Scottish Independence discussion area

Dayum

First Up wrote: »

It was the Scots who self-determined to stay in the UK.

I'm not discussing what Scotland chose. I'm asking why a libertarian would argue against decentralisation...

karma_

First Up wrote: »

a) Could you parse "to continue to use sterling they don't." for me please? Sorry, but I'm more comfortable when dealing with complete sentences.

b) You still haven't explained why it would have been in the interests of the UK for Scotland to use sterling. Why would that be?

hehe you really do think you're debating away like a true gentleman don't you? If the paper bag were wet I don't think you could get out of it.

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't reject self determination for Scotland? I support Scotland's right to determine their own future in a referendum.

So you're a fence-sitting libertarian then...

Nothing wrong with that of course - only, if you've to follow Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion you should also be rejecting outright the entire concept of democracy.

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

I'm not discussing what Scotland chose. I'm asking why a libertarian would argue against decentralisation...

You realise that privatization is not dependent on independence?

In fact the opposite. An independent Scotland would have been much more statist.

First Up

Dayum wrote: »

Latin American, Central America, Asian and Middle East regions either accept Dollars or have theirs pegged to it.

Look at the Euro. If France and Germany stopped using it tomorrow, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing for the ECB?

Accepting dollars is one thing; having it as the ONLY currency is something else. A taxi driver in most of the developing world will take dollars, sterling, euro or Swiss francs. That doesn't make them the legal tender of the country.

Your point about the Euro and the ECB escapes me. If France and/or Germany stopped using the Euro (a) it would effectively cease to exist and (b) France and Germany would replace it with their own national currencies. What does that have to do with the Scottish question?

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

So you're a fence-sitting libertarian then...

Nothing wrong with that of course - only, if you've to follow Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion you should also be rejecting outright the entire concept of democracy.

Nope.

And explain?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You realise that privatization is not dependent on independence?

In fact the opposite. An independent Scotland would have been much more statist.

What's that got to do with self determination? and come off it, we all know your pro-Union tendencies round these parts. (nowt wrong with that either mind you, but still for a libertarian...hehe)

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

hehe you really do think you're debating away like a true gentleman don't you? If the paper bag were wet I don't think you could get out of it.

OK; anybody else got any idea what this guy is talking about?

"To continue to use sterling they don't."

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You realise that privatization is not dependent on independence?

In fact the opposite. An independent Scotland would have been much more statist.

No one understands that more than me.

As I said I'm not discussing what Scotland would have done after the dust settles. They could have become the most left-leaning society in Europe or immediately deregulated and abolished taxes - it's not what I'm arguing. I'm simply replying to those other posters that were mislead into thinking about the Sterlings future.

I also don't accept libertarians rejecting independence for Scotland because "what might have happened afterwards".

First Up

Dayum wrote: »

I'm not discussing what Scotland chose. I'm asking why a libertarian would argue against decentralisation...

You asked:

Then why reject self-determination for Scotland?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

What's that got to do with self determination? and come off it, we all know your pro-Union tendencies round these parts. (nowt wrong with that either mind you, but still for a libertarian...hehe)

Self determination being the right of the people of Scotland ro decide their own future in a referendum.

I don't see this conflict between maintaining the union and libertarians. Perhaps you could explain?

Dayum

First Up wrote: »

Accepting dollars is one thing; having it as the ONLY currency is something else. A taxi driver in most of the developing world will take dollars, sterling, euro or Swiss francs. That doesn't make them the legal tender of the country.

Your point about the Euro and the ECB escapes me. If France and/or Germany stopped using the Euro (a) it would effectively cease to exist and (b) France and Germany would replace it with their own national currencies. What does that have to do with the Scottish question?

It has everything to do with the Scottish question and I've referred to it several times in the thread already. You've even mentioned it in your post - legal tender laws.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope.

And explain?

If you haven't already seen how Democracy is the enemy of Individualism then you shouldn't be calling yourself a Libertarian.

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

No one understands that more than me.

As I said I'm not discussing what Scotland would have done after the dust settles. They could have become the most left-leaning society in Europe or immediately deregulated and abolished taxes - it's not what I'm arguing. I'm simply replying to those other posters that were mislead into thinking about the Sterlings future.

I also don't accept libertarians rejecting independence for Scotland because "what might have happened afterwards".

Libertarians respect the rights of Scottish people to decide their own future. Of course I supported the no side but I would have accepted a yes result if that's what people wanted.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

OK; anybody else got any idea what this guy is talking about?

"To continue to use sterling they don't."

My word man, do I literally have to spoon feed the conversation to you? I wouldn't mind but that was a direct response to your question and it's not that hard to follow...

you

...Scotland didn't need a currency union anyway.

me

They don't (need a currency union)

If you can't even be bothered to keep up with your own questions what do you want me to do?

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

If you haven't already seen how Democracy is the enemy of Individualism then you shouldn't be calling yourself a Libertarian.

That's not much of an explanation.

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not much of an explanation.

You claim to be a Libertarian and yet you've no problems with the 51% ruling the 49%?

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

You claim to be a Libertarian and yet you've no problems with the 51% ruling the 49%?

It was 55% and there's no alternative unless you mean to partition Scotland. Which I would have no problem with in theory but it wouldn't really be possible to separate the voters geographically.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

My word man, do I literally have to spoon feed the conversation to you? I wouldn't mind but that was a direct response to your question and it's not that hard to follow...

you



me



If you can't even be bothered to keep up with your own questions what do you want me to do?

Thanks, but how is "to continue to use sterling they don't" a direct answer to;

"It is obvious why it would have suited Scotland. But why England?"

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was 55% and there's no alternative unless you mean to partition Scotland. Which I would have no problem with in theory but it wouldn't really be possible to separate the voters geographically.

I'm not referring to the Scottish figures - I'm talking about the concept of 51% ruling the 49%.

Two lions and a zebra wondering what to have for dinner. As a Libertarian you should be rejecting democracy outright.

"F*ck you I won't do what you tell me" and all that jazz.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

Thanks, but how is "to continue to use sterling they don't" a direct answer to;

"It is obvious why it would have suited Scotland. But why England?"

Enough spoon feeding from me, if you can't follow the linear progression of a conversation then that's where I draw the line. I suggest you scroll back and re-read although I suspect you're just being facetious.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Enough spoon feeding from me, if you can't follow the linear progression of a conversation then that's where I draw the line. I suggest you scroll back and re-read although I suspect you're just being facetious.

Have a look at #4645

karma_

First Up wrote: »

Have a look at #4645

Look, explained it to you twice now, not going to repeat a third time, it's hardly rocket science.

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

I'm not referring to the Scottish figures - I'm talking about the concept of 51% ruling the 49%.

Two lions and a zebra wondering what to have for dinner. As a Libertarian you should be rejecting democracy outright.

"F*ck you I won't do what you tell me" and all that jazz.

You don't understand libertarianism. We don't outright reject democracy. We seek to limit the powers government has over its citizens.

If in theory government power could be constrained through democratic action that would cause no ideological conflict. Libertarianism and democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

First Up

Dayum wrote: »

I'm not referring to the Scottish figures - I'm talking about the concept of 51% ruling the 49%.

Two lions and a zebra wondering what to have for dinner. As a Libertarian you should be rejecting democracy outright.

"F*ck you I won't do what you tell me" and all that jazz.

Democracy or more accurately, majority rules, only works where there is sufficient consensus. Where it doesn't work - or is abused - is where there is a "winner takes all" mentality. That is unfortunately the case in many tribal/polarised societies and is one of the main reasons why attempts by former colonial powers and more recently by idiots like GWB to introduce "democracy" in tribal or feudal societies has been such a disaster.

Many elections in our (western) part of the world have been decided by fractions of a percent but life goes on.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Look, explained it to you twice now, not going to repeat a third time, it's hardly rocket science.

I'll take that as an apology and a retraction.

karma_

First Up wrote: »

I'll take that as an apology and a retraction.

Take it how you like fella but it's neither. I want to live in your world where apologies and retractions just manifest themselves out of thin air.

First Up

karma_ wrote: »

Take it how you like fella but it's neither. I want to live in your world where apologies and retractions just manifest themselves out of thin air.

Time to put away your shovel I think.

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You don't understand libertarianism. We don't outright reject democracy. We seek to limit the powers government has over its citizens.

If in theory government power could be constrained through democratic action that would cause no ideological conflict. Libertarians and democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

A romantic idea but reality says different.

It's cool to bash the government but it's society that props it up and allows it to flourish. How can you constrain people on welfare, special interest groups or anyone else for that matter to vote against their own interests?

You think people are going to vote to abolish the welfare/warfare state?!

Government will never be constrained through the ballot box - it can only grow. It's one thing for a group of neighbours to attend a town hall to discuss whether or not they are going to allow guns or drugs on their street and another thing entirely to ask a whole nation to decide the fate of millions of others.

Democracy is your enemy, mate and countless Libertarians have written entire books in opposition to it. You'd want to check them out. I'm all too well aware of what Libertarianism is.

A Dub in Glasgo

A couple of things to note

1. The Yes could not answer a lot of the questions posed by the No side as the answers could only come from negotiations with the UK Government. The UK Governement said there would be no pre-negotiation therefore they created the uncertainty as it was in their interest in chasing a No vote as people would be scared of uncertainty
2. The No side stated that if Scotland voted for independence then they could not use the £. This created so much uncertainty and ironic considering the stance of no pre-negotiation from the UK Government. Eventually Alistair Darling admitted 'of course Scotland can use the £' but later clarified not in a currency union which one expert described as 'economic vandalism'. The Yes side stated it would be in the interests of all parties to have a currency union

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

A romantic idea but reality says different.

It's cool to bash the government but it's society that props it up and allows it to flourish. How can you constrain people on welfare, special interest groups or anyone else for that matter to vote against their own interests?

You think people are going to vote to abolish the welfare/warfare state?!

Government will never be constrained through the ballot box - it can only grow. It's one thing for a group of neighbours to attend a town hall to discuss whether or not they are going to allow guns or drugs on their street and another thing entirely to ask a whole nation to decide the fate of millions of others.

Democracy is your enemy, mate and countless Libertarians have written entire books in opposition to it. You'd want to check them out. I'm all too well aware of what Libertarianism is.

I disagree. There is no practical reason why the government cannot be constrained through democratic action.

You argue that welfare recipients will never vote against their own interests. I would agree in general but welfare recipients are not the majority of the electorate so that is not a reason why welfare cannot be cut. And for the record I don't want to cut all welfare. Welfare should be sufficient to keep people marginally above the poverty line.

You also claim government can only expand through democratic action but failed to elaborate on that point so I'm unsure how to counter it. I will say though that both Regan and Thatcher were democratically elected and shrunk the government substantially during their terms.

Democracy is not my enemy. Democracy is my friend. Some Libertarians may disagree but there are lots of varying views within libertarianism. We don't all believe the same things and trying to classify libertarians is kind of like trying to herd a glaring of cats.

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree. There is no practical reason why the government cannot be constrained through democratic action.

You argue that welfare recipients will never vote against their own interests. I would agree in general but welfare recipients are not the majority of the electorate so that is not a reason why welfare cannot be cut. And for the record I don't want to cut all welfare. Welfare should be sufficient to keep people marginally above the poverty line.

You also claim government can only expand through democratic action but failed to elaborate on that point so I'm unsure how to counter it. I will say though that both Regan and Thatcher were democratically elected and shrunk the government substantially during their terms.

Democracy is not my enemy. Democracy is my friend. Some Libertarians may disagree but there are lots of varying views within libertarianism. We don't all believe the same things and trying to classify libertarians is kind of like trying to herd a glaring of cats.

You want a dogfight at the election box every 5 years where you risk losing everything you own or fought for? It doesn't matter whether or not you have a libertarian society - in a democracy, it wouldn't last long because people will ultimately vote against their liberty for a few pieces of silver. We have a catalogue of historic examples that backs this argument.

Please don't use Thatcher or Reagan in an argument for Libertarianism. No self-respecting libertarian would ever hold that evilness as their banner. Reagan reneged on his promises to abolish state departments, expanded them in every area, ballooned military spending and ballooned the national debt.

Sorry to tell you but it sounds to me that you're more of a Conservative than a Libertarian.

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A couple of things to note

1. The Yes could not answer a lot of the questions posed by the No side as the answers could only come from negotiations with the UK Government. The UK Governement said there would be no pre-negotiation therefore they created the uncertainty as it was in their interest in chasing a No vote as people would be scared of uncertainty
2. The No side stated that if Scotland voted for independence then they could not use the £. This created so much uncertainty and ironic considering the stance of no pre-negotiation from the UK Government. Eventually Alistair Darling admitted 'of course Scotland can use the £' but later clarified not in a currency union which one expert described as 'economic vandalism'. The Yes side stated it would be in the interests of all parties to have a currency union

The question was "Should Scotland to be an independent country?"

The Oxford Dictionary defines "independent" as:
"Free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority"
"Not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence"
"Capable of thinking or acting for oneself"
"Not connected with another or with each other; separate"

The onus was 100% on the Yes side to address any and every issue that might arise as a consequence. Those opposed (for whatever reason) were 100% entitled to ask any questions or to highlight areas of uncertainty. Currency was one such issue but there was a host of others.

Calling this "scaremongering" or the even more ridiculous "outright lies" is no more than an admission of the inadequacy of the Yes argument.

The Yes side failed to satisfy enough people that the consequences were sufficiently positive or clear to get their support. End of.

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

You want a dogfight at the election box every 5 years where you risk losing everything you own or fought for? It doesn't matter whether or not you have a libertarian society - in a democracy, it wouldn't last long because people will ultimately vote against their liberty for a few pieces of silver. We have a catalogue of historic examples that backs this argument.

Please don't use Thatcher or Reagan in an argument for Libertarianism. No self-respecting libertarian would ever hold that evilness as their banner. Reagan reneged on his promises to abolish state departments, expanded them in every area, ballooned military spending and ballooned the national debt.

Sorry to tell you but it sounds to me that you're more of a Conservative than a Libertarian.

I support democracy, part of that is accepting that people will vote differently than you want them to.

Evil is a very subjective term, you should avoid it in relation to politics, no one is evil. Even if you disagree with them.

Certainly not, I'm too socially liberal to be conservative.

fiachr_a

It's great news for Ireland and when Britain leaves the EU them Celtic Tiger days will come back!

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support democracy, part of that is accepting that people will vote differently than you want them to.

Evil is a very subjective term, you should avoid it in relation to politics, no one is evil. Even if you disagree with them.

Certainly not, I'm too socially liberal to be conservative.

Social liberal? LOL

Dayum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support democracy, part of that is accepting that people will vote differently than you want them to.

Evil is a very subjective term, you should avoid it in relation to politics, no one is evil. Even if you disagree with them.

Certainly not, I'm too socially liberal to be conservative.

Just because you've no problem with homosexuals or smoking a bit of weed doesn't make you a Libertarian.

Yeah and I suppose Hitler wasn't evil either....hey, it's just politics....

Good luck finding your Libertarian paradise through democracy and keeping it.

Iwasfrozen

Dayum wrote: »

Just because you've no problem with homosexuals or smoking a bit of weed doesn't make you a Libertarian.

Yeah and I suppose Hitler wasn't evil either....hey, it's just politics....

Good luck finding your Libertarian paradise through democracy and keeping it.

Didn't say it did. I was countering your claim that I was conservative.

Thanks. It won't be easy but democracy is the only legitimate way of bringing about real change.

fiachr_a

fiachr_a wrote: »

It's great news for Ireland and when Britain leaves the EU them Celtic Tiger days will come back!

I am looking forward to hear your explanation how?

eire4

Yes do tell I am all ears as to how suddenly this all means glory days economically for Ireland.

snubbleste

Cameron admits he'd have quit if it was a Yes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2772547/Cameron-make-MORE-apologies-Queen-claiming-purred-Scotland-result-reveals-quit-Yes-vote.html

eire4

Ity will be interesting to see what happens in Scotland at the Westminister elections next year. Currently Labour have 41 seats the Liberals 11 the SNP 6 and the Tories have just the 1. Will the independance referendum have an effect on that breakdown above?

dxhound2005

An unexpected result of the huge numbers who newly registered to vote is that they have revealed their existence to the long arm of the taxman. No representation without taxation, to reverse the old maxim.

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils-use-Scottish-referendum-to-chase-up-decades-old-unpaid-tax/37317

An unprecedented level of public engagement saw 97% of those eligible across Scotland signing up to vote, amounting to almost 4.3 million people.
Officers are now trawling through the records in a bid to recover the almost £300m still owed in poll tax debts to town halls. The controversial levy was introduced to Scotland by Margaret Thatcher in 1989 – twelve months earlier than in England and Wales – before being scrapped in 1993.

Edinburgh alone is thought to be owed £50m in unpaid council tax.

Grandpa Hassan

That'll teach 'em!

Henlars67

dxhound2005 wrote: »

An unexpected result of the huge numbers who newly registered to vote is that they have revealed their existence to the long arm of the taxman. No representation without taxation, to reverse the old maxim.

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils-use-Scottish-referendum-to-chase-up-decades-old-unpaid-tax/37317

An unprecedented level of public engagement saw 97% of those eligible across Scotland signing up to vote, amounting to almost 4.3 million people.
Officers are now trawling through the records in a bid to recover the almost £300m still owed in poll tax debts to town halls. The controversial levy was introduced to Scotland by Margaret Thatcher in 1989 – twelve months earlier than in England and Wales – before being scrapped in 1993.

Edinburgh alone is thought to be owed £50m in unpaid council tax.

The electoral register should not be allowed to be used for that purpose.

eyescreamcone

Henlars67 wrote: »

The electoral register should not be allowed to be used for that purpose.

Why not?

Grandpa Hassan

Henlars67 wrote: »

The electoral register should not be allowed to be used for that purpose.

Think that's a pretty good use of it tbh

snubbleste

A year after the referendum. A poll shows that a majority would vote YES to Independence if another poll was held.
53% of Scots would vote for independence if ballot held now

2ndcoming

Well much like before the actual referendum, they'd say yes in a poll but when push comes to shove they'd probably bottle it again.

osarusan

snubbleste wrote: »

A year after the referendum. A poll shows that a majority would vote YES to Independence if another poll was held.
53% of Scots would vote for independence if ballot held now

It's a bit late for that now.

eire4

2ndcoming wrote: »

Well much like before the actual referendum, they'd say yes in a poll but when push comes to shove they'd probably bottle it again.

Maybe so but I would not be so sure. The previous referendum does seem to have actually created a real momentum to pull away. The results of the last general election in Britain were very spectacular in Scotland in favour of the Scottish Nationalists. Now obviously the first past the post system used in Britain played a part in the landslide victory for the Scottish nationalists but there is no question that the election was a massive success for the Scottish Nationalists.


Next years Scottish parliament elections will be very interesting to follow.