It is the most concrete statement of illegality you are ever likely to get from the head of the organisation that decides whether something is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by noahrab
Unfortunately it simply demonstrates that the big players can, literally, get away with murder.
You are unlikely to see any prosecutions from Russia's annexation of Crimea either...
The reason I say that economics are not important is for a couple of issues:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mook1
1) The economy is not a reason why anyone would ever vote for independence
2) No first-world resource-rich country's economy has ever gotten so bad after independence that they are currently 'beset with unemployment and poverty'. It is simply not a plausible scenario.
There is absolutely no question that the economy would take a severe and swift turn for the worse in the immediate aftermath of independence but that is simply a matter of confidence and not a matter of hard currency suddenly not being there.
The lessons of Brexit seem not to have any attention paid to them by either side up there.
One camp thinks everything will be wonderful, the other thinks it will all go to hell in a hand-basket.
Neither is anywhere near the truth but it would be a ridiculous stance to take to believe that an independent Scotland would be a long-term bad idea.
The actuality is that it is unlikely to be worse than what you currently have, with a chance of some movement either side of that
Point 1 is way off the mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSnakes
I would like you to find me a 'YES' voter whose desire for independence is purely financialQuote:
Originally Posted by noahrab
So you're saying they are all Braveheart Brigadoon types?Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSnakes
Those who voted No Thanks did so on the economy. To convert me/them to YES they need to answer the questions they couldn't/wouldn't answer last time and this time around are trying to bat away as 'it'll be ok'.
I am sure some believed the scare stories about the economy... Some would have voted no even if Indy would make them millionaires... For me a lack of an admission that the immediate aftermath was going to be a bombsite would have made me nervous, but neither side provided anything remotely concrete. I wouldn't, and didn't, believe a word that came out of the better together camp because they were partisan and their claims were outrageous, but given that everything was conjecture, could not be solidly refuted. Independent forecasters said pretty much what sensible people knew already... Off a cliff, level out, rise again. It does not matter who is in charge, or if a diamond mine was discovered under Holyrood... The economic graph after indelendence would always be the same shape. If you do nit wish to go through that then you vote No.Quote:
Originally Posted by noahrab
Scotland's situation at the moment is one that isn't too bad at all, so people won't disregard that, disregard their standards of living. So economics are important. To convince people they'd be no worse off in an iScotland is the main role of the SNP, I feel, they shouldn't pretend it'll be so much better, as it won't. For the past 50 years, the tories have put Scots on the dole, Labour have created non-jobs in a bloated public sector. Teresa May is begging Apple to leave Ireland and come to the 'UK'. Does anyone think that doesn't mean England? Westminster will never create jobs in Scotland over England, can the Scottish government offer these companies what they want e.g. favourable tax status. Should they? I feel the barriers facing the independence movement in Scotland will never be lifted, unless the SNP can show Scotland can create jobs, get folk off the dole, out of the public sector. It's a leap of faith that not many No voters will take.
Therein lies the problem. If you need to be convinced, then you need someone pretty forceful and charismatic to convince you. There are barriers and yes, the SNP should be doing their utmost to give people the figures they need to make an informed decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedice
Nothing to do with scare stories and everything to do with Salmond telling us everyone else was wrong and he was right and that if we voted for independence the RUK parties that said no to a currency union would crumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSnakes
Both sides in the debate were partisan.
You need to credit the No voters with a bit more intelligence than the independence at any cost voters, of which their was plenty, if you want to change their minds.
I would have respect for YES voters like Braveheart and Brigadoon and the like if they said ' I hate the basturd English and that's why I'm voting for independence.
Most of the YES voters are in the same bracket.
I would vote for independence in a heartbeat - but I have nothing against the English, having lived among them for 30 years. I simply believe that a country should be self-governing.Quote:
Originally Posted by noahrab
I also detest the circumstances in which the Union was brought about, believing it to be unjust and unfair.
The current situation is also unjust and unfair. "Scotland's voice" that Ms Sturgeon is forever demanding to be heard is, in actual fact, a squeak that has absolutely no more right to be heard than any other region of the UK as things stand.
Scotland have 10% of whatever in the UK and everyone else has the other 90%. It is not unfair or unjust through any malice on the part of Westminster or the rest of the UK - it just so happens that when one side has 90% of the vote and the other side has 10%, anything Scotland wants, Scotland will be told to do one. Why should such a tiny percentage tell the rest of the UK how they should run their affairs?
Scotland is a small region of the UK with absolutely no voice and no choice except to suck up what England gives it.
If the Scots don't like this arrangement, then they should vote to leave.
If they are happy being some dog kicked around at its master's whim, then they should vote to remain.
There are undoubtedly benefits at being part of a larger organisation. Why pay to administer two health services, or two armies, or two driver licensing authorities et al when you can administer one?
When two companies merge, jobs are always lost - so a larger company is more streamlined than two smaller ones.
If the same two companies were to split, then more jobs would have to be created.
I shouldn't imagine Westminster would be keen on a break-up since it would still have to administer everything it currently does, but would have less income with which to do so. It would also cost Scotland. An independent Scotland would have no choice but to create jobs where none currently exist, but these would be public sector jobs, that contribute nothing financially and simply leech money off the taxpayer, like NHS managers and DVLA call centre wallahs...
I have never said No voters were idiots. Some of them undoubtedly were, but probably not enough to make the difference (I hope...) I am sure many had their country and their family's best interests at heart
Wanting independence at any cost may seem something unworthy of your respect, but many thousands of people have died to achieve independence for their country, so I would not take it as lightly as you appear to do.
Scotland has always been more about positive nationalism (We're great because of the great things we've done) rather than the more English negative nationalism (we're great because you're shlt).
There has always been a wee bit of friction with the English, although those who voted Yes because they blame the English for all their ills are just as thick as the ones who voted No because of the football team they support...
For me and for many it is just down to one issue - do you want Scotland to be an independent country?
If the answer is yes, then you should vote yes. If not, you vote no.