'Violence of emotion' is an overstated sentiment for a man I haven't given a second thought to since the last time someone mentioned him on here in my presence, but while we're on the subject I'll convey my thoughts 
Although I must say, I had no idea the pro-independence lot had so much money to blow on a blog that scratches them in their happy place. Fools and their money.
Although I must say, I had no idea the pro-independence lot had so much money to blow on a blog that scratches them in their happy place. Fools and their money.
Isn't EBG the person behind that disturbing and creepy anti-RevStu "blog" a couple of years ago?
I gave it 10 minutes there for someone who knows what you're referring to to put you right, but let me just disavow whatever that was. I vaguely recall Stu once tried to attribute a comment on something that was signed 'CG' to me when it wasn't. I'd certainly have no problem identifying myself in any opinion I waste my time verbalising.
Brilliant post EBG. Very interesting.
MaliA wrote:
Brilliant post EBG. Very interesting.
oh, ta
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Brilliant post EBG. Very interesting.
oh, ta
I agree with you, too.
Crumbs. Next thing you know we'll be pirating in EvE together.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Crumbs. Next thing you know we'll be pirating in EvE together.
HEAD ASPLODE.
The House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee have today published a report on the implications of an independent Scotland.
I suppose reading it will form our evening's entertainment tonight.
I suppose reading it will form our evening's entertainment tonight.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
work on something he passionately believes in
I'm guessing that would be a tidy truckload of new consoles, games, crisps, and sweets, because the money raised is essentially "pay me to keep writing on this blog because I believe in it so much I won't do it for free (not counting the existing donations, subscriptions, and ad revenue)."
EBG, although i appreciate your views on the independence (they are surely different then most views which reach the united provinces), I think revstu has finally find a cause to write about which is actually something people care enough to pay for, so he can build up a proper website, with daily contributions.. Seeing as all major newspapers and all major parties seem to be quite anti independent (and if you believe wings of scotland quite hypocrite and bad at math) so to represent discussion on this part of the debate seems good..
The werid thing about EU-membership is ofcourse that the UK government won't officially ask, which is what the EC stated they had to do to
romanista wrote:
od..
The werid thing about EU-membership is ofcourse that the UK government won't officially ask, which is what the EC stated they had to do to
The werid thing about EU-membership is ofcourse that the UK government won't officially ask, which is what the EC stated they had to do to
Not that weird. The UK doesn't need to ask as they are already a member. Why would they ask on behalf of a country that doesn't yet, and may never, exist
romanista wrote:
EBG, although i appreciate your views on the independence (they are surely different then most views which reach the united provinces)
Well, fair play chap, I respect what you see to be the necessary two sides of the debate.
What I haven't previously said is that I'd really like to believe in the notion of a strong, indepedent Scotland. I do after all plan to live here for the rest of my life, and I couldn't give even the slightest fig for the sanctity of 'The Union' or sentimentality about the past. Anything that I thought would genuinely, realistically benefit the prospects of this country I would absolutely, with ever fibre, be behind.
But I don't believe it, and I wish the debate was as reasoned as simply two sides weighing up and debating the various pros, cons, and possible logistical outcomes. If it was operating at that level it would be a fantastic intellectual exercise if nothing else, even if you had to eventually agree to disagree.
That is not however the reality. Tensions and the aforementioned chip-on-shoulder are such that the debate doesn't merely descend, it starts at the lowest-denomination of mouth-frothing aggression and wilful misinterpretation of events, facts, and quotes. This is true of both sides, although from my observations the cybernats are by far the more vocal and militant of the two. At that point there is no debate, it is merely diametrically opposed views against which no measure of evidence, reason, or credible argument with make a difference. Every fact will be disputed, disagreed with, and responded to from an equally valueless and disputable source.
Such efforts are therefore self-nullifying. Such extremism (again, of either side), convinces nobody that wasn't already decided, and only serves as a receptacle for those who seek a sense of belonging with others that think as they do.
Of course, I'm not entirely insulated from my own feelings on the matter. It remains a point of absolute ridicule that the Scots who have chosen to emigrate to other countries for tax and lifestyle reasons (Sean Connery, I'm looking at you), think they have even the smallest right to weigh in on a country that is no longer theirs. That the very worst representation of Scottish Nationalist fervour is vocalised by a washed-up hack, who himself doesn't live in Scotland, is merely the icing on the cake.
I'm in no particular doubt about the outcome of the referendum. The most recent poll puts support for independence lower now than it was in 2007, and so despite the angry assertions of the aforementioned minority, the momentum is not building at all. Merely those that remain dedicated to the cause are shouting their voices ever louder in the hopes that it will compensate. It won't.
Kern wrote:
The House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee have today published a report on the implications of an independent Scotland.
I suppose reading it will form our evening's entertainment tonight.
I suppose reading it will form our evening's entertainment tonight.
Had a skim of this last night (I know how to party). The committee raise many questions, but don't give any answers to them. Their main view is that both Holyrood and Westminster ought to be more forthcoming about how they would resolve the issues they raise, otherwise voters will be making the decision with no clear idea of the possible consequences. If you're interested in the question of independence for North Britain, it gives much to think about and plenty of fuel for pub-based arguments.
The bit about money was interesting. The upshot is 'Might be the pound (it seems to be favoured atm), but by the time independence comes around they might go for the Euro, or maybe even an independent Scottish pound'.
Well, that's useful then.
Well, that's useful then.
I got much the same with the oil question. It will help, or not, then it will run out, but that might be 25 years time. Or tomorrow. But whatever happens its Scotland's oil. Or the independent kingdom of Orkney or something. Pfah.if this report helps to lever info out of either side then good. Otherwise pfah.
Yes, it doesn't give any answers, but what I find useful about it is it summarises the implications of various options.
Sadly, no side is going to be risk publicising their red lines or discussion points before entering negotiations, so it's still going to be a leap of faith , alas. I'm starting to think that if the Scots vote 'yes' in 2014, it would be in their interest to hold a second referendum on the final settlement. At least that way, they wouldn't have an excuse to spend the next 300 years moaning about how perfidious Albion screwed them over.
Sadly, no side is going to be risk publicising their red lines or discussion points before entering negotiations, so it's still going to be a leap of faith , alas. I'm starting to think that if the Scots vote 'yes' in 2014, it would be in their interest to hold a second referendum on the final settlement. At least that way, they wouldn't have an excuse to spend the next 300 years moaning about how perfidious Albion screwed them over.
I was reading this today: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2891383
And I wonder how credible these 'Scotland pays her way' comments are. While the per-head contribution may be true as an absolute figure, any statements based upon it entirely ignore scalar and geographical variation in the UK.
Namely, Scotland's population is generally centralised around the Glasgow/Edinburgh belt - it has only two major cities and a handful of larger towns. The distance between these areas of population is not so great that there's a steep difference in wealth across them. The worst and poorest parts of Glasgow are probably worse off than the worst parts of Edinburgh, but not by much. If you're not considering the oil industry, Scotland is a very small economic area that doesn't have a drastic North/South wealth divide as England does. Let us not forget that Scotland also has a population of only 5 million - not even 10% of the rest of the UK.
The UK as a per-head calculation has to consider a very wealthy and prosperous South-East, with a comparatively poor and populous North. I've got nothing against the North, having lived there much of my life, but the sheer number of people will only drag down the average contribution. That is only to be expected with a large country distributed geographically. If you were to consider the per-head contribution of 50 people that all lived close to each other in a wealthy area, you'd get an eye-popping contribution per head. What I'm getting around to saying is - the more land and people, the greater the variation of wealth, and the lower the average. The UK's average is lower due to its size.
Now, DO consider Scotland's oil industry. It provides a red hot pin-prick of wealth (landlords in Dundee can charge VERY SILLY money to house employees of oil companies, for example) that is vastly disproportional to the population adjacent to it. That's not a surprise - Scotland's potential as an independent country is entirely based upon oil. Take away that oil, and Scotland's per-head contribution would plummet WELL below the UK average.
Bottom line is - it's all about the oil. Take away the oil and Scotland is fuckity fucked. Without it, it has the economic power of a sparrow's fart. The question is not if Scotland's oil will run out, it's when. It might be in 20 years, or 50 years, or 70 years. But once it does inevitably run out, what does it have left? Wind farm potential? Potential is all very well, but you need to actually capitalise on it and I've not seen significant evidence of that yet, possibly due to the fact that Scotland's other biggest draw - its beautiful landscape - doesn't want to be ruined by vast stretches of windfarms.
My major fear is that the SNP would be able to keep the boat afloat for long enough to claim it as evidence of their rightness and success. But all I see is a ship doomed to sink in the long term if it isn't part of a larger fleet, if you get my very obvious meaning.
And I wonder how credible these 'Scotland pays her way' comments are. While the per-head contribution may be true as an absolute figure, any statements based upon it entirely ignore scalar and geographical variation in the UK.
Namely, Scotland's population is generally centralised around the Glasgow/Edinburgh belt - it has only two major cities and a handful of larger towns. The distance between these areas of population is not so great that there's a steep difference in wealth across them. The worst and poorest parts of Glasgow are probably worse off than the worst parts of Edinburgh, but not by much. If you're not considering the oil industry, Scotland is a very small economic area that doesn't have a drastic North/South wealth divide as England does. Let us not forget that Scotland also has a population of only 5 million - not even 10% of the rest of the UK.
The UK as a per-head calculation has to consider a very wealthy and prosperous South-East, with a comparatively poor and populous North. I've got nothing against the North, having lived there much of my life, but the sheer number of people will only drag down the average contribution. That is only to be expected with a large country distributed geographically. If you were to consider the per-head contribution of 50 people that all lived close to each other in a wealthy area, you'd get an eye-popping contribution per head. What I'm getting around to saying is - the more land and people, the greater the variation of wealth, and the lower the average. The UK's average is lower due to its size.
Now, DO consider Scotland's oil industry. It provides a red hot pin-prick of wealth (landlords in Dundee can charge VERY SILLY money to house employees of oil companies, for example) that is vastly disproportional to the population adjacent to it. That's not a surprise - Scotland's potential as an independent country is entirely based upon oil. Take away that oil, and Scotland's per-head contribution would plummet WELL below the UK average.
Bottom line is - it's all about the oil. Take away the oil and Scotland is fuckity fucked. Without it, it has the economic power of a sparrow's fart. The question is not if Scotland's oil will run out, it's when. It might be in 20 years, or 50 years, or 70 years. But once it does inevitably run out, what does it have left? Wind farm potential? Potential is all very well, but you need to actually capitalise on it and I've not seen significant evidence of that yet, possibly due to the fact that Scotland's other biggest draw - its beautiful landscape - doesn't want to be ruined by vast stretches of windfarms.
My major fear is that the SNP would be able to keep the boat afloat for long enough to claim it as evidence of their rightness and success. But all I see is a ship doomed to sink in the long term if it isn't part of a larger fleet, if you get my very obvious meaning.
A Labour MP asked the Home Secretary yesterday if citizens of an independent Scotland would remain UK citizens. Although the response was completely non-committal, it's the kind of issue that would have to be settled during the divorce proceedings, and something which supporters should think about before voting 'yes'.
Instinctively, I think a political fudge, offering dual nationality to those who want it, would be the most pragmatic answer, but then, why vote to leave if you want to keep being a UK citizen?
Instinctively, I think a political fudge, offering dual nationality to those who want it, would be the most pragmatic answer, but then, why vote to leave if you want to keep being a UK citizen?
Just finished reading 'Scotland's Choices'* by Iain Mclean, Jim Gallagher, and Guy Lodge, who are three noted academics on the politics and economics of the constitution (I used to attend seminars by Mclean and Lodge as a student). The various chapters discuss all aspects of devolution, the referendum, and what might happen afterwards. It does get, at times, quite technical, especially when Scotland's finances are considered, but their arguments and evidence are on the whole easily comprehensible to the literate non-nerd. As well as listing and discussing problems that any independent Scottish state would have to contend with, either during the divorce proceedings or afterwards, it also considers what happens if Scotland vote 'No' and the Scotland Act 2012 comes into force.
The authors avoid stating whether they think independence is a Good Thing or not, but just discuss issues such as the welfare state and Scottish/UK economics which will affect the Scottish people if they go their own way. Having read it, I've now plenty to think about, including issues that had never occurred to me before. A recommended read if you're interested in Scotland's future.
*Rainforest bookseller link
The authors avoid stating whether they think independence is a Good Thing or not, but just discuss issues such as the welfare state and Scottish/UK economics which will affect the Scottish people if they go their own way. Having read it, I've now plenty to think about, including issues that had never occurred to me before. A recommended read if you're interested in Scotland's future.
*Rainforest bookseller link
Very much a trail balloon, but today's report that the Trident bases might not form part of the territory seceding from the UK were Scotland to vote yes is quite interesting. Whilst it might unduly antagonise the soft-yes vote, it does serve to remind us that a successful vote would only be the first step Scotland would have to make, and that the divorce proceedings would not be a simple exercise.
('Nobody in particular' - Uncle Joe Stalin) has described it on his blog as Scotland being invaded 'before its even a country'.
('Nobody in particular' - Uncle Joe Stalin) has described it on his blog as Scotland being invaded 'before its even a country'.
Salmond's fantasy of a tidal powered Scotland washed away:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/alex_salmonds_fantasy_of_a_tidalpowered_scotland_washed_away/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/alex_salmonds_fantasy_of_a_tidalpowered_scotland_washed_away/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/ ... dependence
Falmouth as a repalcement base?
Phew.
Falmouth as a repalcement base?
Quote:
I don't think relocating the base anywhere else is, in all honesty, viable. It is not practically impossible but it is not realistically viable."
Phew.
Kern wrote:
('Nobody in particular' - Uncle Joe Stalin) has described it on his blog as Scotland being invaded 'before its even a country'.
O/T
A certain "Titler" replied to my earlier post over there, which amused me. I'd always assumed the guy was a will o' the wisp; a figment of this fine board's collective imagination?
He was rude, of course, but it's still awesome. I'm easily pleased.
Stu has taken to advertsing in Scottish newspapers now.
Heh, I suspect it was banned for being vague and libellous, rather than anything else
So, Stu admits that 100% of those papers owned inside Scotland are against independence? An odd tactic.
Trooper wrote:
Heh, I suspect it was banned for being vague and libellous, rather than anything else
Is it really libellous? It seems more like just a collection of facts (assuming what it's saying is true but I imagine he's done his research).
Bamba wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Heh, I suspect it was banned for being vague and libellous, rather than anything else
Is it really libellous? It seems more like just a collection of facts (assuming what it's saying is true but I imagine he's done his research).
"The facts the papers leave out" seems libellous to me?
Trooper wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Heh, I suspect it was banned for being vague and libellous, rather than anything else
Is it really libellous? It seems more like just a collection of facts (assuming what it's saying is true but I imagine he's done his research).
"The facts the papers leave out" seems libellous to me?
Oh, yeah, maybe; I didn't actually notice that tag line until you mentioned it.
Pretty sure that isn't even close to being libellous.
That logo is terrifying
Marvel's Agents of S.T.U.
I've been thinking about this for a while, so I've decided it's probably best to ask.
If Scotland WAS to become independent, wouldn't England have to re-apply to the EU as well?
We're in the EU as the United Kingdom. Technically, as it was the union of the Scottish and English thrones, (wales never had a royal family, not sure about ireland) the United Kingdom would cease to exist as the Nation is currently is and also, technically, have to be become a new country.
Am I talking loads of rubbish here?
If I am, sorry (I'm 16, so I'm not going to even pretend I know anything) But still, this has been knocking around in my head for a while.
If Scotland WAS to become independent, wouldn't England have to re-apply to the EU as well?
We're in the EU as the United Kingdom. Technically, as it was the union of the Scottish and English thrones, (wales never had a royal family, not sure about ireland) the United Kingdom would cease to exist as the Nation is currently is and also, technically, have to be become a new country.
Am I talking loads of rubbish here?
If I am, sorry (I'm 16, so I'm not going to even pretend I know anything) But still, this has been knocking around in my head for a while.
An interesting question, and one that's been raised by lots of other "yes" people as well.
I'm not sure there's a hard and fast answer to it, to be honest. However, rUK doesn't become a "new" country because a bit of it leaves, as far as I can see. No different than if Cornwall fell under the sea.
I'm not sure there's a hard and fast answer to it, to be honest. However, rUK doesn't become a "new" country because a bit of it leaves, as far as I can see. No different than if Cornwall fell under the sea.
You mean "threw off the yokes of the English Imperial Establishment's oppression and finally garnered the rightful recognition as a separate national entity" surely? Not "dropped into the sea".
I'm fairly sure there is precedent that says that the remaining one stays in the EU, but I'm not certain. For instance, if we gave Gibraltar back to Spain, I severely doubt it would invalidate our membership.
Either way, politics is corrupt, and rUK has more political clout than Scotland, so can basically do what the fuck it wants as long as it does some buddy buddy stuff for the other nations. Of course they can't say that out loud, but there are a lot of nations in the EU, especially at the top level, who have vested interests in not allowing parts of them to break off without pain for the new nation.
Either way, politics is corrupt, and rUK has more political clout than Scotland, so can basically do what the fuck it wants as long as it does some buddy buddy stuff for the other nations. Of course they can't say that out loud, but there are a lot of nations in the EU, especially at the top level, who have vested interests in not allowing parts of them to break off without pain for the new nation.
More importantly, of course, the EU doesn't want the UK magically dropping out of the EU.
MaliA wrote:
You mean "threw off the yokes of the English Imperial Establishment's oppression and finally garnered the rightful recognition as a separate national entity" surely? Not "dropped into the sea".
In my example, only if they garnered recognition as a separate national entity from the government of Atlantis. Because they're underwater.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
MaliA wrote:
You mean "threw off the yokes of the English Imperial Establishment's oppression and finally garnered the rightful recognition as a separate national entity" surely? Not "dropped into the sea".
In my example, only if they garnered recognition as a separate national entity from the government of Atlantis. Because they're underwater.
If everywhere below sea level is governed by Atlantis you should tell dutchland.
The assumption is that the rest of the UK will carry on as before, but Scotland will be a new state. The continuity of government in the rest of the Isles will not, after all, have been interrupted.
Of course, as far as the beloved EU is concerned, other member countries might want a complete re-jig of the amount of votes in the Council and the Parliament on the grounds that a loss of 5 million of its population means the remainder shouldn't have as many votes as they currently have.
Of course, as far as the beloved EU is concerned, other member countries might want a complete re-jig of the amount of votes in the Council and the Parliament on the grounds that a loss of 5 million of its population means the remainder shouldn't have as many votes as they currently have.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct on the rest of the UK Cavey - the UK would still be a member, it's just that the EU would need to renegotiate the bits of the treaties that give the UK money in respect of Scotland e.g. farmers (and even that's on the assumption that the treaties aren't drafted on the basis of "we'll give you £x per hectare to each farmer in the UK registered for subsisdies" - which I bet it is - as then we would just have fewer farmers in the "UK" and get less money). We wouldn't give a toss, as otherwise we'd continue to get the money. Just because part of the country ceases to exist doesn't mean the whole country ceases to exist - a (rather daft, admittedly) equivalent would be if there was a 2012-style plate shift and Cornwall fell into the sea. Would the "UK" as a constituted nation cease to exist and have to reapply to the EU as "UK-C"? I can't see that we would.
So it seems I've already done this one.
Clearly I have a bigoted hatred of Cornwall.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct on the rest of the UK Cavey - the UK would still be a member, it's just that the EU would need to renegotiate the bits of the treaties that give the UK money in respect of Scotland e.g. farmers (and even that's on the assumption that the treaties aren't drafted on the basis of "we'll give you £x per hectare to each farmer in the UK registered for subsisdies" - which I bet it is - as then we would just have fewer farmers in the "UK" and get less money). We wouldn't give a toss, as otherwise we'd continue to get the money. Just because part of the country ceases to exist doesn't mean the whole country ceases to exist - a (rather daft, admittedly) equivalent would be if there was a 2012-style plate shift and Cornwall fell into the sea. Would the "UK" as a constituted nation cease to exist and have to reapply to the EU as "UK-C"? I can't see that we would.
So it seems I've already done this one.
Clearly I have a bigoted hatred of Cornwall.
Understandable
MaliA wrote:
You mean "threw off the yokes of the English Imperial Establishment's oppression and finally garnered the rightful recognition as a separate national entity" surely? Not "dropped into the sea".
You say potato, I say hope you can swim son.
I started to tire of this debate a while back, wanting the dam thing over with.
But I think this article by JK Rowling is probably the best 'pro-Union' thing I've read in a long time. It's hard, after all, to argue for 'more of the same really', but she does it. And she refers to that great book by Mcclean et al which I mentioned earlier and is still worth reading for its examination of key questions.
Reminds me, must write that travel piece for here about my trip to the Culluden battlefield.
But I think this article by JK Rowling is probably the best 'pro-Union' thing I've read in a long time. It's hard, after all, to argue for 'more of the same really', but she does it. And she refers to that great book by Mcclean et al which I mentioned earlier and is still worth reading for its examination of key questions.
Reminds me, must write that travel piece for here about my trip to the Culluden battlefield.
What a bitch she is.
( http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/a-reg ... -bitch-and )
( http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/a-reg ... -bitch-and )
Edited: Changed the link now the Tweet has been removed
Dignity, always dignity...
Grim... wrote:
On their website it appears they've been hacked, but it looks like one of their employees linked the charity's Twitter account to their personal Facebook. Oops.
This speaks volumes about the nasty, small-minded and reactionary hive mind of the nationalists. The immediate response is to pile on hateful venom to any detractor, hoping that the volume of noise will shout them down.
The same thing happened to a mother with a disabled daughter who spoke at a Better Together event this week. Cybernat hatred, spurred on by that £2-begging cunt trying to draw links to a Labour party official which turned out not to exist, but not before the column of angry bitter little Scots had vented their spleens at her regardless of the facts.
The sooner the No vote comes in and these fucks get back to their whisky and betting shops, the better.
The same thing happened to a mother with a disabled daughter who spoke at a Better Together event this week. Cybernat hatred, spurred on by that £2-begging cunt trying to draw links to a Labour party official which turned out not to exist, but not before the column of angry bitter little Scots had vented their spleens at her regardless of the facts.
The sooner the No vote comes in and these fucks get back to their whisky and betting shops, the better.
Don't hold back, EBG. If you've got something to say, say it.