1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,849

    Please tell us more about this evidence that shows how businesses would not be harmed by the same amount of work being done at a 25% increased cost in wages.
     
  2. Shadez

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 23, 2002

    Posts: 2,808

    Location: Bristol

    Are you saying that a union that has been in place for hundreds of years is not successful?

    That the UK is not one of the top 10 most powerful nations?

    Or that distribution costs will not be added to the cost of goods because Scotland wont be subsidized by the rest of the UK?
     
  3. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,859

  4. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    I'm not saying any of that.
    I'm saying that it's hypocritical of you to post several uncited claims and then state that you wont accept any counter-arguments which are not backed-up with factual sources.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  5. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You don't really need to cite sources for the self evident claim that the United Kingdom is a hugely successful union. You would need to have no knowledge whatsoever of the history of the UK and the world in order to really not realise that. Equally with the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the longest lasting unions in modern history, and still retains enormous influence in the world partly as a result of that and also we do not yet know what the costs or even the results of Independence would be...therefore I think it is acceptable to ask those questions and the references to support the idea that leaving the Union and the Status Quo (which we know so do not have to offer evidence as it is self evident) as Shadez did.

    It is up to the argument against the Union to show why we should dissolve the Union, the only requirement on the Union is to show that the case for independence is not better than what we already have.

    We know what the Union is as we already have it, the evidence is all around us..Independence is the Unknown, so its not hypocritical, I find it strange that you would think it was.
     
  6. Shadez

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 23, 2002

    Posts: 2,808

    Location: Bristol

    i was writing something similar but you put it far better than i ever could.
     
  7. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    It may be self-evident to you but if you dont explain what constitutes "success" then how do you expect anyone to provide an opposing point to your argument?
    The words "success" and "better" are subjective. Eddie may well say that it's self-evident that an independent Scotland would be "better" for his son.
    It's pointless to ask for a counter-argument when everybody is judging on different criteria.

    (i'm not saying that the union isnt a success)
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  8. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,695

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    Look out your window.

    Vote yes for every Friday off. It's catchy.

    I hear someone from yes also found the formula for lead into gold but his unicorn ate it.
     
  9. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    I'm looking out and I think you're right...Scotland is "better".
     
  10. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,695

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    I wouldn't disagree :)
     
  11. Shadez

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 23, 2002

    Posts: 2,808

    Location: Bristol

    Sounds like a NIMBY argument to me.

    So the only real reason you want independence is so that a "potential" oil field. That "if" economically viable, "could" be drilled and "may" provide jobs to the local market that your son "may" be employed in.

    That's a lot of maybe's and what ifs, hardly a solid base from which to risk the uncertainty of Independence.
     
  12. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You are making the mistake that he was providing an argument to be countered..he was pointing out that the argument for change was not made and that in order to do so you must make the case against what is currently the Status Quo..therefore the Unknown quantity is the one which need to be demonstrated as the Known quantity (The Union) is already demonstrable as it is the current situation in which we are in.

    Because the Union is a Known Quantity it is self -evident..as Independence from that Union is the Unknown Quantity it requires evidence to demonstrate the differences and why they would be an improvement upon the Status Quo.
     
  13. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    True, he wasnt intending for the argument of "the union is successful" to be countered. But he asked how an independent scotland would have a "better" future.
    It's impossible to provide arguments to show how scotland could have a better future if you dont know the basis on which the success of the union is measured.

    "The Union" is a known quantity. It is a definable entity. Nobody can argue against the definition of what The Union is.
    "The success of The Union" is not a known quantity or definable. It depends on what Shadez personal interpretation of what makes it a success.
     
  14. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,740

    Location: Inverkip

    No more so than Westminster sticking the subs up here and then proclaiming that we would leave the rUK defenceless because they have nowhere else to put them. I'm sure Portsmouth would disagree but then, that's a bit too close to London for Westminster's comfort.
     
  15. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,454

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    And yet he completely ignores the local jobs market the subs provide and the people that will be effected.
     
  16. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I think that you will have to illustrate why you think the Union is not successful as the current consensus is that the United Kingdom is one of the most enduring and successful Unions in history...the very fact that we are in the position we in both socially and globally is testament to that Union and we have 300 years or so of History to illustrate this...so again, the success of the Union is something that doesn't need citation as it is pretty much self evident..that you need to redefine the nature of that success in order to forward the notion that perhaps the Union was not successful only confirms the need for evidence as to why the general historical consensus is wrong and you are correct...by what comparison do you say that the Union is not successful? It sounds increasingly that you are attempting to create a semantic argument in order to extricate yourself from answering the valid questions that Shadez asked.

    As far as the future of Scotland being "better" then quite obviously the comparison is to be measured against the Status Quo.."what we have now"..otherwise the whole Independence argument falls apart if they cannot even decide by what marker they are judging the necessity of Independence.


    Semantics..the general consensus is that the United Kingdom is a successful, stable and mature Union and this is demonstrated by the stability and success of our society and our position globally. I think that it is self evident that the UK is a successful union simply by the place we occupy in the world...if you disagree perhaps you can demonstrate that? That is what Shadez asked after all....the Independence lobby say life will be better? if not the Union and Status Quo, which needs no citation as it is the Independence Lobby who are required to demonstrate why it will be better...that would clearly involve answering the questions asked as well as demonstrating why the Union has failed, would it not....both do not require Shadez to supply citation or evidence..that is beholden upon those who want change...surely?
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  17. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    I thought the whole point of Trident was that there is no "target". Attacking the base would be pointless because there is always an active sub somewhere in the world's oceans which can retaliate?
     
  18. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,378

    Location: Sufferlandria

    You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that the UK is not successful, i'm saying that we need to know why he thinks that in order to provide arguments to say why Scotland might be better.

    If i say "My car is better than your car", you cant argue because you dont know why i think my car is better.
    If i say "my car is better than your car because it is faster", you then know how to put forward your argument.
     
  19. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Unfortunately for your argument he doesn't...simply because the Independence Lobby are the ones who are asking for change on the premise that it will be better than the Union...therefore the responsibility is on those asking for change to demonstrate that change and the nature and course such change will make and why it would be better than the Union we currently have. You cannot even say the Union is not successful yourself which undermines your entire premise and demonstrates the self-evident nature of that success. It is up to the Independence Lobby to show why Independence would benefit Scotland and be more successful than the Union we have had for the last 300 years or so.

    and this is why your analogy fails...because there is currently only one car...Our Car, and the choice is whether another Car might be better...we already know what the Car we already own is like..we own it, the pros and cons are known to us...the question is what will the New Car be like and will those pros and cons be better than what we have with Our Car. First you have to demonstrate the New Car before comparing it to the Current Car..not the other way around like you are saying we have to do.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  20. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,695

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    I'm pretty sure London would be ground zero in the event of a nuclear strike.

    The subs are based on the clyde because it the most practical place for them.

    Pre sub bassed nuclear deterent, the v-bomber force had dispersal basses all over the country, mostly in England, including close to London.