I want to preface by saying I am often wrong in my political predictions, but I think No is going to prevail in Scotland. I think the fact that there are so many unanswered questions about the future of an independent Scotland will cause many voters to pause, and given the degree of autonomy Scotland may get within a UK may just be enough to persuade the waverers to vote No.

I hear Cameron is preparing to auction off his ballsack to the Scottish voter who makes your hunch a reality

also Niall Ferguson feels the Scots should just moisten up and lick banker boots, because well bankers know pretty much what's good for anyone

2004 interview with Warren talking about the coming debt/housing crisis.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/flashback ... recession/

I hope she runs

Let me preface this by saying I've read very, very little about the issue… but from what I have read, the reasons to vote "no" seem clearer than the reasons to vote "yes." What are the pro-yes arguments?

(Though I also get that this isn't necessarily about logic and straightforward self-interest, which I guess is kind of Ferguson's point)

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I mean, I can't help you read if you don't want to read. "The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is a pretty clear sentence. The polling is also pretty easy to read and understand. You're possibly willfully misrepresenting the objectively true thing I said. Or maybe you're just struggling.

Yeah that's it, I'm struggling, while you're right pretty much always about political events (Romney's chances, etc)

Here's the thing; you don't understand how change actually happens. Change doesn't wait around for majorities to decide it's time. Majorities ratify change that has already happened. A close electoral win for Team Cameron - about all it can hope for - is a loss for it. But not for you, because how could that be, look at the scoreboard.

What do your professors teach you?

I'll try one more time because you're wrong on the internet.

Saying "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is like saying the Phillies are in last place. It is not like me hopefully suggesting Romney would win. It is not a prediction. It is a statement of fact.

I think the Yes vote is pretty likely to end up between 44-54% of the vote, with the middle of the range being the most likely (this is a prediction). Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred? It's a rainstorm in a Yes or No stronghold or a bad headline on the BBC morning news away from deciding whether or not to break away to form a new country. I think it's an awfully low threshold for taking so large a step, but feel free to go on insulting me and being wrong and making really interesting observations about people auctioning off their ball sacks.

Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred?

Plenty of things have changed or not changed due to such a statistical difference. Except in the US Senate, that's kind of how democracy works

Alison Grimes deserves to lose after her horrible ad where she cowtows to McConnell and goes on the defensive. Ugh yes, let's bring up guns/EPA/basketball instead of his time in Congress and how you'll be DIFFERENT

Utterly embarrassing

jerseyhoya wrote:Saying "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is like saying the Phillies are in last place. It is not like me hopefully suggesting Romney would win. It is not a prediction. It is a statement of fact.

The reason you made such a "statement of fact" was to insinuate that it indicated the idea of independence is basically brand-new in Scotland; and secondarily, that desirable change practically requires "long-held majority opinions". Both notions are of course rank nonsense, which even you have apparently retroactively realized, and so have been trying to walk both back with generous helpings of your trademark hamhanded sarcasm.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't trotted out one of your tired "you write so confusingly, no one can understand you" tropes

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I mean, I can't help you read if you don't want to read. "The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is a pretty clear sentence. The polling is also pretty easy to read and understand. You're possibly willfully misrepresenting the objectively true thing I said. Or maybe you're just struggling.

Yeah that's it, I'm struggling, while you're right pretty much always about political events (Romney's chances, etc)

Here's the thing; you don't understand how change actually happens. Change doesn't wait around for majorities to decide it's time. Majorities ratify change that has already happened. A close electoral win for Team Cameron - about all it can hope for - is a loss for it. But not for you, because how could that be, look at the scoreboard.

What do your professors teach you?

I'll try one more time because you're wrong on the internet.

Saying "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is like saying the Phillies are in last place. It is not like me hopefully suggesting Romney would win. It is not a prediction. It is a statement of fact.

I think the Yes vote is pretty likely to end up between 44-54% of the vote, with the middle of the range being the most likely (this is a prediction). Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred? It's a rainstorm in a Yes or No stronghold or a bad headline on the BBC morning news away from deciding whether or not to break away to form a new country. I think it's an awfully low threshold for taking so large a step, but feel free to go on insulting me and being wrong and making really interesting observations about people auctioning off their ball sacks.

I agree that the worst possible outcome is a 50.1% yes vote, as there would be issues of legitimacy that might linger for a long time. Democracy is not the same thing as majority rule.

In addition, there really is something interesting going on in Europe these days--you've got simmering nationalism at the same time as you have a continental government. I suspect if people still thought the Euro was a good idea, Scotland would probably convincingly vote for independence if its joining the Euro was likely.

in action, a referendum is majority rules democracy. full on democracy, bypassing the legislators.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Saying "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is like saying the Phillies are in last place. It is not like me hopefully suggesting Romney would win. It is not a prediction. It is a statement of fact.

The reason you made such a "statement of fact" was to insinuate that it indicated the idea of independence is basically brand-new in Scotland; and secondarily, that desirable change practically requires "long-held majority opinions". Both notions are of course rank nonsense, which even you have apparently retroactively realized, and so have been trying to walk both back with generous helpings of your trademark hamhanded sarcasm.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't trotted out one of your tired "you write so confusingly, no one can understand you" tropes

Usually you're not this bad at reading comprehension. Take that however you want.

If Texas/CA could secede from the USA with 50.1% of a state-wide referendum, then I think most Americans would consider that a bad thing.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Saying "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is like saying the Phillies are in last place. It is not like me hopefully suggesting Romney would win. It is not a prediction. It is a statement of fact.

The reason you made such a "statement of fact" was to insinuate that it indicated the idea of independence is basically brand-new in Scotland; and secondarily, that desirable change practically requires "long-held majority opinions". Both notions are of course rank nonsense, which even you have apparently retroactively realized, and so have been trying to walk both back with generous helpings of your trademark hamhanded sarcasm.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't trotted out one of your tired "you write so confusingly, no one can understand you" tropes

Usually you're not this bad at reading comprehension. Take that however you want.

If Texas/CA could secede from the USA with 50.1% of a state-wide referendum, then I think most Americans would consider that a bad thing.

It gets laughed off because there is not enough of a distinct statewide identity that differs enough from American identity. Is Scotland similar to a state in the US? I guess we'll find out

Texas is practically a different country, mate.

Werthless wrote:Usually you're not this bad at reading comprehension. Take that however you want.

If Texas/CA could secede from the USA with 50.1% of a state-wide referendum, then I think most Americans would consider that a bad thing.

Your homely example has essentially nothing to do with the section of my recent post that you bolded, but I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

I mean, your concern that independence might come about on the basis of something other than an 80/20 vote count is understood, but should be more of a concern to those evaluating, say, Cameron's fitness to govern whatever the UK consists of, or is to consist of, rather than whether the Scottish have considered the merits of independence for more than a fortnight

i dunno, i'd scuttle texas in a heartbeat

San Antonio is pretty kewl as is Austin. That said, Texas, on the whole, is pretty whack.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Usually you're not this bad at reading comprehension. Take that however you want.

If Texas/CA could secede from the USA with 50.1% of a state-wide referendum, then I think most Americans would consider that a bad thing.

Your homely example has essentially nothing to do with the section of my recent post that you bolded, but I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

I mean, your concern that independence might come about on the basis of something other than an 80/20 vote count is understood, but should be more of a concern to those evaluating, say, Cameron's fitness to govern whatever the UK consists of, or is to consist of, rather than whether the Scottish have considered the merits of independence for more than a fortnight

I wrote two paragraphs. The bolded comment was referenced in my first. Try to keep up.