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

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt was quite encouraging with his comments too.

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15089828.Europe_s_chief_Brexit_negotiator_says___We_need_the_Scottish_people_____we_cannot_afford_to_lose_that_/

What does Guy think about the one third of eligible Scottish voters who didn't bother to even vote in the Brexit referendum?

Has he an explanation for this high level of EU apathy present in a supposedly pro-EU nation?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

What does Guy think about the one third of eligible Scottish voters who didn't bother to even vote in the Brexit referendum?

Has he an explanation for this high level of EU apathy present in a supposedly pro-EU nation?

The will of the people, be it 52% or 68% must be respected surely ? ;-)

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I suspect I'll get PPR'd for this, clearly I chose a word that they feel is a pejorative term.

Yet I'm merely pointing out that persistent ignorance when you've been proven incorrect is a defining characteristic of the term. Maybe willful ignorance or denialism would have been better?

I think there's a type of person for whom the very obvious facts of a subject are often thought of as "beneath them" due to the lack of complexity within the argument.

They then seek a way to find a different "conclusion", contrary to the very solid evidence which is rejected.

To do this they will devour every tweet, blog article and media opinion on the subject. They will debate long and hard with likeminded others in the pub without a dissenting voice in miles, further cementing the fallacy. Finally they will hang on the spin of a charismatic leader that provides the hope that the impossible is achievable.

So overstimulated by spin, bolstered by the support of the echo chamber and enthused by political leadership and accessible soundbites, they confidently report to the world.....

2+2=5. And it does because I say so.

Then become offended when their "logic" is revealed as fantasy, and use that offence to hide behind intelectually.

I wouldn't worry about it.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

Obviously it is a pejorative term and an insult to call someone else an idiot or stupid because you don't agree with their thought process. I doubt if you'll get PPR'd though, wouldn't imagine anyone on here is personally insulted by your inability to accept someone else's views. I am intrigued as to why anyone would believe that the future can be spelled out in a series of facts, but I certainly wouldn't call you an idiot for it.

The moon is made of cheese. True/False?

Scotland's economy is more dependant on the UK than the EU? True/False

Independence will result in tax rises, cuts to services or both? True/False

Independence will mean that the Scottish government can spend more than they are spending now? True/False

Less jobs will be lost through Brexit than independence? True/False

I'm sure you'd call someone stupid for believing the moon is made of cheese, the other questions are no different for delivering the wrong answer.

Honestly I don't feel guilt or shame for pointing out the blindingly obvious, or for apportioning shame on those who choose to ignore the obvious. Thinking differently is a very very generous way of describing ignorance/stupidity/dishonesty/idiocy whatever you want to call it.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The will of the people, be it 52% or 68% must be respected surely ? ;-)

Of course.

And it's only fair you define this group known as "the people" when you ask the referendum question.

"The people" were known for the Scottish referendum question in 2014.

"The people" were known in the EU referendum. It was quite clearly an UK wide question : it even said so on the voting question.

Any Scots who disagreed with this scope should have still turned up but spoilt their voting paper.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The moon is made of cheese. True/False?

Scotland's economy is more dependant on the UK? True/False

I'm sure you'd call someone stupid for believing the moon is made of cheese, the 2nd question is no different for delivering the wrong answer.

Honestly I don't feel guilt or shame for pointing out the blindingly obvious, or for apportioning shame on those who choose to ignore the obvious. Thinking differently is a very very generous way of describing ignorance/stupidity/dishonesty/idiocy whatever you want to call it.

You're being to black and white and either or about the whole thing though.

You point out that Scotland's trade with the UK is more important than that with the EU, but fail to point out that the UK's trade with the EU is an equally important factor. How much of that is going to suffer when the UK leaves the EU ? Do you know ?

You all insist on viewing Scotland/rUK trade and presenting it in such a manner as if it will all stop overnight and only admit that it won't when pressed further. rUK exports 60+ bn to Scotland which is also a fact worth mentioning, but you never do.

At the end of the day trade will continue for an independent Scotland both with rUK and with the EU. Just as it will for rUK and the EU in some form. However until Article 50 is triggered and negotiations start, NONE of us have any idea as yet in which form trade will continue. So to argue now and state categorically that only Scotland is going to suffer trade wise in the next few years is just wrong. Scotland, rUK and the EU all are as whatever happens trade is going to be damaged somewhere. We just don't know by how much yet.

sss555s

mollycat wrote: »

I think there's a type of person for whom the very obvious facts of a subject are often thought of as "beneath them" due to the lack of complexity within the argument.

They then seek a way to find a different "conclusion", contrary to the very solid evidence which is rejected.

To do this they will devour every tweet, blog article and media opinion on the subject. They will debate long and hard with likeminded others in the pub without a dissenting voice in miles, further cementing the fallacy. Finally they will hang on the spin of a charismatic leader that provides the hope that the impossible is achievable.

So overstimulated by spin, bolstered by the support of the echo chamber and enthused by political leadership and accessible soundbites, they confidently report to the world.....

2+2=5. And it does because I say so.

Then become offended when their "logic" is revealed as fantasy, and use that offence to hide behind intelectually.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Most that post on this board already have their mind set and that applies to both sides. That is no excuse for name calling.

TT likes to bang on about hard "facts" about Scotland when all the Brexit hard facts were that the UK would be a basket case.

That doesn't add up either.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Of course.

And it's only fair you define this group known as "the people" when you ask the referendum question.

"The people" were known for the Scottish referendum question in 2014.

"The people" were known in the EU referendum. It was quite clearly an UK wide question : it even said so on the voting question.

Any Scots who disagreed with this scope should have still turned up but spoilt their voting paper.

Theresa May is going by those who voted and the majority in the UK. Sturgeon is going by those who voted and the majority in Scotland. Sturgeon doesn't speak for the UK and has never claimed to.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Theresa May is going by those who voted and the majority in the UK. Sturgeon is going by those who voted and the majority in Scotland. Sturgeon doesn't speak for the UK and has never claimed to.

Yep. And Sturgeon therefore doesn't get to reinterpret questions which are UK-wide in nature.

If you disagreed fundamentally with the question, you would have demonstrated this by not selecting one of the options.

By choosing a valid option you accept the terms of the question.

mollycat

Sturgeon doesn't speak for Scotland either!