Be Excellent To Each Other

I don't have much of an opinion about Scottish Indepedence however it strikes me that most of those who do seem to have 100% certainty that *every single reason* that anyone proposes for voting other than the way they intend to is 100% wrong and vice versa. Which tells me that they are very biased and probably not worth listening to.

Yeah, that's the level of reductive debate I expect from Nationalists, and is the main reason that I think they're all fucking idiots.

I think that the burden of proof lies on the 'Yes' side. Unfortunately, I don't feel they've ever produced a reasonable answer to all the key questions involved with a split (currency, economy, foreign relations, welfare), but that each response just begs more questions. I'd be happier if the response was: 'we honestly don't know if we can do this but we'll try anyway'. It seems that the 'yes' campaign are promising a New Jersualem and many will be disappointed.

But, for me, the main question I have yet to hear an answer to, other than why now, is 'what cannot Scotland do within the Union that it could do outside of it?'

The other thing that occurred to me the other day is that in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, I'm not really at risk. Industrious and hardworking folk (which, with staggering arrogance, I consider myself to be) who don't expect a living from anyone else can weather most economic storms, because they don't immediately flounce at the first sign of difficulty and then whine for external support.

So in the event we do go Independent and it all goes tits up, I can remind myself that those who will suffer the first, longest, and hardest, are all the same lazy, greedy fucks that voted Yes in the first place.

Harsh, but I suspect you're right.
There does seem to be a disproportionately high quotient of dole-ites (past and present) who are also grievance merchant ultra-yessers and cybernats?

Thing is, though, ordinary hardworking folk in Scotland are becoming just as pissed off at these people as the rest of the UK. Only the other day I read that the proportion of Scots who think benefit payments are too high has risen from 25% to over 50%, so although the Tory Party itself is still regarded as toxic, actually there is a big swing to the Right in terms of the electorate. Long may that continue and not before bloody time.

We should also remember that Scotland very recently elected a UKIP MEP as well, something I regarded as unthinkable.

That was exactly what I was getting at. But also the most vehement 'No' proponents seem equally certain of everything. I find it hard to imagine that things would be that much different if Scotland were independent but I'm just as unconvinced that it would end up as some sort of failed state.

Maybe they think that as pay is too low

In the event of a Yes vote, how would citizenship be dished out?

Would it be offered to current residents or people who were born there, or both? Would Kindly Old Uncle Stu have to move home or risk becoming an English?

Any clue if the Scottish electorate are better informed than those in England or are the figures for what % of tax is spent on welfare vs the percentage % people think is just as massively out of whack with each other there? Given that most of their press are owned by much the same right wing nutbars ours are I'm guessing the answer is no.

I think their proposed interim constitution automatically grants it to anyone ordinarily resident in Scotland at the time of the divorce, and to anyone born in Scotland but living elsewhere.

I'm not sure of exactly how the question/poll was framed, but I think it was purely talking about benefit payment levels per se, not the % proportion of GDP, tax take or whatever.

It's worth mentioning though, I think, not least because in recent decades, Scotland has been an unthinking, default Labour-voting black hole with any old lefty nonsense being considered "good" by absolute default, as part of some long drawn out, convulsive reaction to Thatcher and what happened in the 80s. In the end, though, people move on I guess.

My mantra for life



Typically support is higher in deprived areas, although there are also otherwise well-educated and comfortably employed people who are also voting yes for different reasons.

I repeat that I would be up for supporting a Yes vote if the argument had any substance behind it, but it doesn't. For reasons that I think are not unlinked to a misplaced sense of patriotism ("True Scots vote Yes"), they merely think the proposition *is* viable. Quite a lot of people who I'd never suspect it of are actually extremely embittered towards England (and merely pass this off as unhappiness at 'Westminster') and that chip-on-shoulder is really coming to the fore here.

Dual citizenship would be presumed. If the choice came down to be 'Scottish or British, not both', then I'll be proudly keeping hold of my British passport, thanks.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Yeah, thanks for your input.

Or, and I'm just throwing out this crazy notion here, it's done because people have largely supported Labour party policies (in comparison to other party policies at the time anyway). Seriously, have you got any foundation for branding an entire country as grudge voters? Is it that hard to believe that people might not make the same choices you do because they just think you're wrong and not because of some ulterior agenda? I'm honestly stunned at the level of patronising nonsense in that quote there man.

I honestly think that - as a very broadbrush principle (as these things have to be, by definition) - that yes, Scotland voted Labour by absolute default. I really don't see how anyone could dispute this, given its voting record of the last 30 years?

Sorry, I don't mean to appear patronising or offensive but this is my honestly held opinion. But it's changing now though, most certainly (albeit slowly). The uselessness of such policies has been empirically demonstrated time and again, and no-one is impervious to these things forever.

You've written off a whole country's primary democratic action over decades as not being an informed and honest choice of any kind while managing to impugn an entire side of the political spectrum. What part of it did you think wouldn't be offensive and patronising? Your chat about 'default' voting does the same thing.

You're bigging this up. People can vote how they like, for whatever reason(s), however spurious, and it's none of my business. That's democracy for you. I'm not suggesting that this is 'dishonest' nor am I impugning anyone.

Plenty of people, families, entire communities and complete cities vote along 'traditional' (i.e. default) lines both north and south of the border; you've heard of the expression "safe seat", yeah? That's how these things often seem to work; it's hardly some amazing revelation.

That's a non-response to a question that was never asked. I'm questioning the content of your statement, not your right to make it. Why did you even post this?



You came right out and said that an entire country voted a certain way due to something other than genuine belief in what they were voting for; you don't think that looks like an accusation of dishonesty in any way?

And I didn't accuse you of impugning any 'one' but of impugning a side of the political spectrum, which you very much did with:



That's totally your right but can we stop pretending you never said it? Or, to take a more charitable reading of the situation, could you perhaps read my posts properly before responding?

Anyway, all the above aside I'll attempt a 'broad stroke' response if I may: whether you meant it, or like it, or not your post that I objected to hand-waved away an entire country's political beliefs and actions over years as 'just some weird grudge that they'll eventually get over'. I had sort of hoped you'd just be able to acknowledge it and that would be the end of it, but all you're doing is digging in harder and adding insult to insult; as if that either explained it or made it better. It's disappointing is all.

I think my implications are more offensive than anything Cavey said, mostly because I take an extraordinarily dim view of anyone of the Yes position that I've been told many times is patronising.

Perhaps that's true. Except I am open to the probability that a lot of perfectly nice, sensible, intelligent people vote Yes because they believe things can be better. That's great, and I can have a chat with them about it, but I still think they're wrong.

The people I can't chat to are those most unpleasant examples of Nationalism. A person so riddled with confirmation bias that the evidence has ceased to matter. Arguments from authority sway them utterly, contradictory evidence is discarded using whatever pretext is convenient. Opposing views are given a disproportional amount of regard, and faith in their veracity is absolute. Angry, shouty aggression against anyone who threatens that view, whether that opposition is polite and reasonable, or just as shouty and aggressive.

Those people, who to me are the most visible, are complete fucking idiots unworthy of my time or respect. They form the mainstay of the cash-throwing zealots, waiting for their mobilisation orders from the king of offensive cybernats.

Do I discard them utterly as people? Yes. Do I condescend to them as if they are simpletons? Absolutely.

I also consider myself rather above their level of blind faith, in that I am not remotely swayed by the opposing arguments made by Better Together, or misleading examples of media that are clearly scaremongery. I'm not knocking on doors or giving money to people who spout the kind of fanaticism I identify with. I merely consider the arguments made by Yes to be staggeringly unconvincing, that don't hold up to scrutiny, and at best represent a gamble on whether things could be just about as good as they are already, with an even thinner outside chance that they could be better.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Independence is the conclusion the Nationalists have decided they want, and have since scrabbled around for the tenuous evidence to support it. This is an affront to a basic scientific method of obtaining, analysing, confirming and reviewing the evidence to *then* come up with a conclusion. The movement is led by pure ideology, and I'll have no part of it.

EBG - I have to ask, seeing as you appear to be voting No. If 'Devolution Max' was on the card, in addition to Yes/No, would you vote for that?

Hell yeah. In no way am I opposed to greater devolved powers to the Scottish Government. I think that's an excellent thing.

As much as I bloody hate the phrase, 'best of both worlds', i.e. benefits of the UK and near-total local government autonomy, easily seems to be the best option to me.

I subscribe to the rallying cry of the old Liberal party: 'Home Rule All Round! '

The UK is far too centralised. Devolution has helped, but we need to bring powers closer, especially in England.

As of tomorrow, I no longer have any opinion on this subject, due to where i'm working.

See you on the other side in our new nirvana, people!

The University of Edinburgh has launched a 6 week course on Understanding the Independence Referendum today... which will finish on October 6th, two weeks after the referendum.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2014/150814-referendum

Erm.

I assume (hope) it's a course on understanding the sociopolitical impact of the referendum, rather than understanding it with a view to knowing how to vote.

It says it'll follow the result and help you comment and understand on it, as well as conducting polls to see how those taking the course are being affected.

Seems both odd and pointless to me. Are you studying the referendum, or are they studying you learning about it?

This time it seems Salmond did his homework, and tossed in the nuclear, taking-the-ball-home argument of 'if we don't get a currency union, we won't take any of the debt' option. Thoughts?

Utterly impractical and would murder their credit rating.

NEXT!

From a lender's point of view, wouldn't an entity not carrying a shitload of debt be less of a credit risk?

So what collateral would you be lending against?

Who would you rather lend £100 to? Someone who has debt and a track record of paying off the interest on time and in full, or someone who has just defaulted on a loan and now has no debt because of that?

You could argue that Scotland never defaulted on the debt, and that they can't go independent a second time round.

Yeah, a supposed iScotland "doing an Argentina" and simply defaulting on all its debts is about as credible as the rest of the SNP's economic prospectus, and has been comprehensively debunked multiple times already.

As I've said before, this ludicrous (and irresponsible, quite dangerous) sabre-rattling might go down a storm on one-dimensional cybernat blogs and/or after a few drams down the local, but for ordinary, working, tax-paying people at least (i.e. those with plenty at stake - and plenty to lose), it all looks pretty shocking the morning after. They'll not want to be waking up to any prospect of any of this ludicrous nonsense actually being played out for real come 20th Sept, which is why most polls put No at anywhere between 10-20 points ahead mere weeks now before the final poll.

Economic credibility or total lack thereof has been, and will be, the SNP's downfall in all of this (well, that, and their more vociferous, unpleasant cybernat "colleagues" whom they've been desperately trying, unsuccessfully, to variously rein in and/or disassociate themselves from). "It's the economy, stupid"...

That said... if Scotland were to threaten to walk from any notional debt obligation, I dont think rUK would really have to do very much about it. There are enough concerned observers in other EU states alone (Spain, France, Belgium and more) about the outcome of a succesful yes vote and what self determination would mean in their countries that if Scotland were to 'default' then I think they themselves would be pushing for blocking EU membership and even economic sanctions in response, to warn their home independence supporters.

That would be fun.

Also, one article I read this morning said that Salmond was more prepared and ready last nightas evidenced by him dropping the debt bomb. Was he fuck. He knew full well that he couldn't say it last time around as there would be a second debate. This time he knows there won't be another debate so he can just dodge the question from here on in.

I'd potentially rather lend to the third person: the guy who hasn't defaulted and has no debt because he's walked away from some due to political reasons which, as someone who makes money lending to entire countries, I'm aware of and understand.

I don't see how that's a response to my post?

I'd be staggered if the countries selling bonds saw it that way. Not to mention that the banks, powerful as they are, would have pressure put on them by several of the larger EU countries to tell Scotland to fuck off.

Not nice, but more likely.

Well, yes, I'm not saying there won't necessarily be other political shenanigans going on but if it's boiled down to a straight financial transaction, as you did in your question to me, then the lender would selfishly look at the financial risk alone and not whether the borrower has maybe been a bit of a dick to an unrelated third party. In reality it's probably unhelpful to use the term 'default' as it's not what would actually be happening and wouldn't be the actual reason that Scotland might have trouble borrowing; which would in fact be political nonsense as you talk about above.

You've just worded a statement as a question and now I don't know how to respond?

Also, in this instance Scotland doesn't use Sterling OR the Euro, so they'd be borrowing whilst using a totally untried and new currency, which sets off warning bells.

And financial institutions really will see it as a default.

I'm not entirely sure that telling scotland to fuck off under the scenario that they walk without assuming any debt (assuming it were so black or white) would fall into the category of 'political nonsense'

How is it an unrelated 3rd Party?

It was intended to elicit an explanation from you about how your post, which talked about collateral, was related to my post, which was about debt. If you think an independent Scotland would have a collateral problem then I'm interested to hear it, but the discussion hadn't been about that so I honestly don't know what point you were making.

What's rUK's involvement in a loan agreement between an independent Scotland and a lender?

But as Scotland has run up a debt as being part of the current UK, to walk away from it, still makes it their debt.

If they've walked away from it then no, it is no longer their debt. That's sort of the whole point here.

If I walk away from my debts, I can't go borrowing money as if I have an excellent credit rating, even assuming I create a brand new identity.

Yes but surely you can't walk away from a debt. I know that if I decide I don't want to pay my credit card, it will adversly effect me.

Perhaps I am too naive

Also, there's no way an independence bill would ever make it through Westminster without Scotland taking on its share of the debt in the text, I'd have thought.