Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 149 150
152 153 ... 499 500
TOPIC CLOSED
Author Discussion

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Wombat3 said:
ViperPict said:
London424 said:
ViperPict said:
TheHeretic said:
Edinburger said:
And other than the naysayers on here, there's not been much talk about those matters as yet.
Round and round we go... Well, when your politicians decide to actually start a discussion has already been part of this discussion, in the meantime, many people have tried to broach these things, to very little response.

EU membership
Fiscal policy
Defence policy
Taxation policy
National currency
and so on, and so forth.

All these things, and many more can be found within these threads. All of these things are perfectly valid discussion topics when it comes to a potential independent nation. All of these things we will apparently have to wait for the get go by Alex. When he is ready, THEN we can talk about it, seemingly, as the pro-independence people seem reticent to talk about it in this thread.

It does beg the question... If you do not want to talk about these things on this thread, then what do you want to talk about on this thread?
We go back to the basic issue. You are caught up in the deterministic approach, I am not. We have fundamentally different ways of approaching this but you can't get your head around that and insist that I try and explain all the detail using your restrictive philosophy. How about you use the theory I propose to tell me why independence won't work?
Sure, go for it. Explain away.
I am asking TH to explain why my approach is in error.
Let me help you with that - its short (indeed devoid of) facts and, in turn, very long on fairy dust and bullst.

Alternatively, using your exact same theory, why is it that you can determine that the balance of probablilities is that the result will definitly be positive when it could equally as well be argued (using the very same fairy dust and bullst) that it will be entirely negative?

All that is required here is a little evidence to support your statements (and a lot less fairy dust and bullst).

As a Scientist (alledgedly) one would expect a good base of fact based research in order to support your assertions - it is entirely lacking. Furthermore there is much social, political and economic history not to mention hard and current data that drives a coach and horses through your fairy dust and bullst.

Nonetheless you seem to think it a brilliant idea for several million people to risk their futures and wellbeing on nothing more than your fairy dust and bullst. And in there lies a significant amount of empirical evidence that you are in fact stark, staring mad. Logic therefore dictates that your fairy dust & bullst theories really do have no credibility whatsoever.

Does that help? smile
Becuase there is not a sufficiently large 'disturbance' that will cause a fundamental 'system shift'. After the inevitable fluctuations immediately post-independence have settled down, we will be in much the same economic situation. But with a government that is better positioned to provide in the other areas that define 'quality of life' by being able to make ALL decisions solely based on our unique situation (in the same way that all country's situations are unique).

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
So your non-deterministic stance is 'it will be the same'. Your reasoning for this is what, exactly? Are you taking into consideration all I listed earlier? Issues with the EU, fiscal policy, etc?

I am amazed that even after you 'chastise' me for being just wrong, and all that other junk, you still give zero explanation for your stance. Not a jot. I have, every time, explained why I feel that if X then Y. I do not see that an unreasonable. Can you please tey to be reasonable.
The explamation is in the different philosophical approach!! You STILL do not get it. You STILL want me to address things in a DETERMINISTIC way!!! Cannot you not get it into your head that the approach I take is utterly divorced from that. It is 'top down' as opposed to 'bottom up', in some regards.

The main issue is that there is insufficient liklihood of a major 'disturbance' to Scotland's 'boundary conditions' (the conditions imposed upon it) in the event of independence. There will me relatively minor differences (in the global scheme of things), some better, some worse. That is all the 'data' I need.

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

141 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
OK. So in your world, you think that dismissing someone else's reasoned opinion is fine, and merely waving your arms in the air, whilst proclaiming 'non-deterministic' is a valid counter?

If you say so.

This 'lack of disturbance'... That is precisely what we have been trying to be discussed. EU membership. What currency will you use? Will you have control over your currency? What will your taxation situation be? And so on, and so forth.

As I said, if you don't wish to discuss these things, fine, but proclaiming yourself to be above it all, and far too superior to merely discuss said things, then don't bother.

Rollin

3,261 posts

131 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Exactly, he's unable to grasp the economics, so how can he decide whether or not the changes in economic situation will cause a sufficient disturbance?

thinfourth2

30,387 posts

90 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
We continually go back to your inability to understand or accept my fundamental stance, that complex systems theory would dictate that, in most liklihood, Scotland would be in about the same position economically post-independence. And I have explained that many times but you just ignore it or don't have the capacity to understand it. But with the opportunity to make decisions purely concerning Scottish interest and not being subjected to policy that only considers Scotland in the minority. And that is not (what has become the trendy phrase in this thread amongst Unionists), flag waving!

It is not diverting anything, it is my fundamental belief, END OF! You just can't grasp that!

P.S. Your rhetoric in this thread VERY heavily comes down into the Unionist camp. You don't exactly take a balanced stance in the argument! laugh
So If we were to take a larger and more complex system like oh just as a completely random example of The UK economy

Then according to your theory then no matter what Mr 110% as you like to call him does then it will have basically zero effect


If this is true then why do you take great delight in pointing out his failures?




Advertisement

AstonZagato

4,535 posts

96 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
The explamation is in the different philosophical approach!! You STILL do not get it. You STILL want me to address things in a DETERMINISTIC way!!! Cannot you not get it into your head that the approach I take is utterly divorced from that. It is 'top down' as opposed to 'bottom up', in some regards.

The main issue is that there is insufficient liklihood of a major 'disturbance' to Scotland's 'boundary conditions' (the conditions imposed upon it) in the event of independence. There will me relatively minor differences (in the global scheme of things), some better, some worse. That is all the 'data' I need.
So a minor change (like adopting the Euro in exchange for their local currency for instance) would have no effect on, say, Greece, Ireland or Spain? Riiight,

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
thinfourth2 said:
ViperPict said:
We continually go back to your inability to understand or accept my fundamental stance, that complex systems theory would dictate that, in most liklihood, Scotland would be in about the same position economically post-independence. And I have explained that many times but you just ignore it or don't have the capacity to understand it. But with the opportunity to make decisions purely concerning Scottish interest and not being subjected to policy that only considers Scotland in the minority. And that is not (what has become the trendy phrase in this thread amongst Unionists), flag waving!

It is not diverting anything, it is my fundamental belief, END OF! You just can't grasp that!

P.S. Your rhetoric in this thread VERY heavily comes down into the Unionist camp. You don't exactly take a balanced stance in the argument! laugh
So If we were to take a larger and more complex system like oh just as a completely random example of The UK economy

Then according to your theory then no matter what Mr 110% as you like to call him does then it will have basically zero effect


If this is true then why do you take great delight in pointing out his failures?
A systematic impact (rather than a one-off 'disturbance') can have cumulative effects that can result in a general change in trend (rather than a sudden jump to a new state). There is also some insurance for Scotland in this, in that we can do no worse than Mr. 110%.

Plus he's just very annoying and slightly comical.

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
AstonZagato said:
ViperPict said:
The explamation is in the different philosophical approach!! You STILL do not get it. You STILL want me to address things in a DETERMINISTIC way!!! Cannot you not get it into your head that the approach I take is utterly divorced from that. It is 'top down' as opposed to 'bottom up', in some regards.

The main issue is that there is insufficient liklihood of a major 'disturbance' to Scotland's 'boundary conditions' (the conditions imposed upon it) in the event of independence. There will me relatively minor differences (in the global scheme of things), some better, some worse. That is all the 'data' I need.
So a minor change (like adopting the Euro in exchange for their local currency for instance) would have no effect on, say, Greece, Ireland or Spain? Riiight,
Or Iceland?

paulrockliffe

3,957 posts

113 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
Because there is not a sufficiently large 'disturbance'
I know this is slightly off-topic, but I can't help wondering what you would consider a sufficiently large disturbance to the economics of the UK and/or Scotland to make a difference? I can't think of a many larger economic changes than separating the two bits, yet lots of small changes do make a difference, as we see all the time.

To put it simply, lots of much much smaller things than this change economics, yet this won't make any difference. Doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can educate me?

AstonZagato

4,535 posts

96 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
AstonZagato said:
ViperPict said:
The explamation is in the different philosophical approach!! You STILL do not get it. You STILL want me to address things in a DETERMINISTIC way!!! Cannot you not get it into your head that the approach I take is utterly divorced from that. It is 'top down' as opposed to 'bottom up', in some regards.

The main issue is that there is insufficient liklihood of a major 'disturbance' to Scotland's 'boundary conditions' (the conditions imposed upon it) in the event of independence. There will me relatively minor differences (in the global scheme of things), some better, some worse. That is all the 'data' I need.
So a minor change (like adopting the Euro in exchange for their local currency for instance) would have no effect on, say, Greece, Ireland or Spain? Riiight,
Or Iceland?
OK, so you're saying that you are prepared to inflict bankruptcy, 25% unemployment, rioting, massive cuts in government spending to perhaps find some new state of economic equilibrium in several decades time?

Niiiice. Are you going to share this information with your fellow Scots?

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
AstonZagato said:
ViperPict said:
AstonZagato said:
ViperPict said:
The explamation is in the different philosophical approach!! You STILL do not get it. You STILL want me to address things in a DETERMINISTIC way!!! Cannot you not get it into your head that the approach I take is utterly divorced from that. It is 'top down' as opposed to 'bottom up', in some regards.

The main issue is that there is insufficient liklihood of a major 'disturbance' to Scotland's 'boundary conditions' (the conditions imposed upon it) in the event of independence. There will me relatively minor differences (in the global scheme of things), some better, some worse. That is all the 'data' I need.
So a minor change (like adopting the Euro in exchange for their local currency for instance) would have no effect on, say, Greece, Ireland or Spain? Riiight,
Or Iceland?
OK, so you're saying that you are prepared to inflict bankruptcy, 25% unemployment, rioting, massive cuts in government spending to perhaps find some new state of economic equilibrium in several decades time?

Niiiice. Are you going to share this information with your fellow Scots?
Are you referring to Iceland?

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
By the same token the NO vote will have to abide by the same criterion I presume?

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottis...

Is she trying to find a get out clause?

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

141 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
By the same token the NO vote will have to abide by the same criterion I presume?

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottis...

Is she trying to find a get out clause?
I have read the article. What is it you are taking issue with? It is quite a simple issue she is talking about. If the vote goes to the 'No' side, but only by a very small margin, then the issue will undoubtedly crop up again. If it is won by a considerable margin it can probably be kept to one side for a few more decades.

And No, a 'no' vote will not abide by the same criterion, as if it is successful, you will be independent, (presumably), so no need to revisit an independence vote.

ViperPict

9,781 posts

123 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
ViperPict said:
By the same token the NO vote will have to abide by the same criterion I presume?

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottis...

Is she trying to find a get out clause?
I have read the article. What is it you are taking issue with? It is quite a simple issue she is talking about. If the vote goes to the 'No' side, but only by a very small margin, then the issue will undoubtedly crop up again. If it is won by a considerable margin it can probably be kept to one side for a few more decades.

And No, a 'no' vote will not abide by the same criterion, as if it is successful, you will be independent, (presumably), so no need to revisit an independence vote.
The point is that it is just ading considerable extra confusion to the issue as she is seemingly implying that there'll have to be an agreement as to what proportion of the vote will be needed to actually deliver independence, as opposed to that option winning but not by enough. Both sides are apparently wanting to have the referendum deal done and dusted by the end of this month - throwing this into the mix will delay things further.

Wombat3

7,304 posts

92 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
Wombat3 said:
ViperPict said:
London424 said:
ViperPict said:
TheHeretic said:
Edinburger said:
And other than the naysayers on here, there's not been much talk about those matters as yet.
Round and round we go... Well, when your politicians decide to actually start a discussion has already been part of this discussion, in the meantime, many people have tried to broach these things, to very little response.

EU membership
Fiscal policy
Defence policy
Taxation policy
National currency
and so on, and so forth.

All these things, and many more can be found within these threads. All of these things are perfectly valid discussion topics when it comes to a potential independent nation. All of these things we will apparently have to wait for the get go by Alex. When he is ready, THEN we can talk about it, seemingly, as the pro-independence people seem reticent to talk about it in this thread.

It does beg the question... If you do not want to talk about these things on this thread, then what do you want to talk about on this thread?
We go back to the basic issue. You are caught up in the deterministic approach, I am not. We have fundamentally different ways of approaching this but you can't get your head around that and insist that I try and explain all the detail using your restrictive philosophy. How about you use the theory I propose to tell me why independence won't work?
Sure, go for it. Explain away.
I am asking TH to explain why my approach is in error.
Let me help you with that - its short (indeed devoid of) facts and, in turn, very long on fairy dust and bullst.

Alternatively, using your exact same theory, why is it that you can determine that the balance of probablilities is that the result will definitly be positive when it could equally as well be argued (using the very same fairy dust and bullst) that it will be entirely negative?

All that is required here is a little evidence to support your statements (and a lot less fairy dust and bullst).

As a Scientist (alledgedly) one would expect a good base of fact based research in order to support your assertions - it is entirely lacking. Furthermore there is much social, political and economic history not to mention hard and current data that drives a coach and horses through your fairy dust and bullst.

Nonetheless you seem to think it a brilliant idea for several million people to risk their futures and wellbeing on nothing more than your fairy dust and bullst. And in there lies a significant amount of empirical evidence that you are in fact stark, staring mad. Logic therefore dictates that your fairy dust & bullst theories really do have no credibility whatsoever.

Does that help? smile
Becuase there is not a sufficiently large 'disturbance' that will cause a fundamental 'system shift'. After the inevitable fluctuations immediately post-independence have settled down, we will be in much the same economic situation. But with a government that is better positioned to provide in the other areas that define 'quality of life' by being able to make ALL decisions solely based on our unique situation (in the same way that all country's situations are unique).
Wrong and fundamentally flawed.

The SG will be severely constrained in terms of what it can achieve and deliver by a simple shortage of cash and high borrowing costs. These are simple facts caused by spending massively exceeding income. Simple stuff even for you to understand.

There is no magic money tree in the Glen & in the modern world EVERYTHING of any substance that impacts peoples lives costs money to deliver. Fat Alex knows this, he is a master at blowing large quantities of the stuff!

And as before, Scotland is not special in the context of what its people and businesses actually need to thrive. However the notion that you are (special) is a central plank of the Independence cause which is why you keep wittering on about it...

And it is complete and utter bks.

As for measuring "disturbances" (in the force??) - who the fk do you think you are? Yoda????? rofl

But in any case, the notion that it will all be BAU is also utter crap, the effect of a declaration of independence will be economically seismic (so wrong again) for all the reasons that have been laid out for you (and that you have never addressed) time & time again.

All fairy dust & bullst from you as usual. Not a single shred of evidence to quantify or justify any of your assertions as usual. I have met some people who spouted large amounts of bullst in the past - but really, none can hold a candle to you! hehe

You are indeed utterly bonkers.

Wombat3

7,304 posts

92 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
There is also some insurance for Scotland in this, in that we can do no worse than Mr. 110%.
Would you care to support this statement with some facts?

For example, would you dare to suggest that one Mr G Brown or perhaps Ted Testicles himself - or even Saint Vince would all be be quantifiably "better"?

If so how have you measured and tested this Mr (mad?) Scientist?




Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 8th October 01:35

Mr_B

6,278 posts

129 months

thinfourth2

30,387 posts

90 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
thinfourth2 said:
ViperPict said:
We continually go back to your inability to understand or accept my fundamental stance, that complex systems theory would dictate that, in most liklihood, Scotland would be in about the same position economically post-independence. And I have explained that many times but you just ignore it or don't have the capacity to understand it. But with the opportunity to make decisions purely concerning Scottish interest and not being subjected to policy that only considers Scotland in the minority. And that is not (what has become the trendy phrase in this thread amongst Unionists), flag waving!

It is not diverting anything, it is my fundamental belief, END OF! You just can't grasp that!

P.S. Your rhetoric in this thread VERY heavily comes down into the Unionist camp. You don't exactly take a balanced stance in the argument! laugh
So If we were to take a larger and more complex system like oh just as a completely random example of The UK economy

Then according to your theory then no matter what Mr 110% as you like to call him does then it will have basically zero effect


If this is true then why do you take great delight in pointing out his failures?
A systematic impact (rather than a one-off 'disturbance') can have cumulative effects that can result in a general change in trend (rather than a sudden jump to a new state). There is also some insurance for Scotland in this, in that we can do no worse than Mr. 110%.

Plus he's just very annoying and slightly comical.
But you have stated many times that Mr 110% is going to destroy the UK economy

So logically if Mr 110% became scottish chancellor he would destroy scotland economy or do you believe that some mystical force protects Scotland.



But actually you don't care if everyone in scotland ends up homeless, broke and starving as long as you get your scottish passport.

Edinburger

4,968 posts

54 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
ViperPict said:
TheHeretic said:
ViperPict said:
By the same token the NO vote will have to abide by the same criterion I presume?

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottis...

Is she trying to find a get out clause?
I have read the article. What is it you are taking issue with? It is quite a simple issue she is talking about. If the vote goes to the 'No' side, but only by a very small margin, then the issue will undoubtedly crop up again. If it is won by a considerable margin it can probably be kept to one side for a few more decades.

And No, a 'no' vote will not abide by the same criterion, as if it is successful, you will be independent, (presumably), so no need to revisit an independence vote.
The point is that it is just ading considerable extra confusion to the issue as she is seemingly implying that there'll have to be an agreement as to what proportion of the vote will be needed to actually deliver independence, as opposed to that option winning but not by enough. Both sides are apparently wanting to have the referendum deal done and dusted by the end of this month - throwing this into the mix will delay things further.
Ruth Davidson speaks a lot of sense in that article. Some of you lot should read it.




Edited by Edinburger on Monday 8th October 07:39

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

141 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
Edinburger said:
Ruth Davidson speaks a lot of sense in that article. Some of you lot should read it.




Edited by Edinburger on Monday 8th October 07:39
Yup. I don't think she says anything outlandish, or odd though. It is all common sense stuff, so not sure why it was leapt on for anything in particular.

1 2 ... 149 150
152 153 ... 499 500
TOPIC CLOSED