Seil Chat

longshanks wrote: . . . the most successful political, economic and social union the world has ever seen . . .

For England perhaps. Sadly it has never really been seen as a union of equals, as witnessed by the steady drip of 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' rhetoric from the NO campaign.

MonaLott wrote:Fair points, Jim. Unfortunately, this debate was then further sidetracked and splintered by Longshanks starting 3 separate new threads on the very same topic.

It's what he does. Carpet bombing the forum with quick to post propaganda posters in an attempt to drown out any real debate.

All of these 'Better Together' arguments are easily refuted and have been dozens of times by better men than me, but of course it takes time. While it is only Longshanks and the Pirate posting the same repetitive fallacies over and over there can be no real debate on here.

I know there are dozens reading this from the sidelines . . . Why don't some of you get involved? On either side?

Or for more information on all the issues take a look at a site I put together over the holidays :

http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/

NickB wrote: It's what he does. Carpet bombing the forum with quick to post propaganda posters in an attempt to drown out any real debate.

I will not take that as rude because I am very aware of the enforcement of forum rules but I will say that my posting of arguments in favour of staying in the most successful political, economic and social union the world has ever seen is, in fact, a means of stimulating debate.

You finished all your tasks I presume ? I was rather worried when you posted this last night as your input is valued by all sides.

NickB wrote:"I'm going to be too busy for a while now to do more than take an occasional peek."

Skipping past the Longshanks remarks - in reply to Mona Lot -
On the face of it all very laudible - seperate nations all pulling together with a common purpose but able to act independently, if they so choose, and the divergence would probably start very soon - defence, currency, Eu membership, NATO, just to mention a few.
There is an old axiom - United they stand, divided they fall.
Take the case of Ireland (Eire that is) - They managed to break away from the British Isles (admittedly they were treated rather badly) but while the UK still has some standing on the world scene, and has a seat on the Security council, G8, climate change, and other august bodies, Ireland has little clout, Scotland would suffer the same fate, and even a splintered UK would probably find their place taken by a more influential candidate.

.
Why would Scotland want a seat on the security council?

It doesn't have one now, the UK does.

I don't recall the Scottish government ever being consulted before a security council decision was taken, do you?

So I don't see what difference independence would make on that score.

My point was that currently, - on the international scene, north of the border, we are part of a larger (UK) decision making process internationally, in many fields. We still have representatives, appointed by ourselves, as members of that body, to speak on our behalf. With the case of Ireland, their influence internationally, was diminished with seperatism.
Now it may be that the proponents of Nationalism are quite happy to live in their own little bubble and ignore the rest of the world and it's problems, but alliances have more clout, and Scotland as a member of the EU, NATO, and the UK can speak with an authorative voice on humanitarian concerns.
I am not suggesting that an Independant Scotland would suddenly aspire to have a seat at G8 or other influential bodies, but as part of a fractured UK, the UK might well lose a lot of it's current status, to the detriment of our current ability to be a force for the good of humanity.

Jim, you can't really believe that the UK, with its recent record of causing death by ill-judged wars and of its worship of money at any cost, has been 'a force for the good of humanity'?

It's rubbish to say that Scots don't have a voice in many major British Government decisions both for the UK, defence and foreign policy. Has everyone conveniently forgotten how many of the top ministers and even a PM or two at Westminster, in just the last 10years have been Scots or had Scottish blood in them?

Not so long ago it was a significant concern that there were quite so many Scots in key posts in the 'Westminster' government

The Yes campaigners will suggest they were the wrong type of Scots (sure they were: they screwed a lot of things up), ones who support the Union, but what's wrong with that? After all they share the same views as the majority.