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

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

Can't post any link or empirical evidence, only anecdotal.....

Several "yes" voters have told me they would not welcome a return to the atmosphere of 2014.

Most people in Scotland recognise time of referendum was divisive and want to move on.

People have (at last) seen through the false promise of a viable independant Scotland.

We'd be an economic desert in no time.

Swinney being taken apart on Question Time from Dundee by the audience about a month ago was tv heaven.

All nationalism is unhealthy; never really sure why we think ours is a good thing.

All the BBC audiences are balanced evenly along party political lines rather than Yes/No. This means any SNP representative is facing an audience that it at least 3 to 1 against in most cases. This is worth remembering the next time you watch any political show in Scotland which claims balance in any sort of constitutional debate.

As for evidence, well last Thursday's election is by far the best and widest ranging evidence we have over exactly how terrified Scots and even Yes voters are of any second referendum. I think the answer to that particular question is.... not much. The SNP got over a million votes, after 9 years in power and the highest ever vote in the Scottish parliaments history. More than Labour and the Conservatives combined.

QED most people in Scotland aren't too bothered about the prospect of another referendum.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As for evidence, well last Thursday's election is by far the best and widest ranging evidence we have over exactly how terrified Scots and even Yes voters are of any second referendum. I think the answer to that particular question is.... not much. The SNP got over a million votes, after 9 years in power and the highest ever vote in the Scottish parliaments history.

Was a referendum in the manifesto as a pledge during the next Parliamentary term ?

mollycat

People who preach the politics of division and scapegoating always poll well; (think UKIP, NF in France, historical examples from the 1940's), particularly amongst the less well educated in society.

Doesn't make the arguements right.

IMHO, (and I know people won't agree), nationalism is the most repugnant ideology going.

zagubov

The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia underwent division.
The Spanish empire, British empire, Portuguese empires etc. did the same. Overseas departementes of France likewise. The world went from about 40 countries to about 200. Were all the new ones evil weirdos that can't get on with others?

Scotland's uniquely unsuited to go it alone? Pull the other one. :rotfl:

mollycat

Go it alone?

What on earth would you want to do that for?

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia underwent division.
The Spanish empire, British empire, Portuguese empires etc. did the same. Overseas departementes of France likewise. The world went from about 40 countries to about 200. Were all the new ones evil weirdos that can't get on with others?

Scotland's uniquely unsuited to go it alone? Pull the other one. :rotfl:

Yes, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and India are shining examples of exactly what the UK should seek to avoid.

Splitting countries is not cost free and the gains are generally illusionary.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Yes, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and India are shining examples of exactly what the UK should seek to avoid.

Splitting countries is not cost free and the gains are generally illusionary.

Those kind of breakups are easy to avoid. Splitting hybrid countries may not be cost free. But hey, how many of the new 160 countries have tried to reverse their independence.

Countries looking after their own affairs and not outsourcing their own governance is a kind of a global norm.

Why it's uniquely unsuited for Scotland (or England or Wales) needs some explaining.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Those kind of breakups are easy to avoid. Splitting hybrid countries may not be cost free. But hey, how many of the new 160 countries have tried to reverse their independence.

Countries looking after their own affairs and not outsourcing their own governance is a kind of a global norm.

Why it's uniquely unsuited for Scotland (or England or Wales) needs some explaining.

It's not suitable for Scotland as an entity as it can't afford it. Spending in and for Scotland is well ahead of any kind of ability to raise taxes to pay for it.

The gains for Scotland from independence are nil and the losses huge.

Tromking

zagubov wrote: »

Countries looking after their own affairs and not outsourcing their own governance is a kind of a global norm.
Why it's uniquely unsuited for Scotland (or England or Wales) needs some explaining.

That's a question only the Scots can explain, uniquely in the Union every time they've been asked the question they've opted to stay.
I'm trying to work out why the SNP would remove itself from one Union where its influence is considerable to one where it's stated aim is to reduce the power of national governments as part of an ever closer Union. A case of anyone but the English perhaps?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

That's a question only the Scots can explain, uniquely in the Union every time they've been asked the question they've opted to stay.
I'm trying to work out why the SNP would remove itself from one Union where its influence is considerable to one where it's stated aim is to reduce the power of national governments as part of an ever closer Union. A case of anyone but the English perhaps?

I suspect that this is the real driving force behind most Nationalists. Almost every Nationalist group I can think of defines itself by who they are not almost as much as who they are.