Will you vote for independence?

[weltweit]

It is idiots like you that undermine democracy.

How do you mean?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

It is idiots like you that undermine democracy.

That's unfair. Weltweit, at the very least, engages in debates. He's maybe not the best at it, but that's no great sin.

 

[weltweit]

That's unfair. Weltweit, at the very least, engages in debates. He's maybe not the best at it, but that's no great sin.

I think I am ok at debates TheHoodedClaw. I don't micro nitpick like butchersapron for example does, I don't see the point in trying to score points just for the sake of it which I think he does.

And I am prepared to say if I find have got something wrong. I do prefer discussions rather than arguments. It was different when I was younger, then I would argue and even if I found I was on the wrong side, I would stick to my guns and argue till I was blue in the face.

I am not like that these days. In my work I have conversations, sometimes discussions but it is important to remain liked after the discussion, if I fail at that I fail at everything.

 

[DairyQueen]

Just fucking read about Scotland and try to understand why people there might be pissed off.

 

[JTG]

butchers wasn't micronitpicking, he wanted you to provide some background or justification for your point of view. Just saying 'I think this' tells us nothing tbh

 

[weltweit]

butchers wasn't micronitpicking, he wanted you to provide some background or justification for your point of view. Just saying 'I think this' tells us nothing tbh

Then I did, with a more expansive post, and no one commented at all!

Butchers does micro nit pick, it is rare he even states his own position so busy is he picking away at most tiny details of what others have said.

 

[JTG]

You don't think that being able to back an opinion up or expand on it would invite more engagement with you then?

 

[weltweit]

You don't think that being able to back an opinion up or expand on it would invite more engagement with you then?

I expanded on my opinion in the post below, I feel quite strongly on that:

Years ago I read a fascinating book, "The rise and fall of the great empires" or something similar, I forget the author but it explained the stages countries had gone through as they built empires and expanded until they reached a point of loss of control and then after a period went into decline.

Britain has gone through those states and we are in the process of decline. The Roman empire is long gone, Rome a shadow of its former self, the Mongol empire is gone, a tiny fraction of its former self.

Do we want the remnants of Britain to continue in decline until we find Wiltshire wants to cease being in the same state as Dorset and the isle of Wight wants independence.

At some point something else has to make logical sense.

What makes sense in this case is that England, Wales and Scotland are all together on a small damp island, we are surrounded by sea we make sense as a unit, geographically, geologically, we speak broadly the same language, have been neighbours for aeons have interbred, traded, travelled and shared our lives for generations.

Just as it makes sense the island of Ireland will one day be united, it makes sense England, Scotland and Wales should remain united.

At least, it makes sense to me, from where I come, my mother being 100% Scottish and my Father being 90% English!

There was not a single comment on it.

 

[JTG]

tbh I still don't think it invites much comment because it doesn't really address the nature of the British state and Scotland's place within it. Just saying 'Britain should be united' doesn't cut it imo: instead we should be asking whether rule from Westminster, under the terms which we presently have, is good for the Scottish (and Welsh and West Country etc) people and if not, what would be better. That's a more nuanced question than Scotland's 'in or out' referendum asks but given the limited opportunity the present system provides them to challenge the status quo, I can't blame a proportion of people (how many remains to be seen) for saying 'out'.

You don't say much about why staying together 'makes sense' beyond a shared language (imposed on the others by English rulers) and history. You may as well say that France and Wallonia should be together, Holland and Flanders or that Italy shouldn't because Sicily has little in common historically (and even linguistically up to a point) with, say, Verona.

Your comment may have begged greater analysis than it got but your initial contributions last night didn't tbh and maybe we focused on that

 

[DairyQueen]

I expanded on my opinion in the post below, I feel quite strongly on that:



There was not a single comment on it.

The problem is that your argument is based entirely on nostalgia ("neighbours for aeons"), emotion, and fear ("you can't bear to think about change"). That type of argument can be made for the preservation of empires and of any two neighbouring countries.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Just noticed that the poll currently stands at:

Yes: 57.3
No: 27.4
Don't Know: 13.7

Which is confusing, because that adds up to 98.4%

Is there a hidden option for "I'm the Queen and I'm not allowed to vote in it"?

 

[butchersapron]

Then I did, with a more expansive post, and no one commented at all!

Butchers does micro nit pick, it is rare he even states his own position so busy is he picking away at most tiny details of what others have said.

But you didn't - you made the same series of unargued things just at greater length. Engaging in debate involves providing those arguments and expounding the logic behind them and offering evidence for the parts of it which requires such and then responding to challenges to the argument. Without that then real debate is pretty much impossible beyond a series of people simlply stating what they'd like to see. So attempts to get you to take the frist step towards debate by outlining why you think as you do and what you believe presents a competing case is not micronitpicking - it's pleading with you to allow a debate to take place. The thing is, you're so used to presenting the sort of case above (i think this is a good thing and that is a bad thing, i'm sorry you disagree but that's my opinion and i'm entitled to it -that sort of flimsy stuff) that when you're challenged to add some meat to the bones it appears to you - as all critical questions or prodding must - as micronitpicking.

 

[weepiper]

As part of the overspill policy of Glasgow Corporation, a huge housing estate was built here in the 1950s to house 34,000 people...
The area had well-known social problems, notably anti-social behaviour and degeneration of often poorly constructed post-war housing.

It does seem that the poorer you are the more likely you are to vote Yes. I'm having an argument about the indyref on my work forum at the moment and the two strongest No opinions are from the Chief Executive and the Chief Buyer. The people who've said they're Yes are all shop floor staff

 

[andysays]

It does seem that the poorer you are the more likely you are to vote Yes. I'm having an argument about the indyref on my work forum at the moment and the two strongest No opinions are from the Chief Executive and the Chief Buyer. The people who've said they're Yes are all shop floor staff

Isn't it generally accepted that poorer people are less likely to vote in elections?

Have Radical Independence (or anyone else) done anything to distinguish between thinking yes, and being likely to vote yes, IYSWIM?

 

[weepiper]

Isn't it generally accepted that poorer people are less likely to vote in elections?

Have Radical Independence (or anyone else) done anything to distinguish between thinking yes, and being likely to vote yes, IYSWIM?

Part of the point of them doing these mass canvasses on poor estates is that it gets people to think maybe their vote does matter (to someone at least) after all. And maybe they will be more likely to actually go and vote on the day if someone has come to their door and asked their opinion.

http://radicalindependencedundee.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/engagement-and-empowerment/

 

[andysays]

Good answer (I was sort of wondering if that was part of it)

And hopefully the networks built up over the independence issue can continue to operate post-referendum.

 

[geminisnake]

What I don't understand, is why a Scottish MSPs are not enough. Perhaps they need more powers but I would have thought that level of devolution should be enough.

Have you actually read any of this thread? Devo max was TAKEN OFF the table by WESTMINSTER! Some people maybe would have preferred that but we are only being offered in or out!
And tbh as it stands it really is NOT enough. The majority of Scottish MPs(91%) voted against the bedroom tax, it was imposed on us anyway and Holyrood has done it's best to counteract it by upping Discretionary Housing Payments for last year and the next year but they can't do that indefinetly.
Scottish MPs in the majority(79%) voted against the Royal Mail sell off, they were ignored/over ruled, 82% of Scottish MPs voted against the VAT increase, over ruled, 81% voted against the Welfare cuts, over ruled. Do you see a pattern here? Because the people of Scotland do

Also
If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters.
Taken from the Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0

 

[JTG]

Have you actually read any of this thread? Devo max was TAKEN OFF the table by WESTMINSTER! Some people maybe would have preferred that but we are only being offered in or out!

Don't forget the vague promises of 'something better' so long as you vote No. They'll tell you what it is... later. Sometime. Honest

 

[danny la rouge]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ighs-in-with-reasons-to-vote-yes-9212749.html

Scottish Independence: Twitter weighs in with reasons to vote Yes

If Scotland votes Yes in the independence referendum, then the 24th March 2016 will be Scotland’s Independence Day.

The National Collective, a group of artists and creatives in favour of Scottish Independence chose the 24th March for their ‘ reasons day’. Those in favour of Independence urged to share their reasons for doing so on social media, or in a letter to their local paper. It’s caught the imagination of the Yes vote, with hundreds weighing in to voice their reasons for supporting Scottish Independence. Some of them are practical, some emotive, some legal, some frivolous. They make interesting reading (politicians: listen up!) Here’s a taster of what’s being said online right now.

http://t.co/PDhoBNfxWf

 

[danny la rouge]

Can't seem to get the image link to embed, but the urls are there to follow.

 

[weepiper]

Don't forget the vague promises of 'something better' so long as you vote No. They'll tell you what it is... later. Sometime. Honest

 

[weltweit]

The problem is that your argument is based entirely on nostalgia ("neighbours for aeons"), emotion, and fear ("you can't bear to think about change"). That type of argument can be made for the preservation of empires and of any two neighbouring countries.

I don't think my feelings against the yes vote are based on fear. I don't like the idea of endless splitting and sub divisions. Scotland leaves Britain, Catalonia leaves Spain, the Basques leave France and Spain, Wales leaves Britain, Britain (what is left of it) might leave the EU... where will it end? and I don't really understand the point especially if the regions seem as they seem to want to remain in the EU.

 

[JTG]

Kingdoms, empires, countries have always expanded, contracted, broken away and been consumed. That's history for you - it is not, of itself, a bad thing. Sometimes it's been positive, sometimes disastrous.

26 counties of Ireland broke away 80-odd years ago. That was a pretty good thing really

 

[JTG]

The break up of the USSR was messy but a positive thing for one or two former republics. The split of Czechoslovakia was easily done and peaceful, though apparently some regret it now.

I don't see what's so troubling about people wanting to determine their own future as a region/nation/country. HOW that occurs and the direction they take afterwards is of far greater importance surely?

 

[weltweit]

So, quite a lot of Scots want independence, quite a lot of the Welsh seem to want it too, but there don't seem many English that want it and I am not sure why that is, anyone?

 

[JTG]

I believe support for independence in Wales is a lot lower than in Scotland.

Do you mean why do the English not seem to want independence for England? I'd venture that as the politically, economically and culturally dominant part of the UK by quite some way, English self determination isn't really seen as something we're missing - we have it already. Scotland and Wales get the government the English vote for by and large and despite having their own national medias can still feel they are overlooked by the UK 'national' papers/TV stations etc

Enough English still have trouble knowing the difference between England/Great Britain/United Kingdom. It's less than 20 years since the St George Cross made a big comeback (Euro 96: as I recall before then 'English' identity in sports etc tended to be asserted by waving the Union Flag)

Take a look at how the World Cup will be viewed this summer - though I tend to think the bias/arrogance of the English media can be SLIGHTLY exaggerated by folks in Scotland, I do think they also have a point. Assumptions are made about who 'we' are and it grates with those who are excluded by that 'we'

 

[JTG]

Anyway...

 

[weltweit]

Kingdoms, empires, countries have always expanded, contracted, broken away and been consumed. That's history for you - it is not, of itself, a bad thing. Sometimes it's been positive, sometimes disastrous.

I don't like the current situation because is seems a continuation of our decline. Where by "our" I mean Britain. I can envision a time when Scotland is independent, Wales also, and I will probably live in England. I am not English, I am British! If this is an emotional rather than logical argument, so be it.

The break up of the USSR was messy but a positive thing for one or two former republics. The split of Czechoslovakia was easily done and peaceful, though apparently some regret it now.

I don't dispute that it happens, it is occurring all the time.

I don't see what's so troubling about people wanting to determine their own future as a region/nation/country. HOW that occurs and the direction they take afterwards is of far greater importance surely?

But as I think we already discussed, when one party to a marriage wants to leave, the other party is usually able to express their opinion.

 

[Frankie Jack]

The 'union' is not a marriage.

 

[weltweit]

The 'union' is not a marriage.

Maybe not, but would you have an objection to a polling organisation asking if those resident in England or Wales were for or against Scottish independence?