Should Scotland be an independent country?

[A Boy Named Crow]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

The technology isn't there and you need a backup such as nuclear or battery storage.  Nuclear seems to be the better option.

 

Here are the pros and cons of different energy sources.  I picked the BBC site but all pretty much say the same:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zbsdmp3/revision/4

 

 

Desperate stuff.  How about compiling a list of details the SNP have committed to on the financial wellbeing of the country post independence.

The article I renewables seems a bit slanted, maybe just out of date. Using renewables to feed the grid is risky, because of the reliability issues stated, but if the renewables are being used to run an electrolyser that produces hydrogen, then the hydrogen basically acts like a battery, smoothing the supply. The hydrogen can also be shipped all over the world, much like oil, so Scotland could conceivably be an energy exporter.

 

In Australia there are a few companies really investing in hydrogen, they see Scotland as one of the emerging renewables superpowers. The oil money was pissed up the wall by Westminster, it'd be better not to make the same mistake again!

[frankblack]

30 minutes ago, Ked said:

How about we just discuss this ourselves mate.

How is it desperate?

 

We are trying to debate a fantasy vision of independence completely devoid of detail.

 

All I see is speculation and a desperate attempt by their fans to make up what might result because the SNP are shit scared to submit any details to scrutinise.

 

Excuse the frustration but they have been dodging this since 2014.  

 

30 minutes ago, Ked said:

It's an honest request to debate the things that concern everyone about going independent.

Not about the SNP.

While I agree they should make a case I'm up for arguing what I think.

I'm going to vote for independence and I'm happy to say why and argue the case for it.

 

Wouldn't you rather vote for a secure future instead of indy at any cost?

 

30 minutes ago, Ked said:

The storage technology isn't there but it's coming.

Nuclear power plants are a long project.

Scotlands position on renewable energy is gathering pace.

It's just one of many positives .

 

Renewables are only viable when there is a fullproof fallback to keep the lights on.

 

Nuclear seems to be the best option from what I've seen.

 

30 minutes ago, Ked said:

And that's the thing Frank .

Independent Scotland is such a positive move.

In itself the very essence of recognising our responsibilty has to be the way .

If we vote to remain as part of the UK it just signals greyness a lack of ambition resigned to waiting on the giro.

It's not a good place to be.

 

 

Its only positive when the infrastructure is in place and at a time when it won't wreck your economy.

 

During a global recession with spiralling inflation, a cost of living crisis, and a war in Europe must be the worst idea in history.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

The article I renewables seems a bit slanted, maybe just out of date. Using renewables to feed the grid is risky, because of the reliability issues stated, but if the renewables are being used to run an electrolyser that produces hydrogen, then the hydrogen basically acts like a battery, smoothing the supply. The hydrogen can also be shipped all over the world, much like oil, so Scotland could conceivably be an energy exporter.

 

In Australia there are a few companies really investing in hydrogen, they see Scotland as one of the emerging renewables superpowers. The oil money was pissed up the wall by Westminster, it'd be better not to make the same mistake again!

 

From what I've read these battery technologies are incredibly expensive.  Nuclear still seems like the better option.

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

The article I renewables seems a bit slanted, maybe just out of date. Using renewables to feed the grid is risky, because of the reliability issues stated, but if the renewables are being used to run an electrolyser that produces hydrogen, then the hydrogen basically acts like a battery, smoothing the supply. The hydrogen can also be shipped all over the world, much like oil, so Scotland could conceivably be an energy exporter.

 

In Australia there are a few companies really investing in hydrogen, they see Scotland as one of the emerging renewables superpowers. The oil money was pissed up the wall by Westminster, it'd be better not to make the same mistake again!

 

I've been watching things recently on physical batteries, we're well placed for that too. It's things like using excess power to pump water up hills to holding reservoirs, or even just using the head of water to fill an intermediary reservoir with overflow, no pumping needed.

Chemical batteries are great but there's a lot going into physical potential energy batteries too.

[A Boy Named Crow]

6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

From what I've read these battery technologies are incredibly expensive.  Nuclear still seems like the better option.

It's not a battery in the traditional sense,  just a lot of hydrogen that is convertible to electricity. 

 

Nuclear is not the answer chief, huge set up costs, waste that can't be made safe, and the abiding danger that something breaks and turns the place into a wasteland. Compare it to green hydrogen, which is made from renewables and the only by-product is water.  It's a no brainer!

[frankblack]

17 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

It's not a battery in the traditional sense,  just a lot of hydrogen that is convertible to electricity. 

 

Nuclear is not the answer chief, huge set up costs, waste that can't be made safe, and the abiding danger that something breaks and turns the place into a wasteland. Compare it to green hydrogen, which is made from renewables and the only by-product is water.  It's a no brainer!

 

Its down to scale and cost.   Its also proven, which is key.

 

Nuclear hasn't had any recent problems in the UK or western Europe that I can recall.

[OTT]

13 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Not going to pretend to be an expert but on the face of it a federal UK sounds like the optimal solution.

 

Federalism is a pipe dream and a fantasy. Gordon Brown has zero standing to pitch it since he cannot assure its delivery (much like his vow), its merely a comfort blanket to justify voting no. 

 

Devolution has only supported the demand for Independence, and we're at a point now where further devolution is feared to only encourage further sentiment for Independence.

 

For example, pre-brexit, agriculture, fisheries, food standards and environmental policies were all governed by EU legislation. Following Brexit, these powers should have defaulted to the individual nations that make up the UK/ devolved governments. Obviously, this could have brought in the possibility of Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland all having different food standards. Which would have quite rightly been a ridiculous situation, in October 2017, the governments agreed to develop common policy to create uniform standards across the board. This was agreed by ALL parties, i.e Holyrood, the Synod, Stormont and even Westminster. However, in the end Westminster ended up reneging on this and took back full control, what was a great example of devolution fostering cooperation and mutual agreement, became a power grab by the UK government (Internal Markets act 2020). This was a violation of the Sewel convention as Westminster shouldn't be legislating on devolved matters. 

 

The UK is no longer supportive of devolution, quite evidently the Tories specifically view it as a failure and there is no chance they will agree to any further powers which might embolden the independent movements across Scotland and Wales. 

[A Boy Named Crow]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Its down to scale and cost.   Its also proven, which is key.

 

Nuclear hasn't had any recent problems in the UK or western Europe that I can recall.

I'm not sure what you mean by proven, electrolysers running off renewables are already producing hydrogen then and electricity.  It's new technology and it's improving all the time,  but it is slready proven to work. 

 

What is certainly proven is the catastrophic impact of nuclear gone wrong. Chernobyl is the obvious one,  but folk will put that down to Soviet era mistakes. There's also Japan, a well developed -westernised' country, all it took was a natural disaster to turn everything to shit! Nuclear fision is a bad solution, if you can work out controllable nuclear fusion,  then maybe nuclear would be a goer.

[jack D and coke]

The thread has been really good last few days lads. 
Kudos to (nearly) everyone for behaving like adults👍🏼

[Ked]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

We are trying to debate a fantasy vision of independence completely devoid of detail.

I'm happy to debate my views.

The questions always asked of currency.

That in anybodys book isn't a problem

of course there is difficult times.

It's been a union of over 300 years.

Scotland has its own established legal,educational any institution you care to mention well established.

There is no fantasy Franck .

 

All I see is speculation and a desperate attempt by their fans to make up what might result because the SNP are shit scared to submit any details to scrutinise.

Actually the speculation comes from the argument against.

Scotland can't afford itself

It will be a disaster 

Business will leave because they all of a sudden don't want to make money because a nation decides it has its own outlook and perhaps its a nation that is good for business with as history shows a good Scottish slant to things.

 

Excuse the frustration but they have been dodging this since 2014.  

I don't give a fek really mate about the political class dodging things.

I'm as fed up as anyone with the way democracy seems to be run by headlines in the news.

But I'd like to be able to throw stones at our government.

I'd like a Scottish Conservative party that wasn't oxbridge.

But in a true sense of conservative values .

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Wouldn't you rather vote for a secure future instead of indy at any cost?

 

I believe ....Wait a minute 8 believe we are pretty much feed tbh buddy .

On a note that sees us greet about the price of petrol rather than its cost...

That aside I believe the cost to Scotland if we do not vote for independence is dull.

it just reeks of the things I mentioned earlier.

it's like waiting on a giro.

Renewables are only viable when there is a fullproof fallback to keep the lights on.

 

Nuclear seems to be the best option from what I've seen.

Maybe buddy but that's long term

 

Its only positive when the infrastructure is in place and at a time when it won't wreck your economy.

Not true .

Borrowing against infrastructure is a positive in capitalism.

Borrowing to service debt or non growth is a negative

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

During a global recession with spiralling inflation, a cost of living crisis, and a war in Europe must be the worst idea in history.j

No.

It's exacy the time.

All of those things and we decide to strike out against that negativity is such a positive move that I pray for it.

Sorry if that seems a bit zealous it's not meant to be.

We could do with a mood change buddy.

And why not us.

Why not  us Scottish people who generally speaking other nationalities who make their home here think are Barry.

We are competent as fek mate.

 

Anyway am an auld radge

😉

[Ked]

Eh I think I've been repeating myself a bit looking back.

Apologies .

Although I'm likely to do it again.

😄

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 hours ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Correct. He's not a troll , he's an extremist, and should be punted for his xenophobic antagonist nonsence. 

 

Let's see if he defends him / herself. Doubt it

 

He's as entitled to air his opinion on this board as anyone.

 

There's often not a lot wrong with what he says.

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, pablo said:

 I totally get that, and I also totally understand and respect the position of the likes of @Smithee and @The Mighty Thor. I disagree obviously but the belief is authentic and comes from the heart. 

👍

 

I'll look out that Fintan O'Toole book. He's a great journalist and his takes on the Brexit shit show have been absolutely bang on the cash. 

 

[Lord Montpelier]

1 hour ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

He's as entitled to air his opinion on this board as anyone.

 

There's often not a lot wrong with what he says.

Not when it comes to extremist views they aren't. Bullies should be called out. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

7 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Federalism is a pipe dream and a fantasy. Gordon Brown has zero standing to pitch it since he cannot assure its delivery (much like his vow), its merely a comfort blanket to justify voting no. 

 

Devolution has only supported the demand for Independence, and we're at a point now where further devolution is feared to only encourage further sentiment for Independence.

 

For example, pre-brexit, agriculture, fisheries, food standards and environmental policies were all governed by EU legislation. Following Brexit, these powers should have defaulted to the individual nations that make up the UK/ devolved governments. Obviously, this could have brought in the possibility of Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland all having different food standards. Which would have quite rightly been a ridiculous situation, in October 2017, the governments agreed to develop common policy to create uniform standards across the board. This was agreed by ALL parties, i.e Holyrood, the Synod, Stormont and even Westminster. However, in the end Westminster ended up reneging on this and took back full control, what was a great example of devolution fostering cooperation and mutual agreement, became a power grab by the UK government (Internal Markets act 2020). This was a violation of the Sewel convention as Westminster shouldn't be legislating on devolved matters. 

 

The UK is no longer supportive of devolution, quite evidently the Tories specifically view it as a failure and there is no chance they will agree to any further powers which might embolden the independent movements across Scotland and Wales. 

I don’t agree. I think it’s known the status quo can’t hold forever.
 

However, the independence the SNP is not the solution, they are blinded by delivering it rather than ensuring it’s what’s best. 
 

The thing I don’t get about the argument for independence is there seems to be no acknowledgement of any potential drawbacks - it’s all Shangri-La. 
 

At the end of the day none of us know what it would be like, however, it’s not unrealistic to think a lot of UK companies would pull out of Scotland (as many have indicated they would) and as I understand we would have no military (apologies if I’ve misunderstood this) so have many people would instantly be out of work?  I assume there would be some kind of ‘divorce bill’ like there is with Brexit. There’s far too much uncertainty around things like pension and welfare. 
 

In the (hopefully) near future there can hopefully be grown up conversations about what's best for the whole UK. 
 

Independence is such a divisive subject.- just look on this thread. I can’t understand perusing it when it’s clear at least 50% of the country aren’t on board. 
 

Say Yes wins. Is that really going to be the end of it? He’s haven’t accepted the result of the last referendum- is it unrealistic to say No won’t accept the result if they lose? Where does it end? Do we create another Northern Ireland?

 

Also what is plan B, if things don’t work out? 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I honestly think @ri Albanis a plant to turn people off Scottish nationalism. You couldn't make him up if you tried. Even McGlashan wasn't as bad.

[i wish jj was my dad]

16 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Sincerely hope your brand of racism/xenophobia isn’t what an Indy Scotland becomes

His views genuinely trouble me. I'm sure he is harmless away from his keyboard but there are enough bampots around who will do more than post offensive pish on the internet. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

12 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I don't care, I'm interested in the topic at hand, it's not about him.

Him and his counterpart on the other side are doing their best to derail an otherwise interesting thread. And in a way it is about him for me because I am worried about the possibility of folk going beyond posting offensive shite on the Internet. 

The country is as unstable as I can remember and my memory just about goes back to Thatcher being elected. 

[XB52]

10 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

You clearly didn't read the link or do any research on the disadvantages renewables have.

 

Sure they can be great but won't be all the time.  Even too strong a wind will shut down wind turbines let alone not enough!

And you never read what I posted. Tides are constant, hydro is constant, offshore wind is pretty constant in Scotland. Storage technology is improving all the time so, in 30 to 50 years when our oil and gas runs out, we will be totally energy independent 

[i wish jj was my dad]

8 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Federalism is a pipe dream and a fantasy. Gordon Brown has zero standing to pitch it since he cannot assure its delivery (much like his vow), its merely a comfort blanket to justify voting no. 

 

Devolution has only supported the demand for Independence, and we're at a point now where further devolution is feared to only encourage further sentiment for Independence.

 

For example, pre-brexit, agriculture, fisheries, food standards and environmental policies were all governed by EU legislation. Following Brexit, these powers should have defaulted to the individual nations that make up the UK/ devolved governments. Obviously, this could have brought in the possibility of Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland all having different food standards. Which would have quite rightly been a ridiculous situation, in October 2017, the governments agreed to develop common policy to create uniform standards across the board. This was agreed by ALL parties, i.e Holyrood, the Synod, Stormont and even Westminster. However, in the end Westminster ended up reneging on this and took back full control, what was a great example of devolution fostering cooperation and mutual agreement, became a power grab by the UK government (Internal Markets act 2020). This was a violation of the Sewel convention as Westminster shouldn't be legislating on devolved matters. 

 

The UK is no longer supportive of devolution, quite evidently the Tories specifically view it as a failure and there is no chance they will agree to any further powers which might embolden the independent movements across Scotland and Wales. 

That's a helpful contribution. I wasn't aware of the internal markets act. 

I do wonder if the respective administrations could cooperate effectively if WM was run by a moderate and competent government? 

[manaliveits105]

A few strange stalkers about 

[i wish jj was my dad]

5 hours ago, Ked said:

Eh I think I've been repeating myself a bit looking back.

Apologies .

Although I'm likely to do it again.

😄

 

Not at all. I think you have made some great points and with apologies to FB I think you have blown him out of the water. 

[frankblack]

27 minutes ago, XB52 said:

And you never read what I posted. Tides are constant, hydro is constant, offshore wind is pretty constant in Scotland. Storage technology is improving all the time so, in 30 to 50 years when our oil and gas runs out, we will be totally energy independent 

 

So to confirm the storage technology isn't ready or proven and is it even cost effective?

 

The argument here is on the fallback technology if you refuse to consider nuclear. That would be required immediately not in 30-50 years for an approach where renewables supply the whole grid.

[A Boy Named Crow]

7 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

So to confirm the storage technology isn't ready or proven and is it even cost effective?

 

The argument here is on the fallback technology if you refuse to consider nuclear. That would be required immediately not in 30-50 years for an approach where renewables supply the whole grid.

That's not really true, it's not like we could go 100% renewable tomorrow, it'd take years and years,  but it's where we should be aiming. 

[Shooter McGavin]

44 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

TBH, one of the reasons I went from being keen 'Yes' to undecided was repeatedly encountering bitter, narrow-minded folk whose 'Scotland for the Scots/Traitors' mantra really came to the fore after 2014. Doubt I'm the only one who has been turned off by it.

I distinctly remember coming across a few extreme Yes voters circa 2014. I remember them being quite hostile, and passive aggressive to sceptics.

 

Again, I’m talking about literally a few here but that was my experience, and for a movement that requires people to get on board, I would have thought there was better ways to go about things.

[i wish jj was my dad]

53 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

TBH, one of the reasons I went from being keen 'Yes' to undecided was repeatedly encountering bitter, narrow-minded folk whose 'Scotland for the Scots/Traitors' mantra really came to the fore after 2014. Doubt I'm the only one who has been turned off by it.

I'm similar. I was frequently abused as a traito, quisling etc for having doubts. It's that narrow mindedness that gives me doubts that we can be responsible enough to run our own affairs.

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I still reckon we can. It's whether it'll be worth all the hassle - both short and long term - that ScExit will end up causing that makes me question it.

I think we can too. But I don't want a lost generation getting there. 

On your earlier point about the level of debate. The irony of the hardliners on the yes side is that they show precisely the same xenophobic intolerance that Farage and his type have brought out in the little englanders. I really hate that and feel ashamed when I see it.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

His views genuinely trouble me. I'm sure he is harmless away from his keyboard but there are enough bampots around who will do more than post offensive pish on the internet. 

It’s undeniable that anti English sentiment exists in Scotland, some of it v unhealthy. I’m not saying it’s rife but his attitude towards the English is dreadful and his attempts to use the Westminster thing to disguise it is fooling no-one.

 

As an aside, I know fine well that England has big problems on this front too

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

It’s undeniable that anti English sentiment exists in Scotland, some of it v unhealthy. I’m not saying it’s rife but his attitude towards the English is dreadful and his attempts to use the Westminster thing to disguise it is fooling no-one.

 

As an aside, I know fine well that England has big problems on this front too

Yip. Ms Sturgeon has her own enemy within and yer man is a fine example of what that looks like.

[Boab]

39 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I distinctly remember coming across a few extreme Yes voters circa 2014. I remember them being quite hostile, and passive aggressive to sceptics.

 

Again, I’m talking about literally a few here but that was my experience, and for a movement that requires people to get on board, I would have thought there was better ways to go about things.

Yea, there will always be the odd bam. Worked alongside one 30 years ago, who was a Nat maniac.

Of course, his extremism didn't affect my views on Indy. It shouldn't because it's a huge and complex issue.

On the other side, of course, there is the sevco type unionist. Grade A bams !

[Unknown user]

Against independence because arseholes exist?

[A Boy Named Crow]

38 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Is there a timescale for this kind of thing? Like, have any party put forward a reasonably honest idea of when it can be turned into reality?

Yes,  Fortiscue have announced a deal to supply 100,000 tons of hydrogen per year to Covestro from 2024, which is part of the strategy they announced at COP26 to be producing 15 million tons of green hydrogen by 2030. That's just one company, others in Germany and around Asia are working on similar projects.

 

It's not pie in the sky stuff, I'd be selling any shares I had in oil and gas companies!

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, Boab said:

Yea, there will always be the odd bam. Worked alongside one 30 years ago, who was a Nat maniac.

Of course, his extremism didn't affect my views on Indy. It shouldn't because it's a huge and complex issue.

On the other side, of course, there is the sevco type unionist. Grade A bams !

This isn’t to derail the thread and I’m not saying it’s all the union side but sometimes I feel this needs aired. 

There are utter bellends on both sides.

[Boab]

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

This isn’t to derail the thread and I’m not saying it’s all the union side but sometimes I feel this needs aired. 

There are utter bellends on both sides.

Not at all, mate.

Talking about the more extreme elements is on topic.

Some of those views helped shape the vote last time.

Not looking at the arguments and issues associated with Indy but voting a certain way because you are a moron.

That happens in every election of course, not just a Ref.

[pablo]

12 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

This isn’t to derail the thread and I’m not saying it’s all the union side but sometimes I feel this needs aired. 

There are utter bellends on both sides.

 

Well that's just horribly depressing.

 

What vile people.

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

That's not really true, it's not like we could go 100% renewable tomorrow, it'd take years and years,  but it's where we should be aiming. 

 

That was the whole point I was making, hence we need something in place ASAP as successive governments on both sides of the border have been sleeping on the job while existing power stations reach end of life.

[Roxy Hearts]

20 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

This isn’t to derail the thread and I’m not saying it’s all the union side but sometimes I feel this needs aired. 

There are utter bellends on both sides.

One of the reasons for independence is to try and rid ourselves of this nonsense. 

 

Some idiot harassing a "Nationalist" when he's one himself but from the other more bigoted side! 

 

Manaliveits105 pals😁

[A Boy Named Crow]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

That was the whole point I was making, hence we need something in place ASAP as successive governments on both sides of the border have been sleeping on the job while existing power stations reach end of life.

I have no idea how urgent the replacement of Scotland's current power infrastructure is, but if I was in charge of investing public money I'd be taking a long hard look at the country's competitive advantage in the renewables revolution!

Edited July 2, 2022 by A Boy Named Crow

[Roxy Hearts]

Just now, A Boy Named Crow said:

I have no idea how urgent the replacement of Scotland's current power infrastructure is, but if I was in charge of investing public money I'd be taking a long hard look at our competitive advantage in the renewables revolution!

Doesn't help Scotland's cause having energy reserved! Westminster do everything in their power to not assist us at times. Can't have a successful Scotland you know. Look at fb's posts as an example of negativity from a British aspect!

[jack D and coke]

16 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Well that's just horribly depressing.

 

What vile people.

 

5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

One of the reasons for independence is to try and rid ourselves of this nonsense. 

 

Some idiot harassing a "Nationalist" when he's one himself but from the other more bigoted side! 

 

Manaliveits105 pals😁

I didn’t post it to make one side look worse. 
I think the thread has been good last few days. I hope it can maintain the better discussion that’s broken out. 
I just think some people make out it’s the yes side that have the monopoly on dafties. 
 

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, jonesy said:

No, and you're intelligent enough to know it's not as simple as that. It's a wariness and weariness of being associated with such people and what kind of future they could push their chosen destiny towards becoming. The parallels between the Tories and the Indy movement are, actually, quite remarkable. Both are broad churches relying heavily, but not always happily within the rank and file, on a polarising figurehead to keep them in power. There are progressive, tolerant and genuine good guys/gals within the parties/movements, but for many, the easy broad brushtrokes used to demonise the other side could quite equally be thrown straight back.

 

And I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to know I'm making a point.

 

We all know there's much more to be concerned about from the hun hordes than anyone else in this, whether it be in terms of negative rhetoric, nastiness or violence.

[Roxy Hearts]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

 

I didn’t post it to make one side look worse. 
I think the thread has been good last few days. I hope it can maintain the better discussion that’s broken out. 
I just think some people make out it’s the yes side that have the monopoly on dafties. 
 

There's been good stuff going on but the underlying hatred of independence and Scottish self governance isn't far away! 

 

The post is still relevant to the broader independence chat as it's not just about the economy but how we see ourselves and how we challenge these prejudices. 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

As long as we've got folk pointing out that 'if only Scots had voted in 2014, we'd have been free by now,' I cannot agree.

That seems pretty weak

[i wish jj was my dad]

12 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

I didn’t post it to make one side look worse. 
I think the thread has been good last few days. I hope it can maintain the better discussion that’s broken out. 
I just think some people make out it’s the yes side that have the monopoly on dafties. 
 

No, you are correct. There are bad guys on both sides of the debate. The irony is lost on the yes side though because their set of nutters are behaving exactly like the little englanders they are shouting about. If this does descend into unrest it is on Ms Sturgeon. She knows what she is doing. 

[jack D and coke]

6 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

No, you are correct. There are bad guys on both sides of the debate. The irony is lost on the yes side though because their set of nutters are behaving exactly like the little englanders they are shouting about. If this does descend into unrest it is on Ms Sturgeon. She knows what she is doing. 

I don’t think she can control people anymore than ann budge can control hearts fans. Some people are just dicks. 
I see inflaming tweets from unionists politicians, like everything it’s a two way street with both sides blaming the other.

Youve got to ignore the 🤡🤡

[Unknown user]

Just now, jonesy said:

As are some of the arguments on both sides. It doesn't stop them being relevant in the overall discussion and how it may influence voting behaviour. 

 

Truth be told, it appears that many on here have backed themselves into a corner and now have their fingers planted firmly in their ears while 'la-la-laing' in chorus.

 

There are many of us who are genuinely keen to discuss the pros and cons of independence v maintaining/modifying the union rather than flinging tartan or UJ painted shite around (with the odd bit of humour/hypocrisy alert thrown in for good measure).

 

Anyway, another poster previously asked 'if not now when' in response to the 'now is not the right time' stance some people have. I'd suggest seeing the outcome of the next UK GE. The Tories bring out the worst in people, often understandably so, but this current mob are temporary. The tide, down south, is beginning to turn. I reckon a lot of SNP/indy support is driven by Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al, rather than a desire to throw Scotland into the unknown that will undeniably occur in the result of a legally binding yes vote.

 

It's still weak. If someone intends to vote against an independent Scotland for their children's future because trolls piss them off, then it isn't because trolls piss them off.

 

"Let's wait and see what England gives us next time" has had long enough. Even if they give a result I'm personally happier with next time, it doesn't change the fact that our future twists and turns at the whim of the English electorate.

 

I'd rather it was the Scottish electorate taking responsibility, that's all. At least they put Scotland first.

[Roxy Hearts]

3 minutes ago, jonesy said:

As are some of the arguments on both sides. It doesn't stop them being relevant in the overall discussion and how it may influence voting behaviour. 

 

Truth be told, it appears that many on here have backed themselves into a corner and now have their fingers planted firmly in their ears while 'la-la-laing' in chorus.

 

There are many of us who are genuinely keen to discuss the pros and cons of independence v maintaining/modifying the union rather than flinging tartan or UJ painted shite around (with the odd bit of humour/hypocrisy alert thrown in for good measure).

 

Anyway, another poster previously asked 'if not now when' in response to the 'now is not the right time' stance some people have. I'd suggest seeing the outcome of the next UK GE. The Tories bring out the worst in people, often understandably so, but this current mob are temporary. The tide, down south, is beginning to turn. I reckon a lot of SNP/indy support is driven by Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al, rather than a desire to throw Scotland into the unknown that will undeniably occur in the result of a legally binding yes vote.

I've supported independence for decades Jonesy so to me it's irrelevant who is in power at Westminster. The contempt and disdain isn't far away from all parties including Scots within them!

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The bams are well distributed between all sides. It's what makes the discussion so frustrating at times. 

So let's stop getting derailed by them.

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The bams are well distributed between all sides. It's what makes the discussion so frustrating at times. 

Yeah defo mate.
Like all arguments you get people who can’t contribute anything because they don’t have the intelligence or minerals and can’t engage so all they have is blunt instruments. There’s a couple on here who’s blunt instrument is their foreheed and they use it to type replies to this thread. 
Im not innocent by any means I hold my hands up I’ve bitten replying to moronic posts. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, jonesy said:

You're one of the bams, mate 😁😇🤠

Chief bammy