mcgruff wrote:Which would still create better outcomes for everyone.

Why?

Is oil going to stay low for ever? Nobody told me.

No, it's going to dry up all together. But that doesn't address my point. An independent Scotland would have needed money short-term. That's why Salmond was so keen to emphasize oil revenue.

I can't believe the amount of anti-Scottish crap there has been in this thread - and ongoing. Oil income might be nice to have (if it wasn't for AGW) but it's not that relevant to the question of independence, as has already been explained.

It's not anti-Scottish to point to potential problems, as has already been explained. Ad nauseum.

mcgruff wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:That's right. I called a public figure - a politician - a liar. Hardly a controversial claim, especially in this case.

It is a controversial claim. And quite offensive. It's a personal attack however you choose to spin it - and quite hypocritical given your petulant threats. If you don't like being called stupid - with justification - don't call other people stupid without.

It's a personal attack, but only members are protected from personal attacks. You might find it beneficial to read up on the Forum User's Agreement, which we have all agreed to and which governs interactions:-

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

mcgruff wrote:This thread has been plagued with uninformed, unthinking, biased comments about the question of Scottish independence.

From both sides, certainly. Sadly this does not constitute a grounds for disregarding the rules which all interactions on Ratskep are governed by. At this point I'm not sure even a retraction and apology will save you from a long-term suspension, but you could try.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

mcgruff wrote:Which would still create better outcomes for everyone.

Why?

Basic economic literacy. Growth/contraction is not the most important thing: how the wealth is shared is more important.

In a society with great inequality, you can have "growth" which does not filter down to less wealthy sectors of society - indeed it may specifically happen at their expense. Or, if there is an economic contraction, that can be focussed on less wealthy sectors of society without affecting the richest to the same degree, if at all.

As numerous academic studies have shown, even the richest have better outcomes in more equal societies despite having less wealth of their own. We're a social animal. Thatcher got it flat wrong: there is such a thing as society. Our individual success depends on creating a healthy, high-functioning society.

An independent Scotland which determined to create a fairer society would in time benefit from a significant equality dividend (eg lower healthcare costs, lower crime, etc etc) which itself might offset reduction in other national income but even if it did not, and the economy shrunk a little overall, greater equality (given a starting point of significant inequality) can still create better outcomes for everyone, rich and poor.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

Is oil going to stay low for ever? Nobody told me.

No, it's going to dry up all together. But that doesn't address my point. An independent Scotland would have needed money short-term. That's why Salmond was so keen to emphasize oil revenue.

Independence is a long-term question. Why is that so hard to understand? The specific problems of the day will largely be forgotten in 10-20 years time.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

I can't believe the amount of anti-Scottish crap there has been in this thread - and ongoing. Oil income might be nice to have (if it wasn't for AGW) but it's not that relevant to the question of independence, as has already been explained.

It's not anti-Scottish to point to potential problems, as has already been explained. Ad nauseum.

Not if that were done in a fair and reasonable manner, with a sense of perspective which neither exaggerates nor plays down the issue in question. However...

mcgruff wrote:

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

mcgruff wrote:Which would still create better outcomes for everyone.

Why?

Basic economic literacy. Growth/contraction is not the most important thing: how the wealth is shared is more important.

Even more basic - you have to have growth (or wealth) in order to share it. You cannot share a thing you do not have.

mcgruff wrote:As numerous academic studies have shown, even the richest have better outcomes in more equal societies despite having less wealth of their own.

I don't think this is quite right. To which studies are you referring, that generalise so broadly?

Thommo wrote:At this point I'm not sure even a retraction and apology will save you from a long-term suspension, but you could try.

The mods - and some others - probably need to get laid more. Do you think that will help?

mcgruff wrote:

Thommo wrote:At this point I'm not sure even a retraction and apology will save you from a long-term suspension, but you could try.

The mods - and some others - probably need to get laid more. Do you think that will help?

No, that seems quite unhelpful.

What I don't understand at this point is why you would pretend you don't want to participate. Is this some kind of deflection from the incredibly poor impulse control you're posts would seem to show? Because if you don't want to be here, you don't have to be, but laying into the mods is liable to take the decision out of your hands.

Thommo wrote:Even more basic - you have to have growth (or wealth) in order to share it. You cannot share a thing you do not have.

But we already have wealth, as a nation. It's just not shared very well.

Thommo wrote:I don't think this is quite right. To which studies are you referring, that generalise so broadly?

Start here. (Talk by Richard Wilkinson on his book, The Spirit Level, co-authored with Kate Pickett).

Thommo wrote:laying into the mods is liable to take the decision out of your hands

You misunderstand me: I don't personally want to lay the mods. Not unless they buy me dinner first anyway.

mcgruff wrote:

Thommo wrote:laying into the mods is liable to take the decision out of your hands

You misunderstand me: I don't personally want to lay the mods. Not unless they buy me dinner first anyway.

Unfunny joke. Doesn't help much.

Thommo wrote:Unfunny joke. Doesn't help much.

To cut this short, you're wasting your time trying to tell me how to behave. For better or worse, I'll decide that.

Now back to dissing Scotland... We haven't heard anything about currency for a while. That's always a good one. Or what about the threat from Krakens?

mcgruff wrote:

Thommo wrote:Unfunny joke. Doesn't help much.

To cut this short, you're wasting your time trying to tell me how to behave. For better or worse, I'll decide that.

I'm informing you of how you agreed to behave when you signed up here. What you choose to do with that information, be it behave like a grown up or lash out like a toddler is, as you point out, yours to decide.

The reason I chose to inform you is that you gave the impression of ignorance, offering in your defence a claim that UE had launched a personal attack against Alec Salmond, which as it happens is not materially relevant.

Bored now.

mcgruff wrote:

Thommo wrote:Even more basic - you have to have growth (or wealth) in order to share it. You cannot share a thing you do not have.

But we already have wealth, as a nation. It's just not shared very well.

Thommo wrote:I don't think this is quite right. To which studies are you referring, that generalise so broadly?

Start here. (Talk by Richard Wilkinson on his book, The Spirit Level, co-authored with Kate Pickett).

Whilst it was an interesting enough TED talk, somewhat unsurprisingly it didn't actually show anything of the sort, the closest it came was a single (non-representative) graph of infant mortality in England compared to Sweden by social class. Oh well.

See this is the problem all the way through this thread: people won't make the effort to inform themselves about the issues under discussion. And you wonder why we get tetchy...

What makes the argument for greater equality so powerful is that it is in fact solidly based on academic research. Everything which can possibly be measured - infant mortality, educational outcomes, drug abuse, crime, health outcomes, you name it - always points to the same conclusion: societies with greater equality perform better. Even the rich do better despite being less rich than they might have been in a less equal society.

Individual success depends on a complex web of interdependency and co-operative endeavour but everything breaks down when there are high levels of inequality - a clear sign that the sense of fairness and respect which underpins all social interactions has broken down.

That is the most important resource of any nation: a sense of community, fairness and respect for other people. It's not just some vague, happy-clappy notion: "wouldn't it be nice if we were all nice to each other". There are concrete economic impacts.

mcgruff wrote:And you wonder why we get tetchy...

Who is "we"? The only person who has flouted the FUA is you, and the reason is you can't be bothered to exercise any self-control and/or think the rules only apply to other people and not you. Either that, or you don't understand why the rules are the way the are, in which case perhaps it needs to be explained to you:

If you allow people to engage in personal attacks then the whole board descends into a storm of personal attacks and most of the contributors who actually have anything to say that's worth listening to, leave. It eventually destroys the board, as happened at the RDF.

Stop making excuses.

mcgruff wrote:See this is the problem all the way through this thread: people won't make the effort to inform themselves about the issues under discussion. And you wonder why we get tetchy...

What makes the argument for greater equality so powerful is that it is in fact solidly based on academic research. Everything which can possibly be measured - infant mortality, educational outcomes, drug abuse, crime, health outcomes, you name it - always points to the same conclusion: societies with greater equality perform better. Even the rich do better despite being less rich than they might have been in a less equal society.

Individual success depends on a complex web of interdependency and co-operative endeavour but everything breaks down when there are high levels of inequality - a clear sign that the sense of fairness and respect which underpins all social interactions has broken down.

That is the most important resource of any nation: a sense of community, fairness and respect for other people. It's not just some vague, happy-clappy notion: "wouldn't it be nice if we were all nice to each other". There are concrete economic impacts.

Be that as it may, that isn't what you claimed*.

The reason you get as many disagreements as you do, isn't because people don't pay enough attention to the facts, it's because they do. This has nothing to do with tetchyness or your inability (which doesn't extend to any "we", other pro independence individuals have been quite able to avoid it) to, and disinterest in, posting within the FUA.

*As numerous academic studies have shown, even the richest have better outcomes in more equal societies despite having less wealth of their own.

UndercoverElephant wrote:If you allow people to engage in personal attacks then the whole board descends into a storm of personal attacks and most of the contributors who actually have anything to say that's worth listening to, leave.

I'm not arguing for personal attacks. Fair comment, by definition, is not a personal attack.

This thread could have been an interesting discussion about the opportunities and risks of independence but it has been repeatedly and mercilessly driven off the road by people like you who understand little about Scotland and apparently don't have any sense of perspective with which to judge the talking points you parrot from a biased media.

Oil is a subject for discussion - of course - but a recent, temporary fall in oil prices is not an opportunity to gloat about how dishonest and stupid Alex Salmond is.

It's a bit rich to complain about people being rude when you are partly to blame for making this topic such a trial.

Thommo wrote:Be that as it may, that isn't what you claimed*

Yes I did. I've been talking about the importance of equality and I pointed you to a TED talk as well as mentioning the book the talk is based on. You then made a sniffy comment about something which you obviously made no effort to try to understand but the argument they have made is based on solid academic research and cannot lightly be dismissed.

Not knowing something is not a crime but not making any effort to learn certainly is.

Well as it pretty obvious from the Scottish referendum and every election in history people don't vote for equality they vote to improve their own lot and if they are the bottom equality may be a means to end

mcgruff wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:If you allow people to engage in personal attacks then the whole board descends into a storm of personal attacks and most of the contributors who actually have anything to say that's worth listening to, leave.

I'm not arguing for personal attacks. Fair comment, by definition, is not a personal attack.

Calling another member an idiot/liar is a personal attack.

You could always apologise, but you apparently have no intention of doing so.

It's a bit rich to complain about people being rude when you are partly to blame for making this topic such a trial.

I have abided by the FUA. You have not.