~~~ Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Simple question: if someone told you there were "over 8300 people" at an event, would you think "they mean 20000-30000 people were at that event" or would you think "they mean a figure somewhere between 8300 and [e.g.] 10000, were at that event." What is your instinct? Just accept it. Police said around 20/30 thousand attended the march Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 This is the thing though, nifty. I've never said it was unequivocally and incontestably the case that she lied. I said she was either a liar or incompetent and that I make the judgment, from the evidence, that she is a liar. We should not presume good faith in politicians or advisers without at least first knowing who those advisers are and what the political motives are of those uttering it. It seems pretty clear to me that Sturgeon made the calculated judgment to make the incorrect claim that Scotland would "automatically" inherit EU membership, safe in the knowledge that if challenged on it she could muddy the waters by talking about the political context of whether a fresh application is likely to be successful and on what terms. This is because most people don't have legal training, and the extent of their engagement and interest in the question is only the broad political consequences and not the ugly nuts and bolts of how we get there. To lawyers, this question is more important, because it frames the negotiations that take place with the rest of the Commission. Under an "automatic membership" reading, not even the rebate is up for discussion, and the EU simply has an administrative task of allotting seats and voting rights to reflect the new member-state situation. Under a fresh application, these matters are still dealt with, but so are the terms of membership, the default position of which is substantially different from that presently enjoyed by Scotland as a constituent part of the UK. This isn't to say that the same conditions will not be substantively replicated, but to do so becomes a challenge and a central part of the negotiations in that scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Just accept it. Police said around 20/30 thousand attended the march I do accept it, you moron. That isn't the issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I do accept it, you moron. That isn't the issue here. Now now, no need for that. If it's accepting, why are you still crying about it, in fact don't answer that, I really don't care. Move on. Do us all a favour and stop boring us to tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Simple question: if someone told you there were "over 8300 people" at an event, would you think "they mean 20000-30000 people were at that event" or would you think "they mean a figure somewhere between 8300 and [e.g.] 10000, were at that event." What is your instinct? I'd certainly think the latter, but when dealing with a contentious issue I'd probably be a lot more careful about quoting people. Then again, I don't give a free pass to Unionists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Does anyone think that a Conservative/UKIP coalition would try to remove powers from Holyrood or is that too far fetched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Does anyone think that a Conservative/UKIP coalition would try to remove powers from Holyrood or is that too far fetched? I reckon that would lead to a 2nd referendum and independence. Pronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Does anyone think that a Conservative/UKIP coalition would try to remove powers from Holyrood or is that too far fetched? Imagine voting No and then that were to happen. It would be the nine months from hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Only the Unionists would somehow hold the first minister of Scotland equivalent to a London back bench nobody from the opposition. Telling, isn't it? The leader of the part of the UK that wants to leave asks for a public debate with the leader of the UK and is offered a debate with someone who has the responsibility for representing 66,000 out of 60,000,000 and that is deemed acceptable by the leader of the UK. Is this really what is going on in this union? I think that the First Minister should at least get to debate with the representative of the UKCS which is surely more representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I'd certainly think the latter, but when dealing with a contentious issue I'd probably be a lot more careful about quoting people. Then again, I don't give a free pass to Unionists. Are you suggesting that Police Scotland are Unionists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The words "stop lying" refer to the accusation that " accept the Unionist figure". There was no "Unionist" figure. "The police" did give a figure in the region of 8300. They later revised that figure. The police gave a figure of over 8300. You changed it to "just over", and "circa" before being caught out. And as was made clear at the time, those of us who were there KNEW it was well over 8300. You accepted what the Unionists said without question and ignored those of us on the independence side. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Are you suggesting that Police Scotland are Unionists? BBC are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I reckon that would lead to a 2nd referendum and independence. Pronto Imagine voting No and then that were to happen. It would be the nine months from hell. It's something that has really began to scare me recently. Andy Burnham's comments the other day has played on me a bit. The average voter in England won't have a proper understanding about how our devolution works. They will see us as living off of them and not understand that we are taxed a bit more so pay for our services with our own money. Retaliating against Scotland could bring in a percentage of the uninformed vote greater than the whole Scottish population itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 If that's not what people like xbl are saying, then precisely what was the point of this vanity exercise that drew 8000 or so people away from Scotland's football grounds on a Saturday afternoon? The organisers, in concert with the police closed the hill, that suggests a large crowd, much larger than last years 10,000. Secondly, the police quote in the BBC aritcle is without context, it merely says that there were 8000+ on the march, it doesn't say if that was at the beginning of the march, the end of the march or the final total for everyone at the rally. The organisers have since put the figure at 20,000. Such a transparant lie would not serve the Yes campaign at all: So why tell it. Aha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Ok, I'll bite - how are Scots taxed more than those down south? As for a Conservative/UKIP coalition removing powers, that isn't going to happen for two reasons: 1) there is no way these parties will form a coalition, and UKIP will be lucky to get a seat. 2) Both those parties are pro-Union and bright enough to know doing so would be suicidal to their cause and accelerate demand for independence from those happy with the status quo or previously undecided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 It's something that has really began to scare me recently. Andy Burnham's comments the other day has played on me a bit. The average voter in England won't have a proper understanding about how our devolution works. They will see us as living off of them and not understand that we are taxed a bit more so pay for our services with our own money. Retaliating against Scotland could bring in a percentage of the uninformed vote greater than the whole Scottish population itself. Well this is in itself a reason to vote Yes. I think a lot of No voters are gambling on the basis that Labour will win the next General Election and so we won't have to worry about the Tories even if we vote No. However, this obviously won't be permanent and the Tories will eventually get back into office, whether that is 5, 10 or 15 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 It's something that has really began to scare me recently Why would it scare anyone? If a UK government decided to strip powers from a populace who supported the Union, it's a pretty foregone conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Ok, I'll bite - how are Scots taxed more than those down south? As for a Conservative/UKIP coalition removing powers, that isn't going to happen for two reasons: 1) there is no way these parties will form a coalition, and UKIP will be lucky to get a seat.o 2) Both those parties are pro-Union and bright enough tokknow doing so would be suicidal. Scotland put in 9.9% of UK taxes and received 9.3% of UK spending over 2011-12 and that's not a debated fact. Maybe I phrased it wrong and should have said Scotland pays more into the union in taxation (instead of Scots alone). UKIP are polling highly enough to get more seats than the Lib Dems in the next election and are projected to be the third party by most polls. I'd agree with your last point but it is in the UKIP and BNP manifesto to scrap the Scottish parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 8 months of a 6-year war is a liberal interpretation of the word "much". Possibly. But you've just taken Lichtgilphead's number for Saughton into account. He also did a stretch in the Bar-L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Possibly. But you've just taken Lichtgilphead's number for Saughton into account. He also did a stretch in the Bar-L. And yet again, you still won't just come out and say what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.