pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

SK790 wrote:Your party tried to vote out Obamacare a million times times then literally shut down the government when they didn't get their way.

SK790 wrote:I mean, I guess everything that ever gets voted down should never be brought to a vote again. You need to accept that result and move on because the matter is decided always and forever. Sorry, the gays, looks like we'll never have nationwide marriage equality.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

Why is a decision to tie your future to that of another nation more catclysmic than a decision to go on your own? "20 or 30 years" down the road, the consequences of this decision will be as profound as if the opposite had been decided.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:Living without slaves was also an unknown at one point. I know this analogy isn't perfect, jh, it's just pointing out the massive strawman that Calvin is putting up.

Your analogies are awful

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

Why is a decision to tie your future to that of another nation more catclysmic than a decision to go on your own? "20 or 30 years" down the road, the consequences of this decision will be as profound as if the opposite had been decided.

SK790 wrote:Stating that unknowns are unknown as a reason not to change quickly is a logical fallacy. I thought that was pretty clear.

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

Why is a decision to tie your future to that of another nation more catclysmic than a decision to go on your own? "20 or 30 years" down the road, the consequences of this decision will be as profound as if the opposite had been decided.

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. I don't think their decision to keep the status quo by remaining a part of the United Kingdom is more cataclysmic than the decision to go independent.

I don't think the consequences are as profound on both sides because if 20 years from now there's serious sentiment in Scotland for independence due to a continued divergence in public opinion from the rest of the UK, then they should be able to pursue that path. If they had voted yes and things had gone poorly, I don't think there'd have been a way to hit restart and recreate the UK.

pacino wrote:

SK790 wrote:Stating that unknowns are unknown as a reason not to change quickly is a logical fallacy. I thought that was pretty clear.

there are known knowns. then there are unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. keep up.

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

Why is a decision to tie your future to that of another nation more catclysmic than a decision to go on your own? "20 or 30 years" down the road, the consequences of this decision will be as profound as if the opposite had been decided.

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. I don't think their decision to keep the status quo by remaining a part of the United Kingdom is more cataclysmic than the decision to go independent.

I don't think the consequences are as profound on both sides because if 20 years from now there's serious sentiment in Scotland for independence due to a continued divergence in public opinion from the rest of the UK, then they should be able to pursue that path. If they had voted yes and things had gone poorly, I don't think there'd have been a way to hit restart and recreate the UK.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

SK790 wrote:Stating that unknowns are unknown as a reason not to change quickly is a logical fallacy. I thought that was pretty clear.

there are known knowns. then there are unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. keep up.

The key here would be the fourth piece of that puzzle, the known unknowns (currency, EU membership, NATO membership, etc.)

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Salmond, clown, says Scotland has not, at this stage, decided to become independent. In the great tradition of leaders who know the right answer even if their constituents disagree, he will try to keep asking as many times as it takes until he gets the answer he wants, at which point they will never be asked again.

Can't believe they're calling a 10% win decisive, everyone knows only a 2/3 majority on an issue of this significance should be deemed decisive

or maybe they should run a series of votes, over 2 or maybe even more years

I've heard thats what serious people think

It is heartening to see that you, to the end, are wedded to the position of not understanding even a little bit

why shouldn't they vote again?

They can vote again if there's widespread appetite for it in 20 or 30 years. I would hope the rules would be set up differently if that does happen. Quebec, also brought up here, is a good example. They came within a point of voting for independence back in 1995. Today support for independence is in the mid 30s. If you ask enough times and one of the votes is held at the right time and have the bar set low enough, then you might catch a gust of wind to narrowly clear it on one occasion, which would change things permanently and irreversibly.

Why is a decision to tie your future to that of another nation more catclysmic than a decision to go on your own? "20 or 30 years" down the road, the consequences of this decision will be as profound as if the opposite had been decided.

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. I don't think their decision to keep the status quo by remaining a part of the United Kingdom is more cataclysmic than the decision to go independent.

I don't think the consequences are as profound on both sides because if 20 years from now there's serious sentiment in Scotland for independence due to a continued divergence in public opinion from the rest of the UK, then they should be able to pursue that path. If they had voted yes and things had gone poorly, I don't think there'd have been a way to hit restart and recreate the UK.

I'm not asking anything, I'm pointing out what should be obvious but somehow isn't. Scotland was at a tipping point where they could have chosen one of two courses. Either one would have profound consequences, good and bad. It's not like they voted no and everyone can just roll over and go back to sleep secure in their futures. Now, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to know which choice was better for the Scottish people. However, if you think there's no chance in the world that if they had voted "yes" they might decide down the road that really "no" would have been a better idea and to rejoin the UK, then maybe you should rethink your support for the no position. Clearly, if in the future there would have been such support for independence that there's no way they would consider going back to the way things were, then yes would have been the right decision to make.

I don't think there's no chance a "yes" majority would decide down the road that "no" would have been better, just that there'd be nothing they could do about it to fix the mistake