Jump to content

 

 

Majority of Scots want to remain in the UK


Recommended Posts

In what way are those 3 statements "bonkers truth" cal ? Genuine question as I thought it was undisputed that Salmond led Scotland to believe that EU admission was a given, likewise I thought it was a given the BoE rejected Swinney's claims. Not sure about Sturgeon's White Paper claim though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way are those 3 statements "bonkers truth" cal ? Genuine question as I thought it was undisputed that Salmond led Scotland to believe that EU admission was a given, likewise I thought it was a given the BoE rejected Swinney's claims. Not sure about Sturgeon's White Paper claim though.

 

The truth is that no-one knows, A says one thing, B says another, but in the end it would be all down to negotiation. There is no "back of the queue" truth, no "no currency union" truth and the oil thing is erroneous as SNP say it's a bonus.

 

If you can't see fallacious propaganda when you see it then I don't think I can help. It's all he said, she said and nothing is truth. If the whole is something to listen to then you can't vote for the union anyway as the UK government have certainly lied - and the only lies we can count on to be certain, are the ones which become apparent with the vote - which was no, the yes stuff is all speculation. Which makes it all bonkers.

 

It's propaganda designed to simplify the the issue into "straw men" and influence the hard of thinking. The reality is that it's all "a lot more complicated than that".

 

You see this kind of stuff all the time on the internet and especially Facebook, and I thought you'd be able to recognise it. Like I've always experienced - the vast majority of the nefarious stuff comes, and is still coming, from the no side.

Edited by calscot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cl4J3qRWgAAWrSj_zpsg4r69h9p.jpg

 

 

There you go, more fallacy.

 

The debt and deficit are from our membership of the Union - so how come they wanted us to stay?

 

But it also is just ignorant as it doesn't even acknowledge the obvious complexities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about this kind of stuff, is that it shows the default position of many Scots is that we are too crap to govern ourselves and need the English to rule us, and are totally mooching off the scraps of the English with a begging bowl.

 

Speak for yourselves, you sound rather pathetic. If it was the case, then we really should make an effort to stand on our own two feet and show some self worth and integrity, but some on here openly welcome and bow down to our supposed English overlords...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that no-one knows, A says one thing, B says another, but in the end it would be all down to negotiation. There is no "back of the queue" truth, no "no currency union" truth and the oil thing is erroneous as SNP say it's a bonus.

 

If you can't see fallacious propaganda when you see it then I don't think I can help. It's all he said, she said and nothing is truth. If the whole is something to listen to then you can't vote for the union anyway as the UK government have certainly lied - and the only lies we can count on to be certain, are the ones which become apparent with the vote - which was no, the yes stuff is all speculation. Which makes it all bonkers.

 

It's propaganda designed to simplify the the issue into "straw men" and influence the hard of thinking. The reality is that it's all "a lot more complicated than that".

 

You see this kind of stuff all the time on the internet and especially Facebook, and I thought you'd be able to recognise it. Like I've always experienced - the vast majority of the nefarious stuff comes, and is still coming, from the no side.

 

Whilst I can certainly see one side calling this propaganda and the other side say its all factual I would prefer to look at what I have read from quotes I have seen (with a somewhat hazy memory).

 

So lets take the Salmond one. Back of the queue may be inaccurate. However, is it really propaganda that he said that he had received legal advice and Scotland would be accepted to the EU ? I THOUGHT that he did indeed say we would be accepted, only for some Euro nations to pour cold water on Salmond's claims. So is it propaganda ? Or is it truth ? Or is it a bit of both ? And if it is a bit of both then which is most important ? I would have thought that Salmond being told by Euros that we wouldn't get accepted "just like that" is more important than "back of the queue" propaganda

 

Lets take the Sturgeon one. This one I have always defended the SNP on because when doing budgets you always have to make assumptions. They assumed that oil was X pounds per barrel which was shown to be erroneous. The propagandists would claim this was a deliberate attempt to pad the budget numbers pre-indyref to show that Scotland's economy would be booming without being part of the UK. Me personally, I think that they got their budgeted number wrong. Little more suspect than that - though, admittedly, the value they placed on a barrel was extreme, so one has to wonder whether or not there was an element of over-forecasting. Either way, would be hard to prove so happy to give the benefit of the doubt. However, I would also contend that the SNP saying that oil money is a "bonus" is propaganda too, is it not ? If it was just a bonus then Scotland would be operating a balanced budget without it. Yet the most recent figures show significant debt even after taking oil revenues into account. That surely cannot be considered a "bonus" if your economy needs the revenues to reduce sizeable deficits.

 

The McSwinney one. Is there really no "no currency union" truth ? I thought the BoE at the time quite categorically stated that they wouldn't have currency union and Scotland would need to self-determine. Bearing in mind here that currency union doesn't necessarily simply mean "we will use the same currency we always have". I personally believe that the currency Scotland uses isn't the biggest issue here - the biggest issue is the BoE stating that they would not be the lender of last resort, which can have a significant impact on sovereign credit ratings as well as cost of debt.

 

So whilst it may be simplistic, or fallacious, propaganda in your eyes - each of the statements made do have some basis in fact (aside from the Sturgeon one which I would contend is subjective conjecture) given what we know has been said by Euros (about Salmond's claim) and BoE (about Swinney's). Or am I simply imagining some of the stuff I was hearing in the last couple of months leading up to indyref.

 

I don't do facebook - I don't need to know when someone last had a dump or ate dinner. Not my thing.

 

It's funny though - as a "yes" person you will claim that the vast majority of nefarious stuff comes from the "no' side. And I guarantee the "no" side say the same thing but in reverse.

 

Is Scotland's national debt as high as 145 billion though ? That seems very high - what is that per capita ? Is that a normal debt level for the country ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I can certainly see one side calling this propaganda and the other side say its all factual I would prefer to look at what I have read from quotes I have seen (with a somewhat hazy memory).

 

I'm actually not on EITHER "side" ,and if I was I still have enough intelligence and integrity to try to view things from both sides as objectively as I can. So your point is erroneous and insulting.

 

No matter which side this is, this IS 100%, black propaganda. You don't really demonstrate you know what this means so I'll try and explain my interpretation.

 

What people do is take something that is somewhat truthful, they then take something else that is somewhat truthful, and which sounds like a counter argument but actually isn't, but they disparage the first thing, and exaggerate and twist the second into trying to assert a very biased and false conclusion, and then try to influence those that don't know better into adopting their mantra and agenda.

 

Those who can't be bothered thinking and learning as well as the gullible can easily fall for it.

 

THAT is what has happened here, and I'd say the same if it was for the other side - but the thing is, I've experienced far, far less of this from the yes side than the no.

 

On one side you have Salmond asserting he has legal advice that says some opinion, on the other you have a lie about a letter saying we are at the back of the queue and saying this is the TRUTH and Salmond is a liar. One side is pretty benign and the other is totally malignant. The contrast could not be greater.

 

 

So lets take the Salmond one.

 

The accusation of lie is that he said he took legal advice that said we'd be able to transition as an EU member. Now where is the evidence that this is not true? NONE is supplied - they just call it a lie and people like you go "oh yeah"... Not even the slightest challenge from you here.

 

Now I have seen quite a few opinions from legal experts and while they all agree it's COMPLICATED, some think that as a PRECIDENT, we have a case to STAY members. So without evidence that Salmond DIDN'T receive this advice, the accusations of lies cannot possibly be valid. Wouldn't you agree? It falls down at the first hurdle as lies itself.

 

This is simple simple stuff.

 

Back of the queue may be inaccurate.

 

The whole position would have to be negotiated had we voted yes, saying back of the queue is no more truthful than saying it was a done deal. Fair enough if that's your opinion but this is where they have twisted things, taken something slightly truthful - that it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion, turned it into a lie about a letter saying we'd be back of the queue, and made an even bigger, whopper of a lie by labelling it as the TRUTH!

 

If you can't see the issue with that then I can explain it any easier. It's incredibly nefarious and I find it hard to believe that you can't see through it.

 

However, is it really propaganda that he said that he had received legal advice and Scotland would be accepted to the EU ? I THOUGHT that he did indeed say we would be accepted, only for some Euro nations to pour cold water on Salmond's claims.

 

Like I said you take something truthful and then use some twisted counter to fool the gullible. You really are falling for the old tricks. Your statement is a more truthful example of what happened but it's obvious that that is not what they propaganda said.

 

They called him a liar that can't be trusted and they themselves lied in their evidence to pull the wool over your (and others) eyes, while calling it the TRUTH. Are you getting it yet? But like you say, some people pick a side and stick with it and ignore rationality and so are happy to pass this stuff on.

 

So is it propaganda ? Or is it truth ? Or is it a bit of both ?

 

As explained , it's black propaganda and incredibly nefarious as it's trying to manipulate people into thinking stuff that just isn't true.

 

And if it is a bit of both then which is most important ? I would have thought that Salmond being told by Euros that we wouldn't get accepted "just like that" is more important than "back of the queue" propaganda

 

The most important thing is not to dupe people! Or be duped! :)

 

Lets take the Sturgeon one. This one I have always defended the SNP on because when doing budgets you always have to make assumptions. They assumed that oil was X pounds per barrel which was shown to be erroneous. The propagandists would claim this was a deliberate attempt to pad the budget numbers pre-indyref to show that Scotland's economy would be booming without being part of the UK. Me personally, I think that they got their budgeted number wrong. Little more suspect than that - though, admittedly, the value they placed on a barrel was extreme, so one has to wonder whether or not there was an element of over-forecasting. Either way, would be hard to prove so happy to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

Sturgeon gave her opinion based on the previous 5 years, how many who knew this was wrong, shorted oil futures and are now incredibly rich? If we call all politicians who get the numbers wrong a liar and never vote for them, just who would we vote for? The UK government have got loads wrong recently and in fact the Tories got voted back in after Cameron told everyone not to - saying that if he didn't fulfill his promises we shouldn't vote for them - they didn't fullfill the promises.

 

So once again, Sturgeon gave an informed opinion that she never called the TRUTH, and once again she is erroneously called a liar by those who are strangely revelling in the surprise tanking of the oil price. Not only that, the counter once again, doesn't actually have much to do with the first statement. It sounds like it but doesn't - it's another fallacy to make you think something that isn't true.

 

However, I would also contend that the SNP saying that oil money is a "bonus" is propaganda too, is it not ? If it was just a bonus then Scotland would be operating a balanced budget without it. Yet the most recent figures show significant debt even after taking oil revenues into account. That surely cannot be considered a "bonus" if your economy needs the revenues to reduce sizeable deficits.

 

Have you thought about it at all? You do know the deficit and debt for Scotland are in reasonable proportion to the rest of the UK? Scotland's GDP per capita is also, without oil, only slightly lower than rUK, we are therefore in no more financial crisis than rUK, but we do have the oil as a bonus - if we can get the true geographical share.

 

With the oil and rUK without it, I would contend makes us slightly better off, maybe not right now, but indy isn't for one or two years, it's long term. To think that the price won't rise to 60 or 70 dollars in future is a lot more naive than thinking it will stay around the 100.

 

The bit that you don't seem to get, is that this deficit and debt for the whole of the UK was principally caused by the UK government - any argument that dwells on these two aspects is really a compelling argument for yes. The UK government have been pretty incompetent.

 

But the simple fact is, that if the UK can get out the debt, so can Scotland - and with 90% of the oil revenue it will be easier. Again this is simple stuff.

 

Scotland could obviously pay off the debt without the oil almost as easily as rUK - maybe a bit longer, but with the oil it would accelerate this. Then there would be efforts to balance the books and create an oil fund. Had the incompetent UK government done this at the beginning as the SNP wanted us to do, as well as nationalising half the industry like Norway, the whole of the UK would be currently benefiting from it. Again, the SNP have been proven to be a lot more clever than the UK government in this respect.

 

I really think you seem blind to the UK deficit and seem to think it's just Scotland. If the UK can balance the books without the oil, as the government promise, then Scotland will eventually be able to too. I really don't understand your argument is against that.

 

So once again one side gives an opinion, the other side calls it a lie, makes up some not really related stuff which it can't prove and calls it the truth... Which side is nefarious again?

 

The McSwinney one. Is there really no "no currency union" truth ? I thought the BoE at the time quite categorically stated that they wouldn't have currency union and Scotland would need to self-determine.

 

Ok, first he is accused as saying he had "been in talks", now where is the evidence that this is not true? The "trying to fool" part is totally subjective and obviously pulling a fast one - quite ironically. You can't call someone a liar for your subjectivity. Remember, "talks" does not mean he said anything about the outcome.

 

Now the BoE statement part this is an obvious fallacy - yes the BoE said something like that - but that does NOT make it the TRUTH. It's an opinion and posturing position - many people say they will do something and then don't - we've already had two top Tories NOT invoke Article 50, and another prevaricating and procrastinating. Saying you will do something and doing it are obviously two different things and cannot be equated in a complex situation.

 

As I've taken great pains in explaining to you before, this would be a "nuclear option" and I'm sure it would make Scotland retaliate in kind with he repudiation of the share of debt. It's a game of poker and we don't know the outcome - which in most cases ends up with a compromise. Calling it TRUTH, is a complete lie.

 

So once again, one side says they have had talks, and the other says that's a lie, then calls someone's posturing the TRUTH.

 

Bearing in mind here that currency union doesn't necessarily simply mean "we will use the same currency we always have". I personally believe that the currency Scotland uses isn't the biggest issue here - the biggest issue is the BoE stating that they would not be the lender of last resort, which can have a significant impact on sovereign credit ratings as well as cost of debt.

 

That's all part of the negotiations - no-one knows the outcome. There is no TRUTH to be had.

 

So whilst it may be simplistic, or fallacious, propaganda in your eyes

 

I don't think it's just "in my eyes", I think your eyes are a bit dodgy if you can't see the obvious fallacies and black propaganda. Simplistic no - if it was simple it would make sense, it only makes sense to the simple. It's pretty convoluted twisting of things to manipulate people's opinions.

 

- each of the statements made do have some basis in fact (aside from the Sturgeon one which I would contend is subjective conjecture) given what we know has been said by Euros (about Salmond's claim) and BoE (about Swinney's). Or am I simply imagining some of the stuff I was hearing in the last couple of months leading up to indyref.

 

I explained the nature of the "element of truth" all the way through and have comprehensively shown that it has all been twisted to give a false conclusion. You are just showing that what they have done is fool people like yourself by using the bait of a "bit of truth" even though it doesn't take much to see the nefariousness of it. You really seem to have fallen for their tactics. :)

 

I don't do facebook - I don't need to know when someone last had a dump or ate dinner. Not my thing.

 

I don't like facebook, but do it a bit to keep abreast of modern culture - which is why I know it's more than dumping and eating. It's often used as a way of passing on this type of propaganda as people share it, their friends and family see in and as they can't be bothered putting proper thought into it, it kind of sounds right and so they share it again, and so on. It's how internet memes are created.

 

It's funny though - as a "yes" person you will claim that the vast majority of nefarious stuff comes from the "no' side. And I guarantee the "no" side say the same thing but in reverse.

 

I agree that is probably your way of thinking, where you take a side and defend it. For me, I look at both sides and see which makes the most sense - sometimes it's neither and sometimes it's too complex to decide. You obviously haven't paid attention as I've said many times I'm on the fence with this - as I think Scotland CAN survive alone, and maybe prosper in the future after a lot of pain (and pain for rUK too), but I also believe in a strong UK and that Scotland is a valuable member.

 

What I don't do is fall for the Scotland is shite line: Scotland can't rule itself, Scotland needs to scrounge off England, everyone has it in for Scotland...

 

I live in England and so probably lean towards the no vote, BUT I am appalled by the amount of nefarious, twisted stuff by the no side. This is one such case. I really don't experience the same extremes from the yes side.

 

I'm also a quite insulted by your assertion that I cannot think objectively, maybe you can't but I try to all the time.

 

Is Scotland's national debt as high as 145 billion though ? That seems very high - what is that per capita ? Is that a normal debt level for the country ?

 

Again, it's pretty much proportional to the rest of the UK... Think about it. It could be zero if Scotland are denied its share of the assets and so repudiates its share of the debt.

 

The strangest part of the whole piece is that none of it is shown to be lies, and it's hard to call predictions lies without the yes vote winning. However, the biggest whopper of a lie is that for Scotland to be a member of the EU, it would need to vote no.

 

On hindsight we can see that is a lie. So as the piece says, "once a liar, always a liar", how can we trust the no campaigners again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erroneous and insulting ? Please, give me a break. At not one point in that quoted element did I even make reference to you at all calscot. I wasn't referencing you at all, but if you wish to see insult where there is none then that is up to you. It was a general statement that there are "two sides to every story" and dependent on which side you fall on then you will see either propaganda or truth. If you think that was aimed at you specifically then you are mistaken. But you can be insulted all you like as I can't change your clearly defensive mode on this topic.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I am on neither side either - I simply look at what is available to me and decide what I believe to be accurate and what is not. Again though, you can see what ever you wish to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact cal, I'm not even going any further. In looking at your response you do very little other than trying to belittle me with your "you don't see it", "you are blind" and "have you even thought about it" rhetoric. And even when I make an innocent statement of "in your eyes" you have to justify it with "it isn't just my eyes" as if I was attempting to say you were a loner on this topic.

 

When someone says I am insulting them (which really isn't the case) and then continues to make a post which frequently is far more insulting than your own faux offense then I am completely switched off even attempting to continue the debate.

 

When someone is attempting to make very subtle sounds that "you don't know what you are talking about" I find it offensive to my intelligence and refuse to continue.

 

Have a good day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, you go on at me about being insulted and then say you're insulted and won't continue... come on!

 

Look, I really apologise if I came across as insulting - I assure you it was intended to get you to look a bit harder at stuff I really think you are missing. Instead of saying it's offensive to your intelligence - why not display your intelligence - show you're not missing it but have reasons for not addressing it.

 

For me it's all about the debate, and I've read mine again and I think it's being pretty logical, rational and factual and maybe sometimes when you write fast that comes across as brusque - however, I must tell you, you are not even slightly innocent in that respect yourself. I also thought you said you had a thick skin? You've even called me, "precious". Lol :)

 

As I said, I've read it again and at the risk of you feeling insulted again, I don't think it's that bad... I think you really have to look for it - there is a lot of explanation of my case. Why not just deal with the arguments?

 

As for whether you know what you are talking about, my opinion is that it's better to show it instead of avoiding it.

 

 

As a final gesture - I sincerely offer to from now on, dispassionately debate the issue, without insult from either side - with it all being about the strength of argument. We can each respect the other by acknowledging the other's points, finding fundamentals that we can agree with and then debate the extensions to that where we diverge. It's all I can offer and it's up to you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.