Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but then he would say that, wouldn't he?
only to get themselves tied up in another, less accountable, one (the EU).
Not even trying to 'make a point' here, I just genuinely don't understand the logic behind it.
Hardly especially small.
While we're at it, in a list of the world's countries by population, Scotland sits on the top half.
"Small". It's a popular wee myth.
So the five least populous countries are Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau and San Marino representing roughly 0.001071% of world population.
And the five most populous countries China, India, United States, Indonesia and Brazil representing roughly 47.20% of world population.
I think rather than looking at lists you should probably just say that Scotland represents around 0.074% of world population.
Maybe you think that's closer to the top half. I would argue that is misleading.
What is your actual point, exactly?
Ok. I'll play along. Scotland is small. And?
""Small". It's a popular wee myth."
0.074% of world population
1% of the EU population
The 1% are the rich ones, right?
'It'd be the 19th biggest!!!'. It is a small country.
Doesn't answer my query though.
They are already happy with the aspects of the EU that affect them because the EU laws are, by an large, pro-humanitarian and anti-evil. That's why the Tories want to get rid of the EU, obviously. But the Yes vote is being boosted by strongly Socialist ideals, which fits in with a desire to remain part of the EU.
No it isn't, don't be silly
Tories are pro smaller government: EU is a massive socialist governmental experiment
That's why they want out
That and the ECtHR
When will you note that I don't make wholly serious replies to CG? He isn't being serious so why should I be?
How could you POSSIBLY even entertain the line "EU laws are...anti-evil" as anything but a shameless joke at CG?
I'd say the momentum seems to be with the Yes campaign - quite a few people I know are intending to vote yes when 6 months ago they were intending to vote no/undecided.
It's because the Yes vote promises a lot of socialist policies.
What would be interesting is to see if the Yes vote happened whether those policies get carried through and are successful. Then what would the pressure be like on England, I wonder. Maybe we'd finally see some good government.
Yeah I'm sure they'd be dead bothered by what happens in a socialist Scotland
But that majority isn't a large selection of the electorate last time I looked. If nothing changes then nothing changes but if people look over there and think they'd get out and vote for different kinds of policies then it would be good.
I think it could be really good for Scotland.
I just want rid.
...that I reckon it will be something like 60-65% No and I'd still stick by that. Don't know what value there is in the spread, but if anyone is feeling particularly optimistic pretty much every bookmaker is currently offering 3/1 on a Yes vote.
Scotland is part of the pound. Surely we get to keep it? Why shouldn't we?
It's tricky because you then can't set your own interest rates, etc. as the European Union has shown. At the start it won't matter much because both countries are economically identical but things should be expected to change. I guess you'd have a Scottish Pound. If they're suggesting it couldn't be called 'Pound' that's a bit odd.
the whole eurozone does
told a theoretically independent Scotland to fuck off if they reckon they're joining the EU. On this basis, Scotland would be *truly* independent - which is what I had always assumed the SNP had always wanted.
have always been up front about being part of the EU and NATO, and even keeping the Monarch.
Or, to look at it another way, what's the point in pushing for 'independence' if you're not willing to be independent? The change under these circumstances would be so minimal as to be pointless.
If all they *actually* want is a 'little bit more devolution (from Westminster)' then they should just say that. They'd be more likely to get it rather than dressing it up as this major thing.
Or bore off.
I apparently take it to mean something different to the SNP, whose idea of independence seems to be this: http://static.neatorama.com/images/2006-07/william-wallace-braveheart-statue-caged.jpg
You can do so much better than this. Nice to see the fire still Burns, though. Burns! See what I did there? (me neither)
as it is about specifically breaking with the current union. Many people are talking as though this is only on the cards now because Westminster policy has moved so out of step with attitudes in Scotland. To the point, that is, where a Yes vote is even a remote possibility.
Second hand opinion, so I have no idea if that's true or not.
(obviously comes with a host of drawbacks)
(but some opportunities, too)
in the scheme of interest rates and the like, I thought?
The point is at that when the split happens they would immediately diverge farther, but in terms of having a single currency it would be easy at first to avoid problems with different notions on how to run it.
is some scissor-nose-spite stuff.
Politically though it's a savvy, if fear mongery, move
This cuts through most of the bullshit:
that the mail has picked on Stu as the sweaty internet face of the Yes movement. I wonder how many of their staff even played cannon fodder 2
+ I believe in self determination for everyone who wants it
+ don't have to listen to Scottish people moan all the time
+ Cameron is a bellend and it'll make him cry
- In a globalised world splitting into smaller sections doesn't make a great deal of sense to me
-Wizzy will cry causing his braveheart face paint to run
- Salmond is also a bellend and it'll make him cry
but with a government being better for it's people.
when the UK is going to vote to leave the EU without an opt out for Scotland (if the Indie Ref is a "No") is pretty shitty.
i think i'm a Yes now. Ooops. #thewza
^This presupposes that the only way to be part of a big thing is to be part of a big 20thC nation state (or 19thC empire). PRESTIGE! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES!
That's not the prevailing trend through. Smaller independent countries, and regions with devolved independence is where it's at. With those countries and regions playing their part in overlapping intergovernmental organizations.
But I got lost in trying to wind you up.
as the son of Irish immigrants I don't really see how I'm advocating Rule Britannia. You do have a tendency to just launch at people, it's not very good at getting your point across (I work in comms and do training on this, free consultancy there for you).
I'd say you could make the argument the other way too, but you seem ideologically wedded as to make a counter futile. But as I say, it's nowt to do with me, it's up to y'all.
Though Ireland should serve as a note of warning - gaining independence under a egotist who believed himself to be the embodiment of the nation, engaged in pointless feuds with England and ran the country into the ground, from which it has never truly recovered, providing the groundwork for criminals like Ahern to do as much damage as the British ever managed. Not against independence, but who you trust that independence to.
I'd be finessing my replies if the level of debate merited it. I've been more thorough and earnest in the past, but I'm past the point of bothering with that on here now (also I'm too busy at work to do any thorough fact checking). It's too difficult to tell which peeps are on the snide wind up, who's in it for the more obvious daftness, and who is so far away from reality that it's frightening.
Both their interventions seem to have been pitched exactly right to invoke the deep seated loathing of southern English privilege amongst Scots whilst on the surface appearing to be genuine attempts to keep the union together.
I would be so up for that. Might start campaigning for it right now.
I quite like the idea of Newcastle becoming some kind of seedy border town, full of smugglers and illict opportunities.
(obvious joke is obvious)
come join us!
It's a fully tradeable currency. As is the Canadian Dollar and the Danish Krone, and the British Pound...
If I iirc, Montenegro uses the Euro without being in the Eurozone.
Could Scotland join the Eurozone? That's another question. (The answer being yeah, without too much hassle, but not for two years, so something would have to be used in the meantime.)
A lotta tag here's talked about currency, as if it's the defining issue. cf passports.
tag here's? *trash gets. r u. jugs, did.
So have to pay to convert the currency. Good luck with that.
Why didn't they 'get' the Euro?
Which of those reasons apply to Scotland?
You wanna talk convergence criteria?
1) HICP inflation rate has to be under 2.5% (UK is at 2.6%)
2) Budget deficit to GDP has to be under 3% (UK is at 6.3%)
3) Debt-to-GDP ratio has to be under 60% or decreasing (UK is at 90% and increasing)
4) Has to be an Exchange Rate Mechanism II member for 2 years as of 31/03/2013 (UK is not)
5) Long-term interest rate has to be under 4.81% (UK is at 1.67% GREAT SUCCESS)
Happy to talk Scotland accession when you get me figures for the new state's debt-to-GDP ration etc. We'll probably need an answer on how much debt Scotland would have.
(I'm neither for nor against Scottish independence, but it isn't going to be as easy as you think, wizzer.)
Have another go.
do you think an independent Scotland would have improved ratios/rates?
you asked why they didn't get approved and i think he has given sound reasons.
Keep asking, though, if it wasn't to your liking.
can you link me to the post where you answer my query on the ratios/rates? or do you mean they wouldn't apply to scotland (which i believe you posted below)? if so, why?
You didn't click the link?
You've said Scotland could just get the Euro. Maybe you should demonstrate how Scotland DOES qualify according to the criteria.
But forgetting all others, one of the criteria is clearly a waiting period of 2 years on ERM II. Scotland has not been on ERM II and if Yes wins they will take some time to get round to getting on to ERM II because it is not as easy as spaffing off on a message board you'll be disappointed to learn.
So do suck it.
get the Euro != be a part of the Eurozone.
But I made that point earlier on.
You honestly want your country's economy to be based on a currency that you cannot print?
Good luck pal.
I've said what's possible.
You're really struggling with the basics today, huh?
Scotland wouldn't just be able to jump in, it would have to prove stable inflation rates, alongside other economic criteria, over a number of years as an independent state before joining.
None of it is an impediment.
none of it is inherently an impediment.
With regard to Lithuania, some of it clearly is at present.
It's almost as if they're two different countries.
paritcularly the ERM II thing that Robeson mentioned?
It's all true, Jordan. Ho-fo has exposed me. Scotland could NEVER. EVER. be a member of the Eurozone. EVER. It's a logical impossibility. I am ended.
With regard to Scotland, none of it is inherently an impediment.
With regard to Lithuania, none of it is inherently an impediment.
With regard to Lithuania, some of it clearly is at present.
With regard to Scotland, some of it clearly is at present.
With regard to Scotland some of it clearly is at present
g that Scotland could be part of the Eurozone immediately.
Another useful point.
If the majority of Scots feel like they're an oppressed and subjugated people who have borne the yoke of English rule for too long then they should all vote for and be granted independence.
Now there are a good number of Scots who feel exactly that way. It's hard to tell given the polls but there is something like 15%-20% who feel like this and want rid of London setting any of their laws. But the rest of the debate seems to be about the economy, currency and jobs.
The most striking poll of the whole issue, to my mind, is the below.
ScotCen Social Research interviewed 1,497 Scottish people between June and October in 2013 and found:
52% would support independence, and 30% would oppose it if £500 a year better off
15% would support independence, and 72% would oppose it if £500 a year worse off
This to me suggests that it is not about national identity and cultural attitudes. And as such I don't see how creating a separate state is the right course of action, or that holding a referendum is that pressing an issue.
b) Would it be better if it were all about national identity and cultural attitudes? How about a dose of good ol' fashioned ethnic nationalism?
Your contribution reads like the input of someone worrying for a London-based paper 18 months ago. That's a lot of catching up to be done, bro.
worrying. working. either/or.
In the 2011 report - when 1,197 people participated this was the result.
65% would support independence, and 24% would oppose it if £500 a year better off
21% would support independence, and 66% would oppose it if £500 a year worse off
Pretty consistent over 2 years but the modest trend suggests independence losing support.
But thanks Wza for challenging the data and providing me with the opportunity to make that point.
attitudes and personal finances apart so glibly. A time-series change in that data conflates two issues: feelings about independence and strain on finances.
Even worse: the question isn't meant to be used in the way that you're using it. I'm inclined to say that it's a bad question, but it's okay as a brute force measure indicating the importance of economic factors, but it says nothing about the concurrent value of other attitudes (whether national identity or anything else; likelihood of being punched in the face twice a year, perhaps).
The same people answered substantially differently.
I take your point about change in the data and I did qualify my comment that it was consistent or that the trend is modest.
However negative economic factors (pressure on people's personal finances) were more likely to be greater in 2011 than in 2013 if we look at the usual broad economic indicators for Scotland.
So in slightly harsher economic times people were more likely to support independence for an extra £500 as we might expect but despite the economy improving slightly Scots are more likely to opposite independence if it meant losing £500.
These polls aren't given a full pictures and I don't pretend that they are but its interesting data that I believe supports my assertion that this referendum is largely about economic outcomes and not the principle of self determination.
I find that a really dangerous route to go down. You're taking stats that superficially support your thesis but completely gloss over the psychological decision that the question demands of people.
The assertion that 'the economic situation has improved slightly' has a similar glibness about it: if the situation is true as of Scotland as it is of England, for the mjority of people this is not true. Most people's personal finances continue to worsen; the recovery is driven by the high earners.
I'm not even primarily taking point with the timeseries analysis: what you should absolutely not be doing is making sweeping judgements about personal, fine-grained decision making based on blunderbuss measures such as this one. You have absolutely no basis on which to say that the economic factor is more or less important than anything else based on this.
That's not as if to say that there are no ways of evidencing that. There would be simple analyses you could do: breaking down by socioeconomic status. Reporting the within-subjects difference between the +500/-500 questions. Break the groups into cells based on whether they are yes/no voters at the outset of questioning, and whether imposing extra conditions changes that.
(In fact, you could do this as the data is probably available, as it's from ScotCen)
...if we look at the usual broad economic indicators for Scotland. Plus there is inflation which devalues a 2013 £500 by about £15 (or 3%) compared to 2011.
I admit it is meager. I am currently an office worker slacking off, not a social scientist despite my Masters.
I just found the poll interesting that people's attitudes swung so violent for a net loss or gain of £1k. It led me to make some simple conclusions.
Awww. This is the cutest thing I've seen since that talking porcupine.
we're talking about personal decision making as relates to finances, maybe we should look at poverty levels rather than economic indicators. This is a first pick only, from 2013:
and the report:
Which suggests that poverty in Scotland in 2013 was at its highest for 30 years, though interestingly not quite as bad as the rest of the UK.
In response to the point about the violent swing (1/3 to 1/2 of respondents) of those who would change their mind if £1k depended on it: so, roughly the same number who are living in poverty, then..?
(Note: am also an office worker slacking off, though in a job with a SS slant)
but I've certainly asked that question in interviews in the past. It's never asked in isolation, usually as part of a whole piece of research on independence. Most times it's been at the /end/, so comes more as a reflexive/comparative type question after other questions. I suspect that is it's intention.
WTP can be useful for some things, but used in this sort of context, it's not much more than a headline-generating question. When I went looking for the dataset, most of the articles I found were relating to this. It's one of those clever little questions that is always going to generate a finding that you can put in your headline findings (if the difference between the two was more marginal, you could still say ooh, look at this!): but the actual figures are going to be more based on biases and anchoring effects than anything useful. I mean, it's kind of farcical: if I ask you if you want something (anything) plus 500 quid or minus 500 quid, is anyone really surprised that there's a difference? It says more about how much you want 500 quid than you want independence.
and no one is making is Scotland vs English bar you, in this thread. it's about what is fair, and if we (Scotland) can have a fairer country on our own, and control everything ourselves.
wouldn't you want a better deal for yourself if you could make it happen? that's why i've shifted my views.
The point your making regarding fairness I understand. I just don't see how having laws made in Edinburgh guarantees greater fairness than laws made in London.
But that certainly seems to be the intention of the current Scottish administration. I've been spending a lot of time with the current and replacement National Planning Framework recently and the notion of a "fairer" Scotland is integral to both of them.
to be a kind of media-led fantasy of how Scots think. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you could find a few who would talk like that, but I know of literally nobody who does.
Among the yes voters I know, the attitude seems to be that Westminster is a broken political system that (a) doesn't serve the needs of the people and (b) there is no will to change. The perception is not an English v Scottish thing.
A lot of people just think that the Scottish parliament is better than the UK one, and therefore want more of it.
On your second paragraph, I think you're right that there are major problems with Westminster. I just don't see how Hollyrood will automatically be a better system. It could be worse?
Holyrood is an existing system of government, people can already compare it to Westminster - it's not really a leap into the unknown in that way.
Its not comparing apples with apples. The SNP know this and are taking advantage - and it is sensible to do so.
"My son, for example, who went to university in England, I think I’d be uncomfortable with the thought that he’s now a foreigner.”
- Margaret Curran, Good Morning Scotland, 25 May 2013
“If Scotland wants to be independent they have the absolute right to do so. But I think nationalism is a mistake. And I am half Scots and feel it would divide me in half with a knife. The thought that my mother would suddenly be a foreigner would upset me very much.”
- Tony Benn, The Scotsman, 18 August 2012
“We’ve got friends and relations north and south of the border and we don’t want to make each other foreigners.”
- Alistair Darling, Euronews, 31 August 2012
“We have the spectacle of a hard line nationalist saying ‘you will still be British after independence’. If you are no longer part of the UK how can you be British? Your friends in Wales, your family in England and your workmates from Northern Ireland will, effectively and overnight, become foreigners.”
- Alistair Darling, John P Mackintosh lecture, 10 November 2012
“Alistair Darling will today accuse the SNP of attempting to ‘turn family into foreigners’ with its plan to break up Britain.”
- The Times, 14 February 2013
“In simple terms, why make Sir Alex Ferguson a foreigner?”
- Johann Lamont, May 2013
“The Aberdeen schoolgirl said she and her friends were going to vote to remain part of the UK because they did not want their relatives in England to become foreigners”
- The Telegraph quotes young activist Iona Macdonald (daughter of MSP Lewis Macdonald) speaking to the Scottish Labour conference, April 2013
“The nature of my work means that I am based in London, like tens of thousands of Scots now facing the same prospect of becoming foreigners in our own land.”
- slightly confused “Better Together” main donor Ian Taylor, 7 April 2013
Sorry I was out of line.
I don't know why I am reminded of that...
And I'm imagining that you almost had to shed a year when you wrote it.
so tedious and banal
i'm actually done with dis. Such a complete fucking pile of wank.
They're a den of anti-English sentiment?
Heh. Clearly not. But I still wouldn't push anyone into going to one, unless they're a total spod. Having said that, the Nato debate at a recent one was rightly acknowledged as a rare example of genuine policy debate within a party and it's members rather than just an opportunity to schmooze and fling out a few press releases.
You've talked some utter pish in this thread so you may just be trolling, but an explanation of that bit would be nice.
I think two forces are at work here:
1) the arguments being made by the 'Yes' campaign.
2) the smears and dirty tactics of the 'No' campaign and their friends in the media.
I don't really have a stake or a say in the outcome, but I'm being swayed as much by the thought of upsetting the dicks running the 'No' campaign as I am by the arguments of the 'Yes'.
on whether we get any medlas in the curling. No medals, no union.
What a fine specimen of a man.
You're going to have a picture of Salmond on the wall. Think carefully Scotland
lesser of two evils?
Everyone knows a true patriot has her maj on the wall
Stay off the quiz, kids.
To join the EU you need every single EU state to vote that the state can enter (or at least not vote to block it).
Spain and Belgium have their own separatists movements and might not want to give Scotland an easy ride into the EU.
as there's an (unrecognised, non-binding) referendum in Catalonia on independence later in the year.
Not sure if it was to do with Basque stuff.
(Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain), but it's true that Catalonia and the Basque country have tried to make the similarity explicit. If this was a similar situation, then one could assume that the reason Cyprus and Greece don't recognise it is because of North Cyprus.
Having said that, I suspect that a big driver is that 44% of the nations of the UN don't recognise Kosovo either, and the main reason for that is that Serbia (and its backer, Russia) doesn't recognise Kosovo's declaration of independence. If there is a 'Yes' vote, there could not be any objection from the UK government to a Scottish declaration in the same way.
Essentially, this line of 'No' argument comes down to trying to convince people that it will require a lot of admin, and therefore should be abandoned... As if that should be the basis for deciding which countries get to become sovereign states.
Is that the full strength of your conviction? A thinly disguised dose of whatiffery? Pffft. Nothing you mention brings anything new to the table. The
Spain's foreign minister has said they have no interest in blocking Scotland's continued membership of the EU, as long as independence is secured through a legal process. And the legal process /is/ in place, not "might" be in place.
That feud with the Wyatts really knocked the steam out of the whole thing
Good work, guys.