Salmond doesn't seem like much else.

Brooks wrote:

Salmond doesn't seem like much else.

But that's the fatal misconception!  It's not a vote to make Salmond President and secede immediately from the UK with the current SNP government in charge.  It's a vote to declare independence; who runs the show afterwards would be decided later.

Mod74 wrote:

You're the one citing the events of 300 years ago and how they affect any claim of ownership.

Only in response to allegations that Scotland has no right or less right to use the pound.  I have not, at any point, referenced any of that as emotional fuel for independence.  I've repeatedly highlighted throughout the thread that I am currently undecided on independence.  The only reason I've posted pro-independence arguments, on the very rare occasions I have, is because some people (mostly you) can't seem to grasp the mature ideals being argued for, and dismiss it as 'dumb'.  The only dumb thing to do is to fail to understand or refuse to understand, something you do in abundance.  It is also ignorant in the extreme to suggest that, if a 'no' majority is likely, debating the pros and cons is pointless.  Debating the pros and cons is exactly what would make any vote an educated statement of intent rather than the brainless bile you spew every time you open your mouth.  I've often credited you with more intelligence than you're hell-bend on demonstrating, but it gets increasingly difficult.

monkey wrote:

There's doesn't seem to be any precedent for it being done in anything other than situations where the existing nation was being torn apart by civil war or desperately trying to untie itself from a sinking political system. That gives me the impression that not many people really want to do it unless they have to.

The second applies here.

Brooks wrote:

Elmlea wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Salmond doesn't seem like much else.

But that's the fatal misconception!  It's not a vote to make Salmond President and secede immediately from the UK with the current SNP government in charge.  It's a vote to declare independence; who runs the show afterwards would be decided later.

Sure but I mean who else is on the horizon.

Frankie Boyle.

adkm1979 wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

You're the one citing the events of 300 years ago and how they affect any claim of ownership.

Only in response to allegations that Scotland has no right or less right to use the pound.  I have not, at any point, referenced any of that as emotional fuel for independence.  I've repeatedly highlighted throughout the thread that I am currently undecided on independence.  The only reason I've posted pro-independence arguments, on the very rare occasions I have, is because some people (mostly you) can't seem to grasp the mature ideals being argued for, and dismiss it as 'dumb'.  The only dumb thing to do is to fail to understand or refuse to understand, something you do in abundance.  It is also ignorant in the extreme to suggest that, if a 'no' majority is likely, debating the pros and cons is pointless.  Debating the pros and cons is exactly what would make any vote an educated statement of intent rather than the brainless bile you spew every time you open your mouth.  I've often credited you with more intelligence than you're hell-bend on demonstrating, but it gets increasingly difficult.

I've repeatedly asked for an explanation for how it would work which you (nor anyone else) has repeatedly failed to provide. So I think it's a bit rich to claim I don't understand something that hasn't ever been stated.

Nicola!

Joking apart, seeing the machinations of the SNP, and in particular its reliance on cake-bakes and quiz nights to fund an election campaign, does make me worry about all this.

Mod74 wrote:

I've repeatedly asked for an explanation for how it would work which you (nor anyone else) has repeatedly failed to provide. So I think it's a bit rich to claim I don't understand something that hasn't ever been stated.

You're repeated asking highlights your failure to understand the response you've repeatedly been given.  You can't grasp it, that's fine, stop making up for that by repeating, "it's dumb."  That you don't - or more likely refuse to - understand what you don't understand is as good an example of your limitations as we could hope for.

My understanding of the situation is it's devoid of detail and chock full of emotion. I've said that, and nobody has provided anything that suggests that isn't the case.

Our fiends in the north.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Would the SNP not quite possibly disappear if they get independence?

No, because they are a nationalist party with a policy on independence, not an independence party.  As to whether they would get votes, it's uncertain.  They have been canvassing those who vote for them to establish why people vote for them, because if they know voters' reasons, they know the likelihood of a successful yes vote and the likelihood of them retaining power in an independent Scotland.  Now, they're confident that the results of their polling suggests that a yes result is likely, but also that they would retain a majority in an independent Scotland's government.  If they weren't confident, they wouldn't have gone for it now, and pushed it so hard.

In reality, though, we don't know.  Scots voting habits could change; many may have voted SNP as a protest against the big three in Westminster, but may revert their allegiances if they feel that the Scottish Labour Party or Scottish Liberal Democrats best reflect their views in an independent Scotland.  Fuck, for all we know, the Greens or some as-yet unknown political party could deliver the most attractive and realistic manifesto post-referendum.

It was a joke.

Mod74 wrote:

My understanding of the situation is it's devoid of detail and chock full of emotion. I've said that, and nobody has provided anything that suggests that isn't the case.

We've established that your understanding is limited.  You're the only person bringing emotion into it, but given your penchant for plastering your own views on others words, it's unsurprising.  The argument over independence does not lack detail.  The application of independence is subject to a great many factors that will not be debated until a referendum indicates that people want it to be debated.  That does not prohibit us discussing potential solutions, pros, and cons.  I'm running out of ways to explain this to you.

I think there'll be a pretty big shake-up if independence is voted for and parties need to stick together manifestos.  The SNP will have to change its tack a little bit; people who voted for them because they said they'd push for a referendum and potential independence don't need to vote for them anymore; and I'd bet there are a few who voted for them because of the independence element of their manifesto rather than their policies for how to run the country.

It might be that the Scottish Conservatives, or a brand new party formed from an offshoot of an existing party, or something entirely new, or the Lib Dems, or the Greens or whoever would be able to produce a sensible enough plan that appeals to enough of the residents of an independent Scotland to be voted in.

The main reason I can see for it failing now is people concentrating too much on the specifics ("but who'll pay for my prescriptions?") or assuming that a yes vote means you get the SNP in power.

Elmlea wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

Because I want them to.

Why do you want them to? I'm not being awkward, you can have reasons ranging from lengthy political ones based on years of study, to just "I want to go to Scotland without a passport."  But why?

I don't see Scotland and England as separate countries. Technically we are yes, but the only thing we should do alone is football teams.