Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by idlehands
Raw
Avatar of idlehands

idlehands heartless

Member Seen 1 yr ago

Sable said any new government is ripe for mismanagement.




Scotland will probably manage just fine and I doubt they will cut themselves off from England completely, likely they'll have a Commonwealth relationship. Of course, that's just speculation on my part I could be completely wrong.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

I'm so not willing to enter into an endless derpbate on this, so this will be my first and last post. However, I'd ask anyone with a genuine interest in the independence debate or referendum to give this a read, despite it being quite the bloody essay.

Let me put it this way: you are vastly oversimplifying the economic ramifications and situation and are subjectively selecting statistics to bolster your argument, which is fair enough because that's all the Yes campaign is based on. Vastly oversimplifying things and encouraging people not to think, not to consider the negatives, but to simply cast aside all doubt because to do otherwise is to (insert pithy slogan about optimism versus pessimism here.) Every time a problem is raised with independence, it's discarded as "London-based bias" or as pessimism. The Yes campaign actively encourages people to stop thinking, to just stick their heads in the sand and trust the unsubstantiated words of the campaign leaders, which is why I fucking abhor it. They make claims that they cannot back up, assuring people that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU and keep the Sterling Pound before they actually knew whether they could do those things - it turns out that in these cases, they can, but they made these claims before that was ever known and confirmed. They lie, but that's expected from politicians - what unnerves and sickens me is the way they encourage lack of thought and consideration, the way they encourage regurgitating pithy slogans and grossly misrepresented statistics as a method of argument. They do not persuade by arguing against the opposition and having stronger arguments; they do all they can to censor the opposing arguments.

There's no legitimate economic argument on either side. It's pretty much admitted that it's way, way too complicated a situation for anybody to really, conclusively make sense of what the hell will happen. The only way to argue it economically is to oversimplify and reduce it to statistics that don't reflect the current picture accurately and which can't, by their very nature, reflect what it will be like in future. There's a reason that the white paper on Scottish independence originally produced by the SNP (the Yes campaign leaders) only had a single page addressing the economic aspects of independence out of 650. One six-hundred-and-fiftieth of the document meant to detail the way an independent Scotland will run, that's apparently all they had to say to convincingly lay out an economic plan for the country's future.
So let's dispense with the economic arguments. They're horseshit and everyone knows it. The battleground, in my view, must be the political theory - ideas of self-determination, of a separate and distinct culture that requires a different sort of leadership, and so on. On that note, I'd like to pick a bone with something you said. "Literal inability to actually produce an effective change in any general election."
The question I pose to you is this: why in the name of fuck should it be Scotland's votes that tip the balance one way or the other in terms of which party gets in? That makes no sense. Let me phrase it this way: in court, a jury has an even number of members. This seems counter-intuitive - surely, logically, you'd have an odd number so that there cannot be a "tie" in the votes and therefore no decision. The reason they do this is because in the case of a jury with an odd number of members, it's possible for the entire decision to rest on one person. If there are an equal number voting either way but for the leftover one, it is actually only their individual decision that affects the outcome. It is the same with Scotland. The constituencies in Scotland are not special or different from those in the rest of the UK. To draw a barrier between the constituencies in Scotland and those without is theoretically completely arbitrary anyway considering this equality (a constituency on one side is the same as one on the other), but ignoring that - if Scottish constituencies' votes were to be the ones that decided the party in power one way or the other more than simply occasionally, as it currently is, it would be completely unbalanced, for only Scottish votes one way or the other would decide the party in power for the whole UK. By that argument, every single area of the country, every county, should become an independent state, because they do not influence the vote of the whole country one way or the other. This argument presupposes special treatment for Scotland/Scottish constituencies.
And this is, really, a general trend. Scotland seems to want all the rights and benefits of being in the UK without any of the responsibilities and negatives. They wanted to keep a British military, they want to keep the strong British currency and join in a currency union with the rest of the UK (therefore attempting to force the rest of the UK to bail them out if independence doesn't work out for them), and so on. They constantly complain about having to (apparently) pay more into the UK than they get out, begrudging anything they have to give back for the benefits of being part of the union. They don't want independence from the UK, they want independence from any responsibility to give as much as they take. In my view, the Yes campaign's "cherry picking" of the bits they want from the rest of the UK and chucking away anything that is not purely for the benefit of Scotland is fucking appalling. Their expectation and demand that the rest of the UK be responsible for them (in particular the demand for a currency union) while not giving a fig about helping the rest of the UK is pretty damn despicable.
And finally, let's not forget this fact: as much as they whine about how they're oppressed, treated as underdogs, not given enough special snowflake treatment, those who are pro-independence completely forget that, in actuality, the Scottish voter actually has more power over the citizen of the rest of the UK rather than vice versa. Thanks to the devolved parliamentary powers, there are many areas in which a vote from someone in England, Wales, or N. Ireland has little to no effect on Scottish policy, those policies affecting those residing in Scotland. However, Scottish voters still have exactly as much weight in Westminster as any English voter - and, therefore, every Scottish vote holds just as much power over someone living in, say, England, as does the vote of someone actually living in England. And you know what? You don't hear them bitching about it.

I could go on, but I think my opinions have largely been made clear. I was born and raised in England between the ages of 3 and 10. I've lived in Scotland since then, meaning I've lived in Scotland far longer. But more and more, I am forced, for the first time in my life, to start regarding myself as "English" rather than "British". The Scottish have such a fucking fetish for being the victim, milking it for all it's worth, that they automatically label me in a way I never labelled myself. And when everyone around you is constantly telling you you're different, your self-identity is banned, that you are English and that you are not allowed to consider yourself anything else but English, eventually you're forced to believe them, even if you turn it on its head and wear it as a badge of pride rather than a mark of shame. This vote is bringing out the worst in the Scottish people.

PS: Also, quoting a UKIP MP? Low blow, dude. Low blow. I think it's preeetttyyy hard to try to pass off UKIP's views as those held by the rest of the UK and by Westminster as a whole.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

idlehands said
Scotland will probably manage just fine and I doubt they will cut themselves off from England completely, likely they'll have a Commonwealth relationship. Of course, that's just speculation on my part I could be completely wrong.


And I think a good question is: why should they be allowed to, as you say, not cut off completely? They act as if they have the power to decide what they do and don't want, to cherry pick, to keep benefits and rid themselves of negatives, with impunity. It doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way. Why should the rest of the UK be stuck supporting Scotland if they want to prance off into the sunset and only benefit themselves? Fuck that noise.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Sable said
Concerning the production potential, are you concerned that foreign investors would be leery of investing the capital required to develop those potential energy sectors? If I were a Scot I think this would be a big concern for me. Independent Scotland isn't an emergent West African coastal state ravaged by war, not by a long shot, but any new government is ripe for mismanagement.


Let's throw this into context.

Right now we're underepresented by our current government.

They can't promise any new powers (or more so won't).

They're planning on destabilizing the NHS.

There's mention of potentially trying to take powers away from us.

Their main argument in the general election is "What about the pound?" in which they sneakily ignored the part in which they mentioned that no laws exist that can actually stop us using the pound.

If I could vote for england and scotland to remain the same but to uplift Westminster, I would. This campaign is less to do with actual nationalism, and more to do with having a likeminded, proportionally realistic governing body over a likeminded voting population, with a new government that can be openly "clean slated" moulded by it's will.

As for halo, I get this is pretty emotional for you. I just would try and refrain from putting too emotion into the argument. Ofcourse things get turned into bitesized bits of information for the scalability of mass media consumption. I won't argue that both sides keep the complexity of the situation, however if you were to look at it in the simplistic view, one states "oppertunity", the other states "it's complicated so it might fuck up". Scotland is one of the few countries in the world that has so much going for it as it is, any new government has teething problems, but it's also a risk to stay in the UK.

And, for UKIP, they are still the largest growing political party in the UK, mainly in england.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Sable
Raw
Avatar of Sable

Sable

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

scribz said
Let's throw this into context.Right now we're underepresented by our current government. They can't promise any new powers (or more so won't).They're planning on destabilizing the NHS. There's mention of potentially trying to take powers away from us.Their main argument in the general election is "What about the pound?" in which they sneakily ignored the part in which they mentioned that no laws exist that can actually stop us using the pound.


Well yeah, sure, that's all well and good, but are you concerned about the confidence foreign investors would have in your new country?
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by The Nexerus
Raw
Avatar of The Nexerus

The Nexerus Sui generis

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Halo said
I'm so not willing to enter into an endless derpbate on this, so this will be my first and last post.


Halo said
And I think a good question is: why should they be to, as you say, not cut off completely?


Liar.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

The Nexerus said
Liar.


It was a continuation of the first post, I just couldn't be arsed editing it in.
Nex used pointless pedantry!
Halo was not affected...
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Dervish
Raw
Avatar of Dervish

Dervish Let's get volatile

Member Seen 1 mo ago

Whatever happens, don't be a Quebec, Scotland. Halo's points about Scotland wanting all the perks of the UK without any of the responsibility is very, very familiar to every time Quebec bleats about wanting independence.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by The Nexerus
Raw
Avatar of The Nexerus

The Nexerus Sui generis

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Halo said
It was a continuation of the first post, I just couldn't be arsed editing it in.


Lazy.

Also, that makes a third.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Sable said
Well yeah, sure, that's all well and good, but are you concerned about the confidence foreign investors would have in your new country?


Again, that's an issue all countries have at first. But we've already got so much going for us that is currently being benefitted by most in westminister. Anyone in scotland who's educated in the subject won't for a second claim that oil will fix it all, but what it will do is supply us the transition funds to get through the first few years to create the industry required.

Scotland has more chance of becoming an impoverished nation under westminister than it does on it's own. To simplify this again, one end is talking about oppertunity while the other is saying "yeah but there's a potential risk". That exists with any drastic action, and the risk in this action is not disproportionately high. Especially once Westminister brings out their plan to having a joint economy, which they're only refusing as a part of a political move as of now.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Dervish said
Whatever happens, don't be a Quebec, Scotland. Halo's points about Scotland wanting all the perks of the UK without any of the responsibility is very, very familiar to every time Quebec bleats about wanting independence.


The perks we're speaking of are entirely ours by international law. If england was to refuse assets of the UK, they would equally have to let us off with the responsibility of those assets we're happy to take hold of, such as national debt. The argument that we're somehow "eating our cake and having it", isn't just simplified, it's wrong. For them to deny us this joint economy, would be as damaging to them as it would be to us. These threats, again, are political moves to keep us in the UK.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by The Nexerus
Raw
Avatar of The Nexerus

The Nexerus Sui generis

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

scribz said In terms of tax, we produce about 21.7% of the UK's tax spendings, which shows we subsidies the rest of the UK, despite being returned with a zeitgeist view that we're all "subsidy junkies" (to quote Lord Monckton, former UKIP MP) and are getting subsidized by England, people find this a little insulting.


Can you provide a source from 21.7%? I'm looking at a few different sources and they're all telling me that it's somewhere between 8.2% and 9.9%, so right where it ought to be in regards to population.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Sable
Raw
Avatar of Sable

Sable

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

scribz said
Again, that's an issue all countries have at first. But we've already got so much going for us that is currently being benefitted by most in westminister. Anyone in scotland who's educated in the subject won't for a second claim that oil will fix it all, but what it will do is supply us the transition funds to get through the first few years to create the industry required. Scotland has more chance of becoming an impoverished nation under westminister than it does on it's own. To simplify this again, one end is talking about oppertunity while the other is saying "yeah but there's a potential risk". That exists with any drastic action, and the risk in this action is not disproportionately high. Especially once Westminister brings out their plan to having a joint economy, which they're only refusing as a part of a political move as of now.


I don't think it's just a political move, and I think the risks are very real. If Scotland's economy tanks post-independence, I doubt anyone is going to want to tie themselves to its sinking economic ship. The EU already has one Greece.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by idlehands
Raw
Avatar of idlehands

idlehands heartless

Member Seen 1 yr ago

I hear the Scots are pretty frugal and good with money, I think it'll be ok.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

The Nexerus said
Can you provide a source from 21.7%? I'm looking at a few different sources and they're all telling me that it's somewhere between 8.2% and 9.9%, so right where it ought to be in regards to population.


Apologies, the source I was looking at was during the 1990's when we subsidized that amount, http://archive.today/5vZ6C. You're actually correct, it's a 9.1% average, which still shows we disproportionately subsidise. The reason this comment is such a hot spot in the argument is simply because it's been such a prevailing view down south that they subsidize us.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Sable
Raw
Avatar of Sable

Sable

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

idlehands said
I hear the Scots are pretty frugal and good with money, I think it'll be ok.


I'm an American. I have a natural skepticism toward claims that governments reflect their populations.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Sable said
I don't think it's just a political move, and I think the risks are very real. If Scotland's economy tanks post-independence, I doubt anyone is going to want to tie themselves to its sinking economic ship. The EU already has one Greece.


No, it's entirely a political move. The UK would be fucking themselves up if they did that. It's the same as the US and China in trade only to a smaller scale, no side would for a second want to remove something that's win-win for the both of them. Consider that Greece is more and more relying on tourism, which is entirely dependant on international wealth of the rest of Europe, their situation is very much different from us.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

Regretting my vow of silence more and more with everything you post. Jesus.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by scribz
Raw
OP

scribz

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

Halo said
Regretting my vow of silence more and more with everything you post. Jesus.


It's alright man, calm down. We're allowed to vote for independence <3

I think it's clear to say that, as an independent nation, we'll be just fine in the long run.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Sable
Raw
Avatar of Sable

Sable

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

scribz said
No, it's entirely a political move. The UK would be fucking themselves up if they did that. It's the same as the US and China in trade only to a smaller scale, no side would for a second want to remove something that's win-win for the both of them. Consider that Greece is more and more relying on tourism, which is entirely dependant on international wealth of the rest of Europe, their situation is very much different from us.


I mentioned Greece in the sense that if your economy tanks you won't have the safety net of the EU to support you. Not that you wouldn't get loans and such, but your EU membership would certainly be jeopardized, if not delayed, if Scotland can't compete economically. It wouldn't be fun.
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet