An independent Scotland - good or bad?

[MerinPally]

You can be against those ideas and come up with other solutions than "fack you I'm going independent" and then proceed to lambaste everyone who disagrees with you.

[Deleted]

England reminds me of an Ex you want to break up with, but they can't accept it.

Clingy, pathetic & desperate.

- - - Updated - - -

[Deleted]

You can be against those ideas and come up with other solutions than "fack you I'm going independent" and then proceed to lambaste everyone who disagrees with you.

These aren't ideas, these are actual events - and that's the whole point, everyone I know in Scotland is against these things, we are against the 'bedroom tax', we were against the poll tax, but our tiny voice is drowned out in Westminster. Scotland has never voted once for a Tory government, but we have one and have had many? Scotland voted against invading Iraq and Iraq was invaded. Enough should be enough - it's time we had our own voice. Independence is the only solution to being ridden roughshod for centuries.

I understand people have concerns, primarily financial concerns about Independence - uncertainty is never nice, but I think Scots who vote no should have a little more faith in our own ability and ingenuity, even without oil.

[MerinPally]

These aren't ideas, these are actual events - and that's the whole point, everyone I know in Scotland is against these things, we are against the 'bedroom tax', we were against the poll tax, but our tiny voice is drowned out in Westminster. Scotland has never voted once for a Tory government, but we have one and have had many? Scotland voted against invading Iraq and Iraq was invaded. Enough should be enough - it's time we had our own voice. Independence is the only solution to being ridden roughshod for centuries.

I understand people have concerns, primarily financial concerns about Independence - uncertainty is never nice, but I think Scots who vote no should have a little more faith in our own ability and ingenuity, even without oil.

Erm, so what that you didn't vote for it? You expect all of the nation to do what Scotland says when the population of Scotland is the distinct minority? You got a say, but the majority disagreed. That's how things work. Not everyone who votes for something gets exactly what they vote for, there are winners and there are losers. The fact you keep voting for the losing side doesn't make it the fault of everyone else, they juts disagree with you.

You have a voice, you absolutely have a voice - you are overrepresented in Westminster. However, the majority disagree with you. You voted, therefore you had a say. More people voted for something else, therefore we went with their idea. That's how votes work.

[Austilias]

England reminds me of an Ex you want to break up with, but they can't accept it.

Clingy, pathetic & desperate.

You might have a point; were it not for the fact that England and Scotland are still very much in a relationship, as opposed to being separated. England reminds me of the partner who doesn't want the relationship to be end because of things that could be readily resolved in other ways. My suspicion, as I suspect will be proven in days to come, is that the majority of Scotland will feel the same way.

As to this Yougov poll that people appear to be latching onto; it's clear the only thing that has changed in Scotland over the past few weeks is Yougov's methodology.

[The Glitch]

LOL and with one statement you make everything you say irrelevant as you are just attacking the other side because of bigotry.

I think a no vote is the correct one, but I'm not going to say your views are invalid if you vote yes.

You see this is the main difference between the two camps, the no camp is reasonable and tries to win arguments with facts and discussion, the yes vote attacks people...

- - - Updated - - -



in principle I'm not against it.

but it needs to be a high level federalisation only, things like defense etc, with other issues left to regional (country level and lower) governments.

And the current EU institutions need disbanding and starting from scratch.

No there are no differences, both sides of the camps have arses that attack people, I have been on the receiving end of No voters being aggressive towards me for being a Yes voter and have seen multitudes of similar attitudes, don't be so foolish to believe one side is more saintly than the other, as you are just putting blinkers on.

[Austilias]

Well the current system is a joke, first past the post voting is utterly wrong

Not really. It can work well when the two parties that invariably come to dominate FPTP systems are actually different in any meaningful sense; as they then hold one another to account as a consequence. The Labour and Conservative parties are practically the same in all but name, however; which is where issues arise.

I'd rather not end up with coalition governments every 4 years; as is often the case in various European nations, as has been the case in Britain, and as is always the case in our Northern Irish devolved parliament/Stormont thanks to the abysmal d'Hondt system.

and not having devolved parliaments is just a disaster waiting to happen.

We've had devolved parliaments for years.

[Deleted]

So, the murder of innocents in the middle east, based on a lie to obtain access to oil pipelines as stated by Craig Murray, the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan at the time of the Iraq invasion, is morally right to you? The fact that the Scot's people have been deliberately hoodwinked about the oil reserves in the North sea and in the firth of Clyde - this is morally correct to you?

I say in my opinion, if you are Scots and aware of these facts and acts and still want to be part of it, then it is my opinion you need to check your moral compass. That is my opinion and it may be a little aggressive, but I won't apologise for that, because I think people should be outraged by invasions of other countries, resulting in the deaths of 100,000s based on lies to make some rich people, richer.

People like William Hague, wanting to arm the very same people in Syria that are now rampaging through Iraq. You have a choice to walk away from these blood thirsty greedy morons and would choose not to? I find that morally wrong and I wont apologise for it. If you think that makes me a bigot, then so be it, but you may want to look up bigot in the dictionary.

Of course I don't think those things are morally correct. I am simply arguing against you saying "Morally, no Scots person can justify voting NO." which I believe is the sort of statement which should stay out of this. It is simply attacking people who do not agree with you. By all means present your reasons for wanting Scottish independence, just don't start attacking people who disagree. You are twisting words in your last paragraph. Nowhere has anyone said that you finding these things morally wrong is bigoted.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that the Scottish parliament did vote to invade Iraq as well as the UK Labour government, for whom the Scots also voted for.

[Austilias]

You cannot justify a system like FPTP even if the parties are different, its fundementally flawed.

Not really. At the end of the day, adversarial governance has more often than not been the best. Not only that, but it is also one of the most effective safeguards we have against tyranny; as one of the only safeguards we have against X political party becoming tyrannical in its governance, is having Y political party hold them to account.

AV, PR and various other forms of election promote coalitions; which not only cause parties to compromise on their fundamental policies, but invariably cause them to focus more on how they might appeal to the parties with whom they might form a coalition, as opposed to their electorates. When political parties are encouraged to work together and appeal to one another, they are further encouraged to serve themselves.

[Deleted]

Tommo.

You say what I think.

More articulate than I.

[Elegiac]

Not really. It can work well when the two parties that invariably come to dominate FPTP systems are actually different in any meaningful sense; as they then hold one another to account as a consequence. The Labour and Conservative parties are practically the same in all but name, however; which is where issues arise.

I'd rather not end up with coalition governments every 4 years; as is often the case in various European nations, as has been the case in Britain, and as is always the case in our Northern Irish devolved parliament/Stormont thanks to the abysmal d'Hondt system.

Just switch to preferential or two-party preferred like Australia does.

- - - Updated - - -

AV, PR and various other forms of election promote coalitions; which not only cause parties to compromise on their fundamental policies, but invariably cause them to focus more on how they might appeal to the parties with whom they might form a coalition, as opposed to their electorates. When political parties are encouraged to work together and appeal to one another, they are further encouraged to serve themselves.

Which is entirely the case in a country like the United States. The Democrats and Republicans are not self serving and the lack of ability to work together isn't deleterious to national health.

Listening to the electorate is not always a good thing.

[MerinPally]

I would argue that there's a strong case against letting the people who vote for you, decide how something is done. Decide what to do in general sure but many lack the capacity to work out how to go about making it happen. As is a major criticism of this referendum, they want to decide all that stuff after, the current plan for an independent Scotland is... not good, and risky, to be polite and diplomatic about it. That stuff shoulda been sorted beforehand, and then let the people decide whether to go through with it. People just aren't that bright.

[Cerilis]

As much as I think that the main driving force behind the independence movement is unnecessary national pride in times were everyone is and should be growing closer, I guess with the votes that close, the day after the vote half of the scots will just go groundskeeper Willie:

[Deleted]

I see you edited my quote not to include the articles and the video I linked. Are they too factual for you? That isn't attacking, that's stating facts.

You claim on one hand that the no vote is based on reasonable argument and not attacking people yet on the other hand you claim my reasons are bigotry, therefore calling me a bigot by implication. You, attacking me, pointing out the facts that Westminsters actions, lies and deceit to the Scottish people is somehow 'bigotry' on my part. You destroyed your own argument pal.

Arguements for or against are valid. Saying people are morally wrong to vote one way or another is bigotry.

I disagree, but have no problems with your position, I have issue with the arrogance and bigotted nature of the statement I quoted.