Scottish Independence discussion area

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It matters when you try to say the majority of voters were somehow "cowardly" for refusing independence. I would counter that the majority of no voters were not afraid of independence but simply felt a cultural connection to the UK as a whole and didn't want to leave it. Doesn't that sound far more plausible than assuming people are idiots?

And that would be utter nonsense. People were deliberately misinformed.

This vote was only masquerading as democracy and STILL it was the closest thing to democracy in recent memory any of us witnessed. It's a travesty it was polluted by outright lies spread by an agenda-ridden media and so heavily influenced by the likes of bankers and big corporations. Scotland missed a great opportunity last week.

MAJR

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just because the money in the pot is distributed by the Westminster government does not mean England subsidises what comes out of the pot. Scotland puts more into the pot than it takes out therefore England does not subsidise Scotland.

No, Scotland doesn't "put more into the pot than it takes out." It gets back about as much as it puts in depending on the Oil. At times Scotland has contributed more than it gets back, at other times its gets back more than it contributes, still again there are times when what it puts in is almost indenticle to what it gets back. Scotland isn't subsidised by the rUK but it isn't paying more than it gets back either: http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/have-we-paid-8bn-more-in-than-weve-had.html

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

And that would be utter nonsense. People were deliberately misinformed.

This vote was only masquerading as democracy and STILL it was the closest thing to democracy in recent memory any of us witnessed. It's a travesty it was polluted by outright lies spread by an agenda-ridden media and so heavily influenced by the likes of bankers and big corporations. Scotland missed a great opportunity last week.

Examples please.

BoJack Horseman

First Up wrote: »

Examples please.

Go to telegraph.co.uk any day for the past 3 months to get a crash course in extreme media bias & use of flimsy conjecture to back an agenda.

Throw in a dash of Eddie Mair & Nick Robinson at the BBC.... or frankly almost all the BBC news output.

Examples are legion.

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Go to telegraph.co.uk any day for the past 3 months to get a crash course in extreme media bias & use of flimsy conjecture to back an agenda.

I want examples of the outright lies.

BoJack Horseman

First Up wrote: »

I want examples of the outright lies.

Look it up then!

Not being your mother I won't do your homework for you.

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Look it up then!

Not being your mother I won't do your homework for you.

No thanks. If someone makes an allegation but refuses to support it with evidence, they can rightly expect to be ignored.

BoJack Horseman

First Up wrote: »

No thanks. If someone makes an allegation but refuses to support it with evidence, they can rightly expect to be ignored.

Like asking for proof that clouds are in the sky, its there to see with the minimum effort.

Wilfull blindness is an awfull condition to be struck down with.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

No thanks. If someone makes an allegation but refuses to support it with evidence, they can rightly expect to be ignored.

Sure, if you arent prepared to remove your head from the sand then let it stay, which ironically enough is exactly what we are talking about here.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Sure, if you arent prepared to remove your head from the sand then let it stay, which ironically enough is exactly what we are talking about here.

How can asking for evidence be described as having one's head in the sand?

karma_

First Up wrote: »

How can asking for evidence be described as having one's head in the sand?

Because if it wasn't in the sand in the first instance you would have seen the bias apparent in the media, for it was not hidden.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Because if it wasn't in the sand in the first instance you would have seen the bias apparent in the media, for it was not hidden.

Examples of outright lies please or shut up about it.

tayto lover

I don't know if there were lies.
People had to make their own judgements on whether they wanted to run their own affairs or not.
In my mind the Scots bottled it.
They were not brave enough to take on the challenge that many nations longed for and some fought for.
I don't know of another instance of that.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

Examples of outright lies please or shut up about it.

Heres the thing fella, see if you show absolute zero interest in participating in a conversing of opinion, don't expect others to waste their time on you.. look at what you have done here, when presented with a completely salient point of view the toys come flying out of the pram and a refusal to budge or inform yourself, it is infact the type of derailment seen often in these threads and akin to arguing with a child.

BoJack Horseman

First Up wrote: »

Examples of outright lies please or shut up about it.

Monbiot in the guardian did a good piece on it

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists

Probably not good enough though.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Heres the thing fella, see if you show absolute zero interest in participating in a conversing of opinion, don't expect others to waste their time on you.. look at what you have done here, when presented with a completely salient point of view the toys come flying out of the pram and a refusal to budge or inform yourself, it is infact the type of derailment seen often in these threads and akin to arguing with a child.

We all have opinions, which are the results of how we interpret information. But something is either true or not and the accusation is that (some) people were swayed by outright lies. I'm asking that this allegation be supported with examples.

Stop waffling and provide some - or else modify or withdraw the accusation.

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Monbiot in the guardian did a good piece on it

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists

Probably not good enough though.

As it contains no examples of outright lies - then no, it isn't good enough.

kingchess

vote No for better quicker change,remember that slogan??details will be ready by Burns night-Jan.25th..NOW Cameron is saying extra devolved powers to Scotland is linked to voting rights in the house of Commons-restricting Scottish MPs from voting on English affairs like tax,all this is aimed at the labour party and the up-coming election next year, you can google the headlines on the UK newspapers if you wish.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

We all have opinions, which are the results of how we interpret information. But something is either true or not and the accusation is that (some) people were swayed by outright lies. I'm asking that this allegation be supported with examples.

Stop waffling and provide some - or else modify or withdraw the accusation.

Well the information in the media over this issue was pretty much a one way street with only one single newspaper in favour of independence, this is endemic in the corporate media and is not conducive to democracy.

You seem to have no issue with this but how can an electorate be truly informed in the face of such a giant? It's remarkable that Yes even got 45% of the vote at all.

karma_

kingchess wrote: »

vote No for better quicker change,remember that slogan??details will be ready by Burns night-Jan.25th..NOW Cameron is saying extra devolved powers to Scotland is linked to voting rights in the house of Commons-restricting Scottish MPs from voting on English affairs like tax,all this is aimed at the labour party and the up-coming election next year, you can google the headlines on the UK newspapers if you wish.

Sure the vote result was no more than 6 hours old before I heard a news report on teh radio of grumblings on the timing, the gate had hardly been shut before the plans for backtracking had started.

BoJack Horseman

kingchess wrote: »

you can google the headlines on the UK newspapers if you wish.

No no no.....
That's not good enough!

You must work harder to convince an internet stranger with a preset position of the obvious.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Well the information in the media over this issue was pretty much a one way street with only one single newspaper in favour of independence, this is endemic in the corporate media and is not conducive to democracy.

You seem to have no issue with this but how can an electorate be truly informed in the face of such a giant? It's remarkable that Yes even got 45% of the vote at all.

I'm asking you for examples of the outright lies you claim were used and all you can offer are vague complaints about media bias. I'm asking you to give us examples of how anyone - media, politicians, industry, financiers - anyone involved in the debate - put forward OUTRIGHT LIES.

Has it occurred to you that the reason why the media was overwhelmingly in support of a NO vote is that having considered the issue from a wide range of perspectives, they concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly pointing in that direction?

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No no no.....
That's not good enough!

You must work harder to convince an internet stranger with a preset position of the obvious.

You don't have to work at it at all - except to support a claim with some evidence. Still waiting.

kingchess

everything printed is true and politicians never lie,(by the way I have a lovely bridge I want to sell-interested??)

karma_

First Up wrote: »

I'm asking you for examples of the outright lies you claim were used and all you can offer are vague complaints about media bias. I'm asking you to give us examples of how anyone - media, politicians, industry, financiers - anyone involved in the debate - put forward OUTRIGHT LIES.

Has it occurred to you that the reason why the media was overwhelmingly in support of a NO vote is that having considered the issue from a wide range of perspectives, they concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly pointing in that direction?

Holy suffering..... none so blind as those who will not see I guess fits well here.

Still I'll relent and provide one lie that was touted, the lie that Scotland would not be allowed to use sterling as a currency.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Holy suffering..... none so blind as those who will not see I guess fits well here.

Still I'll relent and provide one lie that was touted, the lie that Scotland would not be allowed to use sterling as a currency.

That was a policy position adopted by all three major UK parties. What bit of it constitutes a lie? Or is it just that you refuse to believe it?

Dayum

This whole currency debate is ridiculous.

Scotland could use McDonalds chips as currency if it so chose. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from using Sterling. How exactly does anybody even remotely argue that it could be controlled? FFS....bars, restaurants, shops in Ireland still accept Pounds today.

Stop swallowing the media propaganda.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

That was a policy position adopted by all three major UK parties. What bit of it constitutes a lie? Or is it just that you refuse to believe it?

It was a lie full stop. That you happen to believe that lie is hilarious.

Dayum

First Up wrote: »

That was a policy position adopted by all three major UK parties. What bit of it constitutes a lie? Or is it just that you refuse to believe it?

Come on man.....

The Irish Punt was pegged to Pound Sterling until 1979. How can anyone control using a currency? Look at all the countries around the world that unofficially use the U.S Dollar as a means of exchange....

You've been brainwashed.

Fratton Fred

Dayum wrote: »

FFS....bars, restaurants, shops in Ireland still accept Pounds today.

Which they then convert in to euros

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which they then convert in to euros

Irrelevant, Scotland could have used sterling if they wanted as an independant nation. Besides that, the UK would have been more than happy to accommodate such an arrangement for economic reasons.

Dayum

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which they then convert in to euros

And?

They could convert into Euros, Dollars, Yen, Peso's or walk across the street and use the Sterling in another bar. The point is £ is accepted as a means of exchange. The government doesn't oversee every transaction in the street. It's up to the two parties what they'll accept. Nothing stopping two Irish people entering into an agreement and using South African Rand or Malteesers.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Irrelevant, Scotland could have used sterling if they wanted as an independant nation. Besides that, the UK would have been more than happy to accommodate such an arrangement for economic reasons.

They could have. But fiscal policy would still have been dictated by London.

First Up

Dayum wrote: »

Come on man.....

The Irish Punt was pegged to Pound Sterling until 1979. How can anyone control using a currency? Look at all the countries around the world that unofficially use the U.S Dollar as a means of exchange....

You've been brainwashed.

And you are badly informed. Countries where the dollar is used "unofficially" have their own"official" currencies - it's just that not many people use them if they can help it.
The Irish punt/Sterling link was done by agreement.

Grandpa Hassan

karma_ wrote: »

Holy suffering..... none so blind as those who will not see I guess fits well here.

Still I'll relent and provide one lie that was touted, the lie that Scotland would not be allowed to use sterling as a currency.

Scotland of course would have been allowed to use sterling. No-one said otherwise. One of the options was to unnofficially use sterling via a currency peg, and this was always the case.

What they would not get (which is effectively a fact given that there would be huge public opposition to it among the English electorate) is to use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort.

Guy:Incognito

kingchess wrote: »

everything printed is true and politicians never lie,(by the way I have a lovely bridge I want to sell-interested??)

No, no one says politicians don't lie, many are just saying it's the other sides politicians that lie.


The no side were a bunch of liars that only won the vote because they lied. The white knight's on the yes side fought the good fight with nothing but 100% truth and facts.

Guy:Incognito

Dayum wrote: »

This whole currency debate is ridiculous.

Scotland could use McDonalds chips as currency if it so chose. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from using Sterling. How exactly does anybody even remotely argue that it could be controlled? FFS....bars, restaurants, shops in Ireland still accept Pounds today.

Stop swallowing the media propaganda.

They could use McDonald's chips if they want, but they'd have to buy the chips off McDonald's at the price they sell them. So unless they want to collapse economically the chip has to be worth what McDonald's are selling it to them for at least.

Shops in the north accept Euro's. Doesn't mean the north's currency is the euro. It's purely the convenience of trying to mark money off your closest neighbours.

Grandpa Hassan

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No, no one says politicians don't lie, many are just saying it's the other sides politicians that lie.


The no side were a bunch of liars that only won the vote because they lied. The white knight's on the yes side fought the good fight with nothing but 100% truth and facts.

I'm not sure what facts the yes side had? Post independence plans were conspicuously absent. The lack of clarity was pretty unforgivable from Salmond IMO. A huge opportunity for Scotland and he goes into it with no discernible plan for the aftermath at all

Fratton Fred

Dayum wrote: »

Nothing stopping two Irish people entering into an agreement and using South African Rand or Malteesers.

None whatsoever, until the maltesers run out, then they'd need to buy more.

kingchess

well the 3 leaders made a VOW,and now it seems it is being used to advance party politics-the Tories are using it to screw Labour to keep themselves in power next year,do you think proposals will be ready by 25th jan???

Grandpa Hassan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

None whatsoever, until the maltesers run out, then they'd need to buy more.

That's right. What do they buy them with? And where do they get any more maltesers, given that they are not permitted to make them? The malteser manufacturer is in London and isn't going to make any for Scotland. If the UK runs out, it'll just make a load more. They might lend some to Scotland, but that would not be a good situation for Scotland to be in

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

None whatsoever, until the maltesers run out, then they'd need to buy more.

This is all whataboutery. The fact is that Scotland could have kept using sterling if they wanted but all three main UK parties and the vast majority of the media peddled the misinformation that would not be the case.

This is blatant lies and it's not like I'm surprised as for a lie to happen all a politician has to do is open their lips but look at yourself and others in this thread, you have no problem with that, and you are more worried arguing semantics whilst the real elephant in the room is how there was an orchestrated and overwhelming assault on the democratic process.

karma_

karma_ wrote: »

This is all whataboutery. The fact is that Scotland could have kept using sterling if they wanted but all three main UK parties and the vast majority of the media peddled the misinformation that would not be the case.

This is blatant lies and it's not like I'm surprised as for a lie to happen all a politician has to do is open their lips but look at yourself and others in this thread, you have no problem with that, and you are more worried arguing semantics whilst the real elephant in the room is how there was an orchestrated and overwhelming assault on the democratic process.

Whatbaoutery? LOL.

This is simply why an independent Scotland could not unilaterally use the pound. Or rather, they could but if they did they would be at the mercy of the Bank Of England, no being run with absolutely no concern for the independent scottish economy whatsoever, and not operating as a lender of last resort.

It isn't good enough to simply say 'we can keep sterling' and Salmond made a big mistake by not having a clear plan on currency.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

This is all whataboutery. The fact is that Scotland could have kept using sterling if they wanted but all three main UK parties and the vast majority of the media peddled the misinformation that would not be the case.

This is blatant lies and it's not like I'm surprised as for a lie to happen all a politician has to do is open their lips but look at yourself and others in this thread, you have no problem with that, and you are more worried arguing semantics whilst the real elephant in the room is how there was an orchestrated and overwhelming assault on the democratic process.

Scotland wanted a currency union, which was rejected. It was basically a la carte independence, guaranteed by the rUK tax payer.

Dayum

First Up wrote: »

And you are badly informed. Countries where the dollar is used "unofficially" have their own"official" currencies - it's just that not many people use them if they can help it.
The Irish punt/Sterling link was done by agreement.

Scotland could use precious metals, trade with Dollars, Sterling, Euros...whatever they wished. All they would have to do is get rid of their legal tender laws. You've added nothing with the above post. You've not laid out an argument as to why Scotland couldn't use Pounds - all you've regurgitated was what you heard from the BBC.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They could use McDonald's chips if they want, but they'd have to buy the chips off McDonald's at the price they sell them. So unless they want to collapse economically the chip has to be worth what McDonald's are selling it to them for at least.

Shops in the north accept Euro's. Doesn't mean the north's currency is the euro. It's purely the convenience of trying to mark money off your closest neighbours.

The McDonalds chips comment was obviously made in jest. What Scotland could use would be private currency, or precious metals. Using national government monopoly fiat is a dangerous precedent regardless of time or place. But again, nobody has outlined a solid argument as to how Scotland couldn't use Sterling. I've yet to hear one. Perhaps it's because a credible rebuttal doesn't exist.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

None whatsoever, until the maltesers run out, then they'd need to buy more.

Irrelevant because Scotland wouldn't need to have legal tender laws.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatbaoutery? LOL.

This is simply why an independent Scotland could not unilaterally use the pound. Or rather, they could but if they did they would be at the mercy of the Bank Of England, no being run with absolutely no concern for the independent scottish economy whatsoever, and not operating as a lender of last resort.

It isn't good enough to simply say 'we can keep sterling' and Salmond made a big mistake by not having a clear plan on currency.

FFS... Of course, no one is saying otherwise and Scotland probably would have wanted to go into the Euro anyway but the people voting to decide were lied to and told that sterling would somehow go away.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

FFS... Of course, no one is saying otherwise and Scotland probably would have wanted to go into the Euro anyway but the people voting to decide were lied to and told that sterling would somehow go away.

Both sides told lies. Who cares? It's the same in every referendum.

The referendum was won. The union is safe. It doesn't matter any more.

If it makes you happy to think the no side only won by telling lies when the yes side did the exact same thing then knock yourself out.

Fratton Fred

Dayum wrote: »

Scotland could use precious metals, trade with Dollars, Sterling, Euros...whatever they wished. All they would have to do is get rid of their legal tender laws. You've added nothing with the above post. You've not laid out an argument as to why Scotland couldn't use Pounds - all you've regurgitated was what you heard from the BBC.

The McDonalds chips comment was obviously made in jest. What Scotland could use would be private currency, or precious metals. Using national government monopoly fiat is a dangerous precedent regardless of time or place. But again, nobody has outlined a solid argument as to how Scotland couldn't use Sterling. I've yet to hear one. Perhaps it's because a credible rebuttal doesn't exist.

Irrelevant because Scotland wouldn't need to have legal tender laws.

They would need to buy dollars, sterling, euros, McDonald's chips, precious metals.

Buy them with what?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Both sides told lies. Who cares? It's the same in every referendum.

The referendum was won. The union is safe. It doesn't matter any more.

If it makes you happy to think the no side won by telling lies when the yes side did the exact same thing then knock yourself out.

Aye, who cares that democracy was undermined and the electorate were lied to?

Typical libertarian shíte.

Grandpa Hassan

karma_ wrote: »

This is all whataboutery. The fact is that Scotland could have kept using sterling if they wanted but all three main UK parties and the vast majority of the media peddled the misinformation that would not be the case.

No they did not. They said Scotland could not be part of a currency union, and thus could not avail of the Bank of England's lender of last resort role. That is not the same as saying that they can't use sterling.