Ha. You're too much. De-legitimise your disagreement? You do that yourself by this, your words presented without substantiation or fact:
In addition it will have a weak democracy, as there will be no effective opposition to the SNP. How long will it take for a credible party of opposition to emerge? Without an established constitutional model and with no opposition to hold them to account, do you trust the SNP leadership to tackle the profound challenges of negotiating independence and accession to the EU, founding new state institutions, and guiding the economy in a period of intense uncertainty? A sad but very possible outcome is for Scotland to find itself in need of the Bretton Woods institutions and being force fed neo-liberal policies in return for the loans. Rupert Murdoch is cheer leading independence because he's a cold businessman seeking advantage for News Corp; revenge on the 'establishment' is merely the cherry on the cake.
This is the definition of patriarchal, ill-informed nonsense and speculation, so please spare me the magnanimity. You deliberately quoted two phrases from the WBB to try and debunk it, yet you proceed to cite a report for the House of Lords as 'evidence'. Have you heard of the McCrone report? You'd make a poor historian either way.
There's two arguments, yes-but there's also you citing everything and anything to support your own whilst pronouncing outcomes that I myself, and even the SNP PR machine, have refrained from doing because it's a process, and it's not about the SNP, or Salmond, it's about the people who are voting. Everyone recognises currency uncertainty. Everyone recognises that entry into the EU will be negotiated. You cite an outgoing Spaniard comparing Scotland to Kosovo, I can cite an EU commissioner comparing it to East Germany. You can cite Deutsche Bank, I can cite Commerz bank. Context is everything. One of those banks has a view that supports yours, so you choose it. Fair enough, but I don't think you're putting much effort into considering the alternative viewpoint beyond what it takes to refute it.
At no point have I suggested people not in Scotland have no right to a view. What i have said is that if you're not on the ground here you're not seeing the full picture, as my photos from Saturday reflect, and your accusations of naivity belittle the fact that I do live here and have taken this process very seriously, and the implications directly effect me.
The difference is I've a hint of awareness of my own bias in trying to provide an alternative narrative, where you're seemingly just trying to win an argument that certainly won't be settled here.
I'm glad you've immediately reduced this back to ad hominem attacks. Give me your email address and I will send scanned copies of my degree transcripts.
Ha. You're too much. De-legitimise your disagreement? You do that yourself by this, your words presented without substantiation or fact:
This is the definition of patriarchal, ill-informed nonsense and speculation, so please spare me the magnanimity. You deliberately quoted two phrases from the WBB to try and debunk it, yet you proceed to cite a report for the House of Lords as 'evidence'. Have you heard of the McCrone report? You'd make a poor historian either way.
There's two arguments, yes-but there's also you citing everything and anything to support your own whilst pronouncing outcomes that I myself, and even the SNP PR machine, have refrained from doing because it's a process, and it's not about the SNP, or Salmond, it's about the people who are voting. Everyone recognises currency uncertainty. Everyone recognises that entry into the EU will be negotiated. You cite an outgoing Spaniard comparing Scotland to Kosovo, I can cite an EU commissioner comparing it to East Germany. You can cite Deutsche Bank, I can cite Commerz bank. Context is everything. One of those banks has a view that supports yours, so you choose it. Fair enough, but I don't think you're putting much effort into considering the alternative viewpoint beyond what it takes to refute it.
At no point have I suggested people not in Scotland have no right to a view. What i have said is that if you're not on the ground here you're not seeing the full picture, as my photos from Saturday reflect, and your accusations of naivity belittle the fact that I do live here and have taken this process very seriously, and the implications directly effect me.
The difference is I've a hint of awareness of my own bias in trying to provide an alternative narrative, where you're seemingly just trying to win an argument that certainly won't be settled here.