4 ms·

First, I'm from Scotland and I also voted against independence, fwiw. I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information

First, I'm from Scotland and I also voted against independence, fwiw. I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?). My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability. We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more. The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country. It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least. In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine. The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!). If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo. And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in. There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway! Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician. Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please

frereubu 7y ago
Thanks, appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts (despite this item being flagged!) If the leave campaign had been explicitly about moving to a Norway-style arrangement, for example, I'd have had much more sympathy for it, despite not wanting it personally. There's a reasoned argument that the main benefit of the EU is trade, although I would add that this view is complicated by the link between things like free movement of goods and free movement of people. I would arge that, while there would indeed be lies and bullshit in another referendum, they wouldn't be the same ones because they'd at least have to be largely based on the concrete reality of the deal. The person I really blame in all of this is that intellectual lightweight David Cameron. The referendum was mainly called to stop infighting in his party. It was done with no clear terms - i.e. what did Leave really mean? - which meant that people were able to argue past each other rather than engage on substantive points. His pantomime "renegotiation" before the referendum was utter crap, and the threats of "third world war" were completely overdone. (Although I do think it's worth remembering the role of the EU in the longest period of peace in Europe in history). I think the really sad thing in all of this is the culture war that it has provoked, which in my view is all to do with the nebulous idea of what "leave" meant. This leads to stupidities like a "Festival of Brexit", which celebrates something that almost half of voters explicitly voted against, and which will only deepen those fractures. I'm English, but have studied and lived in Scotland for a number of years at different points, and it has a big place in my heart. I would have voted no in the independence referendum too, and I can't help but think there's only one way that is going to go now, sooner or later.
- arethuza 7y ago
  I must admit its going to be fun re-using the "Its not about the money" arguments for Brexit to argue for Scottish Independence - the "No" campaign then being the origin of the "Project Fear" strategy.
  - _Understated_ 7y ago
    For me, independence is entirely about the money. There is a 20% budget deficit on day one of independence: 8% from the "danger" of Brexit (SNP's own slides!) and 12% approximately from the Barnett formula. I asked a panel of SNP MSP's what they were going to do about the deficit since we'll technically be worse off than Greece on day one of independence and they wouldn't commit to an answer as they were waiting for George Osborne (the chancellor at the time) to provide them with exact figures... this was in a room full of Entrepreneurs in Ayrshire in 2016 (might have been 2017, can't quite remember the date). They got heckled for that answer. I maintain that if they can come up with something plausible to answer the question of what we do on day one when we are bankrupt, I will look at the rest of the evidence. Until then, there's no point. I will vote no. So the money angle is perfectly valid in the case of independence.

frereubu 7y ago

Thanks, appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts (despite this item being flagged!) If the leave campaign had been explicitly about moving to a Norway-style arrangement, for example, I'd have had much more sympathy for it, despite not wanting it personally. There's a reasoned argument that the main benefit of the EU is trade, although I would add that this view is complicated by the link between things like free movement of goods and free movement of people. I would arge that, while there would indeed be lies and bullshit in another referendum, they wouldn't be the same ones because they'd at least have to be largely based on the concrete reality of the deal. The person I really blame in all of this is that intellectual lightweight David Cameron. The referendum was mainly called to stop infighting in his party. It was done with no clear terms - i.e. what did Leave really mean? - which meant that people were able to argue past each other rather than engage on substantive points. His pantomime "renegotiation" before the referendum was utter crap, and the threats of "third world war" were completely overdone. (Although I do think it's worth remembering the role of the EU in the longest period of peace in Europe in history). I think the really sad thing in all of this is the culture war that it has provoked, which in my view is all to do with the nebulous idea of what "leave" meant. This leads to stupidities like a "Festival of Brexit", which celebrates something that almost half of voters explicitly voted against, and which will only deepen those fractures. I'm English, but have studied and lived in Scotland for a number of years at different points, and it has a big place in my heart. I would have voted no in the independence referendum too, and I can't help but think there's only one way that is going to go now, sooner or later.

arethuza 7y ago
I must admit its going to be fun re-using the "Its not about the money" arguments for Brexit to argue for Scottish Independence - the "No" campaign then being the origin of the "Project Fear" strategy.
- _Understated_ 7y ago
  For me, independence is entirely about the money. There is a 20% budget deficit on day one of independence: 8% from the "danger" of Brexit (SNP's own slides!) and 12% approximately from the Barnett formula. I asked a panel of SNP MSP's what they were going to do about the deficit since we'll technically be worse off than Greece on day one of independence and they wouldn't commit to an answer as they were waiting for George Osborne (the chancellor at the time) to provide them with exact figures... this was in a room full of Entrepreneurs in Ayrshire in 2016 (might have been 2017, can't quite remember the date). They got heckled for that answer. I maintain that if they can come up with something plausible to answer the question of what we do on day one when we are bankrupt, I will look at the rest of the evidence. Until then, there's no point. I will vote no. So the money angle is perfectly valid in the case of independence.