Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

Just looked up the PQ question, and you're right:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"

You'd better be familiar with those two documents!

Parizeau in his mind = unilateral separation within a year.
Bouchard in his mind = if Canada makes a deal to negotiation maybe stay in, maybe not.
Dumont in his mind = derp derp just more power for Quebec but not really separation.

euphemisms and euphemisms. The PQ was a master of watering down the harshness of what they were selling by making things sound ''softer''. But Parizeau worked everyone to a fiddle and really wanted unilateral separation even if he phrased the question softly.

the word ''sovereign', is one of the most blatant soft euphemisms ever. Changed the wording from independists to souvernists... LOL because it's softer

 

[EdibleExplosives]

Just think of it as a lubricant that may just make it easier to swallow

 

[Übermatik]

Yes, you should have. And I believe they would have given you a good argument as to why. I believe the youth of Scotland are engaged in this process and well educated.

No, I don't think you understand... they were no older than 8.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Now I am convinced he really is a Thunderbird

 

[RulkezX]

No, I don't think you understand... they were no older than 8.

Probably the same reason my 4yo neice has had a YES badge on every day for months or the kids across the street who's no older than 8 stands in his garden shouting at NO campaigners.

It's amazing how amicable the last few pages have been compared to what was going on earlier. I like this thread again. Awwwww c'mere, No Voters, we all want the same thing, just what's best for the people here.

Not gonna lie mate, I'm expecting a legendary meltdown from you on Friday.

 

[iMax]

So when the inevitable happens and the 'NO' vote wins, how long will it be until another referendum gets called again?

 

[Rodhull]

So when the inevitable happens and the 'NO' vote wins, how long will it be until another referendum gets called again?

Well it's been 35 years since the last one so I'm guessing it would take something significant to happen to justify it again.

 

[system11]

When the SNP withdrew support for Labour and allowed Thatcher to take power in 1979, all the working class across Britain suffered. Not just Scotland.

Under Thatcher my working class parents prospered - but don't let that get in the way of your opinion being presented as fact.

 

[RulkezX]

So when the inevitable happens and the 'NO' vote wins, how long will it be until another referendum gets called again?

Salmond said not 2 days ago that its definitely a once in a generation opportunity, maybe even once in a lifetime.

The only way they're getting one anytime soon is if they don't follow through on their extra powers promise and there is somehow a huge backlash from No Voters.

 

[Osiris]

So when the inevitable happens and the 'NO' vote wins, how long will it be until another referendum gets called again?

Most expect it to be at least 20 years or so before it comes up again.

The Oil/Gas clock counting down restricts how many more chances the Scots will get to try.

 

[ecosse_011172]

Just looked up the PQ question, and you're right:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"

You'd better be familiar with those two documents!

French is so flowery that was the most concise version of "aye or naw" they could come up with.

 

[EdibleExplosives]

Salmond said not 2 days ago that its definitely a once in a generation opportunity, maybe even once in a lifetime.

The only way they're getting one anytime soon is if they don't follow through on their extra powers promise and there is somehow a huge backlash from No Voters.

Nick Clegg made a pledge, of course we're gonna get our extra powers.

 

[SlickShoes]

Under Thatcher my working class parents prospered - but don't let that get in the way of your opinion being presented as fact.

I'm from a mining village and she destroyed the whole community, many working class were employed in mines and heavy industry all of which were taken apart.

 

[iMax]

Salmond said not 2 days ago that its definitely a once in a generation opportunity, maybe even once in a lifetime.

The only way they're getting one anytime soon is if they don't follow through on their extra powers promise and there is somehow a huge backlash from No Voters.

Yeah, that's the only way I see it.

Most expect it to be at least 20 years or so before it comes up again.

The Oil/Gas clock counting down restricts how many more chances the Scots will get to try.

And the Shetland situation is a factor here too, I guess? I mean, there's a very real possibility if Scotland votes for independence they could remain part of the UK, right?! That'll be a sticky situation for them as far as the oil goes.

 

[Xenex]

As my first post in this thread suggests, I'm a believer in education and the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iversity-head-over-independence-concerns.html further proves my point the SNP are full of shit.

Additionally, I don't know whether this has been discussed or not but I've heard arguments from the YES campaign that Salmond wanted a third option on the table "Devo Max" but Cameron rejected it, even though Salmond stated it would be what most Scots vote for. Now to underestimate Salmond would be a huge mistake, he may of suggested the third option but there was no way in hell he wanted Scotland to stay in the UK - he's a racist and if you don't think that then at the very least a bigot. The only option Salmond has ever wanted, at any cost, is independence - fact. Now let's see the proposal from Salmond:

Do you want to become independent from the rest of the UK?:

• YES
• NO - with more Devo
• NO

There's only going to be one outcome from this, a YES win. The poll is decided by whichever the majority is and by having essentially 2 NO votes, you've split the NO camp between 2 user bases therefore it would have been a foregone conclusion YES would have won. I am therefore happy Cameron rejected this idea.

 

[SlickShoes]

Salmond said not 2 days ago that its definitely a once in a generation opportunity, maybe even once in a lifetime.

The only way they're getting one anytime soon is if they don't follow through on their extra powers promise and there is somehow a huge backlash from No Voters.

Most no voters weren't swayed by the extra powers guff, they were already voting no anyway. The only people annoyed will be yes voters using extra powers as some sort of scant consolation prize.

 

[system11]

I'm from a mining village and she destroyed the whole community, many working class were employed in mines and heavy industry all of which were taken apart.

Shame, but they weren't value for money - only a minority of pits were breaking even.

I'd like to see what happens if Scotland vote yes, mostly because I like anything that upsets the current shower of hopeless bastards in London. I want to see them faced with something they can't control and spin.

 

[SlickShoes]

As my first post in this thread suggests, I'm a believer in education and the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iversity-head-over-independence-concerns.html further proves my point the SNP are full of shit.

Additionally, I don't know whether this has been discussed or not but I've heard arguments from the YES campaign that Salmond wanted a third option on the table "Devo Max" but Cameron rejected it, even though Salmond stated it would be what most Scots vote for. Now to underestimate Salmond would be a huge mistake, he may of suggested the third option but there was no way in hell he wanted Scotland to stay in the UK - he's a racist and if you don't think that then at the very least a bigot. The only option Salmond has ever wanted, at any cost, is independence - fact. Now let's see the proposal from Salmond:

Do you want to become independent from the rest of the UK?:

• YES
• NO - with more Devo
• NO

There's only going to be one outcome from this, a YES win. The poll is decided by whichever the majority is and by having essentially 2 NO votes, you've split the NO camp between 2 user bases therefore it would have been a foregone conclusion YES would have won. I am therefore happy Cameron rejected this idea.

That's garbage, a devo max option would have been a runaway winner. It wouldn't have been listed as a no vote the question could have been worded differently. Cameron in rejecting devo max and leaving it as a yes/no set his team on an uphill battle fighting for the most negative sounding side of the debate, this is clear by how they hobbled some sort of devo max ish thing together at the last minute to try and sway folk who've turned to yes.

 

[BadHand]

Under Thatcher my working class parents prospered - but don't let that get in the way of your opinion being presented as fact.

In general, Thatcher's policies smashed the poor and working class hardest across Britain. But I'm glad your parents did well. I'm sure if you cherry pick you could find even more success stories.

Shame, but they weren't value for money - only a minority of pits were breaking even.

Pity Thatcher didn't understand the value of something beyond it's monetary cost.

 

[Xenex]

That's garbage, a devo max option would have been a runaway winner. It wouldn't have been listed as a no vote the question could have been worded differently. Cameron in rejecting devo max and leaving it as a yes/no set his team on an uphill battle fighting for the most negative sounding side of the debate, this is clear by how they hobbled some sort of devo max ish thing together at the last minute to try and sway folk who've turned to yes.

I said essentially 2 NO votes, I never said it would have been explicitly stated as a NO I just simplified it in the list. I also find it funny that you think Devo would have been a runaway winner when nationalism and patriotism runs so deeply within Scotland.

 

[system11]

In general, Thatcher's policies smashed the poor and working class hardest across Britain. But I'm glad your parents did well. I'm sure if you cherry pick you could find even more success stories.

Also saved the economy. Subsidising things which aren't cost effective long term rather than just dealing with the pain of an adjustment is pointless.

The one thing she got really wrong in my opinion was the Poll Tax, although Council Tax isn't really much better - postcode lottery.

 

[RulkezX]

I said essentially 2 NO votes, I never said it would have been explicitly stated as a NO I just simplified it in the list. I also find it funny that you think Devo would have been a runaway winner when nationalism and patriotism runs so deeply within Scotland.

It doesn't.

The Yes campaign have convinced a lot of people that a YES vote means their own little vision for a perfect Scotland is the one that will come to exist in an iScotland, but I still don't believe that it's (mostly) fuelled by excessive patriotism.

Most people will be back to waving their Union flags when the royal baby comes along next year. The hardcore Nats will go back to being hateful little bigots on the Internet.

 

[Sage00]

I said essentially 2 NO votes, I never said it would have been explicitly stated as a NO I just simplified it in the list. I also find it funny that you think Devo would have been a runaway winner when nationalism and patriotism runs so deeply within Scotland.

That's incorrect. Up to 70% of the Scottish people have been against independence at every time asked for decades. This movement is driven by disillusionment with Westminster and their reluctance to grant Scotland the powers it needs, not by some tartan/shortbread vision.

 

[Rodhull]

I said essentially 2 NO votes, I never said it would have been explicitly stated as a NO I just simplified it in the list. I also find it funny that you think Devo would have been a runaway winner when nationalism and patriotism runs so deeply within Scotland.

I think it's a near guarantee that if Devo Max was on offer it would have won too. I think a significant number of the people voting No would have voted for it. Also a reasonable amount of Yes supporters would as well I think. It would possibly be seen as a more "reasonable" compromise.

Them just throwing it in at the last minute is kinda being seen as the act of desperation it is.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Giving up nukes, a UN Security Council veto, and the Prime Minister's office half the time... for what exactly? When the oil runs out the rest of Scotland will be as irrelevant globally as Celtic/Rangers have become.

I didn't even think about the flag situation until watching John Oliver on Sunday.
England's flag is crap, Scotland's is just average... if the Scots ruin one of the top three flags by voting for independence that would really suck.

 

[Chichikov]

Also saved the economy. Subsidising things which aren't cost effective long term rather than just dealing with the pain of an adjustment is pointless.

The one thing she got really wrong in my opinion was the Poll Tax, although Council Tax isn't really much better - postcode lottery.

She did such an amazing job saving the economy that it performed inline (though slightly worse for the most part) with every major industrial country in Europe -

wow, such saving, much economy.

p.s.
But she did excel in the "fucking working class poor" index, no doubt about that.

 

[Rodhull]

I didn't even think about the flag situation until watching John Oliver on Sunday.
England's flag is crap, Scotland's is just average... if the Scots ruin one of the top three flags by voting for independence that would really suck.

It's such an iconic flag I doubt they'd go through with changing it and I doubt if Scotland would care less in the unlikely event of gaining Independence.

Not that Scotland's approval would likely be considered important if it came down to it I'm sure.

 

[Chichikov]

I didn't even think about the flag situation until watching John Oliver on Sunday.
England's flag is crap, Scotland's is just average... if the Scots ruin one of the top three flags by voting for independence that would really suck.

First of all, you're a loyalist scum, I spit on you.
But more importantly, just stick the Welsh flag there somewhere, just put enough dragons until it's awesome.

 

[Xenex]

It doesn't.

The Yes campaign have convinced a lot of people that a YES vote means their own little vision for a perfect Scotland is the one that will come to exist in an iScotland, but I still don't believe that it's (mostly) fuelled by excessive patriotism.

I agree with you 100% bar the patriotism, when watching the debates, to me, YES supporters come across patriotic and I believe this is the reason why they think their iScotland will exist. Granted not every Scot is violent with it, but when you hear stories of YES Scots calling NO Scots English and intimidating them it's hard not to think the whole YES campaign as Nationalists.

That's incorrect. Up to 70% of the Scottish people have been against independence at every time asked for decades. This movement is driven by disillusionment with Westminster and their reluctance to grant Scotland the powers it needs, not by some tartan/shortbread vision.

I don't know where you're getting these 'facts' from but on TV today I saw that when the SNP tried to get independence last time YES/NO/'Didn't vote' got roughly a third each, needed to meet a threshold (50%) so the campaign failed. So I'm unsure where you grabbed the 70% figure from. Additionally, decades ago was...decades ago, society was completely different for example we had industries with very strong trade unions that united the working class of the Scottish and English. These unions have all but gone now, so as the variables have changed we can't just assume the future from past events.

Devo would/is leading to other states demanding Devo (English/Welsh want Devo) that would eventually lead to the states distancing themselves so much it's hard not to think they wouldn't become independent states anyway. I think this would be the cause of the reluctance you describe. However, I think your frustration may be misplaced, I actually think you are rebelling against the global market and Capitalism, whether you know it or not, as these were the cause of the recession that has led to many cuts, which has been felt all over the UK, and Westminster has acted as a scape goat.

I think it's a near guarantee that if Devo Max was on offer it would have won too. I think a significant number of the people voting No would have voted for it. Also a reasonable amount of Yes supporters would as well I think. It would possibly be seen as a more "reasonable" compromise.

Read above regarding Devo, I still think my points are valid but I can see your point of view, who knows what the outcome would have been...maybe in a different reality .

Them just throwing it in at the last minute is kinda being seen as the act of desperation it is.

I agree, it shouldn't have been done.

 

[Rodhull]

I agree with you 100% bar the patriotism, when watching the debates, to me, YES supporters come across patriotic and I believe this is the reason why they think their iScotland will exist. Granted not every Scot is violent with it, but when you hear stories of YES Scots calling NO Scots English and intimidating them it's hard not to think the whole YES campaign as Nationalists.

Certainly not condoning those that have done so and I know it sounds like an excuse but there really are arseholes on both sides of the argument. There seems to be very little coverage of the man attacked outside the Usher Hall the other night or the Yes vote meeting in Drumchapel that was intimidated into cancelling by a group of unionists. Obviously these people don't represent the average No voter either but it certainly seems to be getting framed as a very one sided problem.

Also I feel a lot of people outraged at the way Milliband was treated yesterday probably had a good laugh when the same happened to Nigel Farage a few months ago. I don't remember there being anywhere near the same level of reaction about it at all.

 

[luxarific]

So what do people think the new flag will look like

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scotland-independence-poll-new-united-4210039

Not sure I like any of the new designs. :/

 

[BertramCooper]

It's amazing how amicable the last few pages have been compared to what was going on earlier. I like this thread again. Awwwww c'mere, No Voters, we all want the same thing, just what's best for the people here.

Fucking English can't even get the shade of blue right in the Union Jack.

These fuckers have no respect for you, Scotland!

 

[lastplayed]

So what do people think the new flag will look like

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scotland-independence-poll-new-united-4210039

Not sure I like any of the new designs. :/

The one with the coat of arms is a bit weird, especially since it has Scotland all over it.

Fucking English can't even get the shade of blue right in the Union Jack.

These fuckers have no respect for you, Scotland!

The darker shade is intentional.

 

[kmag]

I agree with you 100% bar the patriotism, when watching the debates, to me, YES supporters come across patriotic and I believe this is the reason why they think their iScotland will exist. Granted not every Scot is violent with it, but when you hear stories of YES Scots calling NO Scots English and intimidating them it's hard not to think the whole YES campaign as Nationalists.



I don't know where you're getting these 'facts' from but on TV today I saw that when the SNP tried to get independence last time YES/NO/'Didn't vote' got roughly a third each, needed to meet a threshold (50%) so the campaign failed. So I'm unsure where you grabbed the 70% figure from. Additionally, decades ago was...decades ago, society was completely different for example we had industries with very strong trade unions that united the working class of the Scottish and English. These unions have all but gone now, so as the variables have changed we can't just assume the future from past events.

Devo would/is leading to other states demanding Devo (English/Welsh want Devo) that would eventually lead to the states distancing themselves so much it's hard not to think they wouldn't become independent states anyway. I think this would be the cause of the reluctance you describe. However, I think your frustration may be misplaced, I actually think you are rebelling against the global market and Capitalism, whether you know it or not, as these were the cause of the recession that has led to many cuts, which has been felt all over the UK, and Westminster has acted as a scape goat.



Read above regarding Devo, I still think my points are valid but I can see your point of view, who knows what the outcome would have been...maybe in a different reality .



I agree, it shouldn't have been done.

That wasn't independence in 1979 it was simple devolution. It got 52% of the vote but not enough people voted for it to count (thanks to a last minute Labour amendment to the bill which required 40% of the entire electorate not just those who voted to vote for yes, the actual number was 32% ).

Of course Westminster promised a lot about what would happen after a No vote then which turned out to be bullshit.

 

[kmag]

She did such an amazing job saving the economy that it performed inline (though slightly worse for the most part) with every major industrial country in Europe -

wow, such saving, much economy.

p.s.
But she did excel in the "fucking working class poor" index, no doubt about that.

Especially when you consider the amount of money flowing in from the North Sea in the early 80's. In 1983 net exports of fuel were worth a 'free' 4% of GDP, and more considering that up until the late 70's we were a net importer to the tune of 3% of GDP.

Thatcher didn't just squander a golden opportunity for Scotland, she squandered it for the whole of the UK. I suppose tax breaks and dole queues were better uses of the money.

 

[zero shift]

She did such an amazing job saving the economy that it performed inline (though slightly worse for the most part) with every major industrial country in Europe -

wow, such saving, much economy.

p.s.
But she did excel in the "fucking working class poor" index, no doubt about that.

The most amusing part of this is how Mitterrand's France surpassed Thatcher's United Kingdom.

 

[benjipwns]

The most amusing part of this is how Mitterrand's France surpassed Thatcher's United Kingdom.

France is in orange.

 

[zero shift]

France is in orange.

I am aware of that. They seem to be tracking a little higher than the U.K. there.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I am aware of that. They seem to be tracking a little higher than the U.K. there.

Yeah, but at the start and the end.

Thatcher is a tricky one to discuss though, because her policies fundamentally changed the economics of the country. This doesn't turn around GDP stats overnight nor even in a decade or two, but if you look at bow things were in the 70s - constant strikes, rolling blackouts, nationalised industries offering awful, awful services, rubbish piling up, bodies unburied, ridiculous nationalised industry policies (like the requirement to buy steel from British Steel at massively Inflated prices) - I really think it's hard to argue that the UK would now be a better place had we had 15 more years of Labour instead. And life back then was shitty for most people, which is why she got elected three times. Her biggest flaw wasn't that she closed mines and heavy industry that was basically a form of dangerous welfare, it's that she didn't do it slowly. Villages and towns with above-average unemployment can retrain and recover with a bit of time and support. Towns where unemployed jumps to 75% overnight cannot, and that was her biggest mistake IMO.

Anyway, I feel we have gone slightly off topic here...

 

[phisheep]

I am aware of that. They seem to be tracking a little higher than the U.K. there.

Bigger population, that's why.

 

[Chichikov]

Especially when you consider the amount of money flowing in from the North Sea in the early 80's. In 1983 net exports of fuel were worth a 'free' 4% of GDP, and more considering that up until the late 70's we were a net importer to the tune of 3% of GDP.

Thatcher didn't just squander a golden opportunity for Scotland, she squandered it for the whole of the UK. I suppose tax breaks and dole queues were better uses of the money.

And end like Norway?
Over BP's privatized dead body!

The most amusing part of this is how Mitterrand's France surpassed Thatcher's United Kingdom.

Nah, Italy is funnier.
That country is a constant reminder that people over-estimate the effect governments has on the economy.

p.s.
I should've really posted GDP per capita, it doesn't really matter all that much to the point I was trying to make, but still -

 

[SKINNER!]

yup:

who writes this shit?

 

[JonathanEx]

Poor Murdoch. It's so close he can't pick a side and pretend he was responsible for the result. Diddums.

 

[benjipwns]

I am aware of that. They seem to be tracking a little higher than the U.K. there.

But it started higher. All of them pretty much track together, as also shown by the per capita chart. They all shoot up at the same time after earlier stagnation.

Hard to say much of anything about Thatcher or Mitterand from that.

 

[Ashes]

Scottish Independence Movement’s Wager on Energy Could Prove Risky

Interesting article... this bit in particular...

“It’s Scotland’s oil” was the rallying cry in the 1970s that helped raise the profile of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which now leads the country and is pushing for a vote to secede in the referendum on Thursday. Alex Salmond, the politician leading the separatist movement, has pointed to North Sea energy as the treasure that would help finance an independent Scotland — ensuring that the country could continue the generous public spending, including free university tuition, that he is promising voters.

But North Sea energy revenue — even if the bulk of it went to a stand-alone Scotland, as is expected — would not be sufficient to justify such a big bet on the country’s economic future.

The approximately 5 billion pounds, or $8 billion, that the British government received in tax revenue from North Sea energy last year would have been the equivalent of only about 3 percent of the Scottish economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/b...s-wager-on-energy-could-prove-risky.html?_r=0

 

[RulkezX]

who writes this shit?

The next 11 pages are essentially Yes propaganda pieces. Editorial policy has been clear as day for weeks now.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Yeah, but at the start and the end.

Thatcher is a tricky one to discuss though, because her policies fundamentally changed the economics of the country. This doesn't turn around GDP stats overnight nor even in a decade or two, but if you look at bow things were in the 70s - constant strikes, rolling blackouts, nationalised industries offering awful, awful services, rubbish piling up, bodies unburied, ridiculous nationalised industry policies (like the requirement to buy steel from British Steel at massively Inflated prices) - I really think it's hard to argue that the UK would now be a better place had we had 15 more years of Labour instead. And life back then was shitty for most people, which is why she got elected three times. Her biggest flaw wasn't that she closed mines and heavy industry that was basically a form of dangerous welfare, it's that she didn't do it slowly. Villages and towns with above-average unemployment can retrain and recover with a bit of time and support. Towns where unemployed jumps to 75% overnight cannot, and that was her biggest mistake IMO.

Anyway, I feel we have gone slightly off topic here...

My father ran a small manufacturing company. He was really annoyed by the all the strikes but in the Thatcher era he had to close up and try to get any job he could. He didn't have to worry about strikes but he also didn't have to worry about running his own business. Thatcher just wiped away all sorts of worries and concerns. Many manufacturing businesses would have been viable in the long term but Thatchers short term economic "shock" policies forced them to close their doors.

 

[phisheep]

Thatcher is a tricky one to discuss though,

Indeed. And it was also hardly a case of the evil Tory English running roughshod over the totally left-ish Scotland either.

Fully half of Thatcher's initial majority of 44 seats came from the 22 Conservative seats in Scotland.

 

[Chichikov]

Scottish Independence Movement’s Wager on Energy Could Prove Risky

Interesting article... this bit in particular...



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/b...s-wager-on-energy-could-prove-risky.html?_r=0

I'm pretty sure Scotland will not let the oil companies fuck them in the ass like the English.

Scotland has a similar population as Norway and they have comparable oil reserves.
This worked pretty damn well for Norway.

 

[RulkezX]

I'm pretty sure Scotland will not let the oil companies fuck them in the ass like the English.

Scotland has a similar population as Norway and they have comparable oil reserves.
This worked pretty damn well for Norway.

That's the fully state owned Nowegian oil?

You can't have an oil fund AND maintain/increase spending when that oil money is already being spent.

Unless Salmond has discovered a way to spend the same money twice?