Be Excellent To Each Other

Just watched the second debate.
Really unimpressed by Salmond. The only times he looked like a leader rather than an undergraduate debating champ were when he was setting out his vision. It's just a shame he is unable to back it up with hard figures or a sense of political reality. And every time he knocked the Tories or bashed Darling for being 'in bed' with them I cringed. Might appeal to the base and work during an election campaign, but not exactly statesmanlike. It was interesting that Salmond rarely brought up his experiences as First Minister, whilst Darling kept on referring to having held high office in a sovereign state and what that taught him.

Darling was as impressive this time round as he was on the STV one. Coming across as a headmasterly figure calmly deconstructing the 'Yes' campaign is certainly not a sexy approach, but for a vote like this it's very effective. I've noticed that on WoS-that-isn't-WoS, some of the commentators are leaping with glee when Darling said that Scotland could use the pound. They seem to have missed his point that they could also use the dollar, the rouble, or the yen.

Three weeks to go. This thread is quite 'No': do any of our 'yes' people have any thoughts on the campaign, the debate, the vote, or Scotland's future?

Having been thoroughly wedged between yes and no since all this began and what with the inherent uncertainty that a proposition like this presents, I have decided that the only course of action open to me is to vote with my heart. This is not normally how I go about things but I feel it has been forced by the to and fro stalemate where anything anyone says can, and will, be countered by their opposition to a point where everyone just shrugs and says "well, that's just your opinion." So, on that basis I am currently leaning toward Yes and the reasoning is thus: I like change. Given the choice between something remaining stagnant and forever being unsure of what the outcome would be and taking the plunge and trying something different i will more often than not choose the latter. This is just my mentality and is, imo, a pretty poor thing to decide the future of an entire country on but my rational brainy bit is torn between the two options and so i must let something cast the deciding vote and just bloody hope it doesn't all go tits up.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable assessment. I would actually prefer more responses like that then the 'land of deep-fried milk and honey' promised by Salmond.

None of us know how independent Scotland* will work in the long term: I would rather people admitted that it's a hell of a risk and worth trying for richer and poorer rather than making promises that might be regretted.



*new rule: anyone who says 'iScotland' gets to meet Steve Jobs. And don't get me started on 'rUK'.

Yeah, pretty much .

The quality of the No campaign must really suck if the overall rationale for voting Yes is one of 'well, change might be good'.

This is not a general election. We're not giving the SNP 4-5 years to give independence a roll and see how that pans out, before deciding if we'd like it for 4 more. This is permanent and forever. If it goes tits up, it goes tits up forever.

Their arguments are not convincing, because they're not backed up by evidence. They're backed up by a wish for them to be true, and a lot of that wishing is trying to capitalise on the irrational heart where people would like a better world, and see this as the only choice that offers that possibility.

It's an illusion though, you're led to that conclusion because you see it as a binary choice. Change or no change. The actual proposition for No would see more devolved powers and greater local autonomy.

The overall movement is one where the Scottish government will eventually get control of damn near everything anyway, but without any of the severe risk of being apart from the UK with no central bank at worst, and no control or influence over monetary policy at best.

If I didn't live in Scotland, I'd fine the whole proposition charmingly aspirational, and since it wouldn't ever materially affect me I'd probably tell you all to go for it. That's why others in England feel that way - they know the outcome doesn't put them at risk. Living here though and being able to appreciate the position from the north side of the border, I think it's the absolutely worst possible idea imaginable.

Am I the only person in the world who has read the Scotland Act 2012? Even without further devolution, this will be a huge change when it comes into force.

But, whilst I think the 'Yes' campaign has utterly failed to make its case, I can't begrudge people wanting to go for it fully aware that it might all go wrong. I would wish Scotland well, but as I wrote in this thread 2 and half years ago: don't expect us to bail you guys out again when you blow all your treasure on an ill-conceived venture in the New World.

But we would.

Of course.

Well, I'd just say fair play to Wookie and Bamba here, you guys are Scottish and you live in Scotland, so you're infinitely better placed to make such decisions than someone like me.

To my mind it looks like a crazy risk with so many important details and plans unmade and unresolved, but like I said I'm not the guy who's lived there for 20, 30 years or whatever.

From my side I just desperately want the Union to stay together for a whole host of pragmatic and entirely emotive reasons, but Scotland must have her fair, unfettered, democratic chance to decide either way and the rest of us have to respect whatever choice is made.

Just out of interest Cavey, do you regard their opinions with more weight than mine? As I'm a mere English expat that has been here 'only' 4 years, am I trumped by the opinion of a 'trueblood' Scot?

Genuinely curious. Much has been said (and then quickly hushed because of the blatant racism insinuation) about how only 'true' Scots should get to vote, even if they no longer live here, preferentially over someone like me.

I regard their opinions with more weight than yours, but only because you're you

I think I want them to vote yes. In my opinion it's a crazy risk, but it'll be an interesting decade or so to watch, at least

Assuming a 'yes' vote, what's going to happen to the armed forces?

I suspect a very close military alliance would be formed.

That, or a big fucking wall

That's an incredibly difficult question to answer without sounding like an offensive twat, which knowing how highly I think of you, I really want to avoid.

However, I'm going to be honest and say 'conditional yes, all other things being equal?' To my simplistic mind, a lifetime in Scotland (30 years plus or whatever) is bound to have imparted more specialist knowledge as regards its people, culture, political priorities etc. than 4 years? (But there again, you'll have a different, possibly more interesting/useful perspective in that you'll be coming at this from a different angle, with the benefit of cultural and other life experience of a different country). Just to be clear though, 'blood' has nowt to do with it though.

Of course there are other variables at play; for all I know you might be more insightful and/or intelligent than Bamba or Wookie, meaning you'll assimilate knowledge faster and make more valid deductions? I'm certainly not going to speculate on this(though one thing's for sure, I myself have a head full of straw ).

So yeah. Um.
Please no-one take any offence at this as none is intended; just trying to answer a question as honestly as I can.

You're all three of you far better placed than myself (and indeed, many of the vocal commentators in this debate), that's for certain.

Whatever dickhead

As I said, if I lived in England it would be fascinating to watch, knowing that I was largely safe from the consequences of it all going tits up.


ENORMOUS OFFENCE TAKEN. FLOUNCING WILL COMMENCE PRESENTLY.

Although I disagree, simply because living somewhere all your life doesn't inherently qualify you to have superior comment on any political situation. Certainly I don't think some jakey booze-filled twat that bases his opinion on what the loud guy next to him says is worth more than my opinion, just because it's coming out of an authentically Scottish mouth.

Similarly even if you're a disenchanted hate-filled Scot that writes a blog from England, I regard that as much less valid than someone who actually lives here.

As far as the emotional argument for independence goes, I am not moved. This is because my sense of patriotism or bubbling resentment towards the English can't be leveraged to make me vote for something without providing credible evidence. I'd personally say that makes me much better placed to have a clear opinion on whether this is a good idea or not.

I forgot to mention the other incredibly compelling reason I'm leaning towards a Yes vote: the hope that it'll make EBJ literally explode with rage and frustration at all the stupid selfish jakey cunts he's apparently surrounded by.

- "I agree"

You should only really be offended about such a theoretical person if you consider yourself to be one such. Clearly, if I thought you were I'd tell you that directly. Nor has anything I said implied that I consider all Scots to be like this. That would make living in this country a bizarrely unpleasant experience to choose.

Unless you think drunken jakey cunts with ill-informed opinions don't exist? I'm sure you wouldn't say that, and the single crux of my point is that I don't consider such a person to have a more valid opinion than me just because they're home-grown Scots.

Happy to discuss your objection with my views, if you can be specific about what they are.

My dad asked an interesting question today. How are people from EU countries living in Scotland likely to vote? After all, they have the ballot too (assuming the registering authorities haven't screwed up like the rumours I heard back in June).

Erm, which is it then?

That's not the 'one or the other' you think it is.

It's actually pretty simple. Weighting of opinion goes as follows:

1) Lives here
2) Doesn't live here.

Not:

1) Lives here, Scottish.
2) Doesn't live here, Scottish.
3) Lives here, English.

Yes?

Cavey said all other things being equal that someone who had lived there longer would probably have greater insight, which seems pretty reasonable. But you ignored that and started on about loudmouth drunks etc.

Loudmouth drunks who've lived there longer.

I said I disagreed, so I didn't ignore it at all. I used the example of an ill-informed drunk to demonstrate that living somewhere longer confers no automatic 'greater insight' as implied.

I'd actually argue the reverse in some instances, with regard to the 'argument to emotion' as mentioned before. You can go back and actually read what I said if you like, rather than me repeating myself.

It's almost the other way round I guess. Your experience of Scotland from historically living there or not is probably less important than the fact that if you do live there now, the vote will have a greater impact on your FUTURE than if you don't.

I feel that throughout this entire thread you've consistently characterised Yes voters in general as stupid, ignorant, loud-mouthed, selfish idiots. You may not have specifically said all Yes voters share those characteristics but you've certainly done little to make anyone reading your posts believe otherwise either. I believe you've taken the fact that few Yes voters have actually posted in this thread as carte blanche to not only keep doing this but to ramp it up over time. It's made this entire thread a low-level irritation to read and has massively contributed to my own decision to rarely join in the discussion. I'm not going to dig through the entire thread to pull out specific examples and go ten rounds with you on it because I simply don't care enough about it and because it'll no doubt be a miserable angry negative experience for all concerned. You may take as evidence of the flimsiness of my argument if you wish of course.

I'll save you some time and point you to this, which is an accurate representation of what I think of some Yes voters.

I make it pretty clear that I see there to be two types, one of which I merely think are wrong, and the others who I think are irrecoverably idiotic, selfish, dimwitted twats. For this I make no apology.

Yeah, and why people like Sean Connery, who live in the Bahamas, can piss off telling us how to vote. Worse still are those that say they might move back if it goes independent. It strikes me as profoundly dishonest to bang on about how much you love your country, except you definitely don't want to live there and support it unless it makes itself more appealing to you.

To answer Kern's dad I think quite a lot of EU citizens will vote, although again depends on the individual. Most people I've spoken to who are aware enough that the referendum is happening will also be choosing to vote.

That's not really all other things being equal though. Not unless gnomes is a drunk too.

Subtle

I wouldn't mind quite so much, but compared to your average frothing cybernat I'm downright tame. As if general disdain for the opposing view is the worst opinion one can hold.

I am sorry if you feel that way Bamba. This forum is possibly a bad place to vent my opinion, because it's usually on the back of reading the mad rantings of cybernats and their ilk. I cannot help but hold the whole mentality of that side of the campaign in absolute contempt. Because they are the most visible, most vocal, and most distasteful, it's very difficult to remember that there are some truly not sure people out there that might lean towards what they believe is a chance for a better future.

I don't do people down for wanting that, except that I don't think this is the way. I repeat again that I'd happily vote Yes and leave the UK behind if I thought the evidence held up to proper scrutiny.

I think certain people have massively and divisively upped the ante in this whole process, and that's deeply unfortunate. None of us are saints, myself very much included, but no-one outside of perhaps a dozen or so peeps on this obscure little forum give two hoots what the likes of 'ElephantBanjoGnome' or 'Captain Caveman' have to say in the matter, whereas that certainly isn't the case out there in the wider media and blogosphere.

Whatever side of the argument one happens to sit, the question has to be asked: what sort of Scotland is it going to be at the (final) end of this (imo) ridiculously long drawn out 'neverendum'? It could be a case of no winners, all losers?

If it has invigorated political debate in Scotland, and got people who previously didn't care about politics into thinking about the future of the country (Scotland or UK, I'm leaving this ambiguous) and realising that politics and voting matters, it all won't have been entirely in vain.

I think it has rather inculcated a deeper 'us vs. them' divide along borders and internally in Scotland. Regardless of the outcome, people will be making a note how others voted, and remember. Bitching about this will probably never stop in one form or another.

Really very late to the 'Heroes' party, but we've blitzed the first series and are a few episodes into the secnd. How adorable are Hiro and Ando?

Eh?

This is Mimi's cunning take on the independence debate. Clearly Hiro represents David Cameron, who wants to stop time in its tracks, and Ando as Alex Salmond, who wants to be a Hero but frustratingly doesn't have any powers and somewhat resents Hiro because of it.

Stop watching it now, Mimi.

Just spat half-chewed bachelor pizza over my keyboard. Bravo!

Bravo!

Nonsense! Watch all of Heroes. All of the one series they ever made.

At what point do you feel that stops being dishonest? When the country has laws imposed on it like dismantling and privatising the NHS, which wouldn't happen if it was ruled differently? When the country is dragged into illegal wars and is the home base for nuclear weapons? What about if the country was forced to live in a United Kingdom which decided to abolish all welfare support and completely disband the NHS? Or if the country is run by a government who stop all immigration, scrap equality laws, introduce more police powers.. What about if you live in Russia, or Syria, or Israel and decide to move abroad and not return until there is political change?
Please note I'm in no way saying that these situations are real, I'm exaggerating the situation to test your point. I'm sure there are plenty of Scottish people abroad who love their country but living away from it until the political situation changes isn't dishonest.

Hmm yes, all of that exaggerated gibberish of a totalitarian police state might have retained a molecule of applicability of Sean Connery wasn't fabulously rich and beyond the reach of most socioeconomic problems that might compel the average person to live in England.

In other news, Yes campaigners doing their best to ensure a fair and reasoned debate, with Salmond attempting to draw a false equivalence with allegedly similar antics from Unionists. Funny how you can't find any videos of a group of No supporters aggressively hecking Yessers, isn't it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-28986714

This the bit I'd take issue with Gilly. Are we really saying there are "plenty" of Scottish people who are political refugees? From the UK? Forced to live somewhere else in the world, against their wishes, specifically because the political regime within this country is so utterly appalling? (It does also rather beg the question where they would live in that case, too, and I doubt Connery's example has to do with anything other than he doesn't want to pay punitive UK tax rates to help fellow Scots less fortunate than him, and consequently is living a very nice lifestyle in the sun... my heart doesn't exactly bleed for him I have to say, and under the circumstances find his interventions somewhat unfortunate).

I just don't buy it, honestly. I'd go further; these sort of claims (not by you, but I've heard plenty of this shrill stuff throughout this debate) is frankly an insult to those who really *do* struggle against such regimes, suffering greatly, living as refugees (my father was one of them).

The other thing that vaguely narks me is the extent to which the UK is under-appreciated. There are several foreign countries that I've visited and practically kissed the ground on my return home. We have so many things that are done right, and exemplify a highly developed country, both economically and socially.

Pop to China for a couple of weeks, take a look around, and then come home and moan about the UK. I came home thinking I lived in the best country in the world. The things we piss and moan about on a daily basis are bloody piffling compared to others.

I wondered why my post in the US TV thread wasn't there this evening, assumed I'd closed the browser without pressing submit. Russell told me to read this thread. Thanks for the advice, Grim... I rake it that the first series is the high point.

Anyway, Scotland.

I was reading a piece on Scottish shoppers today. Scottish people are far more likely to take preference for products beating a made in (Scotland) sticker than other parts of the UK are to buying ones with their own country of origin (ie, english buying 'made in England', especially when buying sausages, or the Welsh, Welsh.

So there is a higher degree of sausage racism in Scotland.

Scottish people also require a less extensive range of bread varieties in their shops.

At the risk of replying to everything in this thread.... you're not wrong Mimi. I mentioned it earlier in this thread. The 'Made in Scotland' and the 'Scottish-' prefix to products is everywhere, with flags all over the place. 'Scottish Tea', with the sub-slogan 'Best brewed with Scottish water'.

Even the sandwiches sold at work say on them 'Proudly made in Scotland!'.

The prevalence of this always struck me as odd, but is demonstrative of how even basic marketing tries to capitalise on the heightened sense of national patriotism.

There is also a factor of attempting to keep the money in Scotland (ownership of any given company aside). Which I think the UK in general doesn't do enough of.

I have every sympathy for anyone wanting to vote yes because they fear for the future of Scotland if they are dragged haplessly along with the rest of us into a UKIP-lead lunge to the fucking lunatic end of the right wing spectrum, as appears to be an ever more realistic scenario.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying, EBG made a really sweeping statement about people who live abroad who say they'd return home if we got independance are dishonest. I was asking what the tolerances are on that, in an attempt to highlight how completely absurd he was being.


Here's where I tried to make that clear. My first couple of example were current political realities that some Scottish people may find unpalatable. The further examples were the far side of the spectrum, to show that EBG's statement clearly can't be considered reasonable in all instances, and I was hoping he would explain at what point it stops being dishonest.
You can find yourself wanting to live in another country without being personally politically persecuted. I wasn't commenting on Sean Connery at all.


This is why I've avoided discussion in this thread. I asked you a question about where you draw the line and you insult my intelligence by ignoring the obvious point I was making, picking out the extreme example I'd made as part of that point and ignore the rest.

You're strawmanning some bizarre counter here. There is no likening of the UK to countries of extreme political unrest where its citizens may want to leave because of their unbearable conditions. Those actually seeking asylum can hardly be considered dishonest when to actually have it granted, they would need to demonstrate the actual risk of serious prosecution or risk of death.

Where does the line stop? Right at around the part you try to compare Scotland to such countries. Vague, nebulous displeasure at the UK government policy towards Scotland isn't on the same planet to such a comparison. I hope that satisfies whatever aspect of the point you were making.

I was talking about Sean Connery however, and why he can piss off. You can't expand that specific argument against such people (i.e. wealthy expats who have left the UK for tax breaks/weather/lifestyle) to anyone who leaves Scotland for any reason, however:

There's a great irony somewhere in moving to England for better prospects, while simultaneously demanding political rights over a country you chose to leave. It's not like there are no jobs in Scotland, or that you have to leave Scotland to gain employment. You might not get as fancy a job, or be paid as much, but if you're claiming a profound love for your country, I'll assume assume you're not so mercenary to care about that above all else. If you moved for wealth, and would only move back for at least equivalent wealth in the event of independence, I can't think of anything more dishonest.

Connery is a particularly incredible example because he wouldn't move back regardless, because the wealth/prosperity factor doesn't apply to him as it might others, rendering his Bahamas-based pontificating even more unwelcome.