying 'no to separation', thanks. Did they win the seat, or did 'yes to separation' win the seat, again? So... how did that desperate pleading work out for Scottish Labour?

By all means continue window dressing around that fact, though.

Fact: You post a picture of a leaflet that talks about this being an opportunity to say no to separation and a gif of a smug Salmond, clearly implying he felt people hadn't done so. When it was pointed out that there were more votes for BT parties, you make a pathetic point that boiled down to 'but they voted for non Labour BT parties' point as if their votes won't be counted in a referendum. Fail 1.

Fact: You said b....b....b...but look at the "specific instructions". I looked again and it says "your chance to say no to separation". Suggest you look up "instruction" in the dictionary. Fail 2.

Fact: You are now, hilariously, making some "did 'yes to separation'" win the vote, ignoring the fact this was first past the post. Fail 3.

In short, a lesson in fail that you could easily have avoided if you conceded a tiny amount of ground as Swampy showed. But tactical argument isn't your style, slevvering shite bellicosely (the 'Ian Paisley' strategy) and posting gifs (the Paolo Sergio strategy) is.

Holding a by election seat when you're in office means it was a good win for the SNP, but it said nothing about independence which is....errrr.... what this thread is about.

I'm going to have to ask for evidence of such an accusation, thanks. I have no doubt whatsoever that my actual contention was correct though, given I have actually looked at such questions as part of a degree, whereas you looked in a book written by a non-academic nobody.

Are you thick? I said it was on the previous independence thread. Let me refresh your sudden loss of recollection. Your contention was that the Union was just accepted in Scotland and I pointed out that the riots in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dumfries, and St Giles ringing out "why should I be so sad on my wedding day" would suggest otherwise. Feigning lack of memory just makes you a liar.

As above, the only credible histories are written by, erm, historians. In the same way that I won't be consulting Jackie Bird to understand how particle physics works.

By all means compare Magnusson's work to that of other failures in the field, such as Jeremy Paxman's utterly discredited hagiography of the British Empire. Complete with not a single scrap of archival research. Good job guys!

So basically, you're an elitist who wants to deny access to history to anyone other than academics and those that have time to read academic texts which would be er.... academic historians. That would make your own life easier wouldn't it?

Presumably for fields or areas of history outside your area of expertise, you only read academic texts and don't use newspapers, books or, heaven forfend, Wikipedia?

I cited my source and in turn, Magnusson cites his. When I asked you for your academic sources saying there was no reaction to the Treaty of Union, there were none forthcoming.

[archie guevara]

Well you know absolutely bugger all about where I live, it's monkey with a red rosette land, so it's hardly catastrophic.

It's a flaw in the STV system that a councillor who was elected third and then dies, can only be replaced by a re-run of the same process. So having two Labour councillors ahead of the SNP first time round, it's pretty tough to be the aggregate first choice in a by election. I think SNP did pretty well to run it to the 7th count.

[archie guevara]

We're not joining the Euro. I'm fairly sure the plan is to use the GBP for a few years until we float our own currency. I would imagine that any independent Scottish government wouldn't allow their banking sector the Carte Blanche the New (neoliberal) Labour Party did. More lefty countries like Canada didn't suffer during the banking crisis because they had a strong control of their financial sector.

EDIT: I may have missed your point. I'd be happy with being outside the official EU if we were able to have free trade and movement, and I'm fairly sure that would be the fall back position in any negotiation where we were significantly at a disadvantage in terms of our sovereignty. Our politicians (other than Lamont) aren't fools.

Scotland won't float its own currency after it joins a currency union with England because it would utterly screw up the pound.

[Baxter Parp]

Voting No, I have no facts, a contribution to the debate or an intellect.

FTFY.

[xbl]

Thought I'd fact check oht there.

Fact: You post a picture of a leaflet that talks about this being an opportunity to say no to separation and a gif of a smug Salmond, clearly implying he felt people hadn't done so. When it was pointed out that there were more votes for BT parties, you make a pathetic point that boiled down to 'but they voted for non Labour BT parties' point as if their votes won't be counted in a referendum. Fail 1.

Fact: You said b....b....b...but look at the "specific instructions". I looked again and it says "your chance to say no to separation". Suggest you look up "instruction" in the dictionary. Fail 2.

Since the only people who were desperate to make this all about independence were the union, I thought I'd see how the figures look. Now bear in mind OHT specifically said several times "BT", and this includes Tories, Labour, Lib Dems (UKIP etc. specifically not welcomed):

SNP + Greens = 10224

Better Together = 11520

That is a difference of 1296 votes. So if the Unionists want to make this about the Union, and it seems they do, then are those numbers not AWFUL close?

As for "Fail 2", you know yourself that you have resorted to hair splitting. Labour made this all about the Union. We've seen their campaign literature. Their core message is to say No to independence, and made a big play of this "sending a message". All their chat before and after was about what this means for independence. It isn't the Independence supporters saying this, it is the Unionists.

[oht]

Thought I'd fact check oht there.Since the only people who were desperate to make this all about independence were the union, I thought I'd see how the figures look. Now bear in mind OHT specifically said several times "BT", and this includes Tories, Labour, Lib Dems (UKIP etc. specifically not welcomed):SNP + Greens = 10224Better Together = 11520That is a difference of 1296 votes. So if the Unionists want to make this about the Union, and it seems they do, then are those numbers not AWFUL close?As for "Fail 2", you know yourself that you have resorted to hair splitting. Labour made this all about the Union. We've seen their campaign literature. Their core message is to say No to independence, and made a big play of this "sending a message". All their chat before and after was about what this means for independence. It isn't the Independence supporters saying this, it is the Unionists.

Thanks for the fact check. Didn't know ukip weren't in BT. Think it would be a fair guess that they'd vote no but fair enough, I edited my previous 55% to 53%.

Hair splitting? No, a poster saying a leaflet "specifically" said something to back his point, and me pointing out it didn't, is not hair splitting. I can concede a mistake (see above), but others think they are above it and deserved it thrown back at them.

ETA: hang on. I specifically said "unionist parties" got 55%, I never said BT parties. Don't think I said anything incorrect.

[Ad Lib]

Calling it that Slavoj Zizek is Ad Lib, btw. Identical 'sense of humour.' #diw

Not guilty m'lud. I don't do aliases. The closest I get to encountering aliases is to alert the mods whenever perthshirebell sets up another cringeworthy one.

I was watching Waterloo Road on iPlayer on my iPad while on a very uncomfortable inflatable mattress when Slajov was trying and failing to be funny.

[lichtgilphead]

Read this. Scotland shouldn't touch those crooks with a shitty stick if by some utter miracle the SNP begin to run a coherant campaign and appeal to people beyond their rump support and manage to gain separation..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10135734/Another-shameful-day-for-Europe-as-EMU-creditor-states-betray-South.html

1) We're not joining the Euro, What's your point?

2) My point re membership of the EU still stands. The UK is currently in the EU and can leave at any time it wants.

An independent Scotland will be able to make exactly the same choice. If the terms of joining are considered to be unacceptable by the majority of Scottish voters, we can explore other options.

As I pointed out above, Tryfield continually posts speculation about how we will be "ruled from Brussels" after independence, whilst ignoring the fact that the UK is currently a member of the EU.

[xbl]

Thanks for the fact check. Didn't know ukip weren't in BT. Think it would be a fair guess that they'd vote no but fair enough, I edited my previous 55% to 53%.

Hair splitting? No, a poster saying a leaflet "specifically" said something to back his point, and me pointing out it didn't, is not hair splitting. I can concede a mistake (see above), but others think they are above it and deserved it thrown back at them.

ETA: hang on. I specifically said "unionist parties" got 55%, I never said BT parties. Don't think I said anything incorrect.

...When it was pointed out that there were more votes for BT parties,

But even if we were to be generous and include "Unionist parties" together, thats still only a VERY small margin for the Unionists, isn't it? Considering that the Unionists specifically wanted to send a message about independence (and they were VERY clear on this), then surely it must concern them just how close it was?

[doulikefish]

If anybody thinks donside was all about "local" issues,they should have watched reporting scotchland last night

Whilst the reporter was telling everybody "nothings changed " they interviewed the liebour loser and all he mentioned was "independence referendum independence referendum independence referendum"and no airtime for the winning candidate(no surprise)

[ecto]

Think the Unionist are keeping the pressure up to avoid us "sleep-walking" into independence

[doulikefish]

Think the Unionist are keeping the pressure up to avoid us "sleep-walking" into independence

Yeah they should keep mentioning the "lack" of a space agency f we get indy

[xbl]

If anybody thinks donside was all about "local" issues,they should have watched reporting scotchland last night

Whilst the reporter was telling everybody "nothings changed " they interviewed the liebour loser and all he mentioned was "independence referendum independence referendum independence referendum"and no airtime for the winning candidate(no surprise)

Yep, Labour made this explicitly all about a referendum on independence, as proven by all their statements and campaign literature, and they still lost!

Yeah they should keep mentioning the "lack" of a space agency f we get indy

Not to mention the lack of research into what our dialling code will be, and whether we will be able to attract ISPs to provide our internet! (see 500 questions, actual questions!)

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-admits-we-wont-reverse-cuts-if-we-win-in-2015-8669374.html

Vote No and be a turkey at christmas.

[oht]

But even if we were to be generous and include "Unionist parties" together, thats still only a VERY small margin for the Unionists, isn't it? Considering that the Unionists specifically wanted to send a message about independence (and they were VERY clear on this), then surely it must concern them just how close it was?

That's the (good imo) point Swampy made four pages ago and distinct from the vt blubfest.

[Reynard]

1) We're not joining the Euro, What's your point?

2) My point re membership of the EU still stands. The UK is currently in the EU and can leave at any time it wants.

An independent Scotland will be able to make exactly the same choice. If the terms of joining are considered to be unacceptable by the majority of Scottish voters, we can explore other options.

As I pointed out above, Tryfield continually posts speculation about how we will be "ruled from Brussels" after independence, whilst ignoring the fact that the UK is currently a member of the EU.

1. Where did I say anyting about the Euro?

2. It ill take a successful referendum for us to leave, politicians cannotarbitarily withdraw us. Similarly, it will take a successful referendum for Scotland to join the EU.

Tryfield is against EU membership as am I, regardless of whatever state apparatus is "ruling" us. When 80% of all acts passed at Westminster is simply rubber stamping of EU dictat are you certain that the rejection of Westminster rule is actually going to change anything? I'm not.

The EU has been a total disaster for nation states.

You didn't even read the article I gave to you.

[xbl]

The EU has been a total disaster for nation states.

And yet, weirdly, none of them want to leave. How strange!

[vikingTON]

Fact: You post a picture of a leaflet that talks about this being an opportunity to say no to separation and a gif of a smug Salmond, clearly implying he felt people hadn't done so. When it was pointed out that there were more votes for BT parties, you make a pathetic point that boiled down to 'but they voted for non Labour BT parties' point as if their votes won't be counted in a referendum. Fail 1.

Fact: You said b....b....b...but look at the "specific instructions". I looked again and it says "your chance to say no to separation". Suggest you look up "instruction" in the dictionary. Fail 2.

Fact: You are now, hilariously, making some "did 'yes to separation'" win the vote, ignoring the fact this was first past the post. Fail 3.

In short, a lesson in fail that you could easily have avoided if you conceded a tiny amount of ground as Swampy showed. But tactical argument isn't your style, slevvering shite bellicosely (the 'Ian Paisley' strategy) and posting gifs (the Paolo Sergio strategy) is. Holding a by election seat when you're in office means it was a good win for the SNP, but it said nothing about independence which is....errrr.... what this thread is about.

The only element of fail in the above, revisionist piece remains that of Scottish Labour, whose cry to 'say no to separatism' in the by-election was met by a crushing victory for the SNP. Unlucky.

Normally a by-election would not relate to the topic of this thread. But as seen throughout the actual campaign and the reaction to the result here, Bitter Together's main actors, and quite clearly Scottish Labour attempted to turn this into a mini-referendum issue for their specific candidate. Their candidate lost heavily, which at best suggests that only Scottish Labour are a joke party, more so that BitterTogether's tactics remain using the word 'separation' as often as possible.

This was already covered, so I'm not sure why you think you're providing new material here

Are you thick? I said it was on the previous independence thread. Let me refresh your sudden loss of recollection. Your contention was that the Union was just accepted in Scotland and I pointed out that the riots in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dumfries, and St Giles ringing out "why should I be so sad on my wedding day" would suggest otherwise. Feigning lack of memory just makes you a liar.

Nonsense: particularly so given I've actually studied in the field and therefore wouldn't make such a statement. Which is why I have now twice asked for your evidence to support this claim, and twice you have weaselled out of providing any. It's further interesting to note that unlike other events erased from P&B (ie numerous Ric resignations), not a single poster has so far corroborated your recollection of events.

As a consequence, you're either going to have to admit that you have absolutely no evidence for the above claim, or retract it. Or copy Yarmfield by pretending that the posts don't exist.

So basically, you're an elitist who wants to deny access to history to anyone other than academics and those that have time to read academic texts which would be er.... academic historians. That would make your own life easier wouldn't it?

I don't wish to 'deny' access to history: it is available in the public domain, everywhere. When it comes to doing credible research and a complete historical analysis however, it is absolutely the case that this should be left to professionals in the field. Much in the same way as I wouldn't expect to walk into xbl's field and be taken with any degree of credibility, never mind a journalist outwith academia entirely.

Thankfully this is the prevailing sentiment in the field, and as a result the likes of Magnusson and Paxman are considered joke figures. Even lower than Niall Ferguson. No idea why you think that would make 'my life easier', seeing as I'm securely ensconed in the field and am unlikely to come across a misinformed journalist milling around the Czech Klementinum cherry-picking more 'facts' for their cliched hack approach to the topic.

Presumably for fields or areas of history outside your area of expertise, you only read academic texts and don't use newspapers, books or, heaven forfend, Wikipedia?

I have a #dece-sized personal library across various field and time periods, and access to much, much larger collections at various institutions, so... yes. Not sure why you've decided academic texts are mutually exclusive from books though. The only supplement to that would indeed be Wikipedia - which, because this isn't 2003 - has most of its historical pages fully written and edited by professional historians. Indeed this specialised consultation is in place for the vast majority of Wikipedia's content. Regardless, the most important use of a Wikipedia article is in fact the reference section which provides useful bibliographic resources.

I cited my source and in turn, Magnusson cites his. When I asked you for your academic sources saying there was no reaction to the Treaty of Union, there were none forthcoming.

The citation (and by extension, interpretation) of a source by a hack like Magnusson isn't going to be treated with any credibility by serious historians. Unlucky.

As it happens, I seem to recall referencing extensively to an eminently credible work by Allan MacInnes, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707. At no point in this work does MacInnes state such a thing. At no point in any thread have I stated such a thing.

At best I would suggest that time has warped your understanding of what the two positions were, at worst then I would conclude that we're dealing with a Yarmfield-esque bluffer who'll slither off the thread when called on it.