View Single Post
Old 09-03-2019, 04:22 PM
Dead Cat is online now
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,278
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Starting with your initial statement that since Scotland narrowly decided to stay, therefore Scotland needs Britain more than the reverse. This ignores the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship. I have a disabled wife who would be in bad shape financially were I to leave her. So it could be said that she needs me more than I need her. But I'm not going to leave her because we both get a lot of joy and emotional support from our marriage.
I think yours is an excellent analogy. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. I covered this in the OP of this thread. My opinion is that both sides do benefit. But I believe it is also true that Scotland needs rUK more than vice versa.

Now, I will concede it is possible that more people in the referendum were voting "No" because they had a positive view of the benefits of the union, rather than a negative view of Scotland's solo prospects. I don't think that disproves my thesis in its entirety, but perhaps I should have used the word "suggested" rather than "showed". I don't think that makes my statement a "fallacy" or a "lie".

When it was pointed out that your assertion was flawed, you responded by demanding that others show that Britain got more from Scotland than the reverse. This is shifts the burden of proof. You made the statement that Scotland gets more out of the relationship than England, so you are the one required to back it up. Supposing that it was England gets 51% advantage and Scotland get 49% advantage. Just because Gary Kumquat can't nail down that 1% difference doesn't mean that your assertion that the Scottish share is greater is correct.
I think it's a little unfair to characterise the phrase "Perhaps you could just provide" as "demanding", but whatever - that's not the point at issue. As I explained in this OP (which you have not addressed) I wasn't moving the goalposts, just rephrasing to what I thought was something broadly equivalent. In my opinion it is manifestly obvious that England contributes more to the union than Scotland, by almost anything you care to measure. That's not to denigrate Scotland's excellent and valuable contribution, it's just sheer weight of numbers.

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Just to recap, you want to argue that the statement "Scotland needs England more than vice versa" is the same as "a slim majority were happier with the status quo of the UK then going it alone".
Broadly equivalent, yes. I mean, if Scotland was going to be so great by itself, more people would have voted for independence. I think you'll have a hard time arguing that lots of voters thought Scotland contributed more to the union than England, but altruistically voted to keep the status quo (or that the mutual benefits were so much greater than what Scotland could achieve on its own).