Will you vote for independence?

[ddraig]

that wasn't the question
would you agree that austerity measures and welfare cuts are short termism?

 

[muscovyduck]

How is it not relevant to the debate ffs

 

[Quartz]

How is it not relevant to the debate ffs

That's typical of the short- and medium-termist blindness and stupidity which dominates the debate from both sides. I'm looking 20 and 50 and 100 years ahead, not 1 or 5 or 10.

 

[ddraig]

Will you answer my question please?

 

[butchersapron]

Neither are really relevant to the independence debate.

I fully expect that you think the AV vote wasn't effected by anti-coalition sentiment and a desire to punish/hinder those who are implementing cuts and attacking the NHS then?

I've said it before, but you really should set up a political think-tank.

 

[danny la rouge]

Neither are really relevant to the independence debate.

They are entirely what it's about. I wouldn't be voting otherwise.

 

[danny la rouge]

Has she said why?

What's changed her mind?

I went round for lunch today (mob-handed with my daughter & her boyfriend). Turns out my brother had been on the phone to her last night and won her back round already.

She says her concerns weren't very concrete, she "just wanted to be sure I was doing the right thing".

In a way, I think people who suggested she just wanted a blether weren't far off the mark. (Not that she's been abandoned or anything. I last saw her a fortnight ago, before I went on holiday. And my other brother is going round tonight).

Anyway, she's back on track now.

 

[Quartz]

They are entirely what it's about. I wouldn't be voting otherwise.

Then I suggest you reconsider. Governments come and go. Policies come and go. But Scottish independence will be permanent.

Will you answer my question please?

I have. I'm sorry you don't like my answer.

 

[ddraig]

Then I suggest you reconsider. Governments come and go. Policies come and go. But Scottish independence will be permanent.



I have. I'm sorry you don't like my answer.

where did you answer my question?

 

[ddraig]

that wasn't the question
would you agree that austerity measures and welfare cuts are short termism?

here it is again Quartz
thanks

 

[weepiper]

polling card came, fuck yeah

 

[danny la rouge]

Then I suggest you reconsider.

No, I won't reconsider.

I've spent 2 years telling you why I'm voting Yes. All the way down this thread page after page I've been saying I'm supporting independence for instrumental reasons. Have you only just noticed?

To defend the NHS, to defend the Welfare state, to get rid of WMD, to renationalise the Royal Mail.

Those are concrete reasons. What better? What reasons do you think I should be considering? Nebulous ones like "Scottishness"? That's no reason for anything.

Governments come and go.

Hopefully this one has a full throated coronary on Sept 19th and gets a kicking from the people of the rUK while it writhes, frothing pink gunk from its mouth.

Policies come and go.

These need to go now. And a shock to the British state is the weapon we have to hand.

But Scottish independence will be permanent.

Good.

 

[weepiper]

 

[Quartz]

No, I won't reconsider.

I've spent 2 years telling you why I'm voting Yes. All the way down this thread page after page I've been saying I'm supporting independence for instrumental reasons. Have you only just noticed?

Of course not. I respect your reasons and have learned much from discussing with you. I noted months ago how I was disappointed that neither side was looking to the long term but it's really only just recently that I came to the realisation that so many of the subjects about which so many people are so vexed are simply trivial in the long term. I urge you to reconsider from a long-term viewpoint all the same. You may keep your mind; you may change your mind. I respect your decision either way.

You have your perspective and I have mine and they differ and that's fine.

To defend the NHS, to defend the Welfare state, to get rid of WMD, to renationalise the Royal Mail.

Those are concrete reasons.

And they're good for you and that's fine. That's your right. But not of those in themselves is a good one for me to dissolve the Union. Neither Stirling nor Aberdeen are going to be able to rejoin the rUK to protect those same services should a right-wing Scottish government decide to throw them away in 15 years time.

What better? What reasons do you think I should be considering?

The long term social, economic, military, and political future of Scotland. More simply, and this harks back to the first question asked at the debate I attended in Inverness so long ago, will a Scotland independent of rUK be a better place not just for us but for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren?

And a shock to the British state is the weapon we have to hand.

But is the price of using the weapon worth paying? As I said, governments and policies come and go: Cameron will likely be out of power in a year's time and Miliband in. Salmond is in power in Holyrood now; someone else may be in power in Holyrood in a decade's time.

Anyway, I now have a basis on which to make up my own mind.

 

[DotCommunist]

you think preserving the NHS and opposing this austerity (which has been spoken of as a permanent fixture by both parties) is trivial?

 

[ddraig]

here it is again Quartz
thanks

Quartz would you agree that austerity measures and welfare cuts are short termism?

 

[Quartz]

you think preserving the NHS and opposing this austerity (which has been spoken of as a permanent fixture by both parties) is trivial?

Compared to the issue of Scottish independence, yes. Those policies will not be permanent.

 

[butchersapron]

Then you appear to have very little idea of why many people are voting YES. Or of what's going on.

 

[DairyQueen]

That doesn't explain why the polls are often correct. It is true that poor people are less likely to vote in general elections and that some polling techniques may not pick up on poorer voters. But you seem to be saying that these two things usually coincidentally cancel out to give an accurate prediction, which is massively unlikely. The reason polls can predict accurately is because these things are taken into account by polling a representative sample, which includes the right proportion of different socioeconomic groups. Anyway many pollsters including YouGov don't poll using landlines but are done online.

Well a lot of people seem to give a fuck about the polls given they seem to spend a lot of time coming up with implausible reasons why they are wrong. I don't see what good it does for supporters of independence to delude themselves about their position in the campaign.

Aye, we have to hope they're wrong. There are some evidence they could be underestimating the yes vote. I hope so anyway. One vote that matters and all that!

 

[DairyQueen]

Compared to the issue of Scottish independence, yes. Those policies will not be permanent.

Oh fuck off with this shit. Its not clever. Its not smart. Vote for 'the union' if you must. Do not think for one second that the decisions Westminster governments have made are not permanent or have lasting effects for people in England. Destroying a centralised NHS, privatising the Royal Mail, privatising the schooling system, privatising energy/transport (which are both, in the main, horrifically subsidised) and tuition fees. If we are real or rational about this, none of these policies can realistically be reversed (unless something catastrophic happens). The impact Thatcher has had on society? We'll all live with that. If you want a proper debate about the referendum you have to understand that these issues are real, and cannot be undone by pie-in-the-sky think-tank bullshit.

A Yes vote changes all that. It also really helps our comrades in England. You know the ones that appreciate a massive fuck you to westminster (yes, even those that vote UKIP). While we can't undo the catstrophy that has been Westminster for the last 30 years, we can make a start.

It is obvious that if Labour ever win an election in Scotland they will start applying these policies from England for no other reason than blind patriotism and loyalty to their leader. And people like you muttering at the sidelines, "oh, well we can't afford not to have extortionate tuition fees (which is the result of price fixing and ludicrous levels of government intervention in the sector) that force students to pay off a mortgage by the time they're 21." Its bollocks. Total bollocks.

 

[Quartz]

Oh fuck off with this shit.

You really do spout drivel.

 

[DairyQueen]

You really do spout drivel.

I urge you to reconsider from a long-term viewpoint all the same. You may keep your mind; you may change your mind. I respect your decision either way.

You want to discuss long-term?

And they're good for you and that's fine. That's your right. But not of those in themselves is a good one for me to dissolve the Union. Neither Stirling nor Aberdeen are going to be able to rejoin the rUK to protect those same services should a right-wing Scottish government decide to throw them away in 15 years time.

So what right-wing movement Quartz? Fifteen years from now? What services are protected now in the UK?

The long term social, economic, military, and political future of Scotland. More simply, and this harks back to the first question asked at the debate I attended in Inverness so long ago, will a Scotland independent of rUK be a better place not just for us but for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren?

Well, how do you propose to answer that? What will our great grandchildren face in the UK? Fear-mongering pish.

But is the price of using the weapon worth paying? As I said, governments and policies come and go: Cameron will likely be out of power in a year's time and Miliband in. Salmond is in power in Holyrood now; someone else may be in power in Holyrood in a decade's time.

Yes, but Miliband has committed to more-or-less Tory policy. It is a given that after Miliband, I doubt he will win (convincingly) come election time, then we're odds-on to have Boris. A neo-conservative. What services is he going to protect?

Anyway, I now have a basis on which to make up my own mind.

You made up your mind a long-time ago. You took to masquerading as a floating voter to try and take some middle ground. No idea who you were trying to convince. Sure, I hope you vote yes, but you were never going to change your mind. You've offered nothing substantive here. Nothing that addresses core issues, no predictions, no use of actual real-life evidence to back up your opinion. You're suggesting nothing stops Scotland having a right-wing government that will put out services under threat when two right-wing parties in Westminster are clearly putting these services under threat now. That's not a debate, you're simply dressing up dubious points based on no evidence as questions.

EDIT: I did really hope that there would be a good quality debate on here with no voters. You know, a discussion that basically accepts some underlying assumptions about the nature of Scottish nationalism, the problems in the UK, democratic deficits, etc

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[Quartz]

Right, for only about the second time, maybe third, on Urban, I'm going to be rude.

So what right-wing movement Quartz? Fifteen years from now? What services are protected now in the UK?

It's a hypothetical, you moron.

You made up your mind a long-time ago.

No I did not; it is you who made up your mind about me long ago. I have still not made up my mind. Idiots like you and weepiper have taken the line, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Of course I have only questioned the Yes line here: there isn't anyone promoting the No line here to question.

 

[weepiper]

Do me a favour and stop tagging me Quartz.

 

[DairyQueen]

It's a hypothetical, you moron.

Its not hypothetical. Its asking for a prediction. The only rational way you can answer that is to get a theory you like, based on evidence, and make a forecast. Put it forward, let someone pick holes in it.

there isn't anyone promoting the No line here to question.

That's my point. There is no 'no' line. There's an incoherent argument put forward around working-class solidarity. The economic arguments are all based on lies, and never based on the fact Scotland faces austerity and (probably) disproportionate budget cuts.

 

[teuchter]

You're suggesting nothing stops Scotland having a right-wing government that will put out services under threat when two right-wing parties in Westminster are clearly putting these services under threat now. That's not a debate, you're simply dressing up dubious points based on no evidence as questions.

What's the evidence that supports your confidence that Scotland wouldn't have a right-wing government after independence, either in the short term or the medium term?

It doesn't seem like there's much evidence either way.

You associate Thatcherism and the dismantling of the welfare state with Westminster government. And yet it was a Westminster government that established the welfare state in the first place, was it not? A bit selective?

Those two governments are separated by time, not location or structure.

 

[DairyQueen]

What's the evidence that supports your confidence that Scotland wouldn't have a right-wing government after independence, either in the short term or the medium term?

It doesn't seem like there's much evidence either way.

You associate Thatcherism and the dismantling of the welfare state with Westminster government. And yet it was a Westminster government that established the welfare state in the first place, was it not? A bit selective?

The first point. What evidence do you have that aliens won't land in Scotland tomorrow?

The second. Very bizarre. Westminster should not be judged on its current policies and where they are heading because it is possible to create an idealised view of how they came about (through democracy and not violent protest/mass movements/poverty).

 

[teuchter]

The first point. What evidence do you have that aliens won't land in Scotland tomorrow?

It can't be ruled out. However, examining the historical record indicates that on any given day it's vastly more likely that aliens won't land than that they will land, and there is no evidence that anything will change tomorrow that might change this likelihood.

Now back to my question - What's the evidence that supports your confidence that Scotland wouldn't have a right-wing government after independence, either in the short term or the medium term?

Or if you prefer:

What's the evidence that supports your confidence that Scotland most likely wouldn't have a right-wing government after independence, either in the short term or the medium term?

The second. Very bizarre. Westminster should not be judged on its current policies and where they are heading because it is possible to create an idealised view of how they came about (through democracy and not violent protest/mass movements/poverty).

It doesn't really matter how things came about; the point is that you are taking a particular system - Westminster/the UK - and saying, this system is bad, and always will be bad, because this and this happened at X and Y point in history. And then saying that these bad things won't happen in our proposed new system - Edinburgh/Indy Scotland - because this system is not Westminster. As if all the forces that caused and continue to cause the bad things to happen in the Westminster system won't cause similar bad things to happen in the independent Scotland system, because it'll be in a different place.

I know that you aren't presenting such a simplistic idea as saying that moving the location of the administration will automatically make it better. But sometimes the argument seems to rely too heavily on pointing at Westminster, and mentioning Thatcher etc, rather than explaining how a Scottish Parliament will be different. Specifically, what will be different about it, so as to ensure that it doesn't follow a trajectory that is broadly the same as the rUK one. A clear description of exactly what will be different about an Scottish government, systematically and/or in terms of the context it would be operating in, would be more likely to persuade me than a photoshopped picture of Maggie holding a BT T-shirt.

 

[Frankie Jack]

That's my point. There is no 'no' line.

I'd say 'no realistic No line' and you've nail, head and hammered it. Bluff, bluster, fear and a demand for answers to issues they themselves won't answer as it's their refusal/denials they use without good reasons.

If we're Better Together, why is it so shite NOW?