The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Thrugelmir

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Come on thrugs there is never an exchange of facts with the Nats :rotfl:

I'm more than happy to keep providing free shovels.

TrickyTree83

Wish my post on the statistics didn't get buried like that. What's the point in spending 30 minutes researching and composing the reply if it's just going to be ignored?

Surely if these people are going to get a vote on independence they ought to be informed and not deluded by SNP propaganda?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Wish my post on the statistics didn't get buried like that. What's the point in spending 30 minutes researching and composing the reply if it's just going to be ignored?

Surely if these people are going to get a vote on independence they ought to be informed and not deluded by SNP propaganda?

Not all us Scots are alike in that respect.
You know there's plenty on here, and most of us try at least every now and then to stand up to the SNP/pro-indy nonsense and delusions.
Also remember it's a forum; a place where faceless agitators thrive.

Enough people up here that vote know only too well just what the SNP are like as I'm sure will be proven again June 8th.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Time to break this little spat up with a nice little aricle from the Daily Record.

Will also have the added bonus of annoying the Nats (Mayonaisse in particular)

Given the events of the week, the cut and thrust of Sunday’s Scottish leaders’ debate might seem like an historic event, but one significant enough to have entered into the annals.

The discomfiting of Nicola Sturgeon, as it shall be known, while she was held to account in public by teachers and a nurse mark a turning point in the fortunes of the SNP’s most popular leader.

Yet breaking the orthodoxy that Sturgeon cannot be challenged was too much for the First Minister’s devotees.

Claire Austin, a nurse who launched an impassioned attack on NHS pay, was immediately subject to vile online abuse.

The SNP’s phalanx of online trolls, deployed to burn the ground from under civilised debate, branded the nurse as the wife of a Tory councillor she once sat beside and a dilettante who had the audacity to once drink a glass of champagne.

In short, they tried to shred her reputation for simply asking a question. What’s notable about this occasion is that they did not get off with it for very long.

Three years ago, when nationalist fervour was at its height, the nurse and anyone who came to her defence would have been swamped by the online sewage.

This time, the cybernats were called out. All is not fair in love or the world of political spin, but Sunday’s operation had echoes of a furore three years ago when an adviser of Alex Salmond briefed against the mother of a disabled child who spoke at a pro-UK event.

As happened on Sunday, the disinformation was plucked from the wild end of the internet, processed into juicy gossip in the roomful of journalists and sieved into a counter-briefing.

It wasn’t organised, just massively inept to have Scottish Minister Jeane Freeman, to add hemlock to the online assassination and for Joanna Cherry to drip it into a live broadcast. The incident says much about the judgement of both women.

At some stage, someone must have told Cherry she was a good media operator. Foolishly, she believed them. She knows now that a grovelling apology does not a reputation recover.

Politics can be shaped online and the SNP were early adopters. For some paranoid Scots, Facebook has become a more trusted network than the UK news channels, even when stories are palpably false.

But Sunday was significant because the dirty tricks didn’t work. It marked a turning point because the nurse was a nurse and in the clear air that most Scots breathe, education and NHS pay are suffering under the SNP.

It's weird. Now that unionist newpapers and folks like yourself don't have all the 'but Scotland won't be in the EU/Spanish veto/Businesses will move to rUK cos Single market/can't use the £ etc etc.

You don't really have much of any real substance left do you to be honest. Moans about cybernats and named person's ( soon to be law ) aren't particularly scary. Plus everyone knows the Scottish NHS is outperforming the other three UK NHS's.. so that's all a big easily debunked delusion too.

Will have to do better than that.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Wish my post on the statistics didn't get buried like that. What's the point in spending 30 minutes researching and composing the reply if it's just going to be ignored?

Surely if these people are going to get a vote on independence they ought to be informed and not deluded by SNP propaganda?

Health Warning: SNP supporters --- do not read, you won't like it.


Yes, it's a frustration of this thread that effort put into making a point, especially if supported by backup from links and facts, simply gets ignored by those who really need the facts rather that the fake facts.

However I've actually found the last few pages educational and applaud those who put in the effort and provided the information (I duck out of naming all who did because I shall inevitably forget someone, but you are certainly included).

Actually I find the blinkered apologies we get for responses encouraging since that particular mind set does not seem likely to produce the results they crave. So there's little proper debate, with one exception I think, but he does not post so much.

It was interesting to see the histograms on Scotland's exports to the UK and the rest of the world. I think it showed the fragility of the Scotland >> UK trade rather well in that Services take up such a large part. What with pizzed-off​ sentiment, self interest and border taxes coming into play in a Natland scenario, I can well imagine a lot of that service stuff flowing south as it is adsorbed by a predatory UK. Not a nice prospect but a likely one, as evidenced by the mood music and shuffling of financial feet at the last referendum.

On trade there's an interesting article from last year :

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lies-damned-lies-social-media-9311901

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Health Warning: SNP supporters --- do not read, you won't like it.


Yes, it's a frustration of this thread that effort put into making a point, especially if supported by backup from links and facts, simply gets ignored by those who really need the facts rather that the fake facts.

However I've actually found the last few pages educational and applaud those who put in the effort and provided the information (I duck out of naming all who did because I shall inevitably forget someone, but you are certainly included).

Actually I find the blinkered apologies we get for responses encouraging since that particular mind set does not seem likely to produce the results they crave. So there's little proper debate, with one exception I think, but he does not post so much.

It was interesting to see the histograms on Scotland's exports to the UK and the rest of the world. I think it showed the fragility of the Scotland >> UK trade rather well in that Services take up such a large part. What with pizzed-off​ sentiment, self interest and border taxes coming into play in a Natland scenario, I can well imagine a lot of that service stuff flowing south as it is adsorbed by a predatory UK. Not a nice prospect but a likely one, as evidenced by the mood music and shuffling of financial feet at the last referendum.

On trade there's an interesting article from last year :

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lies-damned-lies-social-media-9311901

The trade 'problem' on threads and discussions like these is that its always presented as an either/or future scenario. Or else fails to take into account Brexit consequences. Or both.

But it's not an either/or future scenario.. Scotland could trade with both the EU and the UK. There's absolutely no reason why not unless you can think of one ?

Also, Brexit consequences 100% have to be taken into account, again unless there's any reason you can think of why not ?

TrickyTree83

.string. wrote: »

Health Warning: SNP supporters --- do not read, you won't like it.


Yes, it's a frustration of this thread that effort put into making a point, especially if supported by backup from links and facts, simply gets ignored by those who really need the facts rather that the fake facts.

However I've actually found the last few pages educational and applaud those who put in the effort and provided the information (I duck out of naming all who did because I shall inevitably forget someone, but you are certainly included).

Actually I find the blinkered apologies we get for responses encouraging since that particular mind set does not seem likely to produce the results they crave. So there's little proper debate, with one exception I think, but he does not post so much.

It was interesting to see the histograms on Scotland's exports to the UK and the rest of the world. I think it showed the fragility of the Scotland >> UK trade rather well in that Services take up such a large part. What with pizzed-off​ sentiment, self interest and border taxes coming into play in a Natland scenario, I can well imagine a lot of that service stuff flowing south as it is adsorbed by a predatory UK. Not a nice prospect but a likely one, as evidenced by the mood music and shuffling of financial feet at the last referendum.

On trade there's an interesting article from last year :

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lies-damned-lies-social-media-9311901

Great article, first time I've read it and the gentleman appears to be saying what we on here have been saying, ad-infinitum it seems sometimes.

It would be lovely if we could just agree to look objectively at evidence for a change and actually ascertain if it would be a good idea or a bad idea to risk that Yes vote. Sadly they're not interested, this thread has just become a tool where they attempt to discredit rather than prove, to mislead rather than inform.

If anyone on that side can tell my why it's better to risk 20% of the Scottish workforce for the sake of 5%, in the wider context (just for ISTL) of a possible UK risk to 8% I'd love to hear the rationale.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The trade 'problem' on threads and discussions like these is that its always presented as an either/or future scenario. Or else fails to take into account Brexit consequences. Or both.

But it's not an either/or future scenario.. Scotland could trade with both the EU and the UK. There's absolutely no reason why not unless you can think of one ?

Also, Brexit consequences 100% have to be taken into account, again unless there's any reason you can think of why not ?

Enough with the wishy washy, I've put figures on it.

ISTL thinks 2.4m jobs at risk from Brexit, I've read 1.4m and that's the highest estimate I've seen. Proportionally they are significantly smaller than the 500,000 would be to Scotland.

"Brexit consequences" won't work now, you'll need to address the numbers.

So why should Scottish voters choose to risk 20% of their workforce as it would be under independence, instead of sticking with the UK which would proportionally only lose 8% in the worst case scenarios?

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So why should Scottish voters choose to risk 20% of their workforce as it would be under independence, instead of sticking with the UK which would proportionally only lose 8% in the worst case scenarios?

..because they'd be independent and that would be enough for them?

..they don't believe the dire projections?

My dad voted Brexit. For him just not being in the EU was enough and he's quite happy to leave others to sort out the details. I don't see why that idea can't translate to independence (probably more so when you mix in a bit of nationalism).

I'd imagine there's many more people like my dad than there are people getting frustrated on the internet because their proof of what's going to happen in the future isn't being treated with the respect they think it deserves.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

..because they'd be independent and that would be enough for them?

..they don't believe the dire projections?

My dad voted Brexit. For him just not being in the EU was enough and he's quite happy to leave others to sort out the details. I don't see why that idea can't translate to independence (probably more so when you mix in a bit of nationalism).

I'd imagine there's many more people like my dad than there are people getting frustrated on the internet because their proof of what's going to happen in the future isn't being treated with the respect they think it deserves.

So the Scots are being told by the SNP to vote for independence because of a "hard Tory Brexit", so I assume the worst case scenario in their eyes.

Yet when we talk of worst case scenarios for Scottish independence, they will possibly have circa 25% unemployment.

Even under the most dire Brexit forecast the unemployment rate would never even get near that figure, it would be around 15% should everyone at risk lose their jobs.

So either they must concede that Brexit could be equally as good as it could be bad, or else they are unable to say the same about independence. At which point the argument for independence because of the "hard Tory Brexit" falls down around their ears. So what are the calls for another referendum really all about?

The same as it was in 2014. Nothing to do with the SNP manifesto or the EU referendum result, they're smoke screens. There's no answers, there are no plans, there is no evidence. Just a faith, a demonstrably misplaced faith.