The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Tosh

as intelligent as ever.

You always do the same thing when you're stumped. A diversion (which claiming the UK as tribal was anyway), or brainless like you've done there.

Meanwhile, we've established that "Scotland is a country" is nothing 'civic' and is invoking ancient tribal Scotland. Blood and soil.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm not sure she's boxed in.

She's made a certain commitment within a certain time frame.

Do you think she made that commitment because she thought she'd lose or because she thought she'd win?

Public opinion hasn't changed in the way she expected, which is going to leave her isolated whether she follows thru on the commitments she's made or whether she bottles out of the commitments she's made.

Unless she gets lucky with something in the meantime which changes public opinion - tho there's nothing suggesting why it will change. The swapping of sides due to brexit has already happened, and it hasn't caused the surge for indy that many (including me*) expected.

(* I expected a noticeable surge, tho I didn't expect to be as large as many predicted)

 

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

She has clearly stated it's off the table for 2017.

she's also stated it's certain (with the normal caveats) by March 2019 .

 

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It might be 2018 but we don't know.

If it's 2018 or later, that means you're brexiting, with everything that means.

It leaves no time for indy beforehand.

 

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What we do know is that it will be when NS decides.

Oh, so she lied when she - and you - said it would be the Scottish people who decided.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. You can apologise later for all you said when her lie was pointed out.

 

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

With us all forced to wait till she decides, you will need to define what you mean by her being boxed in.

she's committed to something ONLY because she thought circumstances would have swung in her favour.

Because they haven't, she's boxed herself into committing to something she now would rather not do.

Which means she either follows thru and loses and her political career is over. Or she bottles it and is the girl who cried wolf too many times and her political career is over.

(of course, there's the slight chance she might win, but not enough of that chance for her to actually want to take the risk)

 

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Whats your best guess Neil ?

Autumn 2018 seems to be the word. A long way away in politics.

I reckon she'll bottle it, but if she doesn't then I'd say not before 1st Nov 2018.

She'll be holding back as long as possible, looking for the sign she might win, or looking for something to cling to as justification for bottling it.

I reckon it's most likely she'll bottle it, and use something May does to try to cling to as a 'sound' reason why, to try and present herself as not bottling it.

I don't think it's going to work well enough for her tho, because everyone will know she's bottled it, you included (tho i fully expect you to give her a free pass over it, and claim the excuse she uses is genuine).

Bottle it or lose, it's indy-over for 15+ years.

[Comfy Bean]

Ok... so you think she'll bottle it. Fair enough.

My own view as you know would have been to wait till after the next general election Tory procession.

I think you are wrong but obviously it's only my best guess.

I don't think she will bottle it. I think she will call it for 2018.

The Scottish people have given her the mandate. People living in Scotland will decide. NS will announce it when she, not me or you, decides. That is the point I was making. 

The people living in Scotland may again decide to stick with May in her hard brexit world. I never once predicted a yes victory last time round. It's too early to call it just now but I reckon it will be close. 

I realise this is a pointless debate as you think she will bottle it :-)

Im interested in what others think a reduced turnout will mean. I have no idea whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing for yes. I suspect a lower turnout will be what we get though. We've never been away from the ballot box up here with the local elections coming up soon as well.

[Comfy Bean]

Tribal Neil ?

Have you worked out yet what one of the main differences was between the Indy ref and the eu one when it came to the rules around who could vote.

On my phone so will get back to you on your previous conclusions about what Indy supporters were motivated by. When I repeated it yesterday you replied " not at all ".

Have you changed your mind or should I dig out some old quotes?

I honestly thought we'd moved on from the blood and soil drivel :-(

You missed a trick yesterday when talking about cybernats. I believe the correct term used is cyber natz. It's the preferred choice of the internet eejit !

[LJS]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as intelligent as ever.

You always do the same thing when you're stumped. A diversion (which claiming the UK as tribal was anyway), or brainless like you've done there.

Meanwhile, we've established that "Scotland is a country" is nothing 'civic' and is invoking ancient tribal Scotland. Blood and soil.

"We" have established nothing, Neil. I see no point in discussing this with someone who so fundamentally misrepresents/misunderstands the nature of Scottish Nationalism and whose only response to it is to accuse folk of Fascism or Blood & Soil Nationalism. You can never just disagree with someone you have to make them out to be either stupid or evil. I would recommend Comfy's post earlier today as a shining example of how to disagree with someone in a civilised and polite manner. You could learn much from Comfy.
 

Quote

 

The central argument of many nationalists in favour of independence is simple and straightforward. Scotland is a nation whose people have a distinct sense of identity. Most nations are governed by their own separate, independent state, and can take decisions for themselves. Therefore, Scotland should be independent. Indeed, but for the fact that Scotland is a distinct nation the debate about independence would probably not be happening at all.

...

How Scottish someone feels makes remarkably little difference to the likelihood they back independence. Even amongst those who give their sense of Scottish identity the highest possible score, only 30% support the idea, while amongst the remainder of the population the strength of their Scottish identity seems to make very little difference to their opinion. 

...

Even so, the independence debate is still clearly not just about identity. Even amongst those with no feelings of Britishness at all, only around half support independence. We evidently need to look at more material considerations too.

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/176046/2012-who-supports-and-opposes-independence-and-why.pdf

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Texas is a country. Bavaria is a country. Brittany is a country. California is a country.

They're each as much a country as Scotland is, but i bet you've never once referred to any of them as a country.

So as likely your relation as mine, i reckon.

Serious question :

Do you regard Scotland as a Country ?

Do you see Scotland as a Nation ?

Please be specific :-) Yes / No .

I was being serious, ok not about the any relation bit, when I said yesterday that you and the qt Lady were the only folk I have ever heard saying stuff like...we voted as a region.....etc.

 

[Comfy Bean]

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

If you were campaigning for indy on the basis of "it'll be fucking hard, things will have to be cut, drastically, but we'll make our own decisions" my attitudes to your posts would be different. I could respect that honesty in a way I can never respect the deliberate head in the sand act.

 

 

Interesting post.

I was going to highlight this as proof that you either don't read or fail to understand my posts :-)

Lets play fair and take your words one step at a time.

It'll be fucking hard.

I agree. I've said so myself. It will be difficult and an unpredictable path lies ahead with or without Indy. Many obstacles will lie in our way. With it being a close result there will be problems similar to what we are seeing with brexit. I have never once said that it will be easy. I never ever claimed riches would be plentiful or claimed it was oor oil when some were claiming it was all about the oil etc. It will be hard but no caves will be required.

Things will have to be cut drastically.

I agree. I have often spoke about choosing a different path. It would be pretty drastic but the nukes would have to go immediately plus the Lords. Not that the Lords are hugely important but for a clear indication of the type of Country we want to be these would be a quick win.

An increase in pace on tax increases would also be required but that has already started. I've always pointed out that cuts and austerity are already here so people would understand and are already feeling the pain. I remain convinced that this would be done more fairly than what we currently see with the Tories. Efforts to make public services like health and social care more efficient have already started plus the Scottish government are already working with Cosla and the councils. There are obviously other ways to save money than by just cutting and a mixture of both will still be required. We all expect cuts via Barnett without Indy but that's for another day.

We'll make our own decisions.

Agreed. I've made this point countless times. The folk who live in England would get to pick and choose their government and be able to hold them to account at the ballot box and in Scotland it would become the same.

I have said many times that I accept that politically, vote wise, the Tories have nothing to lose up here. I understand that on key investment decisions politics will always be at play. Decisions taken by a Labour or Snp government in Scotland would risk them being voted out of power plus our system is designed to prevent one party dominating for years as you know. Ok the snp machine broke the system at the previous elections but this time they are having to rely on the Greens. This is exactly what should be happening in my opinion. Fairer politics where the folk living here actually control who's in charge.

So......in summary....we are broadly in agreement :-)

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Ok... so you think she'll bottle it. Fair enough.

My own view as you know would have been to wait till after the next general election Tory procession.

That might have worked out, who knows?

But he's boxed herself into a commitment of sooner than that, on a reasonable idea that it would work out well for her, tho hasn't panned out how she expected.

 

Quote

I think you are wrong but obviously it's only my best guess.

I don't think she will bottle it. I think she will call it for 2018.

She might well do.  I'm far from sure she'll bottle it, tho I do think that's the more likely. 

I think it's most likely because I think something will happen that she'll use as a excuse for bottling it - such as (for instance) the terms of a new trade deal with the EU, which she'll claim as adequate to not follow thru on the threat of an indyref.

(if something like that happens, the terms won't be adequate to meet her previous demands, but she'll claim it as adequate anyway).

And you'll probably give her a free pass and claim she's not bottled it - but for where it counts (with politicians, not the public such as you) they'll all know she's bottled it.

 

Quote

The Scottish people have given her the mandate. People living in Scotland will decide. NS will announce it when she, not me or you, decides. That is the point I was making. 

People in Scotland have given her a mandate - tho on the basis of that mandate being theirs for the timing, and not hers. Or have you forgotten all of the times she said "the Scottish people will decide when"?

Slipping it in on a manifesto where the votes weren't for that specific thing but for the whole thing is not that "the people will decide when". Even you've said it in the past that won't happen until victory is assured by what the polls are saying - which doesn't look like anything that's going to happen.

(Just to be clear, I accept she's got enough of a mandate via the manifesto to hold a vote, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't match her previous claims for "the people will decide when").

 

Quote

The people living in Scotland may again decide to stick with May in her hard brexit world.

I suspect they will.

I saw mention (it might be fake) of a poll yesterday where the claim was that poll said 68% would support hard brexit, just get on with it.

If that's correct then I can't see there being less than 50% for that in Scotland.

 

Quote

I never once predicted a yes victory last time round. It's too early to call it just now but I reckon it will be close. 

I reckon it'll be a bigger loss than last time, tho the difference might be as small as less than 1%.

Last time the SNP were able to pretend the oil could cover the finance issues, and plenty believed it. That's been exposed as the bollocks the smart people always knew it was, and they've got no similar fig-leaf this time to fool people with.

The numbers have held up at around the same levels since 2014, but that's been held up purely on dreams. Some of those dreams will be smashed against the facts once the campaigning properly starts.

 

Quote

I realise this is a pointless debate as you think she will bottle it :-)

Im interested in what others think a reduced turnout will mean. I have no idea whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing for yes. I suspect a lower turnout will be what we get though. We've never been away from the ballot box up here with the local elections coming up soon as well.

I reckon they'll be lower turnout from indy supporters and higher from UK-ers, tho where that might leave the overall turnout I'm not sure.

Because indy is a less attractive proposition without the oil money to hold it up, and the bad financial consequences of indy are starker than they ever were.

Edited February 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

"We" have established nothing, Neil. I see no point in discussing this with someone who so fundamentally misrepresents/misunderstands the nature of Scottish Nationalism and whose only response to it is to accuse folk of Fascism or Blood & Soil Nationalism. You can never just disagree with someone you have to make them out to be either stupid or evil. I would recommend Comfy's post earlier today as a shining example of how to disagree with someone in a civilised and polite manner. You could learn much from Comfy.

If i'm mis-representing what Sturgeon means when she says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right of self-determination, you'll have to tell me what the 'civic' is in words that are clearly not the civic of self-determination.

Because there is only self-determination, there is and never has been a greater right of it for some than others as a consequence of ancient history.

So come on then, if I'm wrong tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me what the civic is in making claims of greater rights due to history.

But you never do.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Serious question :

Do you regard Scotland as a Country ?

Do you see Scotland as a Nation ?

Please be specific :-) Yes / No .

I'd say your question isn't specific enough.

But if think that question is specific enough and you want an answer, the answer would be no.

Countries and nations are very normally regarded as only sovereign states, which Scotland is not.

Do you regard Scotland as a country and Texas as not? If so, why the difference?

 

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I was being serious, ok not about the any relation bit, when I said yesterday that you and the qt Lady were the only folk I have ever heard saying stuff like...we voted as a region.....etc.

Scotland is no more or less of a country than the others I named.

If Scotland should be recognised as a country then those others should be too.

so why do YOU only apply the logic you use to Scotland but reject it for those other places?

Regarding the EUref, there was no distinct Scottish vote, scotland wasn't even classed as a region. It was simply part of the whole-UK where the vote was a whole-UK decision (and accepted as that by Sturgeon too, who campaigned on that basis).

 

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It'll be fucking hard.

I agree

but then all the other posts you make reject that.

You say there won't have to be bigger cuts than the tories would make.

As i've been asking for 2+ years, if there won't be those cuts, show me where the missing £15Bn is.

Saying "maths works differently in an independent state" only shows you as an idiot.

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Things will have to be cut drastically.

Then please says what, to total up to at-least £8Bn (the minimum necessary).

And also condemn the SNP for trying to take Scotland indy on a lie, which would only lead to massive disappointment and the feeling of YOU having been conned (cos you accepted the SNP lying take in 2014).

And when the SNP campaign for indy honestly, and tell Scotland "we'll have to cut bigger than the tories" how do you think support for indy will stand up?

Edited February 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I've always pointed out that cuts and austerity are already here so people would understand and are already feeling the pain.

Erm ... what have you missed about the SNP having the same money to spend in 2017 as they had to spend before 'austerity'?

There's been almost no pain of austerity for Scotland.

Indy is what will bring that pain.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

We'll make our own decisions.

Then make the decisions on what will be cut - MASSIVELY!

Because without that missing £15bn, cuts are the only way.

For all the while you say "things will have to be cut drastically" but no one will specify the necessary cuts, it's just another means of deflection, an attempt to pretend things won't really be bad.

At the very minimum, you're talking the pain Ireland had in 2009, and unlike Ireland, there won't be the bounce-back to the natural economic levels following a recession. Scotland's natural economic levels are £15bn a year less than the current levels.

So really you're talking more like Greece. Pain, endless pain, with no better tomorrow at the end of a short-ish period of pain.

[Comfy Bean]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That might have worked out, who knows?

But he's boxed herself into a commitment of sooner than that, on a reasonable idea that it would work out well for her, tho hasn't panned out how she expected.

 

She might well do.  I'm far from sure she'll bottle it, tho I do think that's the more likely. 

I think it's most likely because I think something will happen that she'll use as a excuse for bottling it - such as (for instance) the terms of a new trade deal with the EU, which she'll claim as adequate to not follow thru on the threat of an indyref.

(if something like that happens, the terms won't be adequate to meet her previous demands, but she'll claim it as adequate anyway).

And you'll probably give her a free pass and claim she's not bottled it - but for where it counts (with politicians, not the public such as you) they'll all know she's bottled it.

 

People in Scotland have given her a mandate - tho on the basis of that mandate being theirs for the timing, and not hers. Or have you forgotten all of the times she said "the Scottish people will decide when"?

Slipping it in on a manifesto where the votes weren't for that specific thing but for the whole thing is not that "the people will decide when". Even you've said it in the past that won't happen until victory is assured by what the polls are saying - which doesn't look like anything that's going to happen.

(Just to be clear, I accept she's got enough of a mandate via the manifesto to hold a vote, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't match her previous claims for "the people will decide when").

 

I suspect they will.

I saw mention (it might be fake) of a poll yesterday where the claim was that poll said 68% would support hard brexit, just get on with it.

If that's correct then I can't see there being less than 50% for that in Scotland.

 

I reckon it'll be a bigger loss than last time, tho the difference might be as small as less than 1%.

Last time the SNP were able to pretend the oil could cover the finance issues, and plenty believed it. That's been exposed as the bollocks the smart people always knew it was, and they've got no similar fig-leaf this time to fool people with.

The numbers have held up at around the same levels since 2014, but that's been held up purely on dreams. Some of those dreams will be smashed against the facts once the campaigning properly starts.

 

I reckon they'll be lower turnout from indy supporters and higher from UK-ers, tho where that might leave the overall turnout I'm not sure.

Because indy is a less attractive proposition without the oil money to hold it up, and the bad financial consequences of indy are starker than they ever were.

Why all this free pass nonsense.

You think she will bottle it I think she'll call it in 2018.

Neither of us actually know Neil. Time will tell and one of us will be wrong and not for the first time.

Appreciate your view on the turnout. What you thinking ljs, or anyone else ?

Seems we are in agreement so far that it will be down. Neil may well be right that this could favour the unionists. So much uncertainty as it is could also be a problem for yes. 

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So......in summary....we are broadly in agreement :-)

that would require you to fully recognise the facts, which you won't.

Will it be all of education (and more) that gets cut, or all of the Scottish NHS (and more)?

Or a 20% of everything?

In the words of Big Brother: you decide.

And when you have, do remember to tell the Scottish people what you'd like them to suffer when they don't have to.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why all this free pass nonsense.

because if she bottles it, I already know you'll invent some excuse for why it's not bottling it in your opinion.

It's what you do.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

But if think that question is specific enough and you want an answer, the answer would be no.

Countries and nations are very normally regarded as only sovereign states, which Scotland is not.

Do you regard Scotland as a country and Texas as not? If so, why the difference?

 

Scotland is no more or less of a country than the others I named.

If Scotland should be recognised as a country then those others should be too.

 

 

Ok thanks. I wasn't entirely sure you were being serious. I won't ask again.

I have asked you twice about this tribal business and tried to put it into context with who got a say in the Indy ref compared with the Eu ref.

I think it's relevant as you have previously went down the racism, hatred of the other etc route.

Would be interested in whether you still hold that view. I'm guessing you are aware of the voting rules but unsure if you would rather avoid the question?

[Comfy Bean]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because if she bottles it, I already know you'll invent some excuse for why it's not bottling it in your opinion.

It's what you do.

 

What nonsense. I am already wrong and have said so. I was happy to wait until another ge. I thought that was how it was going to play. Things have changed. I now think she'll call it in 2018. You think she won't. Maybe....I'll be wrong again.

What about your own words on what you concluded the Indy ref was all about. Are you standing by them or have you now changed your view ?

I like how you are accusing me of being a goalpost mover :-)

In the exact same post as you are tip toeing away from saying she will bottle it ;-)

Surely you mean when she bottles it lol

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have asked you twice about this tribal business and tried to put it into context with who got a say in the Indy ref compared with the Eu ref.

I think it's relevant as you have previously went down the racism, hatred of the other etc route.

You're mixing two different things.

There's a not an insignificant number of anti-English racists within the indy supporters, in much the same way as there's not an insignificant number of blatant racists within UKIP supporters.

I've also said that Sturgeon invokes Scottish tribalism when she does her "Scotland is a country" thing, a call to blood and soil, and a call of Scottish exceptionalism based on ancient history. Its as far away from the claimed 'civic' as it's possible to be.

(me calling her a fascist in my exchanges with LJS about that was an insult of his intelligence and not a labelling of her).

 

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Would be interested in whether you still hold that view. I'm guessing you are aware of the voting rules but unsure if you would rather avoid the question?

Oh FFS. The numbers of EU nationals are too small to swing the vote. Haven't you noticed?

It's Scots she needs to work on to change their minds, no one else. Hence her invoking ancient Scotland - tho she clearly believes it too.

 

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What nonsense. I am already wrong and have said so. I was happy to wait until another ge. I thought that was how it was going to play. Things have changed. I now think she'll call it in 2018. You think she won't. Maybe....I'll be wrong again.

Fine.

So in all circumstances if she doesn't follow thru, you'll happily state she's bottled it?

Or will you look to excuse it via something or other?

I reckon you'll look to excuse it, but time will tell if I've called that wrong.

 

Quote

What about your own words on what you concluded the Indy ref was all about. Are you standing by them or have you now changed your view ?

That it's all about the money?

I stand by that. It was why you lost first time and it's why you'll lose next time.

If the finances of indy could be made to stand up, Scotland would be out of the UK in a jiffy, i've no doubts at all.

 

Quote

I like how you are accusing me of being a goalpost mover :-)

There's always going to be an amount of movement due to events, because to do otherwise would just scream 'dumb'.

But if you were able to actually understand what I'm getting at - which you very often show you can't grasp - you'd recognise the solid consistency in my stated position.

 

Quote

In the exact same post as you are tip toeing away from saying she will bottle it ;-)

Or alternatively, it's not about lack of understanding, it's because you prefer to make it bullshit and pretend it's fact. 

 

Quote

Surely you mean when she bottles it lol

as i've clearly stated many times, I lean more towards her bottling it, but wouldn't be surprised if she follows thru either.

They're both things which are extremely likely to end her meaningful political career, and her dilemma is working out which one is most likely to save some or all of her career.

I've been saying for months it's ceased to be about indy, and is now all about her working things for her own best career benefits.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

As NATO is in the news today, a question for comfy and ljs. Would you want an independent Scotland to be part of NATO? If so would you want them to join the 4 who meet the 2% spending commitment or the 20 odd who don't?

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If i'm mis-representing what Sturgeon means when she says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right of self-determination, you'll have to tell me what the 'civic' is in words that are clearly not the civic of self-determination.

I don't have to tell you anything, Neil sand if I had any sense I wouldn't  because someone who stoops bandying about  vile nonsense like "blood & soil" & "fascist" really deserves pity more than anything else. These are phrases that should not be tossed lightly into a conversation about a peaceful independence movement. You will tell me Blood & soil is not about the Nazis & Mussolini wasn't the only Fascist. You'd be technically correct but you are not stupid enough to fail to understand that The Nazis & Mussolini are precisely what springs to mind when you use these words.

Anyway I'm feeling charitable today so I am going to try & help you understand that you have got it all wrong. 

Leaving aside that "Scotland is  Country" is accepted almost universally by those on both sides of the debate and Scotland's right as a country to self-determination has already been established and accepted by Westminster. 

However few if any (and certainly no one in the mainstream Indy movement is basing the claim to Independence on either some sort of shared ethnicity (we don't have one) or recreating past glories. If we were Ethnic Nationalists trying to shake off the yoke of English oppression, tens of thousands of us would gather every year on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn to celebrate our greatest victory over the English. the fact that we don't indicates that our Nationalism is nothing to do with Blood or Soil. Incidentally I couldn't even tell you the date of the Battle of Bannockburn - I do know the year but them I also know the year of the Battles of Waterloo & Agincourt!

 I found this useful definition of the two sorts of Nationalism:

 

"Civic or territorial nationalists define the nation as an association of people with equal and shared political rights, and an allegiance to similar political procedures. The nation is a political entity, inclusive and liberal. Anyone can, so to speak, join through becoming a citizen.

Ethnic nationalists define the nation in terms of a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, faith, and ancestry. They base membership on descent or heredity. It is clearly a more restrictive form of nationalism."

If you think Scottish Nationalism  fits the second definition better than the first, there is truly no point in carrying on this debate because you don't understand modern Scotland.

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Because there is only self-determination, there is and never has been a greater right of it for some than others as a consequence of ancient history.

Ultimately, in my opinion, any area has the right to argue for independence. Yorkshire could, Lincolnshire could. Bristol could campaign to become a city state  - Britain's answer to Monaco. I'm not claiming a greater right than anyone else.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So come on then, if I'm wrong tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me what the civic is in making claims of greater rights due to history.

I'm not claiming anything due to history. Any Independence movement needs to define a bit of land that would become the "new" Independent country. It is almost unheard of for independence movements not to use existing boundaries to reach that definition. Ultimately, by your logic, there can be no such thing as civic nationalism. If that's what you think, again this discussion becomes totally pointless.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But you never do.

I have & I've done it again. Let's see if you can reply without any offensive extremist lurs.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

It'll be fucking hard.

I agree. 

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but then all the other posts you make reject that.

You say there won't have to be bigger cuts than the tories would make.

Just because someone believes it will be difficult does not mean they have to accept your view of what that "fucking hard" looks like.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

As i've been asking for 2+ years, if there won't be those cuts, show me where the missing £15Bn is.

Saying "maths works differently in an independent state" only shows you as an idiot.

I've used impeccable maths (which you have been unable to fault) to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is subverting mathematics.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

As NATO is in the news today, a question for comfy and ljs. Would you want an independent Scotland to be part of NATO? If so would you want them to join the 4 who meet the 2% spending commitment or the 20 odd who don't?

Personally, I'm not fussed either way. Scotland is too wee to matter in terms of military contribution. We may have some strategic value because of where we sit but I know Neil doesn't agree with that. I am no expert on the subject and I wonder how important these things are in the modern world.

As for the 2% thing, I am absolutely opposed to Scotland wasting money on anything like the scale the UK currently does. (I also believe current UK defence spending is far too high)  If that means NATO doesn't let us in, I am quite relaxed about that.