I want more than 15 Hours

[Hibbyradge]

Between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm on 18 September, a unique situation will develop.

We, the people of Scotland, are totally sovereign, with sovereign power over what happens to our country.

At one minute past 10.00, if we vote no, we will have thrown that power away.

If, however, we vote YES, the power that was with us through those 15 hours, remains.

And we can use that power, firstly to repair the damage to our society, and secondly to build a Scotland we can all be proud of.

[Mibbes Aye]

Between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm on 18 September, a unique situation will develop.

We, the people of Scotland, are totally sovereign, with sovereign power over what happens to our country.

At one minute past 10.00, if we vote no, we will have thrown that power away.

If, however, we vote YES, the power that was with us through those 15 hours, remains.

And we can use that power, firstly to repair the damage to our society, and secondly to build a Scotland we can all be proud of.

I love the emotional misdirection tactics :greengrin

You've got power today, you had it yesterday and you will have it tomorrow as sovereign power over what happens in the UK.

You may say that you don't have the government you want, but there's no guarantees of that in an independent Scotland either. That's the problem with democracy :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

I want a Scottish Government with full fiscal powers. That's guaranteed in an independent Scotland. :-)

[Hibbyradge]

I love the emotional misdirection tactics :greengrin

You've got power today, you had it yesterday and you will have it tomorrow as sovereign power over what happens in the UK.

You may say that you don't have the government you want, but there's no guarantees of that in an independent Scotland either. That's the problem with democracy :greengrin

Nice try :greengrin Who's misdirecting?

We've never had power over what happens in Scotland.

The Eton posh boys have that. UKIP might get a slice of it next year in the unlikely event of a no vote.

Scotland will always get the government it wants after independence. Guaranteed. Every single time.

That's the beauty of democracy.

[Mibbes Aye]

Nice try :greengrin Who's misdirecting?

We've never had power over what happens in Scotland.

The Eton posh boys have that. UKIP might get a slice of it next year in the unlikely event of a no vote.

Scotland will always get the government it wants after independence. Guaranteed. Every single time.

That's the beauty of democracy.

I'm just one voter. I've never had the government I wanted at Holyrood in four goes. Are you promising me that's going to change after independence?

Scotland isn't one homogenous identity - it's an aggregation of people with often conflicting views.

We have socialists and pacifists and we have racists and bigots.

We have people who think abortion should be illegal and we have people who think abortion is a woman's choice.

We have people who think gay men and women are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual men and women. And we have people who think the opposite (no mention of who has bankrolled the SNP and Yes campaigns :rolleyes:).

We have people who think that Hayek and Friedman offer the best economic analysis for our country's future and we have people who think it's Keynes. Or Marx.

In short, there isn't a 'Scotland' to get the government 'it' wants. Whatever happens, some voters will be happy with the actual election results, generally most won't.

True of Scotland, the UK and most countries that don't have a two-party system I suspect.

[Mibbes Aye]

Between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm on 18 September, a unique situation will develop.

We, the people of Scotland, are totally sovereign, with sovereign power over what happens to our country.

At one minute past 10.00, if we vote no, we will have thrown that power away.

If, however, we vote YES, the power that was with us through those 15 hours, remains.

And we can use that power, firstly to repair the damage to our society, and secondly to build a Scotland we can all be proud of.

I feel a bit like Columbo - one last question ma'am!

I can't help noticing your heavy use of the first person plural pronoun - I've highlighted it in bold. Nine times in five lines.

Who is the 'we' you are describing?

Does it include me? Because you never asked, and I disagree with your post.

Most polls say that the majority are 'No thanks'. Even if it was a 'Yes' vote, the polls would indicate that near enough half the population don't want separation.

You're not in a position to talk about 'we' or 'us' or 'our' are you?

[Moulin Yarns]

The latest fantasy from Better Together
A VOTE FOR NO IS A VOTE FOR BETTER, FASTER, SAFER CHANGE WITHIN THE UK
The announcement of a clear delivery plan for more powers for a stronger Scotland has shown that a vote for no is a vote for better, faster, safer change within the UK. And the real risk of a 'yes' vote has been spelt out: banks leaving, prices rising, billions knocked off the value of Scottish companies and cut from the NHS.
Why take the risk to jobs and pensions of separation, when you can have better, faster, safer change with No?
We love Scotland, that's why vote we're voting no





Clear delivery plan? You are joking, there is nothing clear about 3 different packages that can, and more than likely will be, voted down by English and Welsh MPs who need to win seats at the 2015 General Election. The only way of more powers for Scotland is voting Yes Scotland (https://www.facebook.com/YesScotland) for FULL powers.

If you want proof.....

Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
He added: "If for example the UK parliament had wanted to discuss Devo Max then the thing to have done would have been to put forward legislation on Devo Max two or three years ago so it was on the statute book and then the Scots could have been given the choice in the referendum between independence and Devo Max....
Asked if there were enough Conservative MPs opposed to more powers who would vote to prevent further devolution, Mr Chope replied: "Well in isolation I’m sure there would be, because those powers would be powers for us to Scotland but there wouldn't be any rebalance of the constitution and no discussion on some of the more basic issues that were raised in the MacKay report."

[Beefster]

There's no-one more pious or dogmatic than the coverted.

[johnbc70]

As others have said please remember at least half the people you refer to disagree with you and are likely to vote No.

As for proof why is it if someone says something Yes voters don't like i.e the supermarkets they are blatant liars and scaremongering but when a Westminster MP says something he is 100% telling the truth and its fact. I thought part of the Yes campaign was to rid of these liars from Westminster but here we are quoting MPs from that Parliament and it's taken as fact and will 100% happen, bit of a contradiction yes?

[Hibbyradge]

I'm just one voter. I've never had the government I wanted at Holyrood in four goes. Are you promising me that's going to change after independence?

Scotland isn't one homogenous identity - it's an aggregation of people with often conflicting views.

We have socialists and pacifists and we have racists and bigots.

We have people who think abortion should be illegal and we have people who think abortion is a woman's choice.

We have people who think gay men and women are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual men and women. And we have people who think the opposite (no mention of who has bankrolled the SNP and Yes campaigns :rolleyes:).

We have people who think that Hayek and Friedman offer the best economic analysis for our country's future and we have people who think it's Keynes. Or Marx.

In short, there isn't a 'Scotland' to get the government 'it' wants. Whatever happens, some voters will be happy with the actual election results, generally most won't.

True of Scotland, the UK and most countries that don't have a two-party system I suspect.

I'm well aware that our electoral system isn't perfect, which one is?, but usually, a country's government reflects the wishes of the majority of its people.

In the last 100 years Scotland, has had 2 such governments in Westminster. Currently we've got a Con/Dem government. That's about as far away from what the people of Scotland wanted as you can get.

After Independence, Scotland's government make up will always be as a direct consequence of how its own people vote.

That is a good thing.

(That's not good grammar, but I've not had my coffee yet and my head's not up to full speed yet.)

I want more than just 15 hours of directly deciding the future for Scotland. I will only get that with vote.

Edit: I've never had the government I voted for either, but at least I feel able to vote Labour instead of tactically voting for the Lib Dems.

[Hibbyradge]

There's no-one more pious or dogmatic than the coverted.

Was there any need for that?

What do personal insults achieve other than to cause friction?

[Hibbyradge]

I feel a bit like Columbo - one last question ma'am!

I can't help noticing your heavy use of the first person plural pronoun - I've highlighted it in bold. Nine times in five lines.

Who is the 'we' you are describing?

Does it include me? Because you never asked, and I disagree with your post.

Most polls say that the majority are 'No thanks'. Even if it was a 'Yes' vote, the polls would indicate that near enough half the population don't want separation.

You're not in a position to talk about 'we' or 'us' or 'our' are you?

That's not up to your usual standard, Mibbes.

Between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm on 18 September, a unique situation will develop.

We, the people of Scotland, are totally sovereign, with sovereign power over what happens to our country. Refers to everyone with a vote.

At one minute past 10.00, if we vote no, we will have thrown that power away. Refers to everyone with a vote.

If, however, we vote YES, the power that was with us through those 15 hours, remains. Refers to everyone with a vote.

And we can use that power, firstly to repair the damage to our society, and secondly to build a Scotland we can all be proud of. I used the word "All" for a reason. :wink:

[Mikey09]

Was there any need for that?

What do personal insults achieve other than to cause friction?


Cause see that's all they have mate.... Insults and lies. Boring....

[Beefster]

usually, a country's government reflects the wishes of the majority of its people.

The current UK government was put in power by a majority of the UK electorate. The current Scottish government was put in power by a minority of the Scottish electorate.


Was there any need for that?

What do personal insults achieve other than to cause friction?

I didn't think it was that insulting, to be honest. IIRC, you've gone from a No to a Yes and are fairly vociferous in attempting to make a (misguided and sometimes wrong IMHO) case.

If you found it offensive, my apologies.

[Beefster]

Cause see that's all they have mate.... Insults and lies. Boring....

I, along with a lot of folk, have been putting up with insults in this debate for a long time. The only time I actually engage in the debate these days is to point out untruths and hypocrisy.

Difference being I'm well aware that it's not only one side engaged in it.

[Mikey09]

The current UK government was put in power by a majority of the UK electorate. The current Scottish government was put in power by a minority of the Scottish electorate.



I didn't think it was that insulting, to be honest. IIRC, you've gone from a No to a Yes and are fairly vociferous in attempting to make a (misguided and sometimes wrong IMHO) case.

If you found it offensive, my apologies.


So the majority of people in the UK wanted a coalition government??

[CropleyWasGod]

Cause see that's all they have mate.... Insults and lies. Boring....

Not so. You forgot opinions.

[#FromTheCapital]

Cause see that's all they have mate.... Insults and lies. Boring....

:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

So the majority of people in the UK wanted a coalition government??

Did you mean to quote my post because I don't see any point at which I said that. I don't even think that that was an option on the ballot paper, tbh.

Presumably you were as vexed about the Lib Dem / Labour Scottish government coalition?

[Mikey09]

I, along with a lot of folk, have been putting up with insults in this debate for a long time. The only time I actually engage in the debate these days is to point out untruths and hypocrisy.

Difference being I'm well aware that it's not only one side engaged in it.


Ah another insult. You're aware of it and I'm not. I'm well aware of it thanks very much. I just pointed out that the entire no campaign has turned into insults and lies to frighten people from voting yes.

[Mikey09]

Did you mean to quote my post because I don't see any point at which I said that. I don't even think that that was an option on the ballot paper, tbh.

Presumably you were as vexed about the Lib Dem / Labour Scottish government coalition?


The majority of people voted for this UK government? The Cameron/clegg nonsense we have?? And to answer you're question yes I was vexed as you put it...

[johnbc70]

Ah another insult. You're aware of it and I'm not. I'm well aware of it thanks very much. I just pointed out that the entire no campaign has turned into insults and lies to frighten people from voting yes.

Could you point me in the direction of the known lies? Lies that have been proven to be lies and not opinions.

[Hibbyradge]

I didn't think it was that insulting, to be honest. IIRC, you've gone from a No to a Yes and are fairly vociferous in attempting to make a (misguided and sometimes wrong IMHO) case.



Pious and dogmatic? Under what circumstances can those descriptions not be insulting? :greengrin

I'll accept passionate and enthusiastic though.

In any case, I didn't think I'd posted on this subject that many times, certainly a lot less than people like yourself or Mibbes aye. I've become more active recently, I agree, although in general, we're all just rehearsing arguments and preaching to the converted.

If you think I'm vociferous, then my posts must be good ones if they're leaving such an impression. :wink:

You're right. Over the last year, I've moved steadily towards Yes. I've been convinced by the arguments while at the same time, being appalled by the no campaign's tactics. Pretty much a perfect storm.



If you found it offensive, my apologies.

That's good enough for me.

[Hibbyradge]

Could you point me in the direction of the known lies? Lies that have been proven to be lies and not opinions.

John, did you see the "This is how democracy dies" video I posted on the PM board?

Here's a couple of others to keep you going. PM me when you're ready, there are plenty more.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lies-you-get/

[Beefster]

The majority of people voted for this UK government? The Cameron/clegg nonsense we have?? And to answer you're question yes I was vexed as you put it...

The Scottish parliament is set up for coalitions and is much more likely to have them than the UK equivalent. AFAIK, that's not going to change in the event of a Yes vote.

[Moulin Yarns]

The current UK government was put in power by a majority of the UK electorate. The current Scottish government was put in power by a minority of the Scottish electorate.




At the 2010 general election, the number of registered voters on the electoral register was 45,597,461

At the 2010 general election the combined vote for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties totalled 17,539,902, which by reckoning means that 28,057,559 voters didn't vote for those parties.

So, your assertion that the current UK government was put in power by the majority of the UK electorate doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a lot of Better Together 'facts'.

In fact, they got elected by less than 38.5% of the electorate.

In 2011 the Scottish Electorate was 3,950,626, the SNP received a total of 1,779,336 votes!

Ok, the Scottish Election system makes analysis a bit more difficult, but from the Electoral commission figures, a 45% vote for the SNP on a 51% turnout suggests a higher proportion of Scots got the government they wanted in Edinburgh than UK residents got at Westminster.

As ever, a small amount of research is all that is need to check whether 'facts' are fact or myth.

[Moulin Yarns]

I, along with a lot of folk, have been putting up with insults in this debate for a long time. The only time I actually engage in the debate these days is to point out untruths and hypocrisy.

Difference being I'm well aware that it's not only one side engaged in it.

Me too, see my post above. :greengrin

[Mikey09]

Could you point me in the direction of the known lies? Lies that have been proven to be lies and not opinions.


Opinions like osbourne telling us that the pound isn't ours to use in the event of a yes vote.... Lie. :thumbsup:

[Mikey09]

Not so. You forgot opinions.

my apologies CWG... Insults, lies and opinions...:wink:

[Mikey09]

The Scottish parliament is set up for coalitions and is much more likely to have them than the UK equivalent. AFAIK, that's not going to change in the event of a Yes vote.


In your opinion... :thumbsup:

[Leith Green]

The current UK government was put in power by a majority of the UK electorate. The current Scottish government was put in power by a minority of the Scottish electorate.



I didn't think it was that insulting, to be honest. IIRC, you've gone from a No to a Yes and are fairly vociferous in attempting to make a (misguided and sometimes wrong IMHO) case.

If you found it offensive, my apologies.

Think you will find your wrong

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm just one voter. I've never had the government I wanted at Holyrood in four goes. Are you promising me that's going to change after independence?

Scotland isn't one homogenous identity - it's an aggregation of people with often conflicting views.


It's a country (or at least it could be on Friday).

Here's a new form of words for you: Post-independence, the government of Scotland will have won the election in Scotland. How does that sound?

[Leith Green]

The Scottish parliament is set up for coalitions and is much more likely to have them than the UK equivalent. AFAIK, that's not going to change in the event of a Yes vote.

So we are more likely than westminster to have something that currently exists in Westminster? Thats ridiculous

[Beefster]

At the 2010 general election, the number of registered voters on the electoral register was 45,597,461

At the 2010 general election the combined vote for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties totalled 17,539,902, which by reckoning means that 28,057,559 voters didn't vote for those parties.

So, your assertion that the current UK government was put in power by the majority of the UK electorate doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a lot of Better Together 'facts'.

In fact, they got elected by less than 38.5% of the electorate.

In 2011 the Scottish Electorate was 3,950,626, the SNP received a total of 1,779,336 votes!

Ok, the Scottish Election system makes analysis a bit more difficult, but from the Electoral commission figures, a 45% vote for the SNP on a 51% turnout suggests a higher proportion of Scots got the government they wanted in Edinburgh than UK residents got at Westminster.

As ever, a small amount of research is all that is need to check whether 'facts' are fact or myth.

Firstly, you're right, I said 'electorate' when what I actually meant is 'voters'. Seeing as we are getting ultra-pedantic when it doesn't matter, there were actually 3,950,751 registered voters (source: The Electoral Commision). Just a small amount of research...

For the total of the SNP votes, you have added the list and constituency votes. Giving the total number of registered voters and then implying that 1,779,336 of them voted for the SNP is pretty disingenuous IMHO.

Given that everyone had two votes, let's just double the size of the Scottish electorate - 7,901,502. That means that 22.5% of the total votes available went to the SNP.

By comparison, using your figures, 38.5% of the UK electorate voted for one of the parties in the current UK government.

Or to put it another way before you try that road, 59.1% of 65.1% is a fair bit better than 45% of 51%.

Democracy, huh?

PS I love the irony of you lecturing me about facts when the central argument of your post is totally flawed.

[Beefster]

So we are more likely than westminster to have something that currently exists in Westminster? Thats ridiculous

Seriously...

Every single Scottish government since 1999, except the current one, has been a coalition or minority government.

The current UK government is the first coalition since 1945.

[Beefster]

Think you will find your wrong

Go on. Prove me wrong with some facts.

[Moulin Yarns]

Firstly, you're right, I said 'electorate' when what I actually meant is 'voters'. Seeing as we are getting ultra-pedantic when it doesn't matter, there were actually 3,950,751 registered voters (source: The Electoral Commision). Just a small amount of research...

For the total of the SNP votes, you have added the list and constituency votes. Giving the total number of registered voters and then implying that 1,779,336 of them voted for the SNP is pretty disingenuous IMHO.

Given that everyone had two votes, let's just double the size of the Scottish electorate - 7,901,502. That means that 22.5% of the total votes available went to the SNP.

By comparison, using your figures, 38.5% of the UK electorate voted for one of the parties in the current UK government.

Or to put it another way before you try that road, 59.1% of 65.1% is a fair bit better than 45% of 51%.

Democracy, huh?

PS I love the irony of you lecturing me about facts when the central argument of your post is totally flawed.

That was actually deliberate, to make the point that, no matter what you say about figures, they can be manipulated, a bit like your own post.

I know we will never agree before Thursday, but it is good to throw these 'facts' back and forward :wink:

[Leith Green]

Seriously...

Every single Scottish government since 1999, except the current one, has been a coalition or minority government.

The current UK government is the first coalition since 1945.


What i personally think will happen in the event of a Yes vote is that far more people will become interested in Scotland and our politics. I would imagine our election turn outs would go up quite considerably.

[Leith Green]

Go on. Prove me wrong with some facts.

The main fact of the matter is this, we have a tory/lib dem coalition.. Was that an option on the ballot paper?

[Beefster]

What i personally think will happen in the event of a Yes vote is that far more people will become interested in Scotland and our politics. I would imagine our election turn outs would go up quite considerably.

Possibly but historical data doesn't really back that up. The highest Scottish election turnout post-devolution has never been above 60%. By comparison, the 2010 UK election had a Scottish turnout of 64%.


The main fact of the matter is this, we have a tory/lib dem coalition.. Was that an option on the ballot paper?

You told me that I was wrong.

I'm not really sure what new point you are attempting to making. In the context of the referendum, the UK coalition government not being on the ballot paper isn't particularly relevant. Two-thirds of the Scottish governments since 1999 weren't on the ballot paper. With the same voting system post-independence, the likelihood is that Scottish governments will be coalitions more often than not.

My initial point was to combat the myth that, somehow, democracy will be 'better' under an independent Scotland. That might be the case if you currently refuse to view a UK general election as a UK-wide election. It's not the case in reality though.

[Leith Green]

Possibly but historical data doesn't really back that up. The highest Scottish election turnout post-devolution has never been above 60%. By comparison, the 2010 UK election had a Scottish turnout of 64%.



You told me that I was wrong.

I'm not really sure what new point you are attempting to making. In the context of the referendum, the UK coalition government not being on the ballot paper isn't particularly relevant. Two-thirds of the Scottish governments since 1999 weren't on the ballot paper. With the same voting system post-independence, the likelihood is that Scottish governments will be coalitions more often than not.



My initial point was to combat the myth that, somehow, democracy will be 'better' under an independent Scotland. That might be the case if you currently refuse to view a UK general election as a UK-wide election. It's not the case in reality though.

You need to have a lie doon pal...

[Beefster]

You need to have a lie doon pal...

Bit rude. Just when I felt like we were connecting.

[Hibbyradge]

Bit rude. Just when I felt like we were connecting.

Rude?

I thought it was a come on...

[Just Alf]

NO tongues! :shocked:

[Leith Green]

NO tongues! :shocked:

Dont use that word ...!

[snooky]

Dont use that word ...!

Please keep on the subject .............. do you fancy him or not?

:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

That's not up to your usual standard, Mibbes.

Between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm on 18 September, a unique situation will develop.

We, the people of Scotland, are totally sovereign, with sovereign power over what happens to our country. Refers to everyone with a vote.

At one minute past 10.00, if we vote no, we will have thrown that power away. Refers to everyone with a vote.

If, however, we vote YES, the power that was with us through those 15 hours, remains. Refers to everyone with a vote.

And we can use that power, firstly to repair the damage to our society, and secondly to build a Scotland we can all be proud of. I used the word "All" for a reason. :wink:

Au contraire

It's a subtle but important point about language and how language has power.

This is my issue.

If I vote 'No' I'm not throwing power away. You can't define my 'No' vote and that of others in that way. You don't have that right, you're merely claiming it. But by using the term 'we', an inclusive pronoun, it gives the suggestion that your analysis is unimpeachable, that there's this collective norm that supports your argument. But there's not a collective norm.

You demonstrate that yourself in the last line - "...a Scotland we can all be proud of". There isn't a 'we' with a shared concept of what Scotland could be like and what would make us proud.

The march at the weekend had a lot of proud people involved in it. I wasn't proud, were you? But most of those people are as Scottish as I could claim to be.

We have a lot of people in this country with views I would agree with. But we also have racists, homophobes, sexists. ageists, bigots and the like, in no small number, same as any society I expect.

I don't choose to identify with them, just because we all qualify for a Scottish passport.

Which is why I reject your notion that I should, in order to make something 'we' can all be proud of. There isn't a 'we'.

[JeMeSouviens]

Au contraire
I don't choose to identify with them, just because we all qualify for a Scottish passport.


Not yet, but good to see you're laying the groundwork. :wink::greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Not yet, but good to see you're laying the groundwork. :wink::greengrin

It's probably impossible that my photo could be any worse than that on my current passport.

Always looking for an upside :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

It's probably impossible that my photo could be any worse than that on my current passport.

Always looking for an upside :greengrin

... that's always presuming that you're not a list somewhere, to be reviewed by our new Secret Service. Your passport won't be worth jack where you're banished to. :na na:

[Hibbyradge]

Au contraire

It's a subtle but important point about language and how language has power.

This is my issue.

If I vote 'No' I'm not throwing power away. You can't define my 'No' vote and that of others in that way. You don't have that right, you're merely claiming it. But by using the term 'we', an inclusive pronoun, it gives the suggestion that your analysis is unimpeachable, that there's this collective norm that supports your argument. But there's not a collective norm.

You demonstrate that yourself in the last line - "...a Scotland we can all be proud of". There isn't a 'we' with a shared concept of what Scotland could be like and what would make us proud.

The march at the weekend had a lot of proud people involved in it. I wasn't proud, were you? But most of those people are as Scottish as I could claim to be.

We have a lot of people in this country with views I would agree with. But we also have racists, homophobes, sexists. ageists, bigots and the like, in no small number, same as any society I expect.

I don't choose to identify with them, just because we all qualify for a Scottish passport.

Which is why I reject your notion that I should, in order to make something 'we' can all be proud of. There isn't a 'we'.

I understand the power of words. I know the difference between hearing that the RBS is to "move it's HQ" to London, and "move its operations" as was deliberately and falsely spun by the no campaign.

But, since it's you and for the sake of the semantics;

"I am certain that after we vote Yes on Thursday, a Scotland will be built that you and I, and the vast majority of people who live here can be proud of. I believe it will be as inclusive a nation as exists on the planet."

I prefer to use the word "we". It's a lot less wordy, and I'm sure that most people are intelligent enough to understand what I mean.

[JeMeSouviens]

I understand the power of words. I know the difference between hearing that the RBS is to "move it's HQ" to London, and "move its operations" as was deliberately and falsely spun by the no campaign.

But, since it's you and for the sake of the semantics;

"I am certain that after we vote Yes vote on Thursday, a Scotland will be built that you and I, and the vast majority of people who live here can be proud of. I believe it will be as inclusive a nation as exists on the planet."

I prefer to use the word "we". It's a lot less wordy, and I'm sure that most people are intelligent enough to understand what I mean.

MA is voting Yes now too? Just for a new passport pic? My gast is flabbered!

[Hibbyradge]

MA is voting Yes now too? Just for a new passport pic? My gast is flabbered!

Unfortunately he's still Mibbes Aye, not Defibnitely Aye.

Yet. :wink:

[grunt]

Unfortunately he's still Mibbes Aye, not Defibnitely Aye.

Yet. :wink:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/OasisDefinitelyMaybealbumcover.jpg

[Hibbyradge]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/OasisDefinitelyMaybealbumcover.jpg

:thumbsup:

[johnbc70]

John, did you see the "This is how democracy dies" video I posted on the PM board?

Here's a couple of others to keep you going. PM me when you're ready, there are plenty more.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lies-you-get/

I will have a look at the video later but if its anything like the links you sent me then I wonder if it will be worth it.

The first link is a reference to a picture the BBC used for a Yes gathering in Glasgow, as far as I can see both pictures are from the same event? OK one showed thousands of people and the other showed about 20, but where is the actual lie? If they had shown a picture of an event that was held 3 months ago and implied it was yesterday then yes but that was not the case.

I read the second link (admittedly not in great detail) but very quickly saw that it again was opinion of one person against another. I refer to the point made about Independence meaning 'bigger cuts' and 'fewer jobs' but the author of the article responds to this by stating "the reverse is likely to be true" so he is using the word 'likely' which is his opinion, of course nobody knows what Independence will bring so again how can we know what is a lie? He then also quotes the FT to back up some of his claims and the article in question states 'an iScotland could expect to start with healthier state finances' so again the use of the word 'could' suggests it is a matter of opinion and not fact so again I am not sure where the lie is, yet he calls the claims a barefaced lie but with no back up other than he thinks it will not happen.

The thing is nobody knows what will happen so one claim can be countered against another - just because you or someone else does not agree does not make it a lie.

[Hibbyradge]

I will have a look at the video later but if its anything like the links you sent me then I wonder if it will be worth it.

The first link is a reference to a picture the BBC used for a Yes gathering in Glasgow, as far as I can see both pictures are from the same event? OK one showed thousands of people and the other showed about 20, but where is the actual lie? If they had shown a picture of an event that was held 3 months ago and implied it was yesterday then yes but that was not the case.

I read the second link (admittedly not in great detail) but very quickly saw that it again was opinion of one person against another. I refer to the point made about Independence meaning 'bigger cuts' and 'fewer jobs' but the author of the article responds to this by stating "the reverse is likely to be true" so he is using the word 'likely' which is his opinion, of course nobody knows what Independence will bring so again how can we know what is a lie? He then also quotes the FT to back up some of his claims and the article in question states 'an iScotland could expect to start with healthier state finances' so again the use of the word 'could' suggests it is a matter of opinion and not fact so again I am not sure where the lie is, yet he calls the claims a barefaced lie but with no back up other than he thinks it will not happen.

The thing is nobody knows what will happen so one claim can be countered against another - just because you or someone else does not agree does not make it a lie.

Do we really have to have a discussion about when something is an actual full blooded lie compared to when it's just cynical misrepresentation and manipulation?

Is the latter better than the former? Really?

[Judas Iscariot]

When is a lie not a lie?

When it's spouted by any of the BT campaign or cohorts...

[johnbc70]

Do we really have to have a discussion about when something is an actual full blooded lie compared to when it's just cynical misrepresentation and manipulation?

Is the latter better than the former? Really?

A lie is a lie though and actually does make a difference to me and would influence me if I thought someone was outright lying. I am a good catholic boy you know!

When I did read through it all the author was ridiculing the fact that there was graph predicting the price of oil for the next 20 stating nobody could accurately do this.

Yet this is taken from the SNP white paper:

How valuable are the expected tax revenues from our oil and gas production?

The latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report estimates that oil and gas production in the Scottish portion of the UK continental shelf generated £10.6 billion in tax revenues during 2011/12. This is equal to 94 per cent of the UK’s total tax revenues from oil and gas production. Production
in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.

Oil has been over 113 dollars only 4 months in the last 44 years, that is less than 1% of the time.

[CapitalGreen]

A lie is a lie though and actually does make a difference to me and would influence me if I thought someone was outright lying. I am a good catholic boy you know!

When I did read through it all the author was ridiculing the fact that there was graph predicting the price of oil for the next 20 stating nobody could accurately do this.

Yet this is taken from the SNP white paper:

How valuable are the expected tax revenues from our oil and gas production?

The latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report estimates that oil and gas production in the Scottish portion of the UK continental shelf generated £10.6 billion in tax revenues during 2011/12. This is equal to 94 per cent of the UK’s total tax revenues from oil and gas production. Production
in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.

Oil has been over 113 dollars only 4 months in the last 44 years, that is less than 1% of the time.

4 months in the last 5 years. There is an upward trend in oil prices. As supply decreases and political instability remains in the ME, that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=10y

[johnbc70]

4 months in the last 5 years. There is an upward trend in oil prices. As supply decreases and political instability remains in the ME, that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=10y

Afraid your wrong, your graph only goes back 10 years.

Here is a graph that goes all the way back to 1970, it has been above 113 dollars only 4 months.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

[Mikey09]

Afraid your wrong, your graph only goes back 10 years.

Here is a graph that goes all the way back to 1970, it has been above 113 dollars only 4 months.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart


Sorry just going back to the lie you asked for and I posted..... Osbourne telling us in the event of a yes vote we couldn't use the pound??? LIE.... Did you choose to ignore that??

[CapitalGreen]

Afraid your wrong, your graph only goes back 10 years.

Here is a graph that goes all the way back to 1970, it has been above 113 dollars only 4 months.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

What exact part of my statement was wrong?

Oil has only been above $113 for 4 months in 40 years yes, but those 4 months were in the last 5 years. This is part of a 40 year continual upward trajectory in oil prices. Oil futures were trading at prices in excess of $110 a barrel only a couple of months ago on the back of the instability in the Middle East coupled with increased demand as Europe moves out of recession - it is only reasonable to expect this price to continue in an upwards trajectory long term.

Your "4 months in 40 years" is straight from Better Together, Ruth Davidson I think (we must have watched the same debate) and you've highlighted the problem with basing economic reasons for voting on sound bytes from politicians - you don't get the full picture and are left misinformed.

[JeMeSouviens]

What exact part of my statement was wrong?

Oil has only been above $113 for 4 months in 40 years yes, but those 4 months were in the last 5 years. This is part of a 40 year continual upward trajectory in oil prices. Oil futures were trading at prices in excess of $110 a barrel only a couple of months ago on the back of the instability in the Middle East coupled with increased demand as Europe moves out of recession - it is only reasonable to expect this price to continue in an upwards trajectory long term.

Your "4 months in 40 years" is straight from Better Together, Ruth Davidson I think (we must have watched the same debate) and you've highlighted the problem with basing economic reasons for voting on sound bytes from politicians - you don't get the full picture and are left misinformed.

Maybe just a wild coincidence, but John fits the classic pattern of BTNT online activism, pretend to be a DK or soft Yes and then proceed to argue the entire BTNT playbook from start to finish, the woe, the doom etc. :rolleyes:

I paid £3.45 for a pint of beer in my local last week. It's been that price for a couple of months. Yes, that's right, Salmond is basing his entire strategy on beer prices that have only been at that level for 2 months out of the last 4000 million years! ****** charlatan. :rolleyes:

[johnbc70]

What exact part of my statement was wrong?

Oil has only been above $113 for 4 months in 40 years yes, but those 4 months were in the last 5 years. This is part of a 40 year continual upward trajectory in oil prices. Oil futures were trading at prices in excess of $110 a barrel only a couple of months ago on the back of the instability in the Middle East coupled with increased demand as Europe moves out of recession - it is only reasonable to expect this price to continue in an upwards trajectory long term.

Your "4 months in 40 years" is straight from Better Together, Ruth Davidson I think (we must have watched the same debate) and you've highlighted the problem with basing economic reasons for voting on sound bytes from politicians - you don't get the full picture and are left misinformed.

Reading back you were not wrong, so my apologies. We were both right, I guess its what time scale you pick and I think it was more relevant to base it on the whole 40+ years when it was been above the 113 less than 1% of the time. That is a fact nobody can deny and I would not dismiss it as a soundbyte and is one of the reasons I worry about the economy, basing revenues on a price that has oil has never been 99% of the time would/should alarm most people.

I know it was not your comment but to compare oil prices to the price of beer, and I am sure you will agree, is ludicrous. I will not even start to explain why they are so different as I think most will know.

Right I am away for a few days so will be back on Thursday night, whatever the result lets hope we can all get back to our normal lives and as I said previously we both want the same thing which is to make this country a better place no matter what way we do it.

[Beefster]

Maybe just a wild coincidence, but John fits the classic pattern of BTNT online activism, pretend to be a DK or soft Yes and then proceed to argue the entire BTNT playbook from start to finish, the woe, the doom etc.

I think that's a bit off personally. You did the same thing to me a few weeks back when you questioned my saying that there was a point where I was open to persuasion. It's back to dismissing the arguments by dismissing the man/woman.

To be honest, I could probably pick holes in a lot of the "I was undecided but XXX has made me a Yes" posts on here. What's the point though? Folk are where they are.

The fact is that a huge number of folk have either gone from undecided to one or the other or have been a soft No/Yes wanting to be persuaded of the case for the other side.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think that's a bit off personally. You did the same thing to me a few weeks back when you questioned my saying that there was a point where I was open to persuasion. It's back to dismissing the arguments by dismissing the man/woman.

To be honest, I could probably pick holes in a lot of the "I was undecided but XXX has made me a Yes" posts on here. What's the point though? Folk are where they are.

The fact is that a huge number of folk have either gone from undecided to one or the other or have been a soft No/Yes wanting to be persuaded of the case for the other side.

As I said, I could be wrong, but the pretend to be DK is a BTNT tactic. Each to their own, I prefer an honest statement of position to disingenuous posturing.

[johnbc70]

As I said, I could be wrong, but the pretend to be DK is a BTNT tactic. Each to their own, I prefer an honest statement of position to disingenuous posturing.

If I am honest it's people like you that make me stay off these forums for the time being. Over and out.

[JeMeSouviens]

If I am honest it's people like you that make me stay off these forums for the time being. Over and out.

Fair enough, less time arguing with you gives me more time to polish my jackboots. :wink:

[CapitalGreen]

Reading back you were not wrong, so my apologies. We were both right, I guess its what time scale you pick and I think it was more relevant to base it on the whole 40+ years when it was been above the 113 less than 1% of the time. That is a fact nobody can deny and I would not dismiss it as a soundbyte and is one of the reasons I worry about the economy, basing revenues on a price that has oil has never been 99% of the time would/should alarm most people.

I know it was not your comment but to compare oil prices to the price of beer, and I am sure you will agree, is ludicrous. I will not even start to explain why they are so different as I think most will know.

Right I am away for a few days so will be back on Thursday night, whatever the result lets hope we can all get back to our normal lives and as I said previously we both want the same thing which is to make this country a better place no matter what way we do it.

I agree to an extent in regards to analysing longer time periods obviously provides a clearer picture. However, it is unrealistic to think prices would have exceeded $113 pre-2000s, however it is not unrealistic to expect prices to exceed $113 over the next 5-10 year period, as has been seen in the oil futures market earlier this year. A scare resource in high demand rarely declines in price over the long term, unless an alternative is found - and guess who is one of the countries leading the way in alternatives?

[Bristolhibby]

I'm just one voter. I've never had the government I wanted at Holyrood in four goes. Are you promising me that's going to change after independence?

Scotland isn't one homogenous identity - it's an aggregation of people with often conflicting views.

We have socialists and pacifists and we have racists and bigots.

We have people who think abortion should be illegal and we have people who think abortion is a woman's choice.

We have people who think gay men and women are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual men and women. And we have people who think the opposite (no mention of who has bankrolled the SNP and Yes campaigns :rolleyes:).

We have people who think that Hayek and Friedman offer the best economic analysis for our country's future and we have people who think it's Keynes. Or Marx.

In short, there isn't a 'Scotland' to get the government 'it' wants. Whatever happens, some voters will be happy with the actual election results, generally most won't.

True of Scotland, the UK and most countries that don't have a two-party system I suspect.

You are almost there. The people of Scotland do not absolutely decide their own democratic fate. Their choice is subsumed by 50 million other people who are not the people of Scotland.

If you feel British then I guess there is no problem, if you feel Scottish them there is a massive democratic deficiency.

This is the crux of things for me.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

You are almost there. The people of Scotland do not absolutely decide their own democratic fate. Their choice is subsumed by 50 million other people who are not the people of Scotland.

If you feel British then I guess there is no problem, if you feel Scottish them there is a massive democratic deficiency.

This is the crux of things for me.

J

It's not one or the other though.

People don't need to choose one, a lot of people can quite happily identify with both.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not one or the other though.

People don't need to choose one, a lot of people can quite happily identify with both.

... agree with that.

I was having the same conversation earlier, and I said that I can also feel European. That's going to be an interesting discussion come the EU referendum.

[Mibbes Aye]

... agree with that.

I was having the same conversation earlier, and I said thatI can also feel European. That's going to be an interesting discussion come the EU referendum.

I think that's right.

And despite the high profile of UKIP and the relative ease of bashing the EU, I genuinely don't think people will vote for leaving when it comes down to a prolonged debate.

But that's another thread :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I agree to an extent in regards to analysing longer time periods obviously provides a clearer picture. However, it is unrealistic to think prices would have exceeded $113 pre-2000s, however it is not unrealistic to expect prices to exceed $113 over the next 5-10 year period, as has been seen in the oil futures market earlier this year. A scare resource in high demand rarely declines in price over the long term, unless an alternative is found - and guess who is one of the countries leading the way in alternatives?

China? Easily the biggest renewable generator in the world and has a rather large industrial base that dominates the solar panel market.

Germany? Probably the worlds foremost promoter of renewables...not that it has done them much good as their energy market is in a total mess.

USA? Natural gas from fracking has reduced wholesale prices their massively.

To suggest Scotland is leading the way in alternatives and has somehow got a gold mine of renewable resource just waiting to be unleashed on the world is not particularly accurate from what I can see...wind power is still way more expensive (and will probably remain so for a considerable time) than any sort of tradition generation. Wave and tidal is basically a busted flush so far and I don't see anyone that can take on the Chinese in solar...where is the evidence that Scotland can replace oil revenues with renewables?

To be clear I reckon Scotland can rely on reasonable oil revenues for some time but I've seen this 'we're leading the world in renewables' stuff quite a lot and really haven't seen that to be the case nor how it will benefit scotland so dramatically in a fiscal sense.