Independence - how would you vote?

[wingsoverperthshire]

Looking forward to SodjesSixteenIncher ignoring that post from perthshirebell. That's 427 words long. Almost two and a half times as long as the "essay" I wrote. I'm looking forward to some consistency here.

Please provide evidence that my 189 word post was "boring" "difficult to follow" or "like reading a research paper" or learn how to read.

K thnx bai.

Really enjoyed your last two posts. Keep up the improved standard.

[caleyjaggi]

I've not really posted much on this thread over the past week or so but whatever. And I certainly don't constantly go on about other posters which seems to be something the Yes crew do all the time.

And where is your 'evidence' of that, given you apparently only make decisions based on fact?

Over the course of the thread you've made a habit of disappearing when provided with evidence to the contrary of what you've been saying, which albeit has invariably been vague mutterings about one thing or another, instead of fighting your corner.

There's some no voters on here which I might not agree with but respect their opinion, but I think, on this subject, the content of the debate comes second for you to your dislike of the SNP. Barrysnotter is another btw.

[Ad Lib]

Be honest,reading quite a lot of your posts is like performing root canal on yourself with a spoon. Lots of people will skip your posts whether, individually, they're reasonable or not.

This is simply untrue. My posts are no more unreadable than any other of the major posters on this thread. My contributions deal with issues of a more forensic nature, because I'm a meticulous sort of person and I value accuracy over simplicity. This does not make them "unreadable" or "painful to read". Literally no one has been on this thread and felt physical pain as a result of attempting to read one of my posts. You're just uttering nonsense here.

The issue here isn't whether Sodje can be bothered to read my posts. The issue is his total non-justification for not reading *that* post. He described it as an essay. He stated that the reason he did not read my post was because it was "that long". I want a withdrawal of this unadulterated lie or proof that Sodje does not read any post longer than 188 words. He also stated that he "respects" my opinions "on a lot of stuff" so he's clearly read a considerable number of my posts, many of which on this issue are longer than 188 words.

There is almost never a justification for refusing to read a post of 188 words or less in direct response to something you've said, unless you genuinely didn't see it (usually when it's such a brief post you don't notice it) or you have a specific justification for not reading the post before knowing what its content contains. Sodje's justification is a nullity if he reads a SINGLE post on this forum longer than 188 words.

[Disco Duck]

Having said that, I think independence is pretty inevitable, if not in 2016, then in the next 10 years or so. The reason being that polls show that if independence was proven to be no different economically from remaining in the union, around 65% would like the idea of being independent.

That's proving the unprovable, unless there is a 5-10 year trial run at independence (which obviously couldn't happen). Therein lies the problem for the Yes campaign - the inherent cynicism of most Scots will listen to promises of benefits of independence with "aye right" mind sets. And like Ned says, it could go disasterously wrong and then there's no going back.

If there is a continued lurch to the right in UK politics then I'd vote yes - particularly if I thought there was a realistic chance of a UK withdrawal from the EU which is frankly barking mad.

On a side note, I watched an Institute of Chartered Accountants debate last week with (amongst others) Darling and Sturgeon as speakers. Neither impressed hugely. Darling's speech could be summed up as "it'll be too difficult". Sturgeon was doing well - if a bit vacuous - until pressed on the alternative to a currency union if required. There isn't one.

[Disco Duck]

This is simply untrue. My posts are no more unreadable than any other of the major posters on this thread. My contributions deal with issues of a more forensic nature, because I'm a meticulous sort of person and I value accuracy over simplicity. This does not make them "unreadable" or "painful to read". Literally no one has been on this thread and felt physical pain as a result of attempting to read one of my posts. You're just uttering nonsense here.

The issue here isn't whether Sodje can be bothered to read my posts. The issue is his total non-justification for not reading *that* post. He described it as an essay. He stated that the reason he did not read my post was because it was "that long". I want a withdrawal of this unadulterated lie or proof that Sodje does not read any post longer than 188 words. He also stated that he "respects" my opinions "on a lot of stuff" so he's clearly read a considerable number of my posts, many of which on this issue are longer than 188 words.

There is almost never a justification for refusing to read a post of 188 words or less in direct response to something you've said, unless you genuinely didn't see it (usually when it's such a brief post you don't notice it) or you have a specific justification for not reading the post before knowing what its content contains. Sodje's justification is a nullity if he reads a SINGLE post on this forum longer than 188 words.

tl; dr

[thepundit]

There's some no voters on here which I might not agree with but respect their opinion, but I think, on this subject, the content of the debate comes second for you to your dislike of the SNP.

If you think I reckon the incredibly important subject of Scottish independence is less important than getting criticisms in against the SNP I respectfully disagree but also respect your right to an opinion.

[~~~]

I personally don't support independence, mainly because I don't want the English and Welsh to be foreigners,

Do you believe the English or Welsh see Scots as fellow countrymen?

[Enigma]

By the way, I'm not sure that the no campaign actually need to provide a positive case. They are the status quo and the burden of proof is on the yes campaign.

Do you think Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK will remain indents all after a no vote? The political system is unlikely to change, we'll still have either if the two cheeks in government thanks to the rotten voting system, we'll still have an unelected upper house and the growing London centric outlook. The status quo isn't something I'm particularly happy with.

Do you think there is even a slight possibility Barnett may be scrapped? Surely the No campaign do have a duty to assure the electorate that the status quo will remain post no vote? Not a positive case, but a concrete assurance nothing will change?

[Mr Bairn]

Do you believe the English or Welsh see Scots as fellow countrymen?

Yes, they're British.

Do you think Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK will remain indents all after a no vote? The political system is unlikely to change, we'll still have either if the two cheeks in government thanks to the rotten voting system, we'll still have an unelected upper house and the growing London centric outlook. The status quo isn't something I'm particularly happy with.

Do you think there is even a slight possibility Barnett may be scrapped? Surely the No campaign do have a duty to assure the electorate that the status quo will remain post no vote? Not a positive case, but a concrete assurance nothing will change?

I think the Barnett will probably go, but it's not something I'm too sad about. I don't like how the yes campaign think that Westminister will be out to get Scotland after a no vote, but think that they'll happily be our big brothers if we vote yes. The currency union is dead.

[xbl]

I think the Barnett will probably go, but it's not something I'm too sad about. I don't like how the yes campaign think that Westminister will be out to get Scotland after a no vote, but think that they'll happily be our big brothers if we vote yes. The currency union is dead

What? You're not too bothered that an already bad deal is going to be made worse?

[~~~]

Yes, they're British.

Really, you believe the welsh with its own language and history along with the English would consider a Scots as much as a fellow countryman as their next door neighbour?

This might come as a shock to you, but the latest census shows the large majority of people living in Scotland would identify themselves as Scottish only, not "British"

[wingsoverperthshire]

...and we'll still be British if we leave the union and still European if we leave the EU.

[xbl]

if we are receiving more than we put in (and I don't accept that), surely that's a reason to get away from the complete mis-management of Westminster?

In your opinion, why has this been allowed to happen? You have opinions on everything we are doing, you will obviously have an opinion on why we are 'failing' as part of the union.

Floor is yours.

Did HB ever answer this, or did he run away?

[Syd Barrett]

Really, you believe the welsh with its own language and history along with the English would consider a Scots as much as a fellow countryman as their next door neighbour?

This might come as a shock to you, but the latest census shows the large majority of people living in Scotland would identify themselves as Scottish only, not "British"

I agree but you need to convince them that by voting yes they will be better or at least no worse off.

[Enigma]

I think the Barnett will probably go, but it's not something I'm too sad about. I don't like how the yes campaign think that Westminister will be out to get Scotland after a no vote, but think that they'll happily be our big brothers if we vote yes. The currency union is dead.

The rUK couldn't do much if we decided to use the pound unilaterally, as Panama uses the US Dollar. I personally hope the currency union is dead as I have always been in favour of minting our own independent currency.

The currency union would be of obvious benefit the rUK due to the trade. I don't see how it would be in the rUKs interested to put up a trading barrier, I do see why it would be beneficial to threaten to do so in order to argue against independence.

[Syd Barrett]

The rUK couldn't do much if we decided to use the pound unilaterally, as Panama uses the US Dollar. I personally hope the currency union is dead as I have always been in favour of minting our own independent currency.

The currency union would be of obvious benefit the rUK due to the trade. I don't see how it would be in the rUKs interested to put up a trading barrier, I do see why it would be beneficial to threaten to do so in order to argue against independence.

Ditching the pound would possibly mean me voting against independence. We need to make the change as seamless as possible

[Bula Bairn]

That's proving the unprovable, unless there is a 5-10 year trial run at independence (which obviously couldn't happen). Therein lies the problem for the Yes campaign - the inherent cynicism of most Scots will listen to promises of benefits of independence with "aye right" mind sets. And like Ned says, it could go disasterously wrong and then there's no going back.

If there is a continued lurch to the right in UK politics then I'd vote yes - particularly if I thought there was a realistic chance of a UK withdrawal from the EU which is frankly barking mad.

On a side note, I watched an Institute of Chartered Accountants debate last week with (amongst others) Darling and Sturgeon as speakers. Neither impressed hugely. Darling's speech could be summed up as "it'll be too difficult". Sturgeon was doing well - if a bit vacuous - until pressed on the alternative to a currency union if required. There isn't one.

Was Darling pressed on any of his numbers?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/opinion/the-numbers-do-not-add-up-for-darling-and-no-campaign.22611011

Do any of the No voters on here think we should give up our control over Education, Health and Law? (bearing it mind it could go disastrously wrong...)

We're always told by the unionists that this isn't real independence anyway...

[lichtgilphead]

Looking forward to SodjesSixteenIncher ignoring that post from perthshirebell. That's 427 words long. Almost two and a half times as long as the "essay" I wrote. I'm looking forward to some consistency here.

tl:dr

[xbl]

Ditching the pound would possibly mean me voting against independence. We need to make the change as seamless as possible

Exactly. Day 1, we keep the pound, as agreed by everyone who isn't insane (shut up Ad Lib). After a few years, then revisit things.

[Enigma]

Exactly. Day 1, we keep the pound, as agreed by everyone who isn't insane (shut up Ad Lib). After a few years, then revisit things.

A year or two for stability's sake, in the same way we wouldn't become independent the day after a yes vote but sooner than later the pound would become a millstone round our neck, especially if we adopt the pound unilaterally. Most countries in the world manage to survive with an independent currency. Most new independent countries managed to adopt a new currency on day 1. I can see the argument for not doing such but having our own currency would be so much better. I think some are overstating the impact adopting a new currency on day 1 would have. IIRC I almost completely agree with Ad Lib on this one, even if he is a bit insane