SNP Referendum Nonsense

Muffin` said:
How do you quantify an equal share? There is no precedent for this, no divorce court at the UN. Scotland leaving the Union will hurt the rUK so the rUK has a duty to fight tooth and nail for whatever is in its peoples best interest, just like Scotland would look to do. Implying that it's petty on arguing over asses seems a somewhat juvenile way to look at the breakup. The rUK would hold all the cards, it's up to the Scottish people to decide how they plan to go on if the promises told to them by the YES campaign don't come to fruition.
Click to expand...

what I am saying again and again and again is that these things are up for discussion, nothing is set in stone on either side and it needs to be discussed, debated and compromised - the problem at the moment is that we are not getting any debate or discussion we are getting people giving their negative opinions as fact, just like saying the breakup will be like a business partner leaving rather than a divorce when really the terms are still up for discussion
 
the_r_sole said:
what I am saying again and again and again is that these things are up for discussion, nothing is set in stone on either side and it needs to be discussed, debated and compromised - the problem at the moment is that we are not getting any debate or discussion we are getting people giving their negative opinions as fact, just like saying the breakup will be like a business partner leaving rather than a divorce when really the terms are still up for discussion
Click to expand...

Time on negotiation before the referendum would be a gift for the Yes campaign, so that won't happen. The Yes campaign could have used the time to set out what it thinks and hopes will happen, which it has done, but it doesn't imply that, it's implied that it's set in stone, which it isn't - deceitful politicians should not be trusted.
 
the problem is that not having any discussions and naysaying is a gift for the yes campaign too - it makes the undecided question why only one side will discuss their plans and the other wont say.
the other gift for the yes campaign is that they can't let the prime minister say anything! he is meant to be the leader of UK but they are too scared to let a tory lead the No campaign - that shows just how much they trust themselves to be able to argue past party politics on this issue
 
It is a shame that the "NO" parties are so negative; Though TBH I don't really see the point if they intend to keep the pound and the monarchy???
 
platypus said:
I would certainly agree that the 'No' campaign seems to be doing all the work for the 'Yes' campaign at this point!
Click to expand...

The Yes campaign is represented by the leader of the Scottish National Party which also holds the majority in that Parliament, it can state what its plans are because it will be the one running the show should they be successful. The No campaign is represented by an ex-Labour minister with no possible say on the running of anything as it represents the rUK which it cannot speak on.

The UK Government has to stay neutral in this matter and leave it to the two campaigns to manged themselves.
 
Last edited:
Muffin` said:
The Yes campaign is represented by the leader of the Scottish National Party which also holds the majority in that Parliament, it can state what its plans are because it will be the one running the show should they be successful. The No campaign is represented by an ex-Labour minister with no possible say on the running of anything as it represents the rUK which it cannot speak on.

The UK Government has to stay neutral in this matter and leave it to the two campaigns to manged themselves.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the UK government having to stay neutral is the wrong approach.
 
Muffin` said:
The Yes campaign is represented by the leader of the Scottish National Party which also holds the majority in that Parliament, it can state what its plans are because it will be the one running the show should they be successful. The No campaign is represented by an ex-Labour minister with no possible say on the running of anything as it represents the rUK which it cannot speak on.

The UK Government has to stay neutral in this matter and leave it to the two campaigns to manged themselves.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Muffin` said:
The Yes campaign is represented by the leader of the Scottish National Party which also holds the majority in that Parliament, it can state what its plans are because it will be the one running the show should they be successful. The No campaign is represented by an ex-Labour minister with no possible say on the running of anything as it represents the rUK which it cannot speak on.

The UK Government has to stay neutral in this matter and leave it to the two campaigns to manged themselves.
Click to expand...


Not likely.

A direct quote from David Cameron:

"I think it would be a tragedy for Scotland to separate herself from the United Kingdom and I'll campaign with everything I've got to say let's stick together."

It's a pity this doesn't extent to actually debating the issue with the First Minister. If sitting on the sidelines, throwing the odd pro-union comment into the mix is Mr Cameron's idea of giving everything he's got, then God help the rest of the UK should Scotland break away. What a pathetic coward...
 
I find the whole debate quite strange. A lot of the media talk seems to suggest that people will vote depending on the perceived economic benefits of being in/out of the UK.

The fundamental concern for the voters should not be how their economy might do with/without the UK - the bad times come and go regardless of what country you are. It should be about how they want their country to be managed through the good/bad times.
 
K-2 said:
Not likely.

A direct quote from David Cameron:

"I think it would be a tragedy for Scotland to separate herself from the United Kingdom and I'll campaign with everything I've got to say let's stick together."
Click to expand...

Well it is true, is he using government funds to help that cause? There's a key difference, the man is still allowed an opinion.


K-2 said:
It's a pity this doesn't extent to actually debating the issue with the First Minister. If sitting on the sidelines, throwing the odd pro-union comment into the mix is Mr Cameron's idea of giving everything he's got, then God help the rest of the UK should Scotland break away. What a pathetic coward...
Click to expand...

How can he debate it, he cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish people against another person who speaks on behalf of the Scottish people. An English Parliament equivalent along with leaders from the Welsh and Norther Irish Assemblies would be the only one workable, I think that makes your last point somewhat incorrect, wouldn't you agree?
 
Muffin` said:
Well it is true, is he using government funds to help that cause? There's a key difference, the man is still allowed an opinion.




How can he debate it, he cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish people against another person who speaks on behalf of the Scottish people. An English Parliament equivalent along with leaders from the Welsh and Norther Irish Assemblies would be the only one workable, I think that makes your last point somewhat incorrect, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Let's just stick to the facts. As Prime Minister, Cameron speaks on behalf of the UK. Scotland is part of the UK. He is our Prime Minister and yet thinks it's inappropriate to get directly involved in the independence debate? That it's somehow inappropriate?

How can you seriously defend this? It's utterly bizzare... :confused:
 
planty said:
I find the whole debate quite strange. A lot of the media talk seems to suggest that people will vote depending on the perceived economic benefits of being in/out of the UK.

The fundamental concern for the voters should not be how their economy might do with/without the UK - the bad times come and go regardless of what country you are. It should be about how they want their country to be managed through the good/bad times.
Click to expand...

Excellent point and one I hope the undecided voters seriously consider. This debate shouldn't hinge on the promise of financial gain or the threat of losses. It's about self reliance and real democracy.
 
Turambar said:
The Yes campaign is represented by Blair Jenkins. Alex Salmond represents the Scottish Government.
Click to expand...

He is for independence, he represents it, he speaks for it, whether that's in an official capacity is by the way side with just how vocal and visible he is on the matter.
 
I wish people would stop clouding the issue with political parties - a vote for independence is not a vote for alex salmond or the snp.
The prime minister of the UK should be confident enough as the elected leader of the UK to get involved in the debate and state the case for the union - however the major issue with this is that he is tory and doesn't really represent the politics (or people) of Scotland, and all it would do is highlight one of the main issues of the yes campaigns arguments
 
planty said:
I find the whole debate quite strange. A lot of the media talk seems to suggest that people will vote depending on the perceived economic benefits of being in/out of the UK.

The fundamental concern for the voters should not be how their economy might do with/without the UK - the bad times come and go regardless of what country you are. It should be about how they want their country to be managed through the good/bad times.
Click to expand...

Having a political ideal at the expense of living standards is very much at the forefront of peoples minds, hence why Salmond has to use such forthright language when talking about the economic benefits. So far his figures haven't added up when under scrutiny (taking in the whole picture, not cherry picking bits).

This is also linked to their strong desire to be inside the Stirling Zone, a Scottish pound issues by the BoS (even when pegged) would deprive citizens of their current living standards, everything from household gas, petrol and food stuffs would get more expensive, tax would have to go up to help stabilize a depreciating and unstable currency. Servicing debt to satisfy the bond markets would be expensive, there is no precedent for a BoS, the BoE is world class as it stands (it has never defaulted).

No one likes living standards to go backwards but this is a factor for the Western world in the rise of the East, but it will fall faster under a Scottish Pound than it would with the status quo, and that is a predicament the Yes campaign will struggle on.
 
the_r_sole said:
I wish people would stop clouding the issue with political parties - a vote for independence is not a vote for alex salmond or the snp.
The prime minister of the UK should be confident enough as the elected leader of the UK to get involved in the debate and state the case for the union - however the major issue with this is that he is tory and doesn't really represent the politics (or people) of Scotland, and all it would do is highlight one of the main issues of the yes campaigns arguments
Click to expand...

As has been explained to you several times in this thread, the fact a Conservative government sits in Westminster is moot. Whether Scotland gets independence or not, many Scots are still going to be led by a part that doesn't represent their personal politics. This particular argument is therefore quite frankly, stupid.

If the argument was 'We want to be represented by Scots' then it would make more sense. But the SNP are civic nationalists, so you could be represented by Romanian or Pakistani immigrants...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom