And I find it objectionable and insulting to be referred to as an ignorant, idiotic sheep who's wholly sold on the lies and spin of Westminster and the media. It's even more objectionable, though given an ironic twist, when it's followed by a clip from Putin's propaganda machine or some random bloke that nobody's ever heard of. It's not the unvarnished truth, at all. It's opinion and prediction, unless you're claiming that the Yes campaign had access to a working crystal ball. Independence would've thrown up an absolute ton of unpredictable variables. NSIS is simply of the opinion that they were presenting a best case scenario. I don't think that indicates that he's ignorant. The reason that I mentioned religious fanaticism is because I notice similar tactics and themes from debating with them. Starting with a desired conclusion and presenting any and all evidence, regardless of the quality of the source, that supports their case, while ignoring and disparaging any that doesn't. You seemed to be under the impression that a break from the UK would result in an improved political system in Scotland, while I didn't see any evidence that this would be the case. The likes of Murdoch and even the Russians seemed to be looking for a way to exploit it and we all know how the media works. Why would that change?
"Independence would've thrown up an absolute ton of unpredictable variables. NSIS is simply of the opinion that they were presenting a best case scenario. I don't think that indicates that he's ignorant." The scientist/statto within me thought the economic case should have been done on "what if" scenarios based on the key variables (currency and its exchange rate to Sterling, % of oil revenue ceded after independence etc, % of UK debt assumed etc) , and published the balance sheets for all of them, Methodology would have deemed the balance sheets sound. Domain experts could then argue over the credibility of which values for which variables. The electorate would have a rough idea of what they were looking at if things went certain ways.
You have still not explained why you think you are well informed. You need to seperate opinion from facts and that is what has not been done by most of the people I have debated with on this forum. Most are English and nearly all are very badly informed because that is the nature of the UK we live in. The Scots in this referendum have educated themselves and that is the difference. My intention, as I have said before was and is to bring this education to people in England who will not be aware unless people from Scotland tell them or people in England take the extra trouble of informing themselves of the REAL situation via the net. The difference is that we can deal with facts in this situation and not have to rely on beliefs. I am not conviced that that you are aware of the facts because your arguments are not based on any that you have presented. You express opinions on the facts I have presented without anything other than opinions. You present no FACTS. You can look these figures up just the same as we have but you don't do that you think it enough to express your opinion, it is not. FACT: Scotland is per capita MORE wealthy than the rUK. FACT: Scotland has a balance of trade surplus the rUK has a balance of trade deficit. FACT: Scotland spends more per capita than the rUK BUT it also raises more in per capita tax than the rUK. FACT Scotland subsidises the rUK NOT the other way around. All these FACTS are there for anyone to check out by looking at the government figures. All of these FACTS were reversed in the NO campaign, therefore turning them into lies. If you base your arguments on FACTS then let's talk, but if you base them on propaganda from the media and Westminster then I and 1.6 million Scots are just not interested.
I agree with you RDBD this was the weakest area of the YES campaign. A. because the agenda was set by the media and Better Together, and B. because we should have done as you suggest. We should also have presented a proper case for an Independent Scottish currency and not tried to argue about the currency union.
You posted tons of stuff on here yourself Spurf and whenever I went over any of the Yes campaigns claims I found flaws or spin, which I pointed out. Both sides were presenting a broken and biased opinion of what would happen, yet you were only ready to accept that one was. Any attempts to get you to show why the political landscape would suddenly change entirely have been met with dodges or obfuscation, just as above. The suggestion that anybody that agrees with you is well informed, intelligent and on the One True Path to enlightenment, whilst those who don't are heretics is just more of the same. Your claims that the Scottish are far better informed than the English about the facts may well be true, but they were the ones who voted against you.
Oh sorry! you wanted to know why I think the landscape will change on Scotland becoming Independent. An Independent Scotland at a stroke gets rid of the House of Lords and the first past the post system of electing a government. Two major changes that tend to maintain the staus quo in the UK. If you look at the current Scotland it is already very different from the rUK. Free prescriptions, free care for the elderly, free Univiersity education, a non privatised NHS, it's own Legal system, and it's own education system. Maintaining these at the present time is based on what Westminster sends back to Scotland from the money Scotland sends to Westminster. The YES and NO camps are quite different in nature. No consists of the wealthy and the big land owners worried about losing their positions and money. The over 65's who voted No by 73% to 27%. Off that 73% we believe that about 25% voted No because they were told by Labour party reps that they would lose their pensions and we would have no money. There are even examples of old folk stock piling food because of their worries about the YES vote. They were afraid! Another wedge voted No because of the Vow by the the 3 party leaders from Westminster. This Vow is already in pieces and if that is not delivered then expect another call for Independence. The YES camp is active the No camp is passive, democracy is rolling and politicised people are not going away, as much as Westminster would like them to. Finally Scotland IS a different country with different values, more left than rUK it is very clear on the ground that it would move in a different direction from the current UK. That of course is an opinion, but a very widely shared one in Scotland.
You seem to have overlooked two clear obstacles, Spurf. The first would be the options available at elections, which don't necessarily reflect the views of the electorate. If Scotland were independent, then the parties would swiftly change. Do New Labour or the Tories offer the majority of the UK what they're looking for? Of course not. The same could easily happen after a split. The second would be the media. If the country were as financially viable as you seem to believe and everything went well, then the Murdochs of this world would be straight in to exploit it. The dodgy old bastard had already been making noises about it before the referendum and I could only see that intensifying if he thought he could make a few quid. Most people don't vote based on what each party is promising, only on what they believe these people stand for. I can't see how that would change. The problem isn't Scotland being exploited by Westminster, it's the whole of the UK being exploited by a broken system. The whole thing's being dragged back towards the dark ages.
This will all end horribly sadly, with more civilians dead than anyone. I fail to see how you can attack a group that has no fixed sovereign country, official bases, offices, location etc etc... they're a bunch a twisted mercenary thugs who McCain met, funded and supplied weapons and vehicle to (see their nicely customised surplus US army spec Toyota pickups they all seem to be driving around) only a matter of months ago but seems to forget or blur that fact. The mainstream media also seems have a short memory as well. The whole situation is sorry tale that if unravelled would scare the crap out of most sane people. This image sums them up for me... which way is Mecca guys?
Right now we are getting to an area of agreement which is good, because what saddens me is that you and I are on the same side in so many areas and yet disagree in this crucial area of Scottish Independence. Two obstacles? no I think there are more, the 55% for a start. We have continued with political meetings up here despite the loss. Meetings that are even bigger than before the referemdum. People were first shocked by the result, some believe the result was rigged, and there are a number of stories in the media suggesting that. Many of us feel that's a red herring that we should not pursue. That aside there is an amazing determination to continue the struggle,again we now look at the 45% as a great achievement in the face of the onslaught from the Establishment. New parties yes we already working on it. It is likely that the Labour party will be mauled in the coming elections, they will not be forgiven for standing on the same platforms as the Tories. 40% of their voters voted YES and they are angry with the Labour Party and now want to destroy it. An Independent Scotland would have realigned and new parties, that is clear. The SNP is now the 3rd largest party in the UK bigger than the Liberal party and it's still growing at a rapid rate, now at 77,000 members I believe. There are strategy talks going on between the pro Independence parties, we will see what happens there. The media; again there are already moves being made to produce our own mainstream media and we have all the talent we need to do this. During the course of this campaign the people have taken power from the politicians and they are not minded to hand it back. The Common Weal is up and running and about to open its first 'Cafe' meeting place in Glasgow to be called 'Common' This has already been crowd funded and this is the first of a planned nationwide network across Scotland. The YES groups are keeping their websites active and are developing a unity stategy. The Greens who are much bigger in Scotland than England and possess a hugely effective leader in Patrick Harvie have exceeded the Liberals in membership as they too experience a huge growth in membership. It is not an exageration to say that there is a people revolution happening in Scotland and I have to say it is fantastic to be a part of it. 100% correct and my hope is that what is happening in Scotland will also happen in England and for that we need to harness the power of the social media to educate one another and stop eating the bullshit served up by Westminster.
This is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party: [video=youtube;0YBumQHPAeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU[/video] Or not...
After their genius move of invading Afghanistan so they could attack a group based out of Pakistan that were founded by a Saudi, it's amazing that whenever Bush or Obama has suggested invading one Middle Eastern country or another the first thing they hear isn't any other leader asking if they're sure they're invading the right country. It also has to be said that if the US think invading a country to rid it of al-Qu'eda or ISIS/IS/ISIL/whatever, does that mean we should've sent the Royal Navy across the Atlantic to bombard the Deep South in order to remove the Ku Klux Klan? It;s the exact same argument, yet mine sounds far-fetched - yet the other somehow gained credibility...but then again so did the notion that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Cassetteboy is a demon (his Apprentice mash-up is superb too) . There is a guy also out there who did mash-ups of UK TV cooks (Nigella etc) and turned them into utter porn filth.
I think Orwell summed up these repeated arguments to invade pretty well... "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
"I think Orwell summed up these repeated arguments to invade pretty well... "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." The Tao is more succinct : The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.
I'll raise you Marcus Aurelius: "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." I don't think he said the Parthians had Weapons of Mass Destruction before that campaign...
