SodjesSixteenIncher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Again, likewise. Just think.. "I'm in lockstep agreement with AUFC90". I mean, the guy needs an instruction manual to tie shoelaces. No not really likewise. Read back, it doesn't concern me that some people who share my beliefs aren't the brightest (not really familiar with Aufc90, so not referring to him), lots of people support Independence for lots of reasons. The concern would be if I looked around at posters agreeing with me and I couldn't find one who wasn't either a) a troll, b) a bigot, c) thick as f**k or d) all of those things. Must be a sare yin really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 "The Yes campaign, however, have focussed on all the positive points of independence and about what can be achieved." They have quite happily put the boot in negatively when they saw fit. In fact I would argue that it happens a lot. It's almost a joke now. The standard argument is "X is being caused by Westminster. But if you vote for independence X won't happen". But then failing to explain why. I would argue that the overall message on the Yes side is one that "we can do it". Very much a positive message and showing what we can be as a country whilst also, quite rightly, highlighting some of the shortcomings of being governed by Westminster. On the other hand, BetterTogether offer not ONE positive message. Nothing has come out of their side other than fear. Nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I would argue that the overall message on the Yes side is one that "we can do it". Very much a positive message and showing what we can be as a country whilst also, quite rightly, highlighting some of the shortcomings of being governed by Westminster. On the other hand, BetterTogether offer not ONE positive message. Nothing has come out of their side other than fear. Nothing. What's the problem with that though? By its very nature, arguing for the status quo and against change is going to be a negative position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 What's the problem with that though? By its very nature, arguing for the status quo and against change is going to be a negative position. Don't argue for the status quo then. Are you really saying that the Westminster establishment couldn't find it in itself to articulate a vision of what the Union was for, where it was going (regardless of political persuasion)..... there really is no status quo, just a general trend of direction, regardless of any further constitutional tweaking. If the vested interests couldn't even muster a simple positive idea of what Britain should look like, then that really is a damning indictment of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Don't argue for the status quo then. Are you really saying that the Westminster establishment couldn't find it in itself to articulate a vision of what the Union was for, where it was going (regardless of political persuasion)..... there really is no status quo, just a general trend of direction, regardless of any further constitutional tweaking. If the vested interests couldn't even muster a simple positive idea of what Britain should look like, then that really is a damning indictment of them. Word salad. The issue here is simple. Voters are being asked "Should Scotland be an independent country" and thus the burden of proof lies with the yes campaign. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Word salad. The issue here is simple. Voters are being asked "Should Scotland be an independent country" and thus the burden of proof lies with the yes campaign. It clearly wasn't word salad. No burden of proof lies with the Yes campaign. The onus is on BOTH sides to give their arguement. So far only one has. I'll give you a clue. It's not BetterTogether. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Word salad. The issue here is simple. Voters are being asked "Should Scotland be an independent country" and thus the burden of proof lies with the yes campaign. No, the implication there is that the status quo is some perennial constant. it isn't, thus it is an argument between two futures, not one future and a present case. Better Together chose not to articulate any kind of real vision for what the Union's purpose is, and where it is heading, and it will simply heamorrage votes between now and September. The mean and tawdry calculation they've undertaken is that they won't lose enough by Septmember to lose, and that's all they have to achieve. Edited April 14, 2014 by renton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It clearly wasn't word salad. No burden of proof lies with the Yes campaign. The onus is on BOTH sides to give their arguement. So far only one has. I'll give you a clue. It's not BetterTogether. I think that's for the electorate to decide 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It clearly wasn't word salad. No burden of proof lies with the Yes campaign. The onus is on BOTH sides to give their arguement. So far only one has. I'll give you a clue. It's not BetterTogether. That isn't the case though. Yes have to convince enough people to take this important step. If they don't do that then folk will remain a part of the UK. Now the BT campaign won't put it like this but that's what's happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 That isn't the case though. Yes have to convince enough people to take this important step. If they don't do that then folk will remain a part of the UK. Now the BT campaign won't put it like this but that's what's happening. Spot on. Whenever you suggest a change against the status quo then the onus is on you to prove it's a change for the better. Look at the AV referendum. Did the no campaign spend the whole time talking up first past the post? Of course they didn't, they spent the whole time pointing out what might go wrong if AV is used. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Spot on. Whenever you suggest a change against the status quo then the onus is on you to prove it's a change for the better. Look at the AV referendum. Did the no campaign spend the whole time talking up first past the post? Of course they didn't, they spent the whole time pointing out what might go wrong if AV is used. That campaign was a disaster from start to finish. This campaign is so far proving to be very different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 That isn't the case though. Yes have to convince enough people to take this important step. If they don't do that then folk will remain a part of the UK. Now the BT campaign won't put it like this but that's what's happening. We should have been given a vote similar to Ukraine where the status quo wasn't an option. The vast majority taking part in the debate would surely acknowledge that the status quo isn't on offer (if they were being honest). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 That isn't the case though. Yes have to convince enough people to take this important step. If they don't do that then folk will remain a part of the UK. Now the BT campaign won't put it like this but that's what's happening. It is as I see it. The polling day question is "Should Scotland become an Independent country? It is therefore encumbent on each side to demonstrate why. BetterTogether, if they had any nous about them would have formulated a campaign highlighting the benefits of the Union and why it is better to remain part of that union rather than to break out on our own. Similarly, Yes Scotland's campaign should ( and does ) highlight the potential benefits and what we have to gain from going it alone. One nil to us then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 We should have been given a vote similar to Ukraine where the status quo wasn't an option. The vast majority taking part in the debate would surely acknowledge that the status quo isn't on offer (if they were being honest). Can you explain to me why? Other than Natty soundbites about the Tories shutting down Holyrood after a no vote, every political opinion I've seen in recent memory is in favour of devolving powers. The choice is full independence or more devolution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It is as I see it. The polling day question is "Should Scotland become an Independent country? It is therefore encumbent on each side to demonstrate why. BetterTogether, if they had any nous about them would have formulated a campaign highlighting the benefits of the Union and why it is better to remain part of that union rather than to break out on our own. Similarly, Yes Scotland's campaign should ( and does ) highlight the potential benefits and what we have to gain from going it alone. One nil to us then. Although they won't admit it - BT don't have to do that at all. They just have to put enough people off independence. Mr Bairn's point is also valid about campaigning for a No vote automatically means their campaign will be less positive - although I think its obvious the Project Fear campaign have went as far as they can possibly go down the negative route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Can you explain to me why? Other than Natty soundbites about the Tories shutting down Holyrood after a no vote, every political opinion I've seen in recent memory is in favour of devolving powers. The choice is full independence or more devolution. That's a very dangerous assumption. Edited April 14, 2014 by pandarilla 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) What's the problem with that though? By its very nature, arguing for the status quo and against change is going to be a negative position.To some extent this is true - the case for the union is very much based on the loss of its benefits by having independence - that by its very nature comes across as negative.That being said, BT are not exactly subtle when it comes to negativity - to the point where the arguments being put forward are wide of the mark - such as Lord Robertson's Nato speech. I would also argue that the argument for change can and has been negative itself - some here (and elsewhere) resort to blaming Westminster for any problem that exists. Edited April 14, 2014 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Can you explain to me why? Other than Natty soundbites about the Tories shutting down Holyrood after a no vote, every political opinion I've seen in recent memory is in favour of devolving powers. The choice is full independence or more devolution. You might think that, right up until you see the Labour devolution proposals...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Although they won't admit it - BT don't have to do that at all. They just have to put enough people off independence. Mr Bairn's point is also valid about campaigning for a No vote automatically means their campaign will be less positive - although I think its obvious the Project Fear campaign have went as far as they can possibly go down the negative route. Surely, by that logic, all Yes Scotland have to do is put enough people off the idea of the United Kingdom? Your arguement doesn't stand up. One vote - two choices, therefore it is encumbent on BOTH sides to demonstrate why people should vote for them. To suggest BetterTogether shouldn't do this is ludicrous. It's just that that has them dangling on a precipice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 That's a very dangerous assumption. Well, if you're order of preference is along the lines of 1. More devolution 2. Independence 3. Status quo Then it would be a dangerous assumption to vote no on the assumption of more devolution. However for someone like me that isn't too bothered about extra powers, I'm just looking at it objectively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.