Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Holebender
|
Too small, too poor, too stupidThere was a unionist poster on here recently (sorry, can't remember which one of you it was) who claimed that arguments based on the myths of Scotland being too small, poor, and/or stupid to be independent were exclusively fabricated by nationalists, that unionists would never put forward such ideas.
Please take a look at the thread entitled the economic case for independence - sunk. Started by someone who is explicitly arguing that Scotland is too small and poor to sustain independence, and implicitly arguing that Scotland's population is too stupid to find a way out of a banking crisis. This entire thread has been started and sustained by someone who opposes independence and supports union.
Would anyone care to reconsider just who it is who makes the too small, too poor, too stupid arguments?
|
Ultra
|
Re: Too small, too poor, too stupid | Holebender wrote: | There was a unionist poster on here recently (sorry, can't remember which one of you it was) who claimed that arguments based on the myths of Scotland being too small, poor, and/or stupid to be independent were exclusively fabricated by nationalists, that unionists would never put forward such ideas.
Please take a look at the thread entitled the economic case for independence - sunk. Started by someone who is explicitly arguing that Scotland is too small and poor to sustain independence, and implicitly arguing that Scotland's population is too stupid to find a way out of a banking crisis. This entire thread has been started and sustained by someone who opposes independence and supports union.
Would anyone care to reconsider just who it is who makes the too small, too poor, too stupid arguments? |
You because you are using the same type of argument to try and get people to vote for independence by implying unionist are saying Scots and Scotland are too small, too poor, and too stupid to be independent.
Playground politics.
|
Holebender
|
I am not implying anything. I am stating that a unionist poster has a thread running in which he explicitly argues that Scotland is too small and too poor to be independent. It was you (I remember now) who said this sort of thing only ever comes from nationalists and, indeed, you're even trying to say it here.
Just read the thread mentioned at the start of this one and then come back and tell us if you still stand by your claim that unionists never make the very argument put forward in that thread.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | I am not implying anything. I am stating that a unionist poster has a thread running in which he explicitly argues that Scotland is too small and too poor to be independent. It was you (I remember now) who said this sort of thing only ever comes from nationalists and, indeed, you're even trying to say it here.
Just read the thread mentioned at the start of this one and then come back and tell us if you still stand by your claim that unionists never make the very argument put forward in that thread. |
You are implying that Scotland is too small, too poor, and too stupid in this thread by implication. Why don't you put up some evidence which proves Scotland isn't too poor, too small, or too stupid to manage it's own affairs when independent? How would you measure an independent Scotland being a success and successfully managing it's affairs?
What I actually said was several Nationalists including Salmond himself also use this argument to try and encourage people to vote for independence or the SNP.
I never said Unionists don't use this argument too. However, Braveheart is stating that an independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the bank due to the size of the capital injection required to re-capitalize the banks balance sheets and guarantee bad debts.
So I still stand by what I said in relation to independence supporters using this argument to try and get people to vote for independence clearly backed up yet again by the need for you, an independence supporter, to highlight the too small, too poor, and too stupid argument.
Playground stuff. Haven't you got any better arguments except for claiming the unionist supporters are calling the people of Scotland too small, too, poor, and too stupid to run an independent Scotland?
Closer to the truth will be Scotland will find it's level in the global scheme of things in scale, wealth, and intelligence if it ever did become independent and competes on the global stage.
What country do you work in again Holebender?
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | You are implying that Scotland is too small, too poor, and too stupid in this thread. |
No I am not, and anyone with a reading age above ten can see that I am not. I am implying nothing, I am stating that a unionist poster is saying exactly this in another thread.
Your premise is that nationalists make up arguments about Scotland being too poor, etc. in order to persuade people of the merits of independence (although how you think we expect to win with that sort of argument has always escaped me). I am pointing out the fact that there is a thread running on this forum, started and sustained by a unionist, which is making exactly the too poor, too small argument. It is right there in black and white and yet you still try to tell us it's a nationalist tactic.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | You are implying that Scotland is too small, too poor, and too stupid in this thread. |
No I am not, and anyone with a reading age above ten can see that I am not. I am implying nothing, I am stating that a unionist poster is saying exactly this in another thread.
Your premise is that nationalists make up arguments about Scotland being too poor, etc. in order to persuade people of the merits of independence (although how you think we expect to win with that sort of argument has always escaped me). I am pointing out the fact that there is a thread running on this forum, started and sustained by a unionist, which is making exactly the too poor, too small argument. It is right there in black and white and yet you still try to tell us it's a nationalist tactic. |
Holebender I am not going to sit and go over old ground when indeed I posted up an article previously featuring Salmond stating the 'Too small, too poor, too stupid, aruguments being used in the very context I have said in this thread. It's not for me to say why nationalists use this line of argument as it is very childish.
I could not care less whether unionist use the same argument too. Anyone who does should be treated with the same contempt. An independent Scotland will find it's level globally.
Braveheart's thread is entitled 'The Economic case for Independence -Sunk' so are you claiming that an independent Scotland could have afforded to bail out banks and guarantee debts to the tune of £100 bn's and also that Scotland with 6 million inhabitants and even less paying tax would have been afforded the same level of credit and on the same terms as the UK?
The point I made in this thread is that it was several the Scottish clearing banks who print bank notes and are head officed in Scotland who were bailed out. Are you denying this also?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | I posted up an article previously featuring Salmond stating the 'Too small, too poor, too stupid, aruguments |
NO YOU DIDN'T.
What you posted was an article in which Salmond QUOTED the argument so often put forward by unionists, in order to disagree with that argument. You can't say that when somebody QUOTES something, in order to express disagreement with it, that they are putting forward the argument with which they disagree. If you look at the top of this post, you will find the statement "I posted an article previously featuring Salmond stating the 'To small, too poor, too stupid aruguments". That is a quote from YOU. Although it was me that QUOTED that statement, it was you that SAID it. I explicitly disagreed with your statement.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | I posted up an article previously featuring Salmond stating the 'Too small, too poor, too stupid, aruguments |
NO YOU DIDN'T.
What you posted was an article in which Salmond QUOTED the argument so often put forward by unionists, in order to disagree with that argument. You can't say that when somebody QUOTES something, in order to express disagreement with it, that they are putting forward the argument with which they disagree. If you look at the top of this post, you will find the statement "I posted an article previously featuring Salmond stating the 'To small, too poor, too stupid aruguments". That is a quote from YOU. Although it was me that QUOTED that statement, it was you that SAID it. I explicitly disagreed with your statement. |
Salmond brought up the subject of Scotland being too poor, too small, and too stupid in an article I posted. Salmond was quoted in the article. This is a fact. So by saying I did not post up an article is not true and is a lie.
I don't really care what sort of play on words you want to use to try and spin this one out. I can't even be bother to go and find the article as it's really too stupid to spend time arguing about the merits of what he said when in fact he did say it. That is the point Dave. He said it in the article which you admit. Another contridiction....
Who cares whether you agreed or disagree. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is Salmond said those words in an article I posted up. So why disagree just for the sake of it?
|
Holebender
|
Ultra, your level of comprehension is far too low for a meaningful political debate.
Consider this; a university debating society is debating Scottish independence. The student arguing against independence says Scotland is too small to become independent. The student arguing for independence says "my opponent says Scotland is too small, but what about Malta? Malta is much smaller than Scotland, but is independent." Now, is the second student making the argument that Scotland is too small?
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Your premise is that nationalists make up arguments about Scotland being too poor, etc. in order to persuade people of the merits of independence (although how you think we expect to win with that sort of argument has always escaped me). |
Because nationalists have always relied on the 'London/the English/the Establishment doesn't care about you' line. The suggestion is that these anonymous arguers somehow hold Scotland in contempt, whilst nationalists can deflect back with Macdiarmidian praise of how Scotland and the Scottish people are so big, clever and all-round terrific.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | Ultra, your level of comprehension is far too low for a meaningful political debate.
Consider this; a university debating society is debating Scottish independence. The student arguing against independence says Scotland is too small to become independent. The student arguing for independence says "my opponent says Scotland is too small, but what about Malta? Malta is much smaller than Scotland, but is independent." Now, is the second student making the argument that Scotland is too small? |
Holebender, when you can't dis-prove the fact that Salmond did indeed utter those words in an article, you deflect the debate on to me being 'too stupid'. Oh the irony. I know what context Salmond and umpteen nationalists on this site uttered those very words and in which context. Context is the part you seem to have great difficulty understanding.
Is this not what your whole thread is complaining about? I'm a Scot. What a hypocrite you are.
The fact is nationalists use the 'too small, too poor, and too stupid' argument in a different context to whip up support for independence. I have said this umpteen times which has been ignored every time by nationalist supporters prefering to steer any debate on to what unionists or Westminister parties say.
ie The unionists are staying Scots and Scotland are 'Too small, too poor and too stupid' to run an independent Scotland.
I have even said that I do not agee with those statements on Scotland being too small, too poor, and too stupid. Again, this has been completely ignored by you along with my opinion on Scotland finding it's level on the gloabl stage.
Maybe you would like to deny I said this also because it does not quite fit your stereotypical views?
Also, what context did Braveheart use the economic banks bail out arguments in? Which part do you not agree with? Then go and look up the creidt rating for a similar sized country to Scotland and compare it to the UK?
|
Holebender
|
Context is the very part you completely fail to get. You say you understand the context, but then go on to prove you don't by saying Salmond, or whoever, makes the argument. Salmond and other supporters of independence only ever bring up the argument in order to refute it. They don't say Scotland is too poor, small, etc. they say it is not. The fact that you persist in your line of argument just proves you don't understand the context.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Context is the very part you completely fail to get. You say you understand the context, but then go on to prove you don't by saying Salmond, or whoever, makes the argument. Salmond and other supporters of independence only ever bring up the argument in order to refute it. They don't say Scotland is too poor, small, etc. they say it is not. The fact that you persist in your line of argument just proves you don't understand the context. |
I said independence supporters use the same argument in a different context. Please feel free to point out where I have said independence supporters describe Scotland and it's people as being 'too small, too poor, and too stupid' because I never have and you are the one making out I have. So you do not understand the context. You have just proved you don't understand the context because you are too busy trying to score points by making out I am saying Salmond says Scotland is too poor, too small, and too stupid when clearly I haven't. You are the one who continually mentions this even starting this thread.
I just think you are an utter hypocrite to describe me as 'too stupid' to debate politics when you complain about unionist doing the same thing to Scots being 'too stupid'
Both unionists and independence use the 'too small, too poor, too stupid' argument. Please provide evidence on where I have said they don't also. I have provided evidence on Salmond using this argument and also other independence supporters on this site.
So what have we established Holebender?
Salmond said those words and both unionists and independence supports use this argument which both you and Dave have confirmed they do.
I notice you still fail to acknowledge the other fact that I went on to say Scotland would find it's level in on a global stage be it on scale, wealth, and intellect.
You have also failed to acknowledge most other questions you have been asked on this thread or provide any evidence to back up why you think Scotland would be able to manage it's affairs when independent and what bench mark of success you would use.
Which country is it you are working these days Holebender for the third time?
|
Stevie
|
Holebender, you seem to have struck a nerve with the Brit Nats.
It's quite funny really.
For decades, the Brit Nat Labourites and Toryites went on and on about Scotland being too small, incapable of financially sustaining itself; here the Brit Nats are saying it's the nationalists who are using this as some sort of clever ruse.
Of course this is just more Brit Nat bollocks.
During the last Scottish parliamentary elections the Labour party were going on and on in this same vein and it pissed off enough voters to hurt them. All my life I've had to listen to an endless supply of Brit Nats go on about how Scotland is incapable of looking after itself and argue the contrary.
Ultra is perhaps too young to be aware of the history but Aventinian isn't.
They're speaking a lot of drivel.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Salmond brought up the subject of Scotland being too poor, too small, and too stupid |
NO HE DIDN'T.
What Salmond brought up was the fact that UNIONISTS say Scotland is "too small, too poor, too stupid". He was QUOTING this in order to disagree with it. | Ultra wrote: | | saying I did not post up an article is not true |
For all I know, you may have posted up hundreds of articles, on dozens of forums. That's not what was in dispute. What was in dispute was your claim to have posted an article with "Salmond stating the 'Too small, too poor, too stupid, aruguments". Salmond has NEVER "stated" these arguments. What he has done is QUOTE them, in order to disagree with them, which is a completely different thing. Holebender is correct in stating that the "too small, too poor, too stupid" arguments are exclusive to Unionists, and the example that he gave of this | Quote: | | the thread entitled the economic case for independence - sunk |
put forward by the inappropriately named "Braveheart", proves his point.
|
landg
|
once again it is a nationilist that brings up the wee and poor argument. NOT a unionist.scotland is well able to be and would be fine as an independent nation, i just have not seen a good arguemnrt for it and better arguments for the status quo.
scotland as an indepedent nation COULD not have affored to bail out the banks as an independent nation.end of story. another point in favour of maintaining the union.
stop the wee and poor thing please guys, it's patroninsing at best and downright insulting to those who know of our capablities and achievments.
|
Ultra
|
| Stevie wrote: | Holebender, you seem to have struck a nerve with the Brit Nats.
It's quite funny really.
For decades, the Brit Nat Labourites and Toryites went on and on about Scotland being too small, incapable of financially sustaining itself; here the Brit Nats are saying it's the nationalists who are using this as some sort of clever ruse.
Of course this is just more Brit Nat bollocks.
During the last Scottish parliamentary elections the Labour party were going on and on in this same vein and it pissed off enough voters to hurt them. All my life I've had to listen to an endless supply of Brit Nats go on about how Scotland is incapable of looking after itself and argue the contrary.
Ultra is perhaps too young to be aware of the history but Aventinian isn't.
They're speaking a lot of drivel. |
Bit rich coming from someone who now lives in France and brings up their family there too.
It's the usual Nationalist smoke screen of denying what nationalists actually say and them blaming others by making out they have said something they haven't.
Aren't you a relative of Holebender too? Oh dear.... Tends to run in families this nationalist thing. I blame the parents and grandparents.
Funny how neither of you live in Scotland but have alot to say about it.
How about integrating yourselves into the culture and country you live in?
|
Stevie
|
Yes, too young to remember.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Salmond brought up the subject of Scotland being too poor, too small, and too stupid |
NO HE DIDN'T.
What Salmond brought up was the fact that UNIONISTS say Scotland is "too small, too poor, too stupid". He was QUOTING this in order to disagree with it. | Ultra wrote: | | saying I did not post up an article is not true |
For all I know, you may have posted up hundreds of articles, on dozens of forums. That's not what was in dispute. What was in dispute was your claim to have posted an article with "Salmond stating the 'Too small, too poor, too stupid, aruguments". Salmond has NEVER "stated" these arguments. What he has done is QUOTE them, in order to disagree with them, which is a completely different thing. Holebender is correct in stating that the "too small, too poor, too stupid" arguments are exclusive to Unionists, and the example that he gave of this | Quote: | | the thread entitled the economic case for independence - sunk |
put forward by the inappropriately named "Braveheart", proves his point. |
Dave, Salmond brought up the subject of 'Too poor, too small, too stupid' in the article whether he was quoting unionists or not. Stop lying and making out that Salmond never said it.
|
Stevie
|
Salmond probably said it in order to highlight the unionists' penchant for going on about Scotland being too this or too that to go it alone.
We've heard it a million times from the Brit Nats.
The confusing thing is that despite your using it as some sort of 'argument', you don't seem to realize it's a Brit Nat argument.
Just to let you know, it's not working and the people of Scotland know all about it.
|
Ultra
|
| Stevie wrote: | Salmond probably said it in order to highlight the unionists' penchant for going on about Scotland being too this or too that to go it alone.
We've heard it a million times from the Brit Nats.
The confusing thing is that despite your using it as some sort of 'argument', you don't seem to realize it's a Brit Nat argument.
Just to let you know, it's not working and the people of Scotland know all about it. |
How come Stevie?
Haven't you read the thread or just have difficult understanding which context I have been using explained many times because it doesn't fit the nationalist agenda?
No Stevie. What you mean is it's far easier to focus on whipping up the 'too' arguments and not answer any of the direct questions put to the nationalists on this thread.
Far easier to concentrate on the same thing and repeat and cut and paste the same blickered thinking time and again.
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | I just think you are an utter hypocrite to describe me as 'too stupid' to debate politics |
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra, your level of comprehension is far too low for a meaningful political debate. |
I did not say you or anyone else was 'too stupid'. I said you are not contributing to the debate because of a failure to comprehend the subject.
|
Stevie
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Stevie wrote: | Salmond probably said it in order to highlight the unionists' penchant for going on about Scotland being too this or too that to go it alone.
We've heard it a million times from the Brit Nats.
The confusing thing is that despite your using it as some sort of 'argument', you don't seem to realize it's a Brit Nat argument.
Just to let you know, it's not working and the people of Scotland know all about it. |
How come Stevie?
Haven't you read the thread or just have difficult understanding which context I have been using explained many times because it doesn't fit the nationalist agenda?
No Stevie. What you mean is it's far easier to focus on whipping up the 'too' arguments and not answer any of the direct questions put to the nationalists on this thread.
Far easier to concentrate on the same thing and repeat and cut and paste the same blickered thinking time and again. |
This line of argument from the Brit Nats is stupid.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | I just think you are an utter hypocrite to describe me as 'too stupid' to debate politics |
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra, your level of comprehension is far too low for a meaningful political debate. |
I did not say you or anyone else was 'too stupid'. I said you are not contributing to the debate because of a failure to comprehend the subject. |
We know what you meant Holebender. No need for you to try and explain away your comments.
You might want to start by answering the umpteen questions that I have put to you in this thread which you have ignored.
That would give the posters on the site an idea of your comprehension on the subject. Mine is quite clear.
|
Holebender
|
Ultra, why does it matter where people live or work? Is a Scot in Afghanistan any less Scottish than a Scot in Airdrie?
For your information, although it is nobody's business, I live in Scotland. I am in my house in Scotland right now. Should I berate you for spending so much time in England? Is it relevant?
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | Ultra, why does it matter where people live or work? Is a Scot in Afghanistan any less Scottish than a Scot in Airdrie?
For your information, although it is nobody's business, I live in Scotland. I am in my house in Scotland right now. Should I berate you for spending so much time in England? Is it relevant? |
Funny Holebender. A few weeks ago you were somewhere working in the oil industry in Angola...
It is relevant because you spend so much time commenting on Scotland and Scottish oil production but you do not actually work in it yourself. Is the draw of the buck too much?
|
Braveheart
|
oh dear oh dear...
this
| Quote: | | There was a unionist poster on here recently (sorry, can't remember which one of you it was) who claimed that arguments based on the myths of Scotland being too small, poor, and/or stupid to be independent were exclusively fabricated by nationalists, that unionists would never put forward such ideas. |
on a thread entitled "too small, too poor, too stupid" started by....????
a nationalist!!!!
case over and out....!!!!   
|
Holebender
|
Another one with trouble understanding. The subject of this thread draws attention to the arguments so often used by unionists, and the opening post explains that it is your thread which is making that very argument.
Ultra, have you ever heard of commuting? I just have a longer commute than most people. Who do you think knows more about the Scottish oil industry, a Scot with no connection to the business or a person who works full time in oil & gas?
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | Another one with trouble understanding. The subject of this thread draws attention to the arguments so often used by unionists, and the opening post explains that it is your thread which is making that very argument.
Ultra, have you ever heard of commuting? I just have a longer commute than most people. Who do you think knows more about the Scottish oil industry, a Scot with no connection to the business or a person who works full time in oil & gas? |
Who says I do not have a connection to the business?
I am sure you commute between Angola and Scotland. But not very often. Every couple of months at best?
|
Holebender
|
I spend 4 weeks away and then 4 weeks at home. How much time have you spent away from home in the past month? You enjoy telling us about your trips to England, after all.
As I said, what difference does it make? What is your point? Are you one of those newspaper trolls who think only people who spend every day of their lives in Scotland know anything about Scotland?
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | I spend 4 weeks away and then 4 weeks at home. How much time have you spent away from home in the past month? You enjoy telling us about your trips to England, after all.
As I said, what difference does it make? What is your point? Are you one of those newspaper trolls who think only people who spend every day of their lives in Scotland know anything about Scotland? |
Like I said I live and work in Scotland completely. A family member passing away brings me to spending so much time in England at the moment.
So why don't you work in the Scottish oil industry, developing new technology, and contribute to this countries economy fully and not somewhere elses?
Do you see the point now?
Ah yes, you are back to trolls now because I am getting closer to the mark and more deflection on to another topic.
|
Ultra
|
More interesting data on the effect the global Economic Crisis has had to Iceland's and Ireland's credit rating after bailing out the banks....
Iceland’s Banks Flunk at Fitch Ratings
The Icelandic banking system was given the lowest rating possible for a developed state at the international agency Fitch Ratings this week. Iceland and Vietnam are in the same category but Tunisia and Ecuador rank higher than Iceland.
Landsbanki, one of Iceland's three largest banks that collapsed last year. Copyright: Icelandic Photo Agency.
Fitch releases two reports every year, evaluating the stability of the banking systems in different countries. Usually, industrial nations are rated with a B or C. No state was given an A this time but Australia, Canada and Hong Kong earned a B, RÚV reports.
The US and the UK are rated with C. Ireland, Belgium and Iceland rank at the bottom among developed countries; the first two were given a D, while Iceland received the lowest rate possible for a developed country: E.
Before the banking collapse of October 2008, Fitch rated Iceland with a C but the collapse made it plummet down two categories.
The banking systems of countries in the E category are considered extremely weak, a statement from Fitch explained.
A slight increase in pressure can cause a wide-reaching crisis, which burns up the banking system’s equity, and require financial support from the government or shareholders.
|
chicmac
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | I am not implying anything. I am stating that a unionist poster has a thread running in which he explicitly argues that Scotland is too small and too poor to be independent. It was you (I remember now) who said this sort of thing only ever comes from nationalists and, indeed, you're even trying to say it here.
Just read the thread mentioned at the start of this one and then come back and tell us if you still stand by your claim that unionists never make the very argument put forward in that thread. |
You are implying that Scotland is too small, too poor, and too stupid in this thread by implication. |
Well I don't know what you are implying the implication of H's thread is but you seem to be implying something. Seems he made more a statement of fact to me.
| Ultra wrote: |
Why don't you put up some evidence which proves Scotland isn't too poor, too small, or too stupid to manage it's own affairs when independent? |
While one should generally avoid getting involved in disproving negatives, since the U-community seem to have little else to offer, I will try to deal with all three of their favourite myths. Although approaching from a more positive angle.
First - Scotland is too Small
Many researchers have concluded that a good balance between the benefits of economies of scale/international leverage and the negatives of bureaucratic inertia/corruption comes about at a population of around 5 million. e.g. the Hudson Institute as far back as the 60s predicted countries with populations of about 5 million would fare better on average over the ensuing decades.
However, we do not have to rely on theory and prediction. We can look at National Gross Domestic Product per capita as an indicator of how well countries are actually doing.
It doesn't matter whether you look at IMF, World Bank or CIA data, if you average the population of the top 10 countries for GDP per capita, the average population is just over 5 million, i.e. very close to Scotland's population.
Note this is not an implication it is a verifiable fact and can be checked simply by looking here:
http://tinyurl.com/8hw7x
You may notice that one large country, USA is just outside the top ten on the lists (may even be inside on PPP adjusted lists) but I would point out that the USA is a true federation with each State setting various taxes and fiscal policies of its own, and that the average size of an American State is not far off 5 million either.
Whichever way you look at it, Scotland's size would certainly be no barrier to success.
Second - Scotland is too Poor
Scotland, unlike England, is underpopulated, we grow more than we need whereas England has to import half its food.
Scotland also has the best fishing stocks in Europe.
We also have enormous energy resources, not just oil but in HE, Wind and Wave as well. And that is not including the yet untapped Tidal Stream resource which could generate all of Scotland's electricity requirement using out of sight turbines and North Sea expertise already acquired in the oil sector.
Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce working in industry than the rest of the UK although still not enough and Scotland has suffered from UK policies stemming from the anti-industrial paradigm which has grown even worse in recent decades down South.
Notable successes are in semiconductor design and manufacturing in stark contrast to failures elsewhere in the UK , electronics production, heavy engineering, software development and production (although now under attack as UK ministers are currently pumping taxpayer's money into the Manchester area in this industry. However they did the same with semiconductors and that didn't work then.)
Tourism is still worth 5 billion a year despite the wind farms.
We still have a virtual monopoly on production of one of the World's favourite spirits.
And note ALL of the above are genuine wealth creating activities.
Yes we do have a significant financial services sector which is not genuinely wealth creating and is therefore at risk in the new real economik where the "all you need is service industry" myth is dead, but we are not nearly as exposed as the UK.
Given Scotland's very fortunate resource rich status in all the key areas, agriculture, fishing, fossil energy, renewable energy, forestry and tourism there really would need to be something awry with the people of Scotland if they were not to be better off than average, which segways neatly into the last myth.
Third - Scots are too Stupid.
The racist nature of this contention is so distasteful it is tempting to ignore it in disgust.
However, I will just point out that the Scottish education system was the first to achieve full literacy. The Scottish Enlightenment lead the way in the age of reason. Scottish emigrants ran large corporations and countries all over the World. Scottish engineers and generals were in demand around the World.
I will not reproduce the huge list of inventions and discoveries made by Scots.
Today, contrary to negative propaganda, Scottish schools education is still near the top in most areas on the OECD comparative tables. The last PISA report I saw indicated only 4 countries statistically higher than Scotland for the overall score. Canada, Finland, Japan and New Zealand.
On the list of the World's top 100 universities, Scotland has five, which at one per million of the population, is easily the largest pro-rata placed nation in the World.
A much larger percentage of Scots attain further education qualifications than the rest of the UK.
Scotland educates about twice its pro-rata share of UK further education students.
National average IQ figures vary depending who does them, how and when they are done but Scotland is usually as high if not higher than the rest of the UK and sometimes as high as Japan (the highest average IQ).
Scotland is not disadvantaged in the stupidity stakes, although when you see those areas which have always had multiple deprivation and have always voted Labour and who will still vote Labour, it does make you wonder sometimes "When will the penny drop? Will it ever drop?".
|
Stevie
|
A fine post but I fear the Nit Brats will argue black is white and out is in and... well they have an agenda.
|
Braveheart
|
| Stevie wrote: | | A fine post but I fear the Nit Brats will argue black is white and out is in and... well they have an agenda. |
You have to laff...
the proposition is...there's this phrase that gets repeated. "Scotland is too small, too poor too stupid to survive on its own"
Nationalists say that unionist use it, but unionists say that they only ever see and hear nationalists introduce it to the debate...
so...
it gets introduced to the debate on this forum....
...on its very own thread, no less...
..by nationalists..!!
how stupid is that?
rather gives te game away! What!
you have to laff!!!
|
Stevie
|
| Braveheart wrote: |
Nationalists say that unionist use it, but unionists say that they only ever see and hear nationalists introduce it to the debate...
|
This is the first time I've ever heard a Brit Nat say that the nationalists introduce a negative campaign tactic against their message into the discussion.
You do talk a lot of nonsense, I just hope you know you're talking nonsense and you're not being serious.
Well, you've probably by now convinced yourself it's true.
|
Shagpile
|
| chicmac wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | I am not implying anything. I am stating that a unionist poster has a thread running in which he explicitly argues that Scotland is too small and too poor to be independent. It was you (I remember now) who said this sort of thing only ever comes from nationalists and, indeed, you're even trying to say it here.
Just read the thread mentioned at the start of this one and then come back and tell us if you still stand by your claim that unionists never make the very argument put forward in that thread. |
You are implying that Scotland is too small, too poor, and too stupid in this thread by implication. |
Well I don't know what you are implying the implication of H's thread is but you seem to be implying something. Seems he made more a statement of fact to me.
| Ultra wrote: |
Why don't you put up some evidence which proves Scotland isn't too poor, too small, or too stupid to manage it's own affairs when independent? |
While one should generally avoid getting involved in disproving negatives, since the U-community seem to have little else to offer I will deal with all three of their favourite myths. Although I will approach it from a positive angle.
First - Scotland is too Small
Many researchers have concluded that a good balance between the benefits of economies of scale/international leverage and the negatives of bureaucratic inertia/corruption exists at a population of around 5 million.
e.g. the Hudson Institute as far back as the 60s predicted countries with populations of about 5 million would fare better on average over the ensuing decades.
However, we do not have to rely on theory and prediction. We can look at National Gross Domestic Product per capita as an indicator of how well countries are actually doing.
It doesn't matter whether you look at IMF, World Bank or CIA data, if you average the population of the top 10 countries for GDP per capita, the average population is just over 5 million, i.e. very close to Scotland's population.
Note this is not an implication it is a verifiable fact and can be checked simply by looking here:
http://tinyurl.com/8hw7x
You may notice that one large country, USA is just outside the top ten on the lists (may even be inside on PPP adjusted lists) but I would point out that the USA is a true federation with each State setting various taxes and fiscal policies etc. and that the average size of an American State is not far off 5 million either.
Whichever way you look at it, Scotland's size would certainly be no barrier to success.
Second - Scotland is too Poor
Scotland, unlike England, is underpopulated, we grow more than we need whereas England has to import half its food.
Scotland also has the best fishing stocks in Europe.
We also have enormous energy resources, not just oil but in HE, Wind and Wave as well. And that is not including the yet untapped Tidal Stream resource which could generate all of Scotland's electricity requirement using out of sight turbines and North Sea expertise already acquired in the oil sector.
Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce working in industry than the rest of the UK although still not enough and Scotland has still suffered from UK policies stemming from the anti-industrial paradigm which has grown even worse in recent decades down South.
Notable successes are in semiconductor design and manufacturing in stark contrast to failures elsewhere in the UK , electronics production, heavy engineering, software development and production (although now under attack as UK ministers are currently pumping taxpayer's money into the Manchester area in this industry. However they did the same with semiconductors and that didn't work then.)
Tourism is still worth 5 billion a year despite the wind farms.
We still have a virtual monopoly on production of one of the World's favourite spirits.
And note ALL of the above are genuine wealth creating activities.
Yes we do have a significant financial services sector which is not genuinely wealth creating and is therefore at risk in the new real economik where the service industry myth is dead, but we are not nearly as exposed as the UK.
Given Scotland's very fortunate resource rich status in all the key areas, agriculture, fishing, fossil energy, renewable energy, forestry and tourism there really would need to be something awry with the people of Scotland if they were not to be better off than average, which segways neatly into the last myth.
Third - Scots are too Stupid.
The racist nature of this contention is so distasteful it is tempting to ignore it in disgust.
However, I will just point out that the Scottish education system was the first to achieve full literacy. The Scottish Enlightenment lead the way in the age of reason. Scottish emigrants ran large corporations and countries all over the World. Scottish engineers and generals were in demand around the World.
I will not reproduce the huge list of inventions and discoveries made by Scots.
Today, contrary to negative propaganda, Scottish schools education is still near the top in most areas on the OECD comparative tables. The last PISA report I saw gave only 4 countries as being statistically higher than Scotland for the overall score. Canada, Finland, Japan and New Zealand.
On the list of the World's top 100 universities, Scotland has five, at one per million of the population easily the largest pro-rata placed nation in the World.
A much larger percentage of Scots attain further education qualifications than the rest of the UK.
Scotland educates about twice its pro-rata share of UK further education students.
National average IQ figures vary depending who does them, how and when they are done but Scotland is usually as high if not higher than the rest of the UK and sometimes as high as Japan (the highest average IQ).
Scotland is not disadvantaged in the stupidity stakes, although when you see those areas which have always had multiple deprivation and have always voted Labour and who will still vote Labour, it does make you wonder sometimes "When will the penny drop? Will it ever drop?". |
Good example of why you were missed.
|
Shagpile
|
| Braveheart wrote: | You have to laff...
the proposition is...there's this phrase that gets repeated. "Scotland is too small, too poor too stupid to survive on its own"
Nationalists say that unionist use it, but unionists say that they only ever see and hear nationalists introduce it to the debate...
so...
it gets introduced to the debate on this forum....
...on its very own thread, no less...
..by nationalists..!!
how stupid is that?
rather gives te game away! What!
you have to laff!!! |
Emotionly, laughing and crying are equally valid in any given situation. You can find yourself laughing in times of great uncertainty, and you can cry with happiness.
The reason you 'laff' at a quality post is due to your uncertainty, the actual post you made is testament to that. Panic in the extreme is manifest all over it.
Yet it validates why such an unthought-through post is a reason why YOUR posts will not be missed Cooncilor.
Basically you're a mince poster.
|
chicmac
|
| Braveheart wrote: | | Stevie wrote: | | A fine post but I fear the Nit Brats will argue black is white and out is in and... well they have an agenda. |
You have to laff...
the proposition is...there's this phrase that gets repeated. "Scotland is too small, too poor too stupid to survive on its own"
Nationalists say that unionist use it, but unionists say that they only ever see and hear nationalists introduce it to the debate...
so...
it gets introduced to the debate on this forum....
...on its very own thread, no less...
..by nationalists..!!
how stupid is that?
rather gives te game away! What!
you have to laff!!! |
Excuse me, I simply responded to a challenge from I presume, a unionist, to give evidence against the too small/too poor/too stupid mythos, which I did.
No strawman there.
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | So why don't you work in the Scottish oil industry, developing new technology, and contribute to this countries economy fully and not somewhere elses? |
Because I am not parochial.
I am a citizen of the world and the world is my workplace. I work in an international industry and I work all over the world, including in Scotland, as and when required.
|
Shagpile
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | So why don't you work in the Scottish oil industry, developing new technology, and contribute to this countries economy fully and not somewhere elses? |
Because I am not parochial.
I am a citizen of the world and the world is my workplace. I work in an international industry and I work all over the world, including in Scotland, as and when required. |
Ultra lives and works in England...... and she's a Brit, pot kettle black?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Ultra lives and works in England |
I think you'll find Ultra is a Labour Party cooncillor in Glasgow who went straight from being a student politician at university to being a full time would-be politician with hopes that, by slavishly toeing the party line enough, fortune, or at least the corrupt Labour bosses, will smile and provide further excuse for never getting a real job. Ultra feels threatened by talk of independence because this might upset these cosy plans. What's more, she's a he. Sort of.
|
Shagpile
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | Ultra lives and works in England |
I think you'll find Ultra is a Labour Party cooncillor in Glasgow who went straight from being a student politician at university to being a full time would-be politician with hopes that, by slavishly toeing the party line enough, fortune, or at least the corrupt Labour bosses, will smile and provide further excuse for never getting a real job. Ultra feels threatened by talk of independence because this might upset these cosy plans. What's more, she's a he. Sort of. |
So, one of "Braveheart's" palls then. I was pretty sure I had read in one of her/his posts that she/he was a statistician, working in England.
Still, election looming..............
|
landg
|
this is absurd. a nationalist brings up the pathetic issue of wee,poor and stupid and they then say it is unionists who use this tactic.
pathetic deflection and denial.
|
Stevie
|
Yawn.
Brit Nats try and argue that they didn't start all the, 'You can't go it alone' nonsense.
They just can't stop themselves.
Any old discussion for any odd moment that suits.
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Who do you think knows more about the Scottish oil industry, a Scot with no connection to the business or a person who works full time in oil & gas? |
Who says I do not have a connection to the business? |
Why personalise everything? I didn't say a word about you or your knowledge or connections. Look again at the question. It is general, and you didn't answer it.
|
Holebender
|
| Braveheart wrote: |
You have to laff...
the proposition is...there's this phrase that gets repeated. "Scotland is too small, too poor too stupid to survive on its own"
Nationalists say that unionist use it, but unionists say that they only ever see and hear nationalists introduce it to the debate...
so...
it gets introduced to the debate on this forum....
...on its very own thread, no less...
..by nationalists..!!
how stupid is that?
rather gives te game away! What!
you have to laff!!! |
The proposition is not that the phrase gets used, but that the sentiment is expressed repeatedly by supporters of the union. The thread, if you would bother to read the opening post, was started because you initiated a thread with this very theme. Your thread about the economic case for independence being "sunk" is predicated on your belief that Scotland alone is too small and too poor to bale out failing banks. This thread merely highlights the "too poor, too small, too stupid" thinking which underpins your thread.
But, hey ho, laff(sic) away if it keeps you happy.
|
Holebender
|
| landg wrote: | this is absurd. a nationalist brings up the pathetic issue of wee,poor and stupid and they then say it is unionists who use this tactic.
pathetic deflection and denial. |
Try reading the opening post. This thread highlights a unionist's thread which is based on the very premise that Scotland on its own is too small and poor to sustain its banking sector. This thread highlights the hypocrisy of those who claim unionists never use the "too poor, too small, too stupid" arguments.
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | landg wrote: | this is absurd. a nationalist brings up the pathetic issue of wee,poor and stupid and they then say it is unionists who use this tactic.
pathetic deflection and denial. |
Try reading the opening post. This thread highlights a unionist's thread which is based on the very premise that Scotland on its own is too small and poor to sustain its banking sector. This thread highlights the hypocrisy of those who claim unionists never use the "too poor, too small, too stupid" arguments. |
but thats true, an independent scotlland would not have had the finances to bail out the banks in scotland that the uk govt. did. that does not make us stupid, wee or poor. it's just a fact of life.
|
Holebender
|
OK... if it's not because of being too poor or too small, why do you believe Scotland could not have baled out the banks?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | OK... if it's not because of being too poor or too small, why do you believe Scotland could not have baled out the banks? |
bailing out the the royal bank of scotland ALONE cost 20 billion, figures released only 2 days ago has the scottish budget at 34 billion.
i'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.
|
Stevie
|
The UK government is broke, I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself.
What great point can you truly make concerning Scotland when we haven't got control over our own banking system.
The Uk government had control and they are to blame.
This false comparison is ridiculous.
|
Holebender
|
| landg wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | OK... if it's not because of being too poor or too small, why do you believe Scotland could not have baled out the banks? |
bailing out the the royal bank of scotland ALONE cost 20 billion, figures released only 2 days ago has the scottish budget at 34 billion.
i'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.
|
Oh... I get it! You think Scotland doesn't have the resources to come up with that kind of money, is that what you're saying?
|
landg
|
| Stevie wrote: | The UK government is broke, I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself.
What great point can you truly make concerning Scotland when we haven't got control over our own banking system.
The Uk government had control and they are to blame.
This false comparison is ridiculous. |
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | Ultra lives and works in England |
I think you'll find Ultra is a Labour Party cooncillor in Glasgow who went straight from being a student politician at university to being a full time would-be politician with hopes that, by slavishly toeing the party line enough, fortune, or at least the corrupt Labour bosses, will smile and provide further excuse for never getting a real job. Ultra feels threatened by talk of independence because this might upset these cosy plans. What's more, she's a he. Sort of. |
Is thais another one of your deluded conspiracy theories Dave 'Fundamentalist figure of Fun' or can anyone join in?
Prove I am a Glasgow councillor Dave. Why don't you post up some evidence?
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Who do you think knows more about the Scottish oil industry, a Scot with no connection to the business or a person who works full time in oil & gas? |
Who says I do not have a connection to the business? |
Why personalise everything? I didn't say a word about you or your knowledge or connections. Look again at the question. It is general, and you didn't answer it. |
Who were you commenting on at the time Holebender?
Who have you continued to comment on Holebender?
Is this another one of these smoke screens and defelction tactics because you have not answered the question on why you work in another countries oil industry and not the Scottish oil industry?
Also, you cannot answer why with all these new technologies you claim production is still following?
Please answer these questions beofte you try out silly diversion tactics.
|
Holebender
|
You were the one who tried to say that I worked abroad and therefore knew nothing about Scotland's oil industry. I posed the question above and you took it as somehow relating to you. The fact is it related to me but, with your great reading skills you managed to interpret it as somehow relating to you. Feel better now?
|
Holebender
|
Tell me something, Ultra. Have you ever accused supporters of independence of parochialism? Enquiring minds want to know.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | You were the one who tried to say that I worked abroad and therefore knew nothing about Scotland's oil industry. I posed the question above and you took it as somehow relating to you. The fact is it related to me but, with your great reading skills you managed to interpret it as somehow relating to you. Feel better now? |
Why don't you answer the questions I put instead of more smokescreens and defelction?
|
Holebender
|
You seem incapable of recognising what I write about, so I thought I'd better spell it out for you.
Most of your questions are irrelevant and personal. As long as you continue to personalise everything you are going to find yourself rather short of answers. It's none of your business.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Tell me something, Ultra. Have you ever accused supporters of independence of parochialism? Enquiring minds want to know. |
Yes, I know plenty of SNP supporters who attend Scottish nationalist events and would rather Scotland was not in the EU and are very hostile towards the English.
These people also have very limited or narrow in scope or outlook and are provincial.
Parochial views; a parochial mentality.
I also know plenty who are not and embrace globalisation and the EU.
So Holebender why don't you tell us why you don't work in the Scottish oil industry you tell us so much about and why production continues to fall?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | landg wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | OK... if it's not because of being too poor or too small, why do you believe Scotland could not have baled out the banks? |
bailing out the the royal bank of scotland ALONE cost 20 billion, figures released only 2 days ago has the scottish budget at 34 billion.
i'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.
|
Oh... I get it! You think Scotland doesn't have the resources to come up with that kind of money, is that what you're saying? |
well if the budget to run the country is 34 billion and it costs 20billion to bail out 1 bank, yes from our budget we could have bailed out rbs. BUT where do you think james swinney would have accounted for the 20 billion used for rbs, where would 20 billion of our budget been spent instead of on rbs?
and more to the point, if you think the scottish govt. could have saved rbs, why did'nt they?
|
Dave Coull
|
"Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
This was a complete fiction, a total fabrication, something entirely made up by "Ultra". As well as making things up about other folk, "Ultra" has also been very nosy, repeatedly asking personal questions | Quote: | | Which country is it you are working these days Holebender for the third time? |
and telling Holebender | Quote: | | start by answering the umpteen questions that I have put to you |
and, when Holebender answered him truthfully, "Ultra" still demanded more and more details | Quote: | | you commute between Angola and Scotland. But not very often. Every couple of months at best? |
Now, I do think that personal circumstances can sometimes be relevant to a discussion. HOWEVER, when somebody who seeks to hide their OWN personal circumstances persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, and even makes up things about other folk ("relative of....."), I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I created an identity for "Ultra", because it was so richly deserved. Besides, there's probably some element of truth in the identity I described for him.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
This was a complete fiction, a total fabrication, something entirely made up by "Ultra". As well as making things up about other folk, "Ultra" has also been very nosy, repeatedly asking personal questions | Quote: | | Which country is it you are working these days Holebender for the third time? |
and telling Holebender | Quote: | | start by answering the umpteen questions that I have put to you |
and, when Holebender answered him truthfully, "Ultra" still demanded more and more details | Quote: | | you commute between Angola and Scotland. But not very often. Every couple of months at best? |
Now, I do think that personal circumstances can sometimes be relevant to a discussion. HOWEVER, when somebody who seeks to hide their OWN personal circumstances persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, and even makes up things about other folk ("relative of....."), I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I created an identity for "Ultra", because it was so richly deserved. Besides, there's probably some element of truth in the identity I described for him. |
does this mean we are allowed to invent identities for members?
hope so. goodygoody. dave.......................well..........notw reader but hates page 3, well syas he does.......................
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | does this mean we are allowed to invent identities for members? |
Posters are only allowed to invent identities for folk (such as Ultra) who combine seeking to hide with extreme nosiness about others. And even then, only folk who are open about themselves are allowed to do the inventing.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
This was a complete fiction, a total fabrication, something entirely made up by "Ultra". As well as making things up about other folk, "Ultra" has also been very nosy, repeatedly asking personal questions | Quote: | | Which country is it you are working these days Holebender for the third time? |
and telling Holebender | Quote: | | start by answering the umpteen questions that I have put to you |
and, when Holebender answered him truthfully, "Ultra" still demanded more and more details | Quote: | | you commute between Angola and Scotland. But not very often. Every couple of months at best? |
Now, I do think that personal circumstances can sometimes be relevant to a discussion. HOWEVER, when somebody who seeks to hide their OWN personal circumstances persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, and even makes up things about other folk ("relative of....."), I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I created an identity for "Ultra", because it was so richly deserved. Besides, there's probably some element of truth in the identity I described for him. |
Dave please show me where Holebender has answered why he works in Angola and not the North Sea oil industry?
Please show where Holebender has answered the question on if lots of new technologies are available for extracting hard to reach oil in the North Sea, why production continues to fall in the North Sea?
Please explain to me why these are personal questions or even require any personal information to answer them?
Maybe you should pay attention to what people write when they are chatting to their mates and reletives on here and you might learn something.
Dave so basically you are now claiming you created an identity for me? More lies....
You really are delusional aren't you?
Please go and Google a term called Social Engineering and you may well learn why people choose to use user names rather than their real name Dave 'Fundamentalist Figure of Fun' Coull.
While you are at it, please provide evidence on me being a Glasgow Councillor as you have claimed?
Bit of a hypocrite aren't you Dave. Please feel free to post up more blatant lies about me or alternatively provide some evidence to back up your claims?
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | does this mean we are allowed to invent identities for members? |
Posters are only allowed to invent identities for folk (such as Ultra) who combine seeking to hide with extreme nosiness about others. And even then, only folk who are open about themselves are allowed to do the inventing. |
So Dave are you saying you have created multiple user names on this forum?
Is this not what inetrnet trolls do and is warrants being banned?
Bit of a hypocrite aren't you Dave?
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
This was a complete fiction, a total fabrication, something entirely made up by "Ultra". |
More blatant lies from Dave 'Fundamentalist Figure of Fun' Coull
Here's what Holebender and Stevie actually said -
| Holebender wrote: | | Stevie... you're not my niece by any chance? Lorna's youngest? |
| Stevie wrote: | | I might be... uncle Holebender. |
Here's the thread -
http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic6600-0-asc-20.php
Please feel free to apologize Dave for your blatant lies and slur on my character.
You might want to pay attention to what people actually say to one another on here rather than cutting and pasting your delusional version of events.
I won't wait up. You don't have any credibility left.
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Parochial views; a parochial mentality. |
You mean like someone who thinks everyone should stay in Scotland all the time and anyone who has broadened his horizons by looking beyond Scotland is somehow disqualified from having an opinion? That sort of parochialism?
Are you the pot or the kettle? It's so hard to tell.
|
Holebender
|
| landg wrote: | | stop the wee and poor thing please guys, it's patroninsing at best and downright insulting to those who know of our capablities and achievments. |
| landg wrote: | | scotland as an indepedent nation COULD not have affored to bail out the banks as an independent nation.end of story. |
| landg wrote: | well if the budget to run the country is 34 billion and it costs 20billion to bail out 1 bank, yes from our budget we could have bailed out rbs. BUT where do you think james swinney would have accounted for the 20 billion used for rbs, where would 20 billion of our budget been spent instead of on rbs?
and more to the point, if you think the scottish govt. could have saved rbs, why did'nt they? |
You don't even know you're doing it, do you?
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Parochial views; a parochial mentality. |
You mean like someone who thinks everyone should stay in Scotland all the time and anyone who has broadened his horizons by looking beyond Scotland is somehow disqualified from having an opinion? That sort of parochialism?
Are you the pot or the kettle? It's so hard to tell. |
Nope. Nothing of the sort.
People are free to have opinions.
However, their credibility is called into question when they do not live, work, or pay taxes in Scotland or bring up their family here and promote independence for Scotland and rubbish other peoples opinions.
Also, when they bring up topics which they know nothing about due to the reasons above and then preach to us they are REAL Scots.
Then call the rest of us BRIT NATS when we do not agree with them or value their opinions.
Parochial in nature that they would rather spend time trying to convert people to independence instead of integrating into the country they find themselves in.
So Holebender are you going to answer the remaining questions or are we just going to get more deflection tactics?
How is your niece Stevie doing today Uncle Holebender?
|
Dave Coull
|
Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own. Quite a few folk on this forum have met me in person and, whether they like or dislike me, they know that's true."
There have been literally dozens of similar posts from me. For example, in April 2009 I again wrote "I am FAR too conceited to ever use any other name but my own. From my point of view, anybody who uses a different name from their own must have something wrong with them. (I take this attitude towards all actors, by the way, poor creatures.) Anybody who uses a different name from their own must really wish they were somebody else. I have NEVER wished I was anybody else. I feel kinda sorry for folk who have such low self-esteem they feel they have to pretend they are somebody else." | Ultra wrote: | | Dave are you saying you have created multiple user names on this forum? |
Obviously not. | Ultra wrote: | | You don't have any credibility left |
In your opinion, and in the opinion of some other folk who don't matter to me either. On the other hand, there are enough folk who don't share your opinion to keep me bigheaded. | Ultra wrote: | | warrants being banned |
I've been thrown out of far better clubs than this! Besides, the owners/moderators of this Our Scotland forum are well aware that ALL posts from me are sent under the name "Dave Coull". If I ever get "banned", it won't be for that.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | if lots of new technologies are available for extracting hard to reach oil in the North Sea, why production continues to fall in the North Sea? |
Well, unlike Holebender, I don't work in the oil industry, but there's an obvious explanation for that. There is no particular reason why all the oil has to be extracted NOW . In fact, if some of the harder-to-reach stuff stays in the ground, it will increase in value as oil becomes scarcer, and the cost of extracting it will, in comparison, fall.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | if lots of new technologies are available for extracting hard to reach oil in the North Sea, why production continues to fall in the North Sea? |
Well, unlike Holebender, I don't work in the oil industry, but there's an obvious explanation for that. There is no particular reason why all the oil has to be extracted NOW . In fact, if some of the harder-to-reach stuff stays in the ground, it will increase in value as oil becomes scarcer, and the cost of extracting it will, in comparison, fall. |
Because you don't work?
I would rather have Holebenders opinion. Least he knows and can present a decent argument.
Yes, worked for the coal mines didn't it Dave....
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own. Quite a few folk on this forum have met me in person and, whether they like or dislike me, they know that's true.
There have been literally dozens of similar posts from me. For example, in April 2009 I again wrote "I am FAR too conceited to ever use any other name but my own. From my point of view, anybody who uses a different name from their own must have something wrong with them. (I take this attitude towards all actors, by the way, poor creatures.) Anybody who uses a different name from their own must really wish they were somebody else. I have NEVER wished I was anybody else. I feel kinda sorry for folk who have such low self-esteem they feel they have to pretend they are somebody else. |
So what you are saying is 99.9% of posters on Our Scotland who use a pseudonym have something wrong with them and have low self esteem. Nice.
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Obviously not |
So why say you make up identities or user names for posters? You said it not me. More contradictions - when challanged you deny.
[quote="Dave Coull"] I've been thrown out of far better clubs than this! Besides, the owners/moderators of this Our Scotland forum are well aware that ALL posts from me are sent under the name Dave Coull. If I ever get banned, it won't be for that. [quote]
Not even the moderators on this forum could be 100% sure it is you personally who is posting using 'Dave Coull'. The only way to be 100% sure is for a person to be sitting next to you whenyou post and viewing what you are doing.
So what you are saying Dave is you are far better than the posters on here since you have been 'thrown out of far better clubs than this'. Quite a derogatory remark to make about the posters who use Our Scotland.
I am not going to waste any more time replying to someone like you who has such a low opinion of Our Scotland and it's posters.
I see no evidence or an apology for the blatant lies you have been posting about me in desperation and have been totally exposed. Didn't take very long for you to show your true colours. Oh Dear....
|
Stevie
|
The Brit Nats are just trying to score points here and there.
Dull.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | feel free to apologize Dave for your blatant lies |
I don't lie. I may - just occasionally - say things which are mistaken, while believing them to be true. But that's not the same thing. | Ultra wrote: | | slur on my character |
In order to have a "slur" on your "character", you first have to have a character. In order to have a character, you have to be a person. There's really no such person as "Ultra". Therefore, "slur" on "character" not possible.
|
Dave Coull
|
"Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
Which was a complete fiction. As well as making things up about other folk, "Ultra" has also been extremely nosy, repeatedly asking personal questions of other posters. Now, I do think personal circumstances can sometimes be relevant to a discussion. HOWEVER, when somebody who doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I created a fictional identity for "Ultra", because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity which I arbitrarily assigned to "Ultra" was real. (Mind you, although fictional, I wouldn't be surprised to learn there was a certain amount of truth in the fiction.) Ultra's hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON he got assigned a fictional identity - because he has been extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about himself. THAT is contemptible.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | feel free to apologize Dave for your blatant lies |
I don't lie. I may - just occasionally - say things which are mistaken, while believing them to be true. But that's not the same thing. | Ultra wrote: | | slur on my character |
In order to have a "slur" on your "character", you first have to have a character. In order to have a character, you have to be a person. There's really no such person as "Ultra". Therefore, "slur" on "character" not possible. |
Prove it Dave. You have been asked to prove this point several times.
Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull.
You can't. That IS the point.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull. |
Well of course I could if I ever really needed to.
But I don't need to.
Not only do I know it's true - everybody who matters knows it's true.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" described Stevie as | Quote: | | a relative of Holebender |
Which was a complete fiction. As well as making things up about other folk, "Ultra" has also been extremely nosy, repeatedly asking personal questions of other posters. Now, I do think personal circumstances can sometimes be relevant to a discussion. HOWEVER, when somebody who doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I created a fictional identity for "Ultra", because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity which I arbitrarily assigned to "Ultra" was real. (Mind you, although fictional, I wouldn't be surprised to learn there was a certain amount of truth in the fiction.) Ultra's hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON he got assigned a fictional identity - because he has been extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about himself. THAT is contemptible. |
You think what you like Dave and spout whatever you want. Anyone reading your utterings will be cringing for you and it's highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site or have any credibility left.
Considering you do not rate the site and you think you are better than the people on here who in your words have low self esteem and something wrong with them.
Even though the evidence of Holebender and Stevie being related has be published and the thread linked into this thread you continue to tell blatant lies that they are not related. Neither of them have denied this either. It is a fact. They mentioned it on the site not me. So please explain why this is a fiction when both of them said it themselves?
Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender to keep you occupied.
Now you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra on this site.
I suggest you seek advice from a mental health profession to discuss your split personalities.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull. |
Well of course I could if I ever really needed to.
But I don't need to.
Not only do I know it's true - everybody who matters knows it's true. |
So in other words unless someone is sitting next to you while you post you cannot prove that you are indeed someone called Dave Coull just like I have described previously in the thread? For all we know it could be a member of your family or mates taking turns to post.
I noticed how you have ignored the questions put to you on your blatant lies that I am a Glasgow Councillor and also that I live and work in England and when pressed provided no evidence to support these statements either. So just more blatant Dave lies.
So your back on to pseudonym and user names and slagging off the people who use the site to try or developed it to deflect attention away from the fact that you have been exposed as a fantasist and Walter Mitty character who is a hypocrite and liar.
|
Aventinian
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull. |
Well of course I could if I ever really needed to.
But I don't need to.
Not only do I know it's true - everybody who matters knows it's true. |
You could always show him that News of the World article about you...
|
Ultra
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull. |
Well of course I could if I ever really needed to.
But I don't need to.
Not only do I know it's true - everybody who matters knows it's true. |
You could always show him that News of the World article about you... |
I have already seen it. Still doesn't prove that it's the real Dave Coull 'Fundamentalist figure of fun' who is posting.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra |
You're a cowardly, lying, piece of merde, I certainly didn't create you, I'm glad to say. HOWEVER, when somebody doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I arbitrarily assigned a fictional (and derogatory) identity to somebody who was already posting and who I considered contemptible, because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity I arbitrarily assigned you was real. Your hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON you got assigned a fictional identity - because you were extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about yourself. | Ultra wrote: | | Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender |
Stevie is far more nationalistic in his outlook than I am. I frequently disagree with him. Holebender is far more capitalistic in his outlook than I am, though this doesn't show up as often as my disagreements with Stevie. Besides, as already pointed out | Quote: | | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own". |
| Ultra wrote: | | highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site |
I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like "thanks Dave", or "thanks for explaining that", etc. Therefore, your hypothesis has already been disproved.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra |
You're a cowardly, lying, piece of merde, I certainly didn't create you, I'm glad to say. HOWEVER, when somebody doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I arbitrarily assigned a fictional (and derogatory) identity to somebody who was already posting and who I considered contemptible, because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity I arbitrarily assigned you was real. Your hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON you got assigned a fictional identity - because you were extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about yourself. | Ultra wrote: | | Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender |
Stevie is far more nationalistic in his outlook than I am. I frequently disagree with him. Holebender is far more capitalistic in his outlook than I am, though this doesn't show up as often as my disagreements with Stevie. Besides, as already pointed out | Quote: | | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own". |
| Ultra wrote: | | highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site |
I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like "thanks Dave", or "thanks for explaining that", etc. Therefore, your hypothesis has already been disproved.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | your blatant lies that I am a Glasgow Councillor and also that I live and work in England |
You have a habit of getting things mixed up, don't you? It was Shagpile who said you live and work in England. I said you didn't.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra |
You're a cowardly, lying, piece of merde, I certainly didn't create you, I'm glad to say. HOWEVER, when somebody doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I arbitrarily assigned a fictional (and derogatory) identity to somebody who was already posting and who I considered contemptible, because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity I arbitrarily assigned you was real. Your hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON you got assigned a fictional identity - because you were extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about yourself. | Ultra wrote: | | Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender |
Stevie is far more nationalistic in his outlook than I am. I frequently disagree with him. Holebender is far more capitalistic in his outlook than I am, though this doesn't show up as often as my disagreements with Stevie. Besides, as already pointed out | Quote: | | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own". |
| Ultra wrote: | | highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site |
I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like "thanks Dave", or "thanks for explaining that", etc. Therefore, your hypothesis has already been disproved. |
So Dave, is this what you do?
When you have clearly lost the plot and really have deflected the thread so far away from the original topic you resort to name calling.
You are the one who said you created an identity called Ultra. Have you forgotton you said this Dave? maybe you should see your GP and Optician to get your memory and eyes checked out.
Dave where is your evidence on me being a Glasgow councillor and working and living in England? Just more blatant lies from Dave which he cannot back up.
Stevie is female, hence she is Holebender's Niece. See before you spout any more of your lies Dave, why don't you go and read what people have actually written about themselves and also what the thread is actaully about?
See instead of calling other people liars, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and insulting people on the site.
You think people who use pseudonym have low self esteem and have something wrong with them - the majority of the site use users names.
Nobody is really interesting in reading your contradictions and lies Dave.
Nobody is thanking you for explaining anything Dave. Get over youself.
Watch your head doesn't get caught in the door on the way to bed Dave...
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | your blatant lies that I am a Glasgow Councillor and also that I live and work in England |
You have a habit of getting things mixed up, don't you? It was Shagpile who said you live and work in England. I said you didn't. |
| Dave Coull wrote: |
I think you'll find Ultra is a Labour Party cooncillor in Glasgow who went straight from being a student politician at university to being a full time would-be politician with hopes that, by slavishly toeing the party line enough, fortune, or at least the corrupt Labour bosses, will smile and provide further excuse for never getting a real job. Ultra feels threatened by talk of independence because this might upset these cosy plans. What's more, she's a he. Sort of. |
Yes, lies which you repeated along with me being a Glasgow councillor and not having REAL job Dave.
So why don't you put up evidence or shut up and apologize to me and the people you have insulted who use the site?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | deflected the thread so far away from the original topic |
YOU're the one who did that. | Ultra wrote: | | working and living in England? |
Shagpile said that, not me. | Ultra wrote: | | which you repeated |
maybe somebody else repeated Shagpile's words, but not me. | Ultra wrote: | | where is your evidence on me being a Glasgow councillor |
Since you continually seek to ferret out details about other posters, while seeking to hide behind a false identity yourself, you thoroughly deserve to be assigned any identity that anybody feels like giving you. You can't DISprove it.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | ]I've been thrown out of far better clubs than this! . |
so you have previous dave?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | landg wrote: | | stop the wee and poor thing please guys, it's patroninsing at best and downright insulting to those who know of our capablities and achievments. |
| landg wrote: | | scotland as an indepedent nation COULD not have affored to bail out the banks as an independent nation.end of story. |
| landg wrote: | well if the budget to run the country is 34 billion and it costs 20billion to bail out 1 bank, yes from our budget we could have bailed out rbs. BUT where do you think james swinney would have accounted for the 20 billion used for rbs, where would 20 billion of our budget been spent instead of on rbs?
and more to the point, if you think the scottish govt. could have saved rbs, why did'nt they? |
You don't even know you're doing it, do you? |
thats a pretty shameful way to look at it. if you take the attitude of being the opressed then anything will make you feel wee, poor and stupid.
|
landg
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | feel free to apologize Dave for your blatant lies |
I don't lie. I may - just occasionally - say things which are mistaken, while believing them to be true. But that's not the same thing. | Ultra wrote: | | slur on my character |
In order to have a "slur" on your "character", you first have to have a character. In order to have a character, you have to be a person. There's really no such person as "Ultra". Therefore, "slur" on "character" not possible. |
Prove it Dave. You have been asked to prove this point several times.
Prove there is such a person as Dave Coull.
You can't. That IS the point. |
there is, he has been in the notw.
i also know that jordan, sam fox and paris hilton exist because of the notw.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra |
You're a cowardly, lying, piece of merde, I certainly didn't create you, I'm glad to say. HOWEVER, when somebody doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I arbitrarily assigned a fictional (and derogatory) identity to somebody who was already posting and who I considered contemptible, because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity I arbitrarily assigned you was real. Your hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON you got assigned a fictional identity - because you were extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about yourself. | Ultra wrote: | | Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender |
Stevie is far more nationalistic in his outlook than I am. I frequently disagree with him. Holebender is far more capitalistic in his outlook than I am, though this doesn't show up as often as my disagreements with Stevie. Besides, as already pointed out | Quote: | | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own". |
| Ultra wrote: | | highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site |
I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like "thanks Dave", or "thanks for explaining that", etc. Therefore, your hypothesis has already been disproved. |
'dozens'.
aye.good. theres about 5 regular posters on here.
|
Stevie
|
I presume 'about 5' is as high as you can count.
|
mairead
|
Well, we all best be careful what we quote or we'll be accused of making a statement.
|
landg
|
| Stevie wrote: | | I presume 'about 5' is as high as you can count. |
yes.
|
Stevie
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you are claiming you have created someone called Ultra |
You're a cowardly, lying, piece of merde, I certainly didn't create you, I'm glad to say. HOWEVER, when somebody doing their damnedest to keep their OWN circumstances hidden persistently seeks to ferret out more and more details about the circumstances of other folk, I think that's contemptible behavior. That's why I arbitrarily assigned a fictional (and derogatory) identity to somebody who was already posting and who I considered contemptible, because it was so richly deserved. I made no attempt to pretend the identity I arbitrarily assigned you was real. Your hypocritical reaction of fake outrage is intended to detract from the REASON you got assigned a fictional identity - because you were extremely nosy about others, while seeking to hide anything about yourself. | Ultra wrote: | | Maybe you created Stevie and Holebender |
Stevie is far more nationalistic in his outlook than I am. I frequently disagree with him. Holebender is far more capitalistic in his outlook than I am, though this doesn't show up as often as my disagreements with Stevie. Besides, as already pointed out | Quote: | | Posting to this forum over two years ago, in response to something said by Aventinian, I pointed out one reason I could never consider using any kind of pseudonym: "I'm far too conceited to ever use any name but my own". |
| Ultra wrote: | | highly un-likely you will be taken seriously on this site |
I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like "thanks Dave", or "thanks for explaining that", etc. Therefore, your hypothesis has already been disproved. |
With the quality of posts you make, I don't think you have to explain yourself Dave.
In any case he is only looking to the next gotcha point.
And yes we do disagree but I admit when I'm wrong and you're usually right.
|
Dave Coull
|
"Ultra" suggested nobody takes anything I say seriously. I replied "I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like 'thanks Dave', or 'thanks for explaining that' etc." | landg wrote: | | 'dozens'. aye.good. theres about 5 regular posters on here. |
That remark is irrelevant, in two ways. First, a small circulation newspaper or magazine might have just 5 regular writers, but hundreds of readers. The discrepancy might not be so big with a website, but, nevertheless, it exists. Secondly, the word "regular" makes it irrelevant. I said this happened over "a couple of years", and the number of people who are on a forum, for a while, over that period of time, is far greater than the number of "regular posters" at any one time.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" suggested nobody takes anything I say seriously. I replied "I've been on this site for a couple of years now. During that time, although some posters (like you for instance) have said un-complimentary things, dozens of other posters have said things like 'thanks Dave', or 'thanks for explaining that' etc." | landg wrote: | | 'dozens'. aye.good. theres about 5 regular posters on here. |
That remark is irrelevant, in two ways. First, a small circulation newspaper or magazine might have just 5 regular writers, but hundreds of readers. The discrepancy might not be so big with a website, but, nevertheless, it exists. Secondly, the word "regular" makes it irrelevant. I said this happened over "a couple of years", and the number of people who are on a forum, for a while, over that period of time, is far greater than the number of "regular posters" at any one time. |
it's not irrelevant, i'm saying it's not irrelevant.
|
|
|
|