Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

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

I have no issue with changing currency, but politically, if you tell people that its all going to change on day 1, it will put them off. Yes people will vote yes anyway, but the undecided and the scared (Hi Ned!) won't want to hear that things are going to change. So yes, I'd say keep it for a few years for stability. Within 5 years though, I'd expect a new currency, but by then, we'll have thrown the receipt away, re-militarised the border, and gassed the undecided, so it won't matter!

[Enigma]

I have no issue with changing currency, but politically, if you tell people that its all going to change on day 1, it will put them off. Yes people will vote yes anyway, but the undecided and the scared (Hi Ned!) won't want to hear that things are going to change. So yes, I'd say keep it for a few years for stability. Within 5 years though, I'd expect a new currency, but by then, we'll have thrown the receipt away, re-militarised the border, and gassed the undecided, so it won't matter!

Yeah can't argue much with that. Same rules apply with the monarchy right

[xbl]

Yeah can't argue much with that. Same rules apply with the monarchy right

What, scrapped it? Or gassed it?

[Colkitto]

My personal approach is to focus on what no one can dispute or deny – my right to vote Yes because Scotland is my country and my home and deserves to fulfil itself through joining with the other nations of the world and there we will find our feet as an independent people forging the country we want.

http://drderekbateman.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/objective-one/

[Disco Duck]

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.22611011Do 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...

Sadly no. The format was 4 or 5 speakers on stats and polls (which I missed); 30 minute pitch by Darling with c15 minutes of fairly easy questions from the audience; a panel of three journos (one of whom is an SNP MSP?) on the points raised to that point; and then Sturgeon for 30 and 15.

It was free from the usual mudslinging and name calling (probably because of the fairly reserved audience). I would have liked Darling and Sturgeon to have been "head to head" to allow for questioning of platitudes and ripostes, but neither of the two main speakers even stayed for the others speech. I guess the rules of engagement for this far in advance were clearly defined.

[xbl]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/if-the-facts-dont-fit-make-up-some-shit/#more-44790

Actual lies. Not mistruths, not opinions, but actual lies.

Herald quote:

Three-month probe fails to find evidence Yes Scotland emails were hacked”, runs the Herald’s headline, and bizarrely it opens with a totally different, yet every bit as false, report of the police findings.

“Police have found no evidence that Yes Scotland’s emails were illegally hacked following a probe into the allegations.

The national force made the announcement yesterday, three months after its officers were called in by Blair Jenkins, the pro-independence group’s chief executive, to investigate.“

Actual quote

“Detective Superintendent Steven Wilson said in a statement: “Police ­Scotland has investigated a complaint regarding unauthorised access to a private email account where communications with Yes Scotland were illegally accessed.

Inquiries to date have revealed no indication the access of this material was the primary motive of the culprit.”"

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Nah, I'm calling total bullshit on this.The post was 189 words long, comprised 10 sentences and was broken into 3 paragraphs. If you're going to call that an "essay" then I'd respectfully* suggest that you wouldn't read rather a lot of posts on this thread, including some of your own.*Not respectfully. You're buying into absolute horseshit nonsense from xbl that my posts are too long to read. Don't be a w****r.

I didn't read it because from what I could tell of the opening few lines, it seemed to be a literal explanation of a complicated economic process, in response to me making a jibe about people being afraid of Scotland taking control of it's vast wealth.The 1700/1200 figures were used because they're recognisable numbers in this debate. I don't always agree with them but do respect your opinion on most things. I'm not however going to sit and read a long explanatory response to something, if it's demonstrating that you have no respect for my intelligence and presume I'm a total idiot that genuinely thinks we all put in 1700 and get 1200 back like pocket money.

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.

Skim read it. Seemed good.

[Ad Lib]

I didn't read it because from what I could tell of the opening few lines, it seemed to be a literal explanation of a complicated economic process, in response to me making a jibe about people being afraid of Scotland taking control of it's vast wealth.

The 1700/1200 figures were used because they're recognisable numbers in this debate. I don't always agree with them but do respect your opinion on most things. I'm not however going to sit and read a long explanatory response to something, if it's demonstrating that you have no respect for my intelligence and presume I'm a total idiot that genuinely thinks we all put in 1700 and get 1200 back like pocket money.

Ah, so now you're shifting your goalposts. Just to be clear, the length of my post wasn't the issue at all and you were lying? Okay. Good to clear that up.

The 1700 and 1200 figures are "recognisable numbers" how exactly? I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that we literally put in £1700 and get £1200 back. You were using it for the purposes of proportion and comparison. Scotland does not put in £17 for every £12 it gets back through the United Kingdom.

These numbers aren't simply just untrue; they're wilfully misleading as it suggests we generate more in taxes than is spent and that therefore we are running a fiscal surplus. In the context of someone talking about economic prospects of an independent Scotland we should deal in figures that at least remotely represent the reality.

Suggesting we raise more than we spend rather than that we raise relatively more than we spend completely skews the debate and gives me genuine reason to question your motives if not your intelligence. The pocket money analogy only works if you actually show why it's unfair and don't just make up a completely separate unfairness in the process.

A 189 word response is not "long".

[Mr Bairn]

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

It's a good deal, besides, the chances are(independent Scotland or not) I'll be moving to London in the next few years. There's no denying that the Barnett formula is a bit unfair.

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'm not talking about the majority of Scots though, am I? I'm talking about myself. I don't want English people to be foreigners.

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

Sort of yes, but we won't be "UK-ish"

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.

If we've voted to screw them over by becoming independent then they're not going to be favourable towards us.

[wingsoverperthshire]

Ah, so now you're shifting your goalposts. Just to be clear, the length of my post wasn't the issue at all and you were lying? Okay. Good to clear that up.

The 1700 and 1200 figures are "recognisable numbers" how exactly? I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that we literally put in £1700 and get £1200 back. You were using it for the purposes of proportion and comparison. Scotland does not put in £17 for every £12 it gets back through the United Kingdom.

These numbers aren't simply just untrue; they're wilfully misleading as it suggests we generate more in taxes than is spent and that therefore we are running a fiscal surplus. In the context of someone talking about economic prospects of an independent Scotland we should deal in figures that at least remotely represent the reality.

Suggesting we raise more than we spend rather than that we raise relatively more than we spend completely skews the debate and gives me genuine reason to question your motives if not your intelligence. The pocket money analogy only works if you actually show why it's unfair and don't just make up a completely separate unfairness in the process.

A 189 word response is not "long".

Context.

You try giving a 189 word response in Subway when they ask you 'cheese and toasted', and report back.

[xbl]

It's a good deal, besides, the chances are(independent Scotland or not) I'll be moving to London in the next few years. There's no denying that the Barnett formula is a bit unfair.

I'm not talking about the majority of Scots though, am I? I'm talking about myself. I don't want English people to be foreigners.

Sort of yes, but we won't be "UK-ish"

If we've voted to screw them over by becoming independent then they're not going to be favourable towards us.

We are getting back less than we put in under this good deal. Which the lib dems, labour, and the tories want to make worse.

Oh, and why do people being "foreigners" matter? I've got German cousins and other relatives, I don't see them amy differently from my Scottish and English relatives. Also, do you stay neutral in England Scotland games?

[Mr Rational]

Here, my folks live in NZ and are going for citizenship in the new year.

Does that make them filthy foreigners? I'd ask UKIP but I know what he answer would be, which would be the same as the WI woman in Little Britain....

[Ad Lib]

Context.

You try giving a 189 word response in Subway when they ask you 'cheese and toasted', and report back.

When someone makes an 86 word analogy, it is not disproportionate to give a 189 word response. For much the same reason as it is not disproportionate to answer "No, just cheese, thank you" to the question "cheese and toasted?"

[Gordon EF]

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.

Too long, didn't read. LOL!

[archie guevara]

Folk should stop trolling xbl with all these daft posts. Bring back DeeGas.

[xbl]

By the way, is it just me or is Carmichael actually worse than Moore? I thought that the lib dems had scraped the quisling anti scottish barrel with Moore, but somehow, they found someone even more cowardly and dishonest.

No Dr Who, no access to our own currency, a prescient view on the white paper, standing up for Portsmouth, what a disgrace!

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Ah, so now you're shifting your goalposts. Just to be clear, the length of my post wasn't the issue at all and you were lying? Okay. Good to clear that up.

The 1700 and 1200 figures are "recognisable numbers" how exactly? I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that we literally put in £1700 and get £1200 back. You were using it for the purposes of proportion and comparison. Scotland does not put in £17 for every £12 it gets back through the United Kingdom.

These numbers aren't simply just untrue; they're wilfully misleading as it suggests we generate more in taxes than is spent and that therefore we are running a fiscal surplus. In the context of someone talking about economic prospects of an independent Scotland we should deal in figures that at least remotely represent the reality.

Suggesting we raise more than we spend rather than that we raise relatively more than we spend completely skews the debate and gives me genuine reason to question your motives if not your intelligence. The pocket money analogy only works if you actually show why it's unfair and don't just make up a completely separate unfairness in the process.

A 189 word response is not "long".

It's not shifting the goalposts at all, I didn't read it because it was too long.

"The pocket money analogy is a piss-poor one. Scotland and the UK run at a structural deficit so what you mean to say is we raise relatively more than what we spend."

Would still be an insultingly obvious point that assumes I was being literal. I'd at least have read it.

I actually stopped reading at "this means it spends more than it raises in tax". Thank you for this wonderful insight all the same.

[Ad Lib]

We are getting back less than we put in under this good deal. Which the lib dems, labour, and the tories want to make worse.

We do not "get less back than we put in". The UK is running a deficit. Scotland is running a deficit.

We get COMPARATIVELY less back than what we COMPARATIVELY put in.

Relative to the Barnett needs assessment, we get relatively more than we need than everywhere bar London.

You need to give us a comprehensive definition of fairness if you are going to talk about "good deals". Otherwise you need to justify any government spending which redistributes from any group to any other group ever.

It is also simply untrue to say that ANY of the other three parties want to reduce the proportion of UK revenues that Scotland gets. All that has ever been said is that Barnett is not fit for purpose (something the SNP agree about, but for different reasons) and that a new method of allocation should be devised. None of the parties (note, isolated back-bench MPs from the Home Counties shouting about free prescriptions doesn't count) has said they want to arrange the funding formula so that Scotland gets less money spent here.

Less money being spent here *may* be a consequence of a new formula, but such a formula could also in fact be fundamentally fairer in redressing the disadvantage of Wales and the North of England and, in a hypothetical future economic situation, would in fact give Scotland more money if its needs assessment significantly increases relative to the rest of the UK.

What you need to explain, and have never explained, is why fairness in respect of nations must be fully transactional in the UK but not so in the EU (in your opinion) but that fairness in respect of local authorities should be needs-based and not transactional.

[wingsoverperthshire]

By the way, is it just me or is Carmichael actually worse than Moore? I thought that the lib dems had scraped the quisling anti scottish barrel with Moore, but somehow, they found someone even more cowardly and dishonest.

No Dr Who, no access to our own currency, a prescient view on the white paper, standing up for Portsmouth, what a disgrace!

Without question Better Together have slammed the credibility machine into reverse. Long gone is.... "Of course Scotland could go it alone" we're back to "Blown out the water that Scotland could survive". The lull in #projectfear lasted only a matter of weeks and they're scrambling in fear of what might be in the white paper.

....and to think Ad lib was telling us how AC is such a decent honest bloke and the opposite of Michael Moore.

[Ad Lib]

It's not shifting the goalposts at all, I didn't read it because it was too long.

"The pocket money analogy is a piss-poor one. Scotland and the UK run at a structural deficit so what you mean to say is we raise relatively more than what we spend."

Would still be an insultingly obvious point that assumes I was being literal. I'd at least have read it.

I actually stopped reading at "this means it spends more than it raises in tax". Thank you for this wonderful insight all the same.

This "I wasn't being literal" isn't an excuse I'm afraid. You weren't just not literal. You were just plainly wrong. It didn't illustrate the point you're now apparently claiming to make, rather it illustrated a completely different and fictitious point that presumed we were running a fiscal surplus.

189 word posts are not too long. It was a concise explanation at the absurdity of your unrepresentative analogy. You can row back as much as you want here, but your entire post was specious and misleading and you should really be ashamed of it.