Be Excellent To Each Other

She's probably rich enough to buy the Scottish crown from Brenda.

I agree. There is something about all of this that seems to be bringing out the worst of people on the Internet. Passion for a cause is one thing, but being rude and vicious against the opposition does your side no favour whatsoever. Unless it's very, very well done of course.

That jobless beggar is nothing more than a demagogue who's really found his niche with a very distasteful subset of Scottish society. I see he hasn't ever accounted for how the money he begged for has been spent, and won't provide more than a vague overview of how the latest round will be spent.

We all know this man. He was always asking you to sign up to his pyramind free console schemes, or click on his referral links, or otherwise do things that was entirely in his own self-interest. I also remember how he was unique in that he never gave anything back, and if anyone on the forum asked for specific help, he never replied, and never stepped up.

He went, what, 10 months without writing a thing, and then tried to double his subscription fee, and whined that his posts on the forum should count as 'quality content' worth paying for.

His exemplifies the scrounging, feckless, angry, useless, bitter, and inherently selfish type of twat that would want to vote Yes to independence, because they think there's something in it for them personally and to hell with anyone else.

Seriously, if all these twats leveraged this effort into actually improving their lives or doing things for the betterment of Scotland, they'd have much less to complain about to begin with.

Fuck's sake. Stop beating around the bush, man.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm in denial and come the day I will vote Yes. I am secretly swayed by neanderthalic ignorance and find it a massive draw.

One of the things that comforts me is the knowledge that living in Bath won't save you from the Glasgow effect, and the crisp-scoffing vein-popping little twat will meet his maker by natural causes in the next 10 years or so.

It might, given that no one actually understands what causes 'the Glasgow effect'.

Actually a very interesting BBC article on this the other day seemed to say that abject misery and profound lack of purpose might be the reason. Apparently the chip-scoffing/smoking/alcoholic culture is not statistically greater than anywhere else with similar mortality. I find that latter part hard to believe.

Feex for what the article really said.



I don't think it said this either (and I'm not really sure what a culture based around eating chips would look like?). The comparison it did make was sort of the other way around; between Glasgow and other cities with similar levels of unemployment, deprivation and inequality in the form of Manchester and Liverpool, and they found that Glasgow had a higher mortality rate in a given age group than it's 'peers'.

I sat in on a lecture from the guy that studied the Glasgow effect for the Scottish government. Dr Burns I think his name was. Absolutely riveting stuff. Genuinely engaging guy, too.

I really hate the whole concept just because it doesn't describe the Glasgow I know, but I accept it's an actual thing of course.

Belgium.

Erm, well, here are some quotes from the article in question:






So 'abject misery/lack of purpose', which is what I said, is pretty bob on.

So yes, the Glasgow effect results in higher mortality when compared to similarly deprived parts of other cities, but apparently this doesn't correlate with a proportionally higher intake of fatty food/alcohol/cigs, hence the 'effect' being a thing to start with.

In my ignorance of Scotland prior to moving here, I had believed the early mortality was somehow environmental rather than cultural.

Of course, the article does hint, warily, at potential genetic heritability. Nobody would like to insinuate that Scots are merely genetically inferior somehow, but then the appropriate Genome Wide Association studies have not been done. The problem would be in identifying the specific phenotypes to be measured against the genotypic data of 'pure-bred' Scots, and these are difficult to quantify.

Ideally you would want a stratified population, like an island, where there are fewer variations caused by outsiders coming in, where inheritance can be measured much more reliably. Theoretically you could attempt to acquire the appropriate data for a mainland population and try to cancel out such factors to see if there are significant SNPs which correlate with observed mortality traits.

Epigenetics is even more fasincating. It goes beyond raw genes and looks at things like genetic pathways and proteins, and a variety of studies are underway in these areas also. I am not a geneticist, but I work with a bunch of them and my gf is a biochemist that does functional follow-up on the outcomes of some of the analysis. S'fascinating stuff.

I'm still no sure why he went down the tenuous Pat Lally line when he could have just pointed out that she's a member of the Labour shadow cabinet & left it at that.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... on-1283062


... & anyway, ye cannae hold Stu responsible for cybernats same as ye cannae hold the tabloids responsible for the cybernaws. Unless of course you're the "scrounging, feckless, angry, useless, bitter, and inherently selfish type of twat" that would want to vote No to independence & insult anyone who thinks otherwise

Yes I can, and that insult when reversed seems laughably inapplicable to the motivations of a No voter.

I also never really understood why some people type in a Scottish accent. What's with that? Many Scots I've spoken to don't understand the predilection either.

I'm no sure ye can write wi' an accent Mind, ye don't have to read it...


As for no voters...
Scrounging: "We cannae live wi'oot hand oots fae Westminster!!!"
Feckless: "We're too wee!"
Angry: Do you read you're own stuff before you post? Have you seen the cybernaws? They're as bad as the other shower.
Bitter: I cannae blame them, the yes campaign is still gaining momentum & the hamfisted Bitter Thegither campaign couldnae organise a pissup in a brewery.
Inherently selfish: Who in the write mind wouldnae grab the chance to shape a greener, fairer, more just & more democratic society? ... & rid the country of WMDs? That's right, selfish buggers. "Fuck everyone else & fuck our future generations, long as I'm fine pal".

It strikes me that such people are possibly preoccupied with asserting their 'blood and soil' pure Scottishness for all to see.

If you want to get a feel for the way the SNP are pitching it, you need to look no further than the big, bold headline of the latest issue of their propaganda paper that was pushed through my door not long ago.

£600 BONUS [under independence]

it declared, along with a byline of some loosely justified bollocks about this is how much better we can expect to be under this 'fairer and prosperous' society drum you're banging.

The very wording is absolute deceit. The word 'bonus' denotes a very specific type of monetary reward. A bonus, a one-off payment, a direct injection of money in the pocket at the advertised rate.

Of course, you read a little further and you see it's not that. It's a nebulous assertion that we'll be 'up to £600 better off', somehow, under independence. But the immediate psychological pitch has people envisioning a tidy, crisp, £600 bonus sitting in their bank accounts if they vote Yes. Psychologically it is absolutely based upon short-termist self-interest, as a reward for giving King Eck the throne.

The tactics employed are so obvious to anyone that wouldn't have their vote bought so easily, or otherwise isn't predisposed towards the cheap tactics aimed at the stupid.

'Greener, fairer, more just'. You're a parody of the most well-worn SNP lines I've seen dragged out time and again in this debate. The same kind of bullshit bollocks that every politician rolls out in advance of an election, and yet on this occasion you're all absolutely convinced of the utter truth of this promise! Genuine credulity, it's absolutely horrifying to behond.

There's something about the way this is pitched. It's aimed at the very heart of Scottish pride, broad and boisterous at the best of times, but on this occasion it's being warped to capitalise on the ideological ambitions of a few who want it regardless of the consequences. You're being sold a boiler room scam that will be worth nothing to any but the architects, and you're convinced by it because it's been given convincing marketing that you're profoundly susceptible to. You don't even see it, you're too far gone.

You've got me in one. I'm probably voting yes & I write in the same language as I talk so I am clearly a racist, blinkered bigot...


Greener, fairer, more just is the direction the Scottish Parliament has been heading in since it's formation & the first word might give you a clue about who's been campaigning for independence with that line. (Hint: There are more parties than the SNP involved in Yes Scotland, although the party responsible are now starting their own yes campaign*) We've been protected to an extent from the actions of Westminster because of the way the various Scottish Governments have decided to spend our budget. Are they suddenly going to change direction in the event of independence? Probably not.


Instead of being a total walloper why not try and give a proper argument about to why I should consider a no vote? The best arguments I've heard have came from JK Rowling & Jackson Carlaw** so there are good arguments against independence, but maybe reactionary drivel & calling yes voters all the all the arseholes under the sun is the level of debate you're capable of in which case you may enjoy spending time with like-minded [no campaigners] at your local Orange Lodge.
*I reckon that might work in the yes campaigns favour since there are a few undecided that just don't like the SNP.
**The deputy leader of the Conservative party! Aye, shocked me too.

For this comment alone you identify yourself as someone who is unworthy of any effort of mine.

Re-read what I actually said, and contemplate the truth of how easily your emotions have predisposed you to vote a particular way.

I am not a Unionist, or religious, or a Royalist. I deal in facts, and Yes campaign deals in promises and plays to emotions. An independent Scotland would survive, but it wouldn't be better. That's the key point. Promises, emotional patriotism, a desire to believe it's true with associated confirmation bias are what compels a Yes voter. It becomes very easy to discard the huge volume of credible evidence against independence. There are elements of anglophobia, of bitterness, a chip on the shoulder, and a sense of inferiority that they believe a Yes vote will ameliorate. It's a huge mix of factors that amount to a puffed up aggressive stance that doesn't actually speak to an intellectual analysis of the probable benefits of a broken union.

No answers on currency, no answers on EU membership. No definitive position on debt share. Veiled threats, and whiny accusations of bullying. Not a government I'll vote for.

The SNP have come to the conclusion of what they want, and have ever since back-pedalled trying to find evidence to support it. It doesn't take a scientist to say that's the wrong way to approach a perceived problem.

Since I'm not a jolly wee Scot, I am freed from such weights on my cultural identity. I'm interested in what will be best for this country going forward. If I thought independence was the answer, I'd vote for it in a second with no apology. But the reasons are weak, the projections too ambitious, the costs underestimated, and the myriad of potential problems ignored entirely. Coupled with the angry ranting of cybernats who are ultimately hoping someone else will fix the problems in their lives, you would quite literally have to be mad to think it was a good idea.

But who am I kidding. Most of them don't even have this thought process. The inculcation of SNP propaganda is sufficient justification for most, and it's repeated mindlessly like a mantra. Unfortunately, saying it over and over won't make it true.

Stick it to me, Wullie, by voting Yes. You'll really get me good. Unfortunately, you'll only be getting yourself at the same time.

Christ. Now I have to get involved. I tend not to post much on here (as my low post count will doubtless attest), but seeing the Noted Internet Mentalist formally known as ComicalGames strutting in here humming "Wild Mountain Thyme" with a sprig of heather shoved in his hair in the role of “The One Sane Voice of the Scottish People Who Sees and Speaks Truth" has motivated me to actually log in for once and type a reply. 

Anyway, hello! Lest I just be seen as another axe-grinding, vexed foe who's using this as an excuse to start randomly wading in with abuse, I feel I should state my credentials. I'm Stephen and I'm a Scottish man who lives in Scotland. However, before the chin-stroking and nodding begin, I have also lived in England and currently spend, ooh, at least one out of every 3 or 4 weeks in London due to the demands of my employer; I am no parochial hayseed terrified by the monsters I have heard live across the border. I even eat foods that are occasionally not entirely deep fried (although I make sure to always have chips with it). There are at least several people possibly no longer on here who can confirm most of the above - and hopefully also confirm the fact I'm not a dangerous lunatic or anything. A miserable bastard perhaps, but lovely nonetheless. I also probably have a entirely outdated and needlessly combative style of posting, but you can all SHUT UP.

Anyway, this is a thread I've also kept an eye on - and much as I've scoffed and disagreed entirely with large parts of it, I've nonetheless found it an interesting to read what the view from, well, "outside" is. I'm always oddly touched that there's apparently such a pro-Union feeling in England (and I mean that quite sincerely), even if it sometimes unintentionally manifests in a vaguely "You'd be nothing without us!" tone from the more, er, strident posters, shall we say. Anyway. Shall we?



Stay classy. While Stu remains a polarising figure (particularly on here), I'm actually pleased to see him put his energies towards something he clearly feels strongly about and make a success of it. Using "He doesn't even live in Scotland" (as you do earlier) while wishing cardiac-based death though is clearly absolute insanity. By all means agree and disagree with what he says, but it'd be as deranged as my saying "You weren't even born in Scotland!" or even "You used to run a copyright-baiting site about giant biscuits and the like and have a history of spectacularly flouncing over nothing at all" by way of arguing with you. Just for example, like.



I don't disagree that the Pro-Independence camp haven't always been particularly detailed on a lot of this (although again, I think a lot of this is overstated somewhat - leading to ludicrous fear-mongering headlines about "YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO WATCH DR WHO” and last week’s incredible Express one about “CURE FOR CANCER DELAYED IF SCOTLAND BECOMES INDEPENDENT” and the like - when despite your derision I *do* actually believe that a lot of this wouldn't really be a problem eventually after some meandering. Although I think they should have been firmer on the currency thing, mind. But anyway) this isn't the real issue completely. The SNP have been incredibly clever about how they're going about this and despite your lack of being convinced - others clearly are and the continually narrowing polls attest to this. Assuming overwhelming public support is given for breaking away, it's not like it's going to happen the next day regardless. Negotiations over these types of things are going to be inevitable and are never going to be settled even in the most detailed manifesto.



Except Wullie’s already made it quite clear he’s campaigning on behalf of the Greens; something you’ve ignored - along with his request to actually give a proper piece of reasoning for a no vote other than haughty condescension. That’s the thing that seems to pass a lot of people by; a vote for Independence is not a vote for the SNP. You’re voting to alter the argument and change the system; to force the political parties to engage with the political, social and economic issues that matter in this part of the world - rather than making sure the City of London is booming and that house prices in the South East remain buoyant. I should point out that I’m not arguing with the political realities that force the Westminster parties to set such priorities (although the gusto with which they do is another debate entirely), but the fact is that such priorities are *far* less relevant in a country which still hasn’t recovered from the arse falling out (or being kicked out of, depending on your view) of what was primarily a manufacturing focused economy at the end of the last century. Christ, even if you’re a Conservative voter, wouldn’t it be good to have a party that actually campaigns on and implements policies which are relevant to the day to day concerns of your already entirely separate legal and educational systems? Independence has got fuck all to do with whether you think Alex Salmond is the greatest politician around or whether you think he’s got a giant fat head - it’s about self-determination and re-engagement with a what has become for many a completely irrelevant political process and system that’s lurched increasingly rightward in spite of overwhelming public support for a left-leaning option. In that situation, I don’t think “greener, fairer, more just” is bollocks at all. Idealistic, maybe - but isn’t that the whole fucking point of politics in some ways?



How about that’s because that’s probably how he speaks? And probably how I speak too, quite honestly. And how fucking diminishing and derisory is it of you to point that out as if in a stage whisper to a sniggering audience of braying toffs? Heaven forbid a Scottish man use Scottish idiom in a thread about Scotland! Besides, Scots is as valid (if somewhat diluted due to years of neglect) a language as English, so let's just assume he was typing in Scots. In fact, now I reply to this bit and becoming increasingly enraged, this comment is making me wonder why I’m even debating this with you. As I read all what you’ve wrote even in just this last page, the following comments…









… make it clear what a condescending, supercilious, odiously dismissive, fucking *arsehole* of a man you actually are. So I’m going to shut up now.




Well, that went well.

I've known Stephen for longer than I've known anyone on this forum. I vouch for this.

Haha! I initially felt that was surely a mistake - but you're right. I've probably been rolling my eyes and responding with jovial aggression to everything you say since probably almost the last century. Crikey.

Which reminds me - if I'd wanted input about Scotland from Welsh shortarses; I'D HAVE ASKED FOR IT.

Etc.




Hello Rich! It's been way too long.

Almost? The Cardiff a.d meet at my flat was 1999, so I'd been in the group for a year or so before that. Unless you came to a.d relatively late then it was well into the last century.

Fuck you buddy!

I'll never forget you punking me on that backwards rollercoaster in Blackpool.

I was around; I specifically remember being appalled at your contributions when they started, so - in one way or another - we've probably been interacting in some form for nearly half of my life. Sob. How did I get so old that Richard Fucking Gaywood is technically one of my oldest friends?



Hoho. Who could tell we actually get along, eh?



I can't quite recall; did I just claim it was a sedate journey forward and then laugh maniacally at your obvious discomfort as we were hurled backwards afterwards? That certainly doesn't sound like me. I do remember you refusing to go on a log flume as you didn't want to get your colossal nerdphone of the time wet though, nor would you trust it to the surly operators.

I missed out on the glory days of a.d. I was cutting my usenet teeth in uk.misc at that point, which was both a brilliant and awful place.

I was mooching around various other uk newsgroups back then.

After 20 years of "next year" usenet is finally dying. I'm only subscribed to two groups now, ugvm and uk.Comp.Sys.Mac, neither of which are anywhere close to as busy as they used to be.

The uk startrek group was my "home" and that has been totally dead for quite a few years now, which is a real shame as I made some brilliant friends there. I've just been looking at some old topics and I can still remember posting in them!

The eBay group which was my creation is unwell but not entirely dead and there's a few reasonably healthy uk groups left - the moderated legal one and the motorbike one are two I still follow but rarely post in.

I was only ever a casual usenet user, lurking a bit,with maybe one or two posts.

I more did IRC on quakenet "back in the day"

Malc

Tl;dr

Although, you wrote all that just to call EBG an arsehole, basically...?

Christ, what a waste of bandwidth, I'd have stayed lurking personally with that standard of debut.

Bottom line for you? The SNP have had years to work this stuff out, and yet, mere days before the referendum they are utterly clueless about whether an independent Scotland would have a currency union with rUK - they insist they would despite unequivocally being denied by all UK parties - and iScotlands status within the EU, if any, as confirmed at the highest level. Maybe these things don't matter if you're a hate blinded, swivel-eyed loon who lives on the internet and collects benefits, but they DO matter if you have a profession, a house, a family & LIVE in Scotland, I.e. You actually have something to lose.

The "independence debate", such as the sorry arsed thing that it is, has done nothing thus far to shed meaningful light on these fundamental issues; it is essentially childish pish. But what it has done is create huge divisions that weren't there before, for nought (independence support remains at one third, nowhere near high enough and hardly surprising for aforementioned reasons). Well done to all concerned eh. (And your ill tempered, unpleasant, personal post being a prime example)

Salmond: the banker who's been spectacularly wrong about everything, ever, and who shows every sign of maintaining this sorry record. How anyone could place one iota of faith in this guy is utterly beyond my wildest comprehension, frankly.

Hello Stephen.

Thanks for your comments.

I honestly believe that Scottish independence would not be good for Scotland or for the other countries in the Union. I'm a great believer in 'Home Rule All Round', and, indeed, think that as much as possible should be down at the lowest level possible (although, perhaps the city states in Chesterton's 'The Napoleon of Notting Hill' goes a little too far).

Currently, Scotland has an enormous range of powers over its own internal affairs and these will be extended once the Scotland Act 2012 enters force (assuming, of course, that the vote isn't for secession). It seems that the major UK parties are happy to go even further, and I'm ok with that.

So why am I against full independence? Firstly, it throws up so many questions about what independence would actually mean for Scotland and its relations with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (not to mention the trickier questions of international bodies - UN is probably a given, but NATO or the EU), that those advocating it have to be prepared to have answers, or be willing to say 'we don't know, but let's try it'. Take the currency example. If the Scots go for currency union and keeping the pound, that begs the question of what would have been gained by going it alone in the first place. And then there's the question of border policies, immigration, defence, and a million other small UK or cross-border setups that would have to be unpicked, examined, and redefined.

Much would be done during the negotiations, sure, but we don't know which parties will be negotiating. It pains me to say this, but I would consider it a dereliction of duty for the Westminster side not to seek the best settlement that benefits the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish, even if that is to the detriment of the Scots. Life will, after all be very different for us too.

Secondly, I don't think it's wise for people to advocate independence based on some particular view of what they could achieve once the cut has been made. Yes, there probably is demand for higher levels of social and welfare spending in Scotland etc, but how is it going to be paid for? Don't just say oil. The continuity of its revenue stream is uncertain and, sadly, you can either have a sovereign wealth fund like Norway, or you can spend it as go. Welfare is the trickiest, as it depends on a UK pot. Pull away, and we'll have to negotiate on that.

Finally, major constitutional change is not something that should ever be undertaken lightly. Nobody has any idea of how life in the Scottish Free State and that in the rest of the Isles would be in five, ten, twenty years' time. And it's not something that could easily be repealed after the act has been passed. Those wanting the split will have to be prepared to live with the consequences, for good or ill, even if the land of milk and honey that some of its more passionate advocates dream of does not arrive.

What is positive, however, is that any Scottish secession would be legal and peaceful, and for that we would all be grateful and will still consider you as close neighbours.

I really recommend Scotland's Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards by Iain McLean, Guy Lodge, and Jim Gallagher as it's the only book I've found that tries to examine the major options in nerdy detail any fledging state would have to deal with.

While I am touched I have compelled a quiet lurker to post about how much he hates me, I am unmoved.

One important thing to remember is that I chose to live in Scotland because I love the country and the people - most of the people. My condescending insults to the chip-brained subset of Scots who are too stupid to analyse the arguments logically and vote based on their local Scottish 'argument from authority fallacy' propaganda shouldn't move you either.

Quite simply, if you feel my sentiments don't apply to you, you need not be insulted by them. I have spoken with many Yes voters who are not this stereotype of braveheart thumping idiot, and so I don't level these judgements upon them, wrong though I still think they are. But it would be naive in the extreme to think that all Yes voters are doing so because they're fully apprised, intellectually aware and cogent of all of the minutiae of arguments that comprise this proposition. They're not. Most I see are the verbatim parrots of the line they've been fed, and that's good enough for them. Such people are idiots and are unworthy of debate. Not least because they can't be convinced, but also because if you had incontrovertible evidence that demonstrated independence would be a disaster, they'd refuse to believe it.

So, I'm calling people who are idiots, idiots. I'm literally Hitler. These types are the cybernat trolls that no respectable person would want to be associated with.

So I wonder, Stephen, what is actually angering you here? If someone described a particular subset of English morons and I thought it bore no resemblance to me, what cause would I have to be offended? Outrage on behalf of people that aren't me? Such an impassioned response? It seems unlikely.

My assumption is that a few of my speculations as to what motivates these people has hit a little too close to home for your comfort. You feel you're being insulted personally, hence your response.

The only person that ever thought I was an actual 'mentalist' was Stuart himself, and why was that? Because I once disagreed with him about something and refused to back down. Unable to meet my arguments intellectually he resorted to the quick banhammer, and we're talking way back in 2006. Now he's merely content to whip up discontent amongst these slavering cybernats who will keep handing over their cash to write stories that play to their emotions, prejudices, and national pride in the way they absolutely love. The fact that I wouldn't be sad if he suddenly died is neither here nor there.

Now, if you'd like to calm down and actually raise a specific point which you think bears discussion, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I should also note that I'm in favour of devolution, and I'd be more than happy to see maximum power for damn near everything put into Scottish hands. That only seems reasonable, and has the benefits of all of the good things the UK has to offer.

Some people think having an independent nuclear deterrent is a good thing. Me, for example. I never understood the argument that said having bases in the Clyde would make it more of a target in the event of war. If some batshit country launches an attack on our infrastructive, they'd clearly be risking a nuclear response. To date nobody has done that, and I believe the weapons are made never to be used. With no such defence, I'd actually say it makes the possibility of an attack against the UK more likely.

UN, no problem, and anyone that says Scotland would be barred from the EU is silly.

But I don't see any basis why the application would be fast-tracked. Obviously we (and I'm reluctant to use 'we' in reference to Scotland, because for me, 'we' is the UK) have everything in place to be a compliant EU country, but since Scotland would probably exist under some kind of interim state (for simplicity, still considered part of the UK?), why would the EU not make it do a full application from scratch?

The EU is an organisation very invested in its own existence. Indeed, cynical as I am about it, I think a lot of the effort it exerts is in solidifying its authority and uniformity over its member states. The Euro has been propped up to a ludicrous degree, much to the misery of the economies that aren't as powerful as Germany. Part of maintaining this authority is about the application of consistency in its rules and regulations.

You don't need to look at the EU parliament for a very long time to see how many people are smarting about the UK's rebate and exemptions. They don't think we should have them, but we were large and influential enough when the EU was emergent to be able to argue for things that benefit us preferentially.

They won't make that mistake again, and if a piece of the UK decides to carve itself off, they'll make every effort possible to bring that into line with every other recent EU applicant. No rebate, no opt-outs, no seats at the big tables, and no negotiating power. Since Scotland wouldn't coutenance *not* joining the EU, we'd be very much over a barrel. We'd be obligated to eventually join the Euro, VAT exemptions would stop being a thing, while additionally being a tiny voice at a massive table.

I don't see that having a bit of oil would lead to any hard bargaining for a good deal. Scotland needs the EU, the EU has no reason to give Scotland special treatment. The whole Spain/Catalonia situation is too speculative to make a comment on that, but I don't see it helping the process either.

All of this because of an assertion that eventually it will be better, because reasons. Nope.

No. You're a dick.

Well, at least you have brevity

When excluding "Don't knows"
https://twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/477937143839739905/photo/1

A recent survey has shown, with a ratio of 2:1, that if "Don't knows" are told they have to vote NOW, they are more likely to vote "Yes" than "No", which takes the "Yes" percentage to ABOVE 50%.

As an all round thing, could people please start backing their facts up with links? It's a nightmare trying to find proof for what everyone says online. (Yes, yes, the whole recent survey thing, sorry but I can't find the link - I'll edit when I do)

I don’t hate you; we’ve barely interacted and for all I know you *might* be almost tolerable company. But I think you do a *startlingly* magnificent job of coming across as a sanctimonious, conceited arsehole on here.



And again - I did not doubt this. It’s not like you were shackled, sentenced to transportation and sent a couple of hundred miles north. And not many come here for the weather. But it didn’t stop you calling others out for the opposite earlier in the thread. And much as I may be something of a misanthrope on a personal level, I resent and reject the broad categorisation of large portions the general public as “idiots” just because they - in essence - have a viewpoint you disagree with. By all means state they’re uninformed (and provide explanation as to why); by all means feel free to dismiss such viewpoints if you feel them unable to stand up to scrutiny (hell, even shake your head in weary disappointment in such cases if it helps) - but if you’re going to be so vociferous and vehement in your own viewpoints (alliteration is fun) then you’re just as culpable when it comes to stifling quality debate and as likely to ensure no-one’s going to want to listen to what you have to say and just call you a big arsehole instead. Again.



What a bunch of spurious, self-justifying horseshit. "I didn't mean *you* - just all the other cunts!". If you're going to say something so worthy of contempt and justify it by comparing yourself to Hitler (an, er, unnervingly bold play - even for the internet), then at least have some spine about it. I can respect deranged conviction in some ways at least, even if it'll have me eyeing the exits as soon as possible.

Still, it’s nice that you begrudgingly accept that not all Yes voters are idiots - and some are merely just completely wrong and so worthy of your contempt for other reasons. Big of you. At least they *tried* to measure up, eh? See, there’s a tacit, unspoken subtext here that if you’re a Yes voter, then you’re misinformed. What about the many others who’ve been scared by an *utterly* compliant media (and again - the issue here isn’t whether you agree or disagree with their intent; merely that there’s been virtually no effort made to inform or educate) that the sky may literally fall in? What about the “idiots” (as you’d have it) who simply fear change and haven’t made an effort to research whether *anything* about what’s being offered? Are they basically OK and worthy of an affectionate hair-ruffling because they’re Unionists in their heart of hearts?

And much as you say “if you had incontrovertible evidence”, er, you don’t. No-one really does. Yes, there’s sentiment, opinion, interpretation (much of it informed and rational; an equal amount batshit and baffling) on both sides - but there isn’t *really* a silver bullet for either side. Your own personal feelings may, of course, lead you to believe otherwise but there’s been very little from either side that all have said “Yeah, that makes sense”. In such an environment, there’s always going to be conflict - but let’s not bring it down to the basement by hooting at the other side, eh?



Haw. No, I’m afraid as much as it’d be amusing to break down in tears as I pumped your hand gratefully having sat bolt upright at the breakthrough you’ve just made (as I lie on the cod-psychiatry couch you’ve constructed specially for me here) I’m afraid that my only motivation for calling you an arsehole was pure and simply that you were acting like an arsehole. Much as you may claim your sweeping dismissing of pro-independence Scots was simply a frustration at the fact that you feel that the same people may screw up their faces as they breathlessly intone each word in an attempt to comprehend the debate while moving their fingers along the screen - all the while sporting woad painted faces as they look around for an Englishman to kick fuck out of; the fact is, you were being a patronising prick. Specifically when it came to the thumbs-in-the-lapel pride you claimed at not being a “jolly wee Jock”. While I’m willing to accept that there’s a difficulty in ascertaining tone and intent when dealing with an entirely text based medium - when such remarks are also amidst withering contempt for “accents” and wishing people dead of heart attacks, it’s kind of difficult not to think “What a fucking arsehole this man is”. I’m all for impassioned debate, but don’t be a self-superior, chest-puffing dick about it and think that lends credence to whatever your arguments are.

So, no. I wasn’t insulted as it “hit a little too close to home”. I was insulted because you were diminishing both the debate and others who’d tried to engage with you on it. Much as you’re treating this like you’re a weary, neutral, panel chairman trying to get the rowdy audience to ask an appropriately dignified question that you deign worthy of a response ("if you'd like to calm down") - if you feel the points I’ve rambled on aren’t worthy of discussion (or those raised by Wullie and others) then fine, I’m happy to gracefully step backwards as we narrow our eyes at each other and agree we’re probably never going to be able to argue gracefully. I’m not going to produce bullet points and beatifically await the stone tablets with your response on just because you’ve decided you’re willing to gaze in my direction.

Oh, and Kern - you're lovely.

Now if this doesn't stop, I'm going to hit 20 posts - and I wasn't supposed to do that until at least 2018.

Nah.
"Don't know" means don't know.

Linking back to "Oil running out" there is believed to be a large amount of oil in the Firth of Clyde, (BP has done surveys, and I think they drilled and then capped it) whcih access is blocked to because of Tridant. Independence would result in the opening of a (believed to be) large oil field.
Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4



In all seriousness, could someone actually explain the advantages of the EU? I'm not saying I'm for or against it, I'm really curious why ANY country would want to be in it? What do they get?

Also, Cavey, EBG, where do you get your information? If it's relevent, I'd very much like to read it. I'm open to things that may change my view if they present good enough reasons.

What info do you need mate? Opinion polls are clear; the independence vote is c.33%, more or less, time and again. At this stage in the game it needs to be 20 points higher.

As for info on the smoking ruins that is the SNP white paper, most specifically the categoric denial of a Sterling union as well as position on EU, even the most cursory enquiries reveal the true status and facts. The SNP are essentially asking/expecting Scots to gamble everything for their "hunch" and assertion that all three parties are in fact bluffing, in the face of all facts and logic, just as per the EU Commission for that matter. But like I've said, whilst such baseless, ephemeral crap may be palatable if you have nothing to lose, that isn't true for mainstream, normal Scots with jobs, mortgages, kids and careers.

Indeed. My time is valuable, at least to me. Bear in mind I follow the flow of the debate constantly and comment on it rarely. It wearies me. The chest-thumping Yes voters are so predictable in their response. The time I entertained a debate where minds could be changed has long past. When every counter-argument to independence, whether it has merit or not, is decried in such a wave of wilful ignorance and venom that I do, very much, look down upon such people as unworthy of my time. Why would I bother? I can't convince them, and the early days when I attempted a polite point for point exchange of ideas was quickly disavowed by the abuse I received from many, many cybernats.

So, you respond to me at a time where I've already reached a very crystallised assessment of the mentality of the average Yes voter - at least of the ones I'm most likely to encounter. The reasonable people up for a chat (and I've had them, pitifully few) are far removed from the bitter jolly Scot (not Jock, as you incorrectly quoted) I describe. Weary disappointment, head-shaking, yes.

Since it was impossible to refer to you before you joined the thread, what I said about taking offense by interpellating to my description is entirely correct. I am describing a particular kind of detestable personality that I see to exist. Now, you can disagree that such people exist if you like (with difficulty), but you can't try to play me down as lacking conviction. The comparison to Hitler was evident sarcasm *rolls eyes*.

Similarly, I spoke of 'incontrovertible evidence' in the context of a person that wouldn't believe it that it did exist. It's pretty obvious to all that I wasn't trying to say that it does exist, and that I have it here in my pocket...

Other relevant points:

1) I am not a Unionist. In as much as you smartly point out that a Yes voter does not mean SNP (and I know this), a No voter doesn't mean a Unionist. I couldn't give a piddly toss for the UK in the sense that I don't believe it's sacrosanct and must never be altered. I'm all for changing things if there is a compelling reason.
2) I would vote Yes myself if I thought the argument was convincing. That's important, because many people would vote No if they thought the argument was convincing, but was over-ridden by sentimentality or other party political influences that wanted them to remain part of the UK. I have no such bias.

Since I do utterly believe that the arguments are not convincing, projections optimistic, etc etc, I also view the 'other side' as the opposite of what I outline above. They might find the argument not convincing (if they took the time to study it without preconceptions), but that is superseded by other factors that lead their thinking. Including but not limited to those factors I mentioned before: anglophobia, bitterness, misplaced tribal nationalism, and so forth.

If it was a question of merely making a really good argument, I'd expect people to be open to, and respond to, intelligent counterpoints in the debate. How often do you see that? And then, how often do you instead see a wave of aggressive abuse suffixed by a tart and mandatory 'VOTE YES!'.

I don't support Better Together, and I have many criticisms of how they've handled the campaign. Their approach has been very scattergun - literally rattling every angle, which intermixes very reasonable and probable negative outcomes with claims that are absolutely untrue. Almost as though they're scared that if they stick to a consistently credible message it might be insufficient against the tactics employed by the opponent - hence pretty much trying everything.

The BT campaign is an aside to me - my thinking is not led by their posts and I'll make up my own mind. I don't knock on doors, blurt VOTE NO at every opportunity or vent abuse at random people I don't know on Twitter - once again, I have many better uses for my time.

With regard to Oil, I look beyond the various claims of each side as too questionable. I am however very interested in the Hubbert Curve.

Look there at Peak Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) and see how closely the prediction matches reality. There have been a few adjustments but the overall trend and logic behind it is extremely sound. Taking into account the increasing, non-linear increase in oil consumption, it is impossible for supply to meet demand indefinitely. Global production (per capita, in real terms it has been largely stable) is on the decrease, although the industry remains viable.

Viable and finite. The grand plan for Scotland in to the future doesn't actually hint what happens when the oil runs out, because the economy won't be held up by whisky and shortbread. Talking about Wave and Wind 'potential' is fine, but where are the plans for investment and decreasing dependence? Is there a plan? Did I miss it? Genuine question.

The thinking is short-termist, and based on assumptions of easy prosperity far into the future. That might be fine if it holds out until all of the current politicians are dead and beyond reproach, but what then? Or are we selfishly thinking only of our own benefit for the current generation?

I recently wrote a paper for the Exec Committee of my company (insurance) on the risk/ramifications of Scottish independence.

In short, the summary was, "Oh please don't fucking vote Yes, it will means tons of extra work for any company working in both domiciles".

With an addendum of, "If they do vote yes, at least we'll have 18-24 months before anything actually happens"

I did similar myself. Albeit substitute "please don't" with "there's shit loads to be made..."

Yup. Big business in Scotland wants a yes vote about as much as a dose of scabies, and has said as much (frequently and highly vocally), for good, sound, very obvious reasons. Not that your average Cybernat gives two figs though of course.

So basically, then, that's Scotland's big employers (most notably oil and financial sectors), as well as her allies and biggest markets (rUK, EU and now, emphatically and unprecedentedly USA as well....). Yeah, great idea this (so called) "independence" malarkey, but no doubt I'm a unionist troll / scaremonger for pointing out such inconvenient realities and pesky facts.

Yeah, I was surprised at how open some of the large companies were about it; basically saying they'll straight up and leave if it happens.

All of those companies have since been boycotted and will never get the business of the faithful again anyway. I saw loads of people declare they were cancelling their non-existent Scottish Widows policies immediately.

It's a referendum on getting statehood for Scotland – not a popularity contest about Alec Salmond. Pro-independence Scottish nationalists have existed long before Salmond was ever an elected politician, and will exist for a long time to come even if he dropped dead tomorrow.