Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote?

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I can't help it if Im capable of seeing what people are really saying. And that is what they are saying. They might not "let" us use our own currency, and our sea border is "up for grabs".

Your Scotch Unionists are establishing a negotiating position, just as the Scots are. However you seem to swallow every unionist lie blindly and accept their position, while refusing to allow the yes campaign to also do the exact same. Breathtaking double standards.

Nope. Still no engagement with the substance of 7500. And some nice old mistruths thrown into the mix about what other people are saying. So many straw men it's like a crow exclusion zone on this field.

I don't "swallow unionist lies" (name them. Be very specific). I don't accept "their" positions either (I disagree with a lot off them, and on many issues they don't even HAVE a common position). I just don't believe that either side is entitled to its own facts. Opinions, sure. Facts, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you seem to believe that your Unionists are entitled to say what they want without criticism, but that the Yes campaign have to be held to entirely different and false standards.

All your flowery words simply serve as decoration for the substance. The Unionists contradict themselves almost daily, and yet you swallow every word. Embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you seem to believe that your Unionists are entitled to say what they want without criticism

Going to have to ask for some evidence for this, champ.

but that the Yes campaign have to be held to entirely different and false standards.

On the contrary. I set high standards for everyone. It's manifestly obvious that Better Together and the Unionist parties frequently fall short of it. I just won't let you pretend that YesScotland and the SNP somehow meet those same said standards.

All your flowery words simply serve as decoration for the substance. The Unionists contradict themselves almost daily, and yet you swallow every word. Embarrassing.

Again, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence, champ.

Engage with the substance of post 7500. Please explain why, given what I said in that post, you still think that the right to issue currency and the right to be a member of an international organisation are "assets" that you can buy and sell at will rather than state-specific, and/or why saying that Scotland would not have automatic EU membership or be able to force rUK to share a currency that this in any way amounts to saying "Scotland gets none of the assets". Do it, or issue an unqualified and grovelling apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far from it, plenty out there that are undecided. In fact, the 'silent majority' are undecided, it's natural to have questions, concerns and even fears about an independent Scotland.

It's up to us to answer those questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to have to ask for some evidence for this, champ.

On the contrary. I set high standards for everyone. It's manifestly obvious that Better Together and the Unionist parties frequently fall short of it. I just won't let you pretend that YesScotland and the SNP somehow meet those same said standards.

Again, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence, champ.

Engage with the substance of post 7500. Please explain why, given what I said in that post, you still think that the right to issue currency and the right to be a member of an international organisation are "assets" that you can buy and sell at will rather than state-specific, and/or why saying that Scotland would not have automatic EU membership or be able to force rUK to share a currency that this in any way amounts to saying "Scotland gets none of the assets". Do it, or issue an unqualified and grovelling apology.

As I said, I am capable of understanding what people are really saying. When you whinge abour "engaging with the substance", I am. There is no substance to your post to engage with apart from *some* of our sea and none of the assets, share of the liabilities. All of your flowery language and lawyeresque deflection won't work on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen

Anyone who disagrees with you = Unionist

Cracking logic btw.

To be fair, I don't really call him a Unionist. A pathetic apologist yes, a wannabe lawyer with an atrocious posting a style yes, obsessed with trying to undermine the yes campaign yes, but not a unionist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I don't really call him a Unionist. A pathetic apologist yes, a wannabe lawyer with an atrocious posting a style yes, obsessed with trying to undermine the yes campaign yes, but not a unionist!

I wouldn't say that he is trying to undermine the yes campaign, only asking the questions so that the BT campaign doesn't have to. From the yes perspective, it's better to hear what is going wrong from within rather than hearing it from the opponents.

It's like watching a football player that's underperforming. You don't keep telling them that he's doing ok, you point out where he is going wrong and how they can improve themselves.

He may go on a bit in his posts, but if I doubt he'd be doing it if it wasn't a necessity.

Edited by the jambo-rocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that he is trying to undermine the yes campaign, only asking the questions so that the BT campaign doesn't have to. From the yes perspective, it's better to hear what is going wrong from within rather than hearing it from the opponents.

He may go on a bit in his posts, but if I doubt he'd be doing it if it wasn't a necessity.

There is a line though, isn't there? There is being a "critical friend", and then there is what Ad Lib does. Incidentally, regarding "engaging with the substance", I was once asked to provide a specific example of the British Government saying something. So I provided an article containing a quote from a "senior government minister". His response? Handwaving and "oh, that means it was made up". Of course, I don't think he said that directly. No, I think it took 20 more paragraphs.

But lets take currency. The polls show that a majority want to keep the pound, the SNP have long said that they will be keeping the pound immediately after independence, all practical sense says that keeping the pound on day one makes sense, and even Alistair Darling said (before reversing his position months later) that keeping the pound is "desirable" and "logical". Ad Lib says? We should launch a brand new currency, and advocates a strategy that would cause considerable damage to the Yes campaign (reversing a position the SNP have held for years and years), taking a minority view, leaving the SNP open to accusations of U-Turns, and completely failing to stop No Campaign attacks. It is clearly an insane view, and in my view goes beyond the remit of "critical friend".

Oh, and by "going on a bit", do you mean "borderline unreadable"? Because I am fairly literate, and even I often skim over his posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which in keeping with this thread means that he will disappear for a while and come back with "Anyway, we've been told we are getting none of the assets, so why SHOULD we take on the debt" in a couple of days time.

Predictable as it is pointless. I guess a sign that this thread has pretty much played itself out at this stage.

There is no substance to your post to engage with apart from *some* of our sea and none of the assets, share of the liabilities.

Mmmm, yep!

Quelle surprise! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, yep!

Quelle surprise! :lol:

It doesn't make it any less accurate though, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make it any less accurate though, does it?

You couldn't be less accurate. As you know.

The fact you keep repeating this ludicrous canard, even skipping past several posts where the government have said there will have to be an equitable split of assets and liabilities, just makes you a figure of ridicule on the thread.

I'm not sure why you are doing it. Is it for a bet or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make it any less accurate though, does it?

Well yes, it does - your tactics here are to rubbish anything that you don't like as opposed to being able to disprove, or to jump on it as FACT when the one thing we can be sure of is that everything is up for grabs.

I am surprised that the Yes campaign isn't all over the uncertainties being presented by Westminster at the moment - it seems to me that NO are right to highlight concerns, but are scared shitless about the sheer uncertainty of staying in the EU etc. and why on earth Yes isn't willing to say "You know what? We're offering staying in or being pegged to the pound, staying in the EU, and negotiating debts and assets, where the hell is the certainty that Better Together are claiming?" That would be constructive, accurate and whether you agree with it or not, honest. It would also take this unearned continuity that the NO campaign are playing on and show it up for the basket of half truths and downright myths that it is.

Now, you don't do this. You utterly fail to acknowledge that there will be major negotiations whatever the outcome, because we're entering pretty much unknown territory here - the breakup of a leading Western nation into its constituent parts. Of course there will be uncertainty, and of course it may be better or worse in the short term. Where Yes has ALL the cards is that it has a much clearer vision for what the next 10-20 years will bring, where No has nothing - literally nothing - to contrast that with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, it does - your tactics here are to rubbish anything that you don't like as opposed to being able to disprove, or to jump on it as FACT when the one thing we can be sure of is that everything is up for grabs.

Now, you don't do this. You utterly fail to acknowledge that there will be major negotiations whatever the outcome, because we're entering pretty much unknown territory here - the breakup of a leading Western nation into its constituent parts. Of course there will be uncertainty, and of course it may be better or worse in the short term. Where Yes has ALL the cards is that it has a much clearer vision for what the next 10-20 years will bring, where No has nothing - literally nothing - to contrast that with.

Better watch out. Ad Lib will be on your case for using the term "up for grabs".

If anything I am the one person on here who understands how negotiations work. Ad Lib would like us to roll over and accept whatever scraps Michael Moore offers us, the likes of Reynard and HB cheer on anything that looks like Scotland will get less, whereas I understand that both sides need to establish a negotiating position. You can throw many things at me, but not that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a line though, isn't there? There is being a "critical friend", and then there is what Ad Lib does. Incidentally, regarding "engaging with the substance", I was once asked to provide a specific example of the British Government saying something. So I provided an article containing a quote from a "senior government minister". His response? Handwaving and "oh, that means it was made up". Of course, I don't think he said that directly. No, I think it took 20 more paragraphs.

I asked you to provide specific evidence of a claim that a specific person had said something, and you gave me a news article with an unnamed source being quoted as saying something. I asked you to try harder and produce something that was actually said by that actual person, that wasn't so weasily attributed as to have clearly been made up whilst avoiding defamation laws. You didn't.

But lets take currency. The polls show that a majority want to keep the pound, the SNP have long said that they will be keeping the pound immediately after independence, all practical sense says that keeping the pound on day one makes sense, and even Alistair Darling said (before reversing his position months later) that keeping the pound is "desirable" and "logical". Ad Lib says? We should launch a brand new currency, and advocates a strategy that would cause considerable damage to the Yes campaign (reversing a position the SNP have held for years and years), taking a minority view, leaving the SNP open to accusations of U-Turns, and completely failing to stop No Campaign attacks. It is clearly an insane view, and in my view goes beyond the remit of "critical friend".

I've provided countless reasons why your analysis is wrong on this, and you just keep shouting the same slogans back at me. Other independence-minded people have expressed agreement with me, and when THEY said it, you ended up umming and awing and saying that you didn't really disagree with much of what they were saying. I provided you with a detailed structural explanation why simply shouting "WE WILL KEEP THE POUND" doesn't answer the actual questions Better Together are asking the Yes campaign and the SNP, or indeed the actual questions about currency which matter. The questions which don't matter are "how will it be denominated" or "will it be called the pound"; they're "will we have a currency union with a central bank operating as a treaty organisation" or "will we have a central bank as an appendage of another state" and "what will we do if the UK doesn't consent to a shared central bank" and "who will be our lender of last resort" and "what will our contingency plan be on day one. It's not "will we use the pound?" it's "under what terms will we use the pound". These are legitimate questions and anyone who seeks to deny their relevance to the exercise of sovereign power in a modern liberal capitalist democracy is doing it wrong.

Oh, and by "going on a bit", do you mean "borderline unreadable"? Because I am fairly literate, and even I often skim over his posts.

Still no answer to post 7500. Engage with the substance of the difference between things which are assets and things which are not assets or issue a grovelling and unqualified apology and vow never again to use the wholly incorrect term "none of the assets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I must have missed this at the time (just over a year ago) but it goes a good way to showing what senior Tory members think is in the best interest of Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/30/boris-spending-london-economic-woes

Similar to Lord Lawson who was recently railing against the EU position of polycentric development because it would hurt London's ability to run roughshod over smaller economic bases.

EDIT: I understand the desire to have more concrete answers on currency, Ad Lib, but unless Westminster drop the "We won't prenegotiate independence" line; there's nothing the Yes campaign can do to properly answer this.

Edited by Mr.Bojangles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no answer to post 7500. Engage with the substance of the difference between things which are assets and things which are not assets or issue a grovelling and unqualified apology and vow never again to use the wholly incorrect term "none of the assets".

I don't even know what post 7500 is. If it was one of your 200 paragraph epics, then I probably didn't read it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, posted that up yesterday. Thats why the Unionists and Apologists are lining up to deflect attention away from it!

On the contrary, I would encourage everyone to read into this as much as possible. Because much like pretty much every other utterance on questions of law in relation to Scottish independence and referendums, Matt Qvortrup has been found spectacularly wanting, so much so that even prominent Nationalist bloggers have torn his shit to shreds. I would strongly encourage people to read up on his academic credentials before buying The Sun's claim that he is a "lawyer" (he did an MA in history and politics and a PhD in political science). I want everyone to read as much into him and this as possible because it does more damage to these zombie arguments than anyone else could.

ETA: you see, sane nationalists recognise that whilst they are entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to their own facts. Something you don't understand.

Better watch out. Ad Lib will be on your case for using the term "up for grabs".If anything I am the one person on here who understands how negotiations work. Ad Lib would like us to roll over and accept whatever scraps Michael Moore offers us, the likes of Reynard and HB cheer on anything that looks like Scotland will get less, whereas I understand that both sides need to establish a negotiating position. You can throw many things at me, but not that.

The use of up-for-grabs is misleading, though in the technical sense not necessarily wrong. There are hard outer limits to what you can negotiate, and state-specific membership of organisations is beyond that hard line. Everything else will be negotiated within the realms of what the two sides can agree is fair and equitable in all the circumstances, assuming they both negotiate in good faith. Edited by Ad Lib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...