Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

Aye, you vanished for a while and I did notice that. A few new kids on the block appeared and the quality of 'debate' plummeted to new depths from time to time. Hey ho.

I didn't vanish anywhere, just ignored this pishy thread for a while. Sometimes it's a welcome distraction to daily life, and a good way to keep ahead of the curve with information should a Nationalist ever start their pish with me.

I agree with your sentiments.

[Edinburger]

NoNeed said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

You must have missed the word "credible" I have never seen any and I have been here since volume 1.

I agree that you've made no credible contributions since volume 1.

[NoNeed]

Trollburger said:

I agree that you've made no credible contributions since volume 1.

Even for a troll like you, that is weak.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

NoNeed said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

You must have missed the word "credible" I have never seen any and I have been here since volume 1.

I agree that you've made no credible contributions since volume 1.

Pot calling the kettle! Although to be fair your contributions have been instrumental in giving everyone a fantastic, almost real time demonstration of cybernat/SNP bullsh*t and bluster and kindly allowing us all here to tear the pitiful arguments to pieces, bit by bit.

Really, to try and say Scotland pays (more) than its way you really are on a whole new planet of delusional. If that was the case, then Sturgeon would be begging for the Barnett formula to be binned and to implement FFA immediately. But that is not the case, is it?

LOL at the accent post BTW, it is almost as if you are screaming that Scots are BETTER at keeping their accent than the USELESS homogenous English. And a study proves Scots are BETTER, so you are HAPPY. Being BETTER is important, eh? Can possibly be all in this together, can we?

[Sway]

///ajd said:

LOL at the accent post BTW, it is almost as if you are screaming that Scots are BETTER at keeping their accent than the USELESS homogenous English. And a study proves Scots are BETTER, so you are HAPPY. Being BETTER is important, eh? Can possibly be all in this together, can we?

As with most things, I read that and thought 'why'? After all, the observation that Glaswegians have held their accent more stable than pretty much everyone else is actually quite interesting, and the important element that is the actual science is determining why. Then our knowledge is advanced not just with facts, but rationale.

So, what reasons could there be for a more stable accent? My hypothesis/occams list would likely include:

• isolation

Demonstrably not true. Not only a port, but a well connected city within a small island.

• Uniqueness of accent

I suppose if an accent had a significant variation to the national norm, but was still fully understandable, then there may be some form of pride and so a greater personal resistance to change. Balanced against the fact that it's neither particularly unusual an accent, nor particularly legible to many across the UK.

• Superiority complex/rejection of wider culture

This one has perhaps the strongest argument going for it. A centre of support for independence. A significant population following a different but very similar religion. A level of displayed disdain for the wider nation, whether across a small distance (Edinburgh) or a larger one (Westminster/London). The only place I've ever felt unwelcome as an Englishman, anywhere in the world.

• Genetics

No, just bks, with lots of data to support.

Can't think of many other reasons, and my conclusion isn't that it's much of a positive thing.

[r11co]

Edinburger said:

It is an important time for the SNP to morph the policy and the party before losing credibility.

WOW. Is this a road to Damascus moment for 'burger?

Edinburger said:

Over to you lot...

Are you serious? Start reading from volume 1 and then come back to us on that one.

[s2art]

Sway said:

As with most things, I read that and thought 'why'? After all, the observation that Glaswegians have held their accent more stable than pretty much everyone else is actually quite interesting, and the important element that is the actual science is determining why. Then our knowledge is advanced not just with facts, but rationale.

So, what reasons could there be for a more stable accent? My hypothesis/occams list would likely include:

• isolation

Demonstrably not true. Not only a port, but a well connected city within a small island.

• Uniqueness of accent

I suppose if an accent had a significant variation to the national norm, but was still fully understandable, then there may be some form of pride and so a greater personal resistance to change. Balanced against the fact that it's neither particularly unusual an accent, nor particularly legible to many across the UK.

• Superiority complex/rejection of wider culture

This one has perhaps the strongest argument going for it. A centre of support for independence. A significant population following a different but very similar religion. A level of displayed disdain for the wider nation, whether across a small distance (Edinburgh) or a larger one (Westminster/London). The only place I've ever felt unwelcome as an Englishman, anywhere in the world.

• Genetics

No, just bks, with lots of data to support.

Can't think of many other reasons, and my conclusion isn't that it's much of a positive thing.

I propose a form of (sub)cultural isolation. Glasgow doesnt seem to have moved on even from the Catholic/Protestant split, but only a few decades ago it was quite visible in places like Liverpool but is no longer obvious. Why this should be the case isnt very clear, but my money is on a particularly strong dependency culture in parts of Glasgow, coupled to generational unemployment problems.

[simoid]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

I know, I was there. I recall no point when evidence provided to support the bold, italicised hypothesis. If you cannot support your belief that this is possible, then we must conclude that you have no right to make that assertion.

I must conclude you are making baseless assertions. With reference to "standard of debate": how disappointing.

[r11co]

Alex Salmond's chief policy adviser says independence cause is dead.

I know the above link has already been posted, but what was not clear from the blog posting is that it was by Alex Bell, former chief policy adviser to Alex Salmond. One has to wonder what his motivation is, but his point is clear - the SNP are free-wheeling at the moment, propelled on by their popularity, but this isn't going to sustain them.

He describes them as 'morally dubious' - pretty much my summation of them from the get-go.

'Burger - you said 'over to us'. I say explain yourself, you persist in supporting a party that the main architect of their success claims is morally dubious - that is a clear signal that until they spell out their policies they are not fit to govern.

[Axionknight]

s2art said:

I propose a form of (sub)cultural isolation. Glasgow doesnt seem to have moved on even from the Catholic/Protestant split, but only a few decades ago it was quite visible in places like Liverpool but is no longer obvious. Why this should be the case isnt very clear, but my money is on a particularly strong dependency culture in parts of Glasgow, coupled to generational unemployment problems.

Are you saying Glasgow is a sthole and its sink estates breed isolationism and religious divide that is frankly shameful in 2015?

SHURELY SHOME MISTHAKE?

[Edinburger]

NoNeed said:

Even for a troll like you, that is weak.

Had a sense of humour transplant?

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

Indeed and it was always shown that Scotland does NOT earn enough to maintain spending without borrowing or taxing.

Unless you have some new evidence.

We've had umpteen discussions on this point over the years!

GARS is indicative but does not account for all of Scotland's income or for all of Scotland's expenditure.

We do not know definitively what Scotland raises or what Scotland spends.

[Edinburger]

gofasterrosssco said:

Good article, and this nails the whole referedum to me:

"This isn’t about Scotland, its about the SNP"

Looks interesting - I'll read that later, thanks.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

NoNeed said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

You must have missed the word "credible" I have never seen any and I have been here since volume 1.

I agree that you've made no credible contributions since volume 1.

Pot calling the kettle! Although to be fair your contributions have been instrumental in giving everyone a fantastic, almost real time demonstration of cybernat/SNP bullsh*t and bluster and kindly allowing us all here to tear the pitiful arguments to pieces, bit by bit.

Really, to try and say Scotland pays (more) than its way you really are on a whole new planet of delusional. If that was the case, then Sturgeon would be begging for the Barnett formula to be binned and to implement FFA immediately. But that is not the case, is it?

LOL at the accent post BTW, it is almost as if you are screaming that Scots are BETTER at keeping their accent than the USELESS homogenous English. And a study proves Scots are BETTER, so you are HAPPY. Being BETTER is important, eh? Can possibly be all in this together, can we?

Hang on a sec, the piece re. Scotland pays its way was quoted from an article. You know my view - we do not know this information.

And no, the article re. accents was just a bot of humour. Something that's vanished from this thread some time ago. And we all know why...

[Edinburger]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

LOL at the accent post BTW, it is almost as if you are screaming that Scots are BETTER at keeping their accent than the USELESS homogenous English. And a study proves Scots are BETTER, so you are HAPPY. Being BETTER is important, eh? Can possibly be all in this together, can we?

As with most things, I read that and thought 'why'? After all, the observation that Glaswegians have held their accent more stable than pretty much everyone else is actually quite interesting, and the important element that is the actual science is determining why. Then our knowledge is advanced not just with facts, but rationale.

So, what reasons could there be for a more stable accent? My hypothesis/occams list would likely include:

• isolation

Demonstrably not true. Not only a port, but a well connected city within a small island.

• Uniqueness of accent

I suppose if an accent had a significant variation to the national norm, but was still fully understandable, then there may be some form of pride and so a greater personal resistance to change. Balanced against the fact that it's neither particularly unusual an accent, nor particularly legible to many across the UK.

• Superiority complex/rejection of wider culture

This one has perhaps the strongest argument going for it. A centre of support for independence. A significant population following a different but very similar religion. A level of displayed disdain for the wider nation, whether across a small distance (Edinburgh) or a larger one (Westminster/London). The only place I've ever felt unwelcome as an Englishman, anywhere in the world.

• Genetics

No, just bks, with lots of data to support.

Can't think of many other reasons, and my conclusion isn't that it's much of a positive thing.

Sway - my view is that it's a lot of nonsense. Not unusual to read academic rubbish which delivers very little for progress.

[Edinburger]

r11co said:

Edinburger said:

It is an important time for the SNP to morph the policy and the party before losing credibility.

WOW. Is this a road to Damascus moment for 'burger?

Edinburger said:

Over to you lot...

Are you serious? Start reading from volume 1 and then come back to us on that one.

You're funny, r11co. You've only joined this thread recently. Look back and see how people's approaches to this thread - including mine actually - have changed. And then think about why.

Settle petal.

[Edinburger]

s2art said:

Sway said:

As with most things, I read that and thought 'why'? After all, the observation that Glaswegians have held their accent more stable than pretty much everyone else is actually quite interesting, and the important element that is the actual science is determining why. Then our knowledge is advanced not just with facts, but rationale.

So, what reasons could there be for a more stable accent? My hypothesis/occams list would likely include:

• isolation

Demonstrably not true. Not only a port, but a well connected city within a small island.

• Uniqueness of accent

I suppose if an accent had a significant variation to the national norm, but was still fully understandable, then there may be some form of pride and so a greater personal resistance to change. Balanced against the fact that it's neither particularly unusual an accent, nor particularly legible to many across the UK.

• Superiority complex/rejection of wider culture

This one has perhaps the strongest argument going for it. A centre of support for independence. A significant population following a different but very similar religion. A level of displayed disdain for the wider nation, whether across a small distance (Edinburgh) or a larger one (Westminster/London). The only place I've ever felt unwelcome as an Englishman, anywhere in the world.

• Genetics

No, just bks, with lots of data to support.

Can't think of many other reasons, and my conclusion isn't that it's much of a positive thing.

I propose a form of (sub)cultural isolation. Glasgow doesnt seem to have moved on even from the Catholic/Protestant split, but only a few decades ago it was quite visible in places like Liverpool but is no longer obvious. Why this should be the case isnt very clear, but my money is on a particularly strong dependency culture in parts of Glasgow, coupled to generational unemployment problems.

Glasgow has a lot of social issues, poverty, poor health, etc. No one denies that. But to say "Glasgow doesnt seem to have moved on even from the Catholic/Protestant split" seems naïve to me.

The sectarian issues are a shame to Glasgow, a shame to Scotland and also to some areas of England. Never mind the island of Ireland. Sectarian issues are a shame to humanity. Name a continent which doesn't experience sectarian issues. Except Antartica.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

- He says "The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending" but we do not know this

Provide some (any) credible evidence to support the assertion that "Scotland earns enough to pay for its current level of spending", please.

I refer you to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6 and Volume 7 of this 'debate' and you'll see it's been covered umpteen times.

I know, I was there. I recall no point when evidence provided to support the bold, italicised hypothesis. If you cannot support your belief that this is possible, then we must conclude that you have no right to make that assertion.

I must conclude you are making baseless assertions. With reference to "standard of debate": how disappointing.

Which assertions do you suggest are baseless?

[Edinburger]

Axionknight said:

s2art said:

I propose a form of (sub)cultural isolation. Glasgow doesnt seem to have moved on even from the Catholic/Protestant split, but only a few decades ago it was quite visible in places like Liverpool but is no longer obvious. Why this should be the case isnt very clear, but my money is on a particularly strong dependency culture in parts of Glasgow, coupled to generational unemployment problems.

Are you saying Glasgow is a sthole and its sink estates breed isolationism and religious divide that is frankly shameful in 2015?

SHURELY SHOME MISTHAKE?

Sean Connery was a Weegie...?!?!

[Edinburger]

r11co said:

Alex Salmond's chief policy adviser says independence cause is dead.

I know the above link has already been posted, but what was not clear from the blog posting is that it was by Alex Bell, former chief policy adviser to Alex Salmond. One has to wonder what his motivation is, but his point is clear - the SNP are free-wheeling at the moment, propelled on by their popularity, but this isn't going to sustain them.

He describes them as 'morally dubious' - pretty much my summation of them from the get-go.

'Burger - you said 'over to us'. I say explain yourself, you persist in supporting a party that the main architect of their success claims is morally dubious - that is a clear signal that until they spell out their policies they are not fit to govern.

Explain myself? Regarding those three words? Simple - share your views.