|
thinfourth2
23,584 posts
73 months
|
Wombat3 said: Yes because, as you say, long term - if at all. Meanwhile a great number of people are quite likely to be completely & utterly economically f  ked and you couldn't care less. Meanwhile the Union is working just as it always has barring some flag waving, face painting, trouble making and selfish w kers who represent about 2-3% of the total population of the Union. You are indeed the worst kind of selfish & self-centred hypocrite. As far as i can tell VP biggest driver behind wanting independence is to hurt Maggie Thatcher by hurting the tory party Yes i'm sure that david cameron would be utterly devastated at the loss of 1 MP while labour and the lib dems lose 52 between them
|
|
|
davepoth
19,913 posts
68 months
|
ViperPict said: Your argument is based around semantics! It is their moral responsibility, despite your history lesson (thanks). Government has had no such responsibility for the majority of recorded history. It was left to the church and philanthropists to fend for unfortunates, and everyone else got by on merit. Government existed to ensure property rights, both within the country (through the courts and their sheriffs) and against external aggression (through the armed forces), and did very little else. This idea of social responsibility is relatively new, and quite probably an aberration.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,436 posts
106 months
|
davepoth said: ViperPict said: Your argument is based around semantics! It is their moral responsibility, despite your history lesson (thanks). Government has had no such responsibility for the majority of recorded history. It was left to the church and philanthropists to fend for unfortunates, and everyone else got by on merit. Government existed to ensure property rights, both within the country (through the courts and their sheriffs) and against external aggression (through the armed forces), and did very little else. This idea of social responsibility is relatively new, and quite probably an aberration. Would you trust the church to look after 'unfortunates' these days?! Whatever way you want to wrap it up in terms of irrelevant past history, the government now has a social responsibility. And rightly so.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,436 posts
106 months
|
thinfourth2 said: Wombat3 said: Yes because, as you say, long term - if at all. Meanwhile a great number of people are quite likely to be completely & utterly economically f ked and you couldn't care less. Meanwhile the Union is working just as it always has barring some flag waving, face painting, trouble making and selfish w kers who represent about 2-3% of the total population of the Union. You are indeed the worst kind of selfish & self-centred hypocrite. As far as i can tell VP biggest driver behind wanting independence is to hurt Maggie Thatcher by hurting the tory party Yes i'm sure that david cameron would be utterly devastated at the loss of 1 MP while labour and the lib dems lose 52 between them As far as you can tell? Despite me never saying that and giving quite specific reasons that have nothing to do with that? Hmmm, interesting the way your brain 'works'...
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,436 posts
106 months
|
Rollin said: Latest poll suggests that more people want the status quo rather than independence when given the 3 options. Approximately 1.2 million want independence (and falling).
When Salmond starts revealing the full consequences without people having to rely on FoI requests, then I expect the figure to decrease. Which is the latest poll? But that's not what I said anyway. I said that by far the biggest proportion want SOME sort of change. Which Westminster has alerady been forced into doing actually.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Borghetto
1,488 posts
52 months
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,436 posts
106 months
|
Borghetto said: Amazingly timely don't you think? Although claiming to be independent, they are embroiled in both of the coalition parties. Their chair is a member of the LibDems. Hmmm...
|
|
|
davepoth
19,913 posts
68 months
|
ViperPict said: Would you trust the church to look after 'unfortunates' these days?! That's why it also said "philanthropist". Too big a word? ViperPict said: Whatever way you want to wrap it up in terms of irrelevant past history, the government now has a social responsibility. And rightly so. Who, apart from you, says that "the government" (whoever that is) has a social responsibility? Could it not be better without? The government tends to be really rather bad at doing pretty much everything it turns its hand to...
|
|
|
BliarOut
53,510 posts
108 months
|
ViperPict said: Rollin said: Latest poll suggests that more people want the status quo rather than independence when given the 3 options. Approximately 1.2 million want independence (and falling).
When Salmond starts revealing the full consequences without people having to rely on FoI requests, then I expect the figure to decrease. Which is the latest poll? But that's not what I said anyway. I said that by far the biggest proportion want SOME sort of change. Which Westminster has alerady been forced into doing actually. But you said you don't hold any stead by polls... [/BackOfTheNet]
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,584 posts
73 months
|
ViperPict said: But that's not what I said anyway. I said that by far the biggest proportion want SOME sort of change. Which Westminster has alerady been forced into doing actually. I think the vast majority of people in the UK want some sort of change with westminister
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
ViperPict said: PugwasHDJ80 said: ViperPict said: No. Because I've repeatedly said, I don't think either will suffer and, in the long-term, it will be beneficial to both (taking into all aspects of quality of life). It is clear the Union is not working well right now. At the very least the referendum campaign is going to shake things up and better relationship will come out the other side. I firmly believe that. Thatcher firmly beleived that long-term it would be beneficial to all to have employment was fair to all rather than having some industries fully supporting other industries. it is not clear the union is working badly. We wouldn't have this thread or the pending referendum if everyone was happy with the Union. As much as I don't believe the ability of polls to predict a vote from 2 years out, the current suggestion is that a minority of people would opt for the status quo right now if the options were that, independence or more powers for the SG. That's very true. The reason for the pending and for some of the SNP support is dissatisfaction with the status quo. I find it amusing that this thread is basically three or four posters I trying to put forward the case for independence, against virtually every one else who says it wouldn't work, Scotland could not succeed, etc., etc., while continually ignoring the impact to rUK if Scotland leaves. Also, it amuses me how out of touch most posters are with the mood in Scotland and views of the Scottish people.
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
AstonZagato said: ViperPict said: AstonZagato said: ViperPict said: AstonZagato said: Edinburger said: AstonZagato said: Edinburger said: Change the subject then.
By the way, I think I may have worked out who you are. Did you used to drive a white A3 3.2 S-Line? You really are VP's second login, aren't you. Did you forget which login you were using for a moment? No, not at all. Are all you Englanders the same person? The fact that it would be difficult to get a fag paper between the stance that both you VP take, I can absolutely understand but to have two people doing the "I think I know you / I think I saw you" act in a single thread seems particularly odd. I've never seen it in any other argumentative thread. It does occur sometimes in the course of a friendly discussion where people mutually realise that they know each other or work together. Never seen it used in a confrontational thread except by VP and you. Perhaps it is a bizarre character trait among Scots? However, neither my wife, her parents, her sister, my brother-in-law, my brother's wife, my nephews or any of my other Scottish friends and acquaintances seem to want to try the "I know where you live" tactic in their debates. This is just paranoia! You are reading an awful lot into an entirely legitimate question to turn it into 'I know here you live'! Why do you live in fear? I have no fear of you or anyone else on the internet - in any case, the "I know where you live" inference was not directed at me and never has been. Rather interestingly, the paranoia seems to be coming from you - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". I was merely struck by the unusual symmetry between your approach and that of Edinburgher - and made a rather minor quip about it. You could have ignored it but now seem highly agitated by it. Odd. I think you are displaying the ignorance that, "There are at least two people who support the independence of North Britain on PH? We can't have that sort of behaiour on here, it's just not cricket, what, what, jolly hockey sticks etc etc" You obviously missed this: AstonZagato said: The fact that it would be difficult to get a fag paper between the stance that both you VP take, I can absolutely understand It is utterly unsurprising that two separate people who support the independence movement will have very similar view. It is also not surprising that those two people would have very similar political views - it was Edinburgher by the way (not VP) who originally said that Thatcher "targeted" Scotland. All of that is completely expected. What I was commenting on was that two people should use such a similar technique for trying to unsettle the person with whom they are debating - namely a variation of the "I know where you live" gambit ("I saw you in a petrol station recently" from VP and "I know what car you drive" from Edinburgher). And for some reason, rather than an amusing comment on a strange coincidence, you seem to find this a personal attack. Which I find odd. Need to pick up on a few points posted yesterday: - No, I am not VP. I just happen to have similar views to him as far as the future of Scotland is concerned. - Why is it so strange that I asked thinfourth2 those questions? It occured to him that his views, style, and approach are similar to some else I know (who also annoys me!) - What you proibably won't understand, is that most Scots are friendly. Yes, we even talk to strangers. Imagine that, eh?
|
|
|
WhereamI
6,113 posts
86 months
|
Edinburger said: while continually ignoring the impact to rUK if Scotland leave I don't get what point you are trying to make with this. Are you trying to say that rUk will be better off without Scotland so we should all support your independence, or are you trying to say we will be worse off in which case presumably we should oppose it? Or does it just offend you that whilst we think it's a silly idea we aren't that bothered if you want to go off and do it?
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
WhereamI said: Edinburger said: while continually ignoring the impact to rUK if Scotland leave I don't get what point you are trying to make with this. Are you trying to say that rUk will be better off without Scotland so we should all support your independence, or are you trying to say we will be worse off in which case presumably we should oppose it? Or does it just offend you that whilst we think it's a silly idea we aren't that bothered if you want to go off and do it? I've never seen a discussion here about the impact if we leave the UK. Do you think there will be known? Do you think the UK will be as strong on the world stage as England, Wales & Northern Ireland?
|
|
|
jimmyjimjim
2,753 posts
107 months
|
There's a reason the UK keeps nukes, and other countries want their own, despite the cost.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
68,042 posts
124 months
|
I see no reason why not. The financial clout that London holds will hold sway union or not.
As for people sayi g it would not work, etc, no-one is saying that. The questions, and debate as far as I can see it is the lack of seeming forethought, or the formation of any even vague idea about the ins and outs of the economy afterwards. It is important to talk about, even if it does come across with a bad taste.
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
TheHeretic said: I see no reason why not. The financial clout that London holds will hold sway union or not.
As for people sayi g it would not work, etc, no-one is saying that. The questions, and debate as far as I can see it is the lack of seeming forethought, or the formation of any even vague idea about the ins and outs of the economy afterwards. It is important to talk about, even if it does come across with a bad taste. Thats a pragmatic view although I'm not convinced London has mush financial clout as you think, especially without oil reserves.
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
Edinburger said: TheHeretic said: I see no reason why not. The financial clout that London holds will hold sway union or not.
As for people sayi g it would not work, etc, no-one is saying that. The questions, and debate as far as I can see it is the lack of seeming forethought, or the formation of any even vague idea about the ins and outs of the economy afterwards. It is important to talk about, even if it does come across with a bad taste. Thats a pragmatic view although I'm not convinced London has mush financial clout as you think, especially without oil reserves. Alos, the fact the UK economy is in downfall...
|
|
|
Trommel
10,512 posts
128 months
|
Edinburger said: Thats a pragmatic view although I'm not convinced London has mush financial clout as you think, especially without oil reserves. Seriously?
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,327 posts
37 months
|
Trommel said: Edinburger said: Thats a pragmatic view although I'm not convinced London has mush financial clout as you think, especially without oil reserves. Seriously? Absolutely.
|
|
