Independence - how would you vote?

[Heidthebaw]

''I think he should try to write like he isn't an angsty teenager with an attitude problem' that is so funny coming from you. If your going to slag him off why not go to his site and do it. Every other middle class, 'right on', nazi liberal baw bag have been doing that, so why not you. Nothing but a evidence free zone , like the rest of them.

Edited for typos while trying to type through laughing

[xbl]

1. No they weren't. What were they debunked by? Name me the precedent for co-equal successor statehood under international law. Clue: Czechoslovakia is not a correct answer. They were two new states, not co-equal successor states.

2. I'm not going to teach you how to use Twitter. The evidence can be found within a matter of clicks of the very message you referred to me tagging you in.

3. No. my original contention, if you have a memory longer than that of a metaphorical goldfish, was that he counters falsehoods and half-truths with his own. I did not say it was okay when others do it.

4. You are shifting the goalposts. I said that he uttered mistruths about the "automatic" successor-statehood. Not contiguous membership of the EU by whatsoever means. He endorsed a specific account which was incorrect. He also believes that the Declaration of Arbroath is a legal document. He's an embarrassment.

1. The credibility of Scheffer? Remember when he was a know nothing criminal lawyer who knew nothing about international law, and was just some guy from a no-mark American University? Man that rebounded on you two!

2. So essentially, "evidence please", and "be very specific" is no longer a requirement? I'll remember that next time you have one of your Unionist hissy fits demanding precise evidence. Double standards at work again I see.

3. Again, you almost never pick up on Unionists doing it. I mean, pick your newspaper and go. Pick your Liberal Democrat and go. Pick your Unionist poster and go. When this happens, you have nothing to say. But when Wings, or any independence supporter does the same thing, then hell hath no fury. Double standards, if we're being charitable. Concern trolling and Unionism, if we're being accurate.

4. Will we be leaving the EU at any point? No.

[Ad Lib]

1. The credibility of Scheffer? Remember when he was a know nothing criminal lawyer who knew nothing about international law, and was just some guy from a no-mark American University? Man that rebounded on you two!

2. So essentially, "evidence please", and "be very specific" is no longer a requirement? I'll remember that next time you have one of your Unionist hissy fits demanding precise evidence. Double standards at work again I see.

3. Again, you almost never pick up on Unionists doing it. I mean, pick your newspaper and go. Pick your Liberal Democrat and go. Pick your Unionist poster and go. When this happens, you have nothing to say. But when Wings, or any independence supporter does the same thing, then hell hath no fury. Double standards, if we're being charitable. Concern trolling and Unionism, if we're being accurate.

4. Will we be leaving the EU at any point? No.

1. He is an international criminal lawyer. He knows about war crimes (amusingly per the other thread, something you don't understand properly). No one said he didn't have experience in "international law"; merely that his experience was in a field wholly unrelated to the succession of states and the international legal personality of sovereign states.

2. Ask ThatBoyRonaldo if Wings uttered transphobic comments on Twitter. I'm not lying.

3. The Unionist newspapers are largely inoffensive and I can largely avoid their scarestories by just not reading them. Wings on the other hand is thrust upon me every time I open this thread. Also you'll recall I recently brought up a story in the Times relating to the Hadron collider which I took the piss out of.

4. Almost certainly not. But contrary to the mistruths from Wings, an agreement will need to be reached to ensure that this is the case, and that agreement does not yet exist.

[xbl]

1. He is an international criminal lawyer. He knows about war crimes (amusingly per the other thread, something you don't understand properly). No one said he didn't have experience in "international law"; merely that his experience was in a field wholly unrelated to the succession of states and the international legal personality of sovereign states.

2. Ask ThatBoyRonaldo if Wings uttered transphobic comments on Twitter. I'm not lying.

3. The Unionist newspapers are largely inoffensive and I can largely avoid their scarestories by just not reading them. Wings on the other hand is thrust upon me every time I open this thread. Also you'll recall I recently brought up a story in the Times relating to the Hadron collider which I took the piss out of.

4. Almost certainly not. But contrary to the mistruths from Wings, an agreement will need to be reached to ensure that this is the case, and that agreement does not yet exist.

1. Funny how he was being derided as a nobody by yourself and HB originally until the facts emerged. He has a hell of a lot more credibility than you two.

2. I don't care what TBR says. I've read nothing on the Wings page about any of his comments.

3. Would that be that you consider them "inoffensive" because you agree with most of them? Do you enjoy being told that we're too wee and too poor? That Michael Moore believes his constituency shares a border with Scotland? That we can only be safe if we stay in the glorious Union? They offend me far more than wings. Oh, and they are far more prevalent!

4. We're not going to be leaving the EU.

[Ad Lib]

1. Funny how he was being derided as a nobody by yourself and HB originally until the facts emerged. He has a hell of a lot more credibility than you two.

2. I don't care what TBR says. I've read nothing on the Wings page about any of his comments.

3. Would that be that you consider them "inoffensive" because you agree with most of them? Do you enjoy being told that we're too wee and too poor? That Michael Moore believes his constituency shares a border with Scotland? That we can only be safe if we stay in the glorious Union? They offend me far more than wings. Oh, and they are far more prevalent!

4. We're not going to be leaving the EU.

1. He is a nobody in terms of international law insofar as what it has to say on the succession of sovereign states. Honestly, this is like saying that a microbiologist has an important contribution to make to quantum physics because they both deal with small things.

2. Then perhaps you should.

3. No, I consider them inoffensive because they don't go around swearing at everyone who disagrees with them, don't persistently lampoon with more passive aggression than a menopausal woman on the warpath, because I don't need to be told that we're too wee and too poor (mostly because that's often not what they're actually saying but mainly because 'I don't read their comment at all). I don't find Michael Moore's comments "offensive". I find them amusing as a faux-pas reinforcing a Westminster-centric psyche among our political leaders. And they're not more prevalent on this thread, which what I use to get my news on the referendum.

4. I didn't say we were.

[Enigma]

1. He isn't credible.

1. He is.

1. No he isn't.

1. Yes he is.

1. No he's not.

[nifty shade of grey]

Yet again this thread degenerates into a multi-page argument about who said what, and an attack on whichever source of info a nationalist has quoted. Wings Over Scotland doesn't count because the author is biased and apparently transphobic. Newsnet doesn't count because they're a bunch of nats. Panelbase doesn't count because their polling methods are flawed. Any academic or legal expert who says anything that agrees with Yes Scotland or the SNP is attacked and ridiculed because they're qualified in a different branch of law to the subject we're discussing them in now, or some other pish. It's all attacks on the person or source to deflect attention away from what they said.

Here's a positive case for independence. If you disagree, how about challenging what the document says instead of going after the author?

http://s3.spanglefish.com/s/26697/documents/faqs/scottish-indy-faq.pdf

[Ad Lib]

I don't really care what Yes Scotland's positive case for independence is. I have my own case.

[buffythemeadowslayer]

Yes , frrrrreeeeeddddooooommmm !!!!!

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

I don't really care what Yes Scotland's positive case for independence is. I have my own case.

Pray tell.

[Ad Lib]

Pray tell.

I can do you one better. Horse's mouth stuff. http://lylibertine.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/the-case-for-scottish-independence-devolution-has-failed-time-to-try-something-else/

[Heidthebaw]

Interesting read Ad Lib. It's a pity the Lib Dems leadership don't see it that way. I feel the party is toast as it stands regardless if it'll be a independent scottish election or otherwise in 2016. I think the leadership are way out of line with party members. Certainly the ones I know, regardless of their reasons for voting YES. TBF most of my LIbber friends are to the left of the party leadership anyway.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Interesting read Ad Lib. It's a pity the Lib Dems leadership don't see it that way. I feel the party is toast as it stands regardless if it'll be a independent scottish election or otherwise in 2016. I think the leadership are way out of line with party members. Certainly the ones I know, regardless of their reasons for voting YES. TBF most of my LIbber friends are to the left of the party leadership anyway.

This.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

I can do you one better. Horse's mouth stuff. http://lylibertine.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/the-case-for-scottish-independence-devolution-has-failed-time-to-try-something-else/

Some very good points in there, as said though this is worlds apart from how the leadership feel about the matter, Michael Moore and Danny Alexander are an embarrassment IMO.

[H_B]

Remember when you said he was a nobody?

Remember when you said he didn't even work with international law?

Remember when you said he had never done anything relevant to Scotland?

Remember when you said you knew more about international law than him?

No, of course you don't. Much like your fellow Unionists, I'm simply going to laugh at your levels of fail.

So that will be an 'I have no idea and am miles out of my depth here so i will post some smiley faces and run a mile from the substance'

Pretty much all you do on this thread.

[H_B]

And david sheffer is a criminal lawyer.

Which is why he was shoved back in his box by the actual foremost authority on state succession. James Crawford.

[H_B]

Also can you please supply evidence for all of those Remember.. claims please. This should be good.

Im happy with the first one. I definitelt said he is a nobody and a clueless moron. Happy to stand by that. The rest are utter rubbish though.

I fully expect you to refuse, bluster.. then ask Reynard for pension figures tomorrow.

[barrysnotter]

So that will be an 'I have no idea and am miles out of my depth here so i will post some smiley faces and run a mile from the substance'

Pretty much all you do on this thread.

Seems to the way of things with XBL these days. Very unconvincing.

[xbl]

Also can you please supply evidence for all of those Remember.. claims please. This should be good. Im happy with the first one. I definitelt said he is a nobody and a clueless moron. Happy to stand by that. The rest are utter rubbish though. I fully expect you to refuse, bluster.. then ask Reynard for pension figures tomorrow.

Make claim.

Get owned.

Hide.

Wait.

Come back months later and make same claim again.

Yep. Your usual. And how do you expect evidence from a long deleted thread? Time machine?

[nifty shade of grey]

I can do you one better. Horse's mouth stuff. http://lylibertine.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/the-case-for-scottish-independence-devolution-has-failed-time-to-try-something-else/

Interesting stuff, AdLib. Looks like XBL was wrong with those accusations of you being a unionist! Can we have more posts like this from you please?

I particularly liked the independence poll at the end - currently standing at 542 responses, with 78.04% in favour! Woohoo!

Pity we can't compare that to recent polls as the question is different (would you vote for Scottish independence?) and the choices are YES , no , and "prefer more devolution" (an option not on the ballot papers, despite unionist efforts to convince us that's what a no vote would give us). Probably safe to say that the majority of participants are Liberal Youth, so not an accurate cross section of society either. Still, I only read that poll today, and as I type this I'm the last person to vote in it. That makes it current, so I'm claiming this as momentum and a massive swing towards Yes.

Edited to correct the random text sizes.