[jjne]

Originally Posted by radyag

Just as I expected they would do. The can't win on facts, so resort to fear and lies. Also the way they have attacked Alan Cumming is shocking, at least he is a real Scot.

This thread is a tautology, really.

The unionist position is to support the status quo. This is the conservative (small-c) position.

What is a conservative? Someone who resists change, and views progress with disdain. This is generally a result of a fear of change.

Therefore, their arguments are generally built around the negative -- drumming up fear of the alternative in order to prevent change from happening.

It happens in all sections of politics. Why should Scottish independence be any different?

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by jjne

This thread is a tautology, really.

The unionist position is to support the status quo. This is the conservative (small-c) position.

What is a conservative? Someone who resists change, and views progress with disdain. This is generally a result of a fear of change.

Therefore, their arguments are generally built around the negative -- drumming up fear of the alternative in order to prevent change from happening.

It happens in all sections of politics. Why should Scottish independence be any different?

the Cyber Nats appear to be allowed to be as Negative as they want about the union but the want the unionists to only be positive...

Bless....

[jjne]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

the Cyber Nats appear to be allowed to be as Negative as they want about the union but the want the unionists to only be positive...

Bless....

Another unfortunate tendency of conservatives is to invent things people didn't say.

Bless....

[Airam]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

from what I understand the snp are meant to be all jolly now and flag waiving union jack types who will be keeping the pound, the royal family (the head of the armed forces) - so I think your post is a tad mischief making....lol.. unless you actually represent the "real" snp....in which case their 30% of the poll with probably fall to 5%.

It seems to me the mischief making in this case came directly from a UK minister appearing in front of a parliamentary committee, baldly admitting that whatever decision an independent Scotland took re nuclear weapons on her soil, she would be punished by rUK .

The Scots react very badly to blackmail in whatever form it takes, whether it comes from a government or not.

The Queen is a descendent of the Stuart line of Scotland and Queen of Scots, and therefore has a longer connection to Scotland than England, perhaps it's rUK who should be questioned as to why it would want to retain the present monarchy?

[HillmanImp]

Boring!

[Airam]

Lost for words, when it's on the record that the negative scaremongering in front of a parliamentary committtee came from a UK minister, not a cybernat?

[HillmanImp]

Its boring because you are talking about something so hypothetical eg if you get pass the yes vote - (bookies are only giving 7:2 for a "yes" vote) which is very unlikely, you then have to assume the "yes" voters are all extreme "green" or extreme "socialist" (when we know the majority of SNP are ex-tories).... Its so unlikely its absurd. Calm down and watch the football.

[Airam]

Beats me why you're contributing to this thread then.

[HillmanImp]

correct

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by flagpole

the bank of englands responsibility would be to set monetary policy for the UK. not only would it have no remit to support scotland it's remit could be interpreted as saying it should move against scotland.

there is no chance, at all, of scotland having any say in monetary policy.

Well since the UK will no longer exist, your point is moot

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by Majlis

Because they are leaving - once they have left they can use whatever currency they want (I believe at one point the idea was to use the Euro), but unless they issue their own currency and become lender of last resort to their financial sector they will always have no say over the macro-economic decisions about the currency. If they want to remain within the Sterling area and have a say in policy, then they will have to subject their financial policy to BoE/UK Government approval - which kinda defeats the object of going Independent.

I cant see why they are so reluctant to have their own currency - and if they want to use another countries then I would suggest the Dollar might be a more stable bet - although they wouldn't have any input into economic policy there either.

Well as one of the successor states of the UK , why should they not use Sterling. After all we have been paying into it for years

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Boring!

And you have just lost your arguement. Excuse we while I yawn

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Its boring because you are talking about something so hypothetical eg if you get pass the yes vote - (bookies are only giving 7:2 for a "yes" vote) which is very unlikely, you then have to assume the "yes" voters are all extreme "green" or extreme "socialist" (when we know the majority of SNP are ex-tories).... Its so unlikely its absurd. Calm down and watch the football.

And if you and they are wrong?

[CABLEDUDE]

The use of 'real scotsman' reminded me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The use of the term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."[2]

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by CABLEDUDE

The use of 'real scotsman' reminded me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The use of the term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."[2]

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

Your point is? Because I fail to see what your are trying to say.

[wappaho]

Originally Posted by Auld Snody

Your point is? Because I fail to see what your are trying to say.

Not all Scotsmen eat haggis and some Scotsmen are vegetarian, but not all Scotsmen who don't eat haggis are vegetarian.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by Auld Snody

Well as one of the successor states of the UK , why should they not use Sterling. After all we have been paying into it for years

Well as I have already explained, you are perfectly at liberty to use Sterling (or any other currency for that matter) - just dont expect to have any input into the Macro-economic policies being set for that currency.

[HillmanImp]

Being Scottish is a state of mind. Its not a two bit European nationalism.... Londoner Rod Stewart is more Scottish than Alex Salmond and Londoner Ken Livingstone is more English than John Terry. The USA was founded by British people who appeared to aspire to a state not based on nationalism. All the SNP want to do is deny small boys and girls living in London with either a Scottish mum or dad the dream that they are Scottish too.

Everyone really knows the best answer to the problems of the UK are regional assemblies in England, and a new Federal parliament up north. The problems of the UK are LONDON. If you look at Malaysia the reason Singapore split from the rest was basically it was 10 times richer than the rest. It put Malaysia back by about 50 years. We do not want that in the UK. We want an arc of prosperity, like a huge rainbow from Aberdeen to Plymouth. We need to spread out of London. Lets create the Arc Of Prosperity.

[Airam]

I agree. The problem in the UK is that wealth and power are concentrated in the South East.

It wouldn't be so much of a problem if those with influence there had any experience or knowledge about what is actually going on in the rest of the UK. Worse than that, most of the movers and shakers don't give a toss anyway.

I'd be happy with federalism where the constituent parts were genuinely equal, as far as votes in a joint senate (call it what you want) to oversee the macroeconomy, foreign affairs, and defence, possibly welfare and have that parliament sited in the North of England.

It's the sheer inevitability of the dead hand of the South East smothering everything and everybody else, which has driven the Scots to contemplate independence and get to the point where they now have to make a decision which will undoubtedly bind at least a couple of generations if the answer is no, and all future generations if it is yes. That's a huge responsibility but it has to be done.

Some part of this country has to lead the demand for more autonomy.

If Scotland gets more powers within the UK, Wales and Northern Ireland will demand further powers too. Surely then the English will rise and demand an English parliament or regional ones.

If Scots vote for independence, there's going to be a lot of uncertainty and nastiness during the deliberations about how to split the debt and assets of the UK.

Westminster may pretend otherwise, but there will be major changes in the UK, whatever way the referendum goes.

[Phoebidas]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Its boring because you are talking about something so hypothetical eg if you get pass the yes vote - (bookies are only giving 7:2 for a "yes" vote) which is very unlikely, you then have to assume the "yes" voters are all extreme "green" or extreme "socialist" (when we know the majority of SNP are ex-tories).... Its so unlikely its absurd. Calm down and watch the football.

I see the debate is returning to the 1970s.

Anyone who follows current Scottish politics knows this claim is so far from accurate it is ridiculous. Even Labour have dropped it.

[Phoebidas]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Being Scottish is a state of mind. Its not a two bit European nationalism.... Londoner Rod Stewart is more Scottish than Alex Salmond and Londoner Ken Livingstone is more English than John Terry. The USA was founded by British people who appeared to aspire to a state not based on nationalism. All the SNP want to do is deny small boys and girls living in London with either a Scottish mum or dad the dream that they are Scottish too.

Everyone really knows the best answer to the problems of the UK are regional assemblies in England, and a new Federal parliament up north. The problems of the UK are LONDON. If you look at Malaysia the reason Singapore split from the rest was basically it was 10 times richer than the rest. It put Malaysia back by about 50 years. We do not want that in the UK. We want an arc of prosperity, like a huge rainbow from Aberdeen to Plymouth. We need to spread out of London. Lets create the Arc Of Prosperity.

As there is support for Scottish independence, it seems not.