The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

All I am saying is there are informed & expert views that suggest it may not be as hard for iScotland to get into the EU as the no campaign says.

and there's also and informed and expert view - with many more experts on its side - that finds Salmond's EU claims to be laughable.

It's a side that doesn't come out with the sorts of wrong bollocks as you did earlier, in trying to apply the German scenario to iScotland. It's not similar, it's the complete opposite. The EU could do nothing but go along with it.

My personal view is that it will probably be relatively painless but, unlike you I am not a world renowned expert in talking out of my arse oops EU laws & treaties so what would I know hey!

It's more likely that Scotland will be outside for 5+ years than the likelihood it'll be painless.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

and there's also and informed and expert view - with many more experts on its side - that finds Salmond's EU claims to be laughable.

It's a side that doesn't come out with the sorts of wrong bollocks as you did earlier, in trying to apply the German scenario to iScotland. It's not similar, it's the complete opposite. The EU could do nothing but go along with it.

It's more likely that Scotland will be outside for 5+ years than the likelihood it'll be painless.

Yup - there's experts on both sides of the arguments - but the ones who disagree with you are idiots!

Nothing of what I said earlier about Germany was "wrong bollocks" ( is that different from right bollocks?) - it all made & continues to make perfect sense & is wholly relevant to iScotland's position after a yes vote. But you carry on to present your opinions as facts if it makes you happy.

[eFestivals]

Yup - there's experts on both sides of the arguments - but the ones who disagree with you are idiots!

That's not what I'm saying.

Any one of of the many different opinions stands a decent chance of being right for some and wrong for some more. There's very probably no one with a perfect take on it.

But if you're going to claim the experts are on your side as you tried to, you need to face up to the truth that most experts are not. So there's no mileage in your claiming their expertise.

Alex has simply picked the opinions that suit his chances of victory the most, exactly as he has with CU. Any actual academic study of the things he's picked isn't meant to happen in his eyes.

Nothing of what I said earlier about Germany was "wrong bollocks" ( is that different from right bollocks?) - it all made & continues to make perfect sense & is wholly relevant to iScotland's position after a yes vote. But you carry on to present your opinions as facts if it makes you happy.

You said it showed a lot for what will happen with Scotland, but it doesn't.

The *only* possible option for the EU with Germany was to expel it, which would have been the end of the EU - so it wasn't going to happen.

The same does not apply for anything about Scotland. Scotland's membership (if it happens) will be used to demonstrate the EU's core principles (because the markets insist it shows its intent) - which makes it hard for the EU to accept iScotland when iScotland falls a long way short (massively more than E. Germany did) of meeting those core principles.

The legal case is 100% reversed.

The EU could not legally stop Germany from incorporating the east; it can easily keep out Scotland.

The EU could not legally stop Germany from incorporating the east; it can easily force Scotland to do th3e normal membership thing.

The EU could not legally stop Germany from incorporating the east; it can easily penalise Scotland on any basis it wants to.

Etc, etc, etc.

The EU is required to do nothing for Scotland. It had to do everything for Germany.

The differences couldn't be more vast.

[kaosmark2]

( is that different from right bollocks?)

Well Salmond talks bollocks and you say he isn't right, so....

[LJS]

As ever you choose to argue with something I haven't said

You said

But if you're going to claim the experts are on your side as you tried to, you need to face up to the truth that most experts are not. So there's no mileage in your claiming their expertise.

I've not said that - I've simply countered your assertions with a number of expert opinions suggesting there is another side to the story. which has been put by a number of experts - and your response is usually to call them idiots. I have never claimed to have a majority of experts.

I have no idea how easy or difficult it will be for Scotland to stay within the EU (just phrased it that way to annoy you!) but a bit like lots of other stuff, once the rhetoric of the campaign is over, I struggle to see in whose interests it will be to make it any more difficult than it has to be!

Put it this way - there is no common sense reason for Scotland not being allowed to continue ( see i did it again!) its membership of the EU.

Now as regards the Germany thing. You are of course right that the EU had no choice but to accommodate a reunified Germany but not because of all your "Legally"s - If it had been Portugal or Greece, they would have found a reason to stop if it didn't suit them but as Germany bankrolls the EU, they were never going to say no. And that being the case they found a way to do it & let the legal stuff catch up.

Of course, I am not saying that there is anything like the same pressure on the EU to allow Scotland's continuing membership (#3) but my point is if they decide it should happen they can easily make it happen.

I suppose I should add, that much as I would to be in the EU from day one, this is a decision for the long term - so if we need to wait a few years, it's not a deal breaker.

[Comfy Bean]

Here's a wee sidetrack.

I was chatting to one of my colleagues at work today who I had always assumed would be a "no" as she seems to fit the "risk averse woman" demographic which has been much spoken of. Imagine my delight to discover that she is a firm "yes" - (I wish more women were firm Yesses when I spoke to them!!!)

I chatted to her for a wee while & I was expressing my frustration with the argument from parts of the Yes campaign that we will all be much better off. She agreed & said "I expect we'll be worse off" & then explained her reasons why this didn't detract from her view that it was the "right" thing to do. This got me thinking & I would say on a split of at least 3 to 1 the folk I know who are voting yes are absolutely not doing so because of Neil's fabled jam but because they think it is the right thing to do. I'd be interested to hear what Vibey & Comfy's experience is here. I'm pretty confident they don't want Indy for the dosh but what is their experience of the motivation of other yessers they know.

I always read your posts with interest LJS. To be fair, I would say the same for Neil`s. Mostly good stuff on here. In ALL your posts LJS I have never seen you misrepresent anyone else`s post / views which after so many pages is to your credit.

I mentioned before that there were a few of us round the fire a couple of weeks back at a wee fest on the west coast . Couple of don`t knows have now went to YES. Mostly due to hopes and dreams rather than technical issues over currency etc. I accept that some will say they are not great reasons ( hopes and dreams ) which is fair enough but would also say that at the end of the day we are only voting for....... Who should make the decisions affecting us - Holyrood or Westminster ?

This decision / vote isn`t about currency, EU, Oil revenues. It`s a pretty simple question really. Do we think we are capable of running out country ourselves or are we better letting the chaps down Westmister take our decisions for us. I think I`m right in saying our vote has affected 2 General Elections since the 2nd world war. Are the Tories really going to give a toss about the Scottish people ( and our votes ) or are we irrelevant as they chase votes in ( middle ) England.

If it`s a YES vote then we can start this thread all over again on what party what policies etc for the election in 2016. Think of the fun we will have

There will be a few nights round the fire at Wickerman next weekend so I will update you then. Until then, I had a wee chuckle at this as a lot of the reasons given have been mentioned here......and already dismissed so this is just for fun.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-voters-previously-against-yes-vote-explain-why-they-changed-their-minds-9593134.html

Edited July 16, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[LJS]

I always read your posts with interest LJS. To be fair, I would say the same for Neil`s. Mostly good stuff on here. In ALL your posts LJS I have never seen you misrepresent anyone else`s post / views which after so many pages is to your credit.

I mentioned before that there were a few of us round the fire a couple of weeks back at a wee fest on the west coast . Couple of don`t knows have now went to YES. Mostly due to hopes and dreams rather than technical issues over currency etc. I accept that some will say they are not great reasons ( hopes and dreams ) which is fair enough but would also say that at the end of the day we are only voting for....... Who should make the decisions affecting us - Holyrood or Westminster ?

This decision / vote isn`t about currency, EU, Oil revenues. It`s a pretty simple question really. Do we think we are capable of running out country ourselves or are we better letting the chaps down Westmister take our decisions for us. I think I`m right in saying our vote has affected 2 General Elections since the 2nd world war. Are the Tories really going to give a toss about the Scottish people ( and our votes ) or are we irrelevant as they chase votes in ( middle ) England.

If it`s a YES vote then we can start this thread all over again on what party what policies etc for the election in 2016. Think of the fun we will have

There will be a few nights round the fire at Wickerman next weekend so I will update you then. Until then, I had a wee chuckle at this as a lot of the reasons given have been mentioned here......and already dismissed so this is just for fun.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-voters-previously-against-yes-vote-explain-why-they-changed-their-minds-9593134.html

Enjoy Wickerman: Never been - but its on my list.

& stop being nice to Neil ... you'll only encourage him!!!

& yes we all have our own personal reasons for voting yes & I'll look forward to the "Neil was wrong we voted Yes, what next?" thread

[eFestivals]

As ever you choose to argue with something I haven't said

You *have* kept flagging up the people you've quoted as "experts", to suggest that their expertise proves their opinion better than other differing opinions.

This is why I don't get into who said what to any great degree (and instead concentrate on understanding the actual content) - which has lead to you complaining about people that you want referred to as "experts" being referred to by me as "matey" (or whatever).

Regarding Juncker's recent words, he has only said what he's said - which *do* sound ominous for iScotland.

Further, his words since being agreed as the new President have also included (around a week ago) an endorsement of what both Barosso and Van Rumpey had said previously - something that you and others had categorically stated would not happen.

It's true that Juncker's spokesman has tried to disassociate Scotland from what Juncker said in the last day or two, tho that disassociation included a part that you didn't bother to quote (a bit of a theme there from yes-ers, the half-quote again). That it's an internal matter for the UK.

Those words are not any support or indication for what will happen with iScotland, they are the EU saying that the EU is butting out of a member states internal politics. Yes-ers haven't cottoned on, because they only wish to interpret words to their own advantage.

Around the fuss over Juncker's words, I happened to stumble across something else EU, which while it can be found on the Scottish Govt website by googling directly into google, cannot be found by using the search on the Scottish Govt's own website that is also driven by google. Anyone familiar with google will know that situation can only exist by being contrived to exist by someone in control of the Scottish Govt's website.

Funny that, eh? Anyone might think that there's something that the Scottish govt doesn't want Scottish people to know about.

(perhaps they do already, but the fact of this letter passed me by, and I'm definitely paying attention!).

It's the letter from the VP of the European commission, which states that article 49 is the only entry route.

You can find it here:-

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

Edited July 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

once the rhetoric of the campaign is over, I struggle to see in whose interests it will be to make it any more difficult than it has to be!

it will be in the interests of the 28 member states who each lose something by giving iScotland something.

Do you give up the things you deeply care about for free?

Will iScotland give up the things it deeply cares about, like, for example, it's own sovereignty?

Then why does iScotland expect 28 other sovereign states to give up for free what iScotland would not? Or even give it up at all?

It's an rather inconvenient fact, that one is.

Put it this way - there is no common sense reason for Scotland not being allowed to continue ( see i did it again!) its membership of the EU.

No good reasons at all, apart from the impact on the sovereignty of 28 sovereign states.

Now as regards the Germany thing. You are of course right that the EU had no choice but to accommodate a reunified Germany but not because of all your "Legally"s - If it had been Portugal or Greece, they would have found a reason to stop if it didn't suit them but as Germany bankrolls the EU, they were never going to say no. And that being the case they found a way to do it & let the legal stuff catch up.

I don't doubt they'd have found a way for Germany, because there is no meaningful EU without Germany.

But that of course gets to mean that every member state will have supported Germany (and they did) by default on that issue (and not forgetting the 40+ year campaign to bring the countries behind the Iron Curtain into mainstream Europe).

So Germany had a watertight legal case AND 100% support from members.

Meanwhile, iScotland has:-

1. no legal case except a clear legal case for being outside of the EU by the fact of its vote to leave the EU member state that is the UK. (this indisputable against the EU rules)

2. no huge reason why all the other member states *require* its continued inclusion in the way that Germany was required by the other members.

(don't take that as me saying "iScotland is worth nothing to the EU". It is, but nothing like Germany is)

3. no universal sympathy within member states in support of the changed political situation, as existed with Germany after the collapse of the Berlin Wall,

It couldn't be more different.

Of course, I am not saying that there is anything like the same pressure on the EU to allow Scotland's continuing membership (#3) but my point is if they decide it should happen they can easily make it happen.

You're dead right with this. Where there's the political will, there's a political way.

However, every statement is suggesting very little political will.

Barosso; van Pumpey; Juncker; Reding. Each of these have suggested there is not the political will - at least, not amongst all of the 28 members which would be required to have that political will.

I suppose I should add, that much as I would to be in the EU from day one, this is a decision for the long term - so if we need to wait a few years, it's not a deal breaker.

Nope, it's not anything I see as a deal breaker either.

Tho somewhere, people should consider that Alex has bullshitted. Again.

Far more dangerous for the economic future of iScotland is for iScotland to be within the EU and for rUK to be outside of it. That will cause a 10%+ slump in iScotland's economy (and an even bigger slump in tax revenues).

Edited July 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This decision / vote isn`t about currency, EU, Oil revenues. It`s a pretty simple question really. Do we think we are capable of running out country ourselves or are we better letting the chaps down Westmister take our decisions for us.

No one of sense is disputing that Scotland can run itself. The arguments are about the word I've bolded in your words.

(edit: I mis-typed 'run' as ruin'. It was a genuine error, but it's made me laugh when I spotted it. Apols for that).

So, what is "better"?

Is a poorer Scotland better, when so many of you say you'll be voting yes to bring about a fairer society with increased social justice?

If iScotland does not have the money to build a fairer society with increased social justice, how could it be "better"?

Worse than that is if iScotland has so little money for those things that the problems get significantly worse and not better. How is iScotland "better"?

We all might think we'd be "better" at running the business than our boss, but if we ran that business into the ground, we are not "better".

Taking the decisions in a different place makes nothing better, not the slightest jot of anything. It's only better decisions that make "better", and better decisions can be made by anyone in any place, with nothing related to their nationality.

All these things need to be weighed up, to see if you'll really be getting "better". You don't get "better" by putting even more people in Scotland into poverty, for example.

I think I`m right in saying our vote has affected 2 General Elections since the 2nd world war.

Not quite correct. Particular specific effects gives an answer of 2, that don't cover all scenarios.

(if you really need me to, I can dig out the question which gives that answer of 2. It's specifically related to Labour victories, not all election outcomes).

One that is not covered with that answer of 2 is, funnily enough, the govt we have right now. Without Scotland's seats, the tories would have won an outright majority in 2010.

Edited July 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

I always read your posts with interest LJS. To be fair, I would say the same for Neil`s. Mostly good stuff on here. In ALL your posts LJS I have never seen you misrepresent anyone else`s post / views which after so many pages is to your credit.

I mentioned before that there were a few of us round the fire a couple of weeks back at a wee fest on the west coast . Couple of don`t knows have now went to YES. Mostly due to hopes and dreams rather than technical issues over currency etc. I accept that some will say they are not great reasons ( hopes and dreams ) which is fair enough but would also say that at the end of the day we are only voting for....... Who should make the decisions affecting us - Holyrood or Westminster ?

This decision / vote isn`t about currency, EU, Oil revenues. It`s a pretty simple question really. Do we think we are capable of running out country ourselves or are we better letting the chaps down Westmister take our decisions for us. I think I`m right in saying our vote has affected 2 General Elections since the 2nd world war. Are the Tories really going to give a toss about the Scottish people ( and our votes ) or are we irrelevant as they chase votes in ( middle ) England.

If it`s a YES vote then we can start this thread all over again on what party what policies etc for the election in 2016. Think of the fun we will have

There will be a few nights round the fire at Wickerman next weekend so I will update you then. Until then, I had a wee chuckle at this as a lot of the reasons given have been mentioned here......and already dismissed so this is just for fun.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-voters-previously-against-yes-vote-explain-why-they-changed-their-minds-9593134.html

so you are not particularly bothered if the people of scotland are poorer, if the gap between rich and poor widens etc just so long as the decisions that lead to these outcomes are taken in scotland rather than london?

I think I am beginning to understand the Yes mindset a bit better now.

Edited July 17, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

"Neil was wrong we voted Yes, what next?" thread

how do you get to that just a moment after you and someone else has said you don't mis-represent?

Scotland will vote how Scotland wants to.

All I've said about the outcome is that from the poll it looks very clearly as tho 'no' are going to win, and by a 10+% margin.

[eFestivals]

I think I am beginning to understand the Yes mindset a bit better now.

yup - hope over facts.

What the final long-term outcome for iScotland might be can only be guessed at, but it's now abundantly clear from all directions (including from Alex) that there's going to be at least 10 years of hardship and not anything of the "better" you're hoping for.

The costs and effects of indy are going to impact onto real people's lives, where their lives will be made worse. The ones who will suffer this impact the most will be those who are already the most disadvantaged.

I won't vote tory to put people into hardship, but it seems that yes-ers will act like tories to put Scots into hardship.

And those Scots say they're doing that because they're not tories and don't act like tories.

Try telling that to those who will be suffering by your actions just as they've suffered from tory actions.

Edited July 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

how do you get to that just a moment after you and someone else has said you don't mis-represent?

Scotland will vote how Scotland wants to.

All I've said about the outcome is that from the poll it looks very clearly as tho 'no' are going to win, and by a 10+% margin.

Oh Neil

You have said on many occasions ( not just implying it from the polls as you have today ) that No are going to win. Today adding " very clearly and by 10+% margin ". I agree 100% with you on this ( sadly ) and have stated this fact from the outset. I would probably agree on the 10+ bit as well. IF........Scotland vote YES then you and me will both have been proved wrong.

Sorry that multi quote is beyond me but LJS said " Neil was wrong we voted YES " My point on LJS not mis-representing folks views stands.

In fairness he could have said Neil and that Cnumb bloke were wrong. This would also have been correct ( I hope )

[Comfy Bean]

so you are not particularly bothered if the people of scotland are poorer, if the gap between rich and poor widens etc just so long as the decisions that lead to these outcomes are taken in scotland rather than london?

Yeah....that`s exactly what I have been saying.

All my time debating Independence with family and friends, attending meetings in my town hall, reading as much as I can ( from both sides ) and following the debate on here to help me reach a conclusion on who should make the decisions that will affect the people of Scotland for future generations has been wasted.

You have been able to sum up every thought I`ve ever had and every post I`ve ever made on here in that one excellent sentence.

Or.....have I just been trolled * ?

Don`t know why I`m bothering but I`ll give you a bite. How do YOU know that the people of Scotland will become ( even ) poorer or that the poverty gap will widen in the event of Independence.

I bet you have a right laugh when you are out breaking bread with your banking buddies down in London. How dare we think we can manage things better by ourselves ? Should we " know our place " and let the city boys get on with running the Kingdom ?

If that`s your view then you are entitled to it so why not just say it. Would prefer that than the dross you actually posted.

* Not even sure what that means but a few of your posts across the various threads on here seem to attract that word

[LJS]

how do you get to that just a moment after you and someone else has said you don't mis-represent?

Scotland will vote how Scotland wants to.

All I've said about the outcome is that from the poll it looks very clearly as tho 'no' are going to win, and by a 10+% margin.

i said:

& stop being nice to Neil ... you'll only encourage him!!!

& yes we all have our own personal reasons for voting yes & I'll look forward to the "Neil was wrong we voted Yes, what next?" thread

Which (I hoped) was clearly light-hearted.

You selectively quoted

"Neil was wrong we voted Yes, what next?" thread

which taken out of context doesn't sound quite so jokey. If I didn't know you better , I would think that might just count as...er..misrepresentation.

very clever

[LJS]

Yeah....that`s exactly what I have been saying.

All my time debating Independence with family and friends, attending meetings in my town hall, reading as much as I can ( from both sides ) and following the debate on here to help me reach a conclusion on who should make the decisions that will affect the people of Scotland for future generations has been wasted.

You have been able to sum up every thought I`ve ever had and every post I`ve ever made on here in that one excellent sentence.

Or.....have I just been trolled * ?

Don`t know why I`m bothering but I`ll give you a bite. How do YOU know that the people of Scotland will become ( even ) poorer or that the poverty gap will widen in the event of Independence.

I bet you have a right laugh when you are out breaking bread with your banking buddies down in London. How dare we think we can manage things better by ourselves ? Should we " know our place " and let the city boys get on with running the Kingdom ?

If that`s your view then you are entitled to it so why not just say it. Would prefer that than the dross you actually posted.

* Not even sure what that means but a few of your posts across the various threads on here seem to attract that word

Either we are greedy like the Tories wanting all Scotland's untold wealth for ourselves.

Or we are doomed to be an economic basket case where the poor will get even poorer but Alex will make sure the rich are OK.

This of course is just what me & comfy have been saying.

Do pay attention at the back please.

[LJS]

Neil,

a couple of quick points - don't have time to do all the linky quotey stuff

1: when I quote experts it is merely to show there are a range of opinions & the one your are putting forwards is not the only one - I think I have made it pretty clear that I have no idea how all these things will work out & have indicated that my common sense view is that in most areas somewhere in the middle ground between the 2 sides is where the truth most likely lies . In our recent chat about EU expansion - I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not arguing that entry to the EU will be a formality nor that the various "experts" I have quoted are necessarily any "more expert" than anyone else. They merely demonstrate that contrary to what the No side suggests there is no settled cut & dried certainty about how Scotland will get into the EU.

2: You have again expressed your concerns about the DRAFT INTERIM constitution. Unlike you I try & avoid constantly banging on about Independence in unrelated threads so I'll answer your post in the other place here, where it belongs. Now, you seem to be pretty much alone in these concerns - & knowing the alacrity & enthusiasm with which the No Thankers jump on any Yes policy they see as in any way suspect - It is amazing they haven't picked up on this. Now when you are a lone voice in the wilderness you are either a remarkable visionary or...

You have some strengths Neil but I wouldn't call you a visionary. Hope I haven't offended you!

3: Oh & I don't think you'll find any predictions of a Yes victory anywhere from me ( maybe when drunk!!!) Sadly, I suspect we will lose - Although hopefully these guys will deliver us a few last minute votes

Scottish independence: Sectarianism fears as Orange Order to march in Edinburgh against Yes vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-sectarianism-fears-as-orange-order-to-march-in-edinburgh-against-yes-vote-9352562.html

[Comfy Bean]

If that march happens then NO will most certainly try and distance itself from it and rightly so. The hangers on that it will attract would turn anybody`s stomach and could lead to some nasty scenes being broadcast across the country. Normally our problem over here in the West.

Another bit of last minute assistance for YES might come from people who don`t normally vote. Have now heard a good few folk say that although they do not usually vote, they are in the don`t vote it encourages them / all politicians are tossers camp, they may vote this time to say YES - Scotland should be an independent country- in what will be their first vote for many years. They realise that it does not have to be a party political issue and that we will deal with the other stuff in 2016.

[russycarps]

Yeah....that`s exactly what I have been saying.

All my time debating Independence with family and friends, attending meetings in my town hall, reading as much as I can ( from both sides ) and following the debate on here to help me reach a conclusion on who should make the decisions that will affect the people of Scotland for future generations has been wasted.

You have been able to sum up every thought I`ve ever had and every post I`ve ever made on here in that one excellent sentence.

Or.....have I just been trolled * ?

Don`t know why I`m bothering but I`ll give you a bite. How do YOU know that the people of Scotland will become ( even ) poorer or that the poverty gap will widen in the event of Independence.

I bet you have a right laugh when you are out breaking bread with your banking buddies down in London. How dare we think we can manage things better by ourselves ? Should we " know our place " and let the city boys get on with running the Kingdom ?

If that`s your view then you are entitled to it so why not just say it. Would prefer that than the dross you actually posted.

* Not even sure what that means but a few of your posts across the various threads on here seem to attract that word

As neil summed up in 3 words: hope over facts.

I feel sorry for the people who will suffer because of a foolish dream based on a pack of lies, which seemingly intelligent people choose to ignore.

it's tragic.

[LJS]

As neil summed up in 3 words: hope over facts.

I feel sorry for the people who will suffer because of a foolish dream based on a pack of lies, which seemingly intelligent people choose to ignore.

it's tragic.

You have achieved something Neil rarely manages... you have made me angry. Don't patronise us.

If you think my decision to vote yes is one I have taken lightly, you couldn't be more wrong.

If you think I don't agonise every day over the consequences either way, you are wrong.

There is no decision in my life I have put more energy & effort into,

I feel sorry for all the people who are suffering right now because none of the UK parties give a fuck. But you think we should just carry on & trust Dave & Ed.

Yes we're taking a chance. And yes there is hope. Hope that I might one day live in a country which doesn't think spending a fortune on defence is something to be proud of, which doesn't insist on posturing with nuclear missiles which can never conceivably be used, Instead of one where " Executive pay has grown from 60 times that of the average worker to almost 180 times since the 1990s" where the Royal Mail is privatised at a bargain basement price to the benefit of the government's cronies, where MP's of all parties have dipped the till to an extent that would have had them sacked in most fields of life. Where we are more interested in stigmatising benefit "cheats" than pursuing those who are a little creative with their accounting for tax purposes. Where we penalise people for having an extra room while rewarding MP's for having an extra house.

I refuse to apologise for Hoping we can build something better than that. Hoping that I might live in a country where the government comes close to representing the people in that country.

I'll take my "Hope" over the above "facts" any day of the week.

The crazy thing is you only need to read what Neil has written elsewhere to know he agrees with most of what radical yes believes.

Paint the picture of how things might get better in the UK.

Edited July 17, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

I have calmed down a bit now with some help from the Buzzcocks

I, I want you
Autonomy

It leaves us all wondering
And it should
This awkward something
For the good

[eFestivals]

Oh Neil

You have said on many occasions ( not just implying it from the polls as you have today ) that No are going to win. Today adding " very clearly and by 10+% margin ". I agree 100% with you on this ( sadly ) and have stated this fact from the outset. I would probably agree on the 10+ bit as well.

Exactly as you've noted, what I've said has been taken from the facts of the polls - there's not a jot of anything to suggest that yes will win. My words have simply been a reflection of that.

That doesn't mean I discount all chances of a yes victory. There's still the chance of a game-changer for Alex, and you can find comments of mine going back months which recognise and accept this possibility.

Within what i'm saying about the possibility of victory for either side, I can't be "wrong" if you credit me with the full context my words are using.

(you can possibly find words of mine here that explicitly say "no is going to win", but those words are still meant in full context).

[eFestivals]

Either we are greedy like the Tories wanting all Scotland's untold wealth for ourselves.

Or we are doomed to be an economic basket case where the poor will get even poorer but Alex will make sure the rich are OK.

what you don't want to accept is that both can be true.

It's certainly the case that the yes campaign is based solidly within the solid tory idea of "everything I create should be mine". Or just "me me me and fuck everyone else".

It's also quite possible for it to be true that regardless of what Scotland's financial situation is today, that Scotland's financial situation post-indy can be significantly worse.

And, unfortunately for yes, there's plenty of things that can be pointed at for exactly why iScotland's situation might be worse than now. The easy one is the Scottish banks, which if they head south put a permanent black-hole of £5Bn (average) lost tax revenue onto iScotland's position from what it is now. There's other things too.

Why not actually try to understand the words that get said to you, instead of pretending they're completely empty as you've done here? You'll be smarter for it even if they don't influence your choice.

[eFestivals]

1: when I quote experts it is merely to show there are a range of opinions & the one your are putting forwards is not the only one - I think I have made it pretty clear that I have no idea how all these things will work out & have indicated that my common sense view is that in most areas somewhere in the middle ground between the 2 sides is where the truth most likely lies . In our recent chat about EU expansion - I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not arguing that entry to the EU will be a formality nor that the various "experts" I have quoted are necessarily any "more expert" than anyone else. They merely demonstrate that contrary to what the No side suggests there is no settled cut & dried certainty about how Scotland will get into the EU.

You've complained about me throwing off the word of experts as just another opinion. And yet their word *IS* just another opinion, not necessarily any better formed than yours or mine.

The very fact that proves this true is that the experts cannot agree. So there's nothing with which to identify them as experts with, and so they're not experts.

The real point of this from iScotland's point of view is that things will not happen in the perfect way that Salmond claims AND THAT WILL IMPACT ONTO MUCH MORE (and make those other things also far less than the perfect of Alex's claims).

Yes-ers don't follow thru. They might admit like you do that it won't be Alex's perfect dream, but then they stop their thinking as tho there's no further consequences onto iScotland.

This is like the Scottish banks thing where yes-ers might say "London can have all the banking problems and that's one less problem for iScotland" without linking that up to iScotland losing the £5Bn per-year average tax revenue from them. That's 7% of the Scottish Govt's budget they've just tossed away as tho it means nothing (a greater amount than the oil will ever give iScotland).

Edited July 18, 2014 by eFestivals