SNP Referendum Nonsense

[the_r_sole]

As has been explained to you several times in this thread, the fact a Conservative government sits in Westminster is moot.

whilst that may be correct in an ideal world - in the real world, the reason that we don't have the UK prime minister debating the issues with the Scottish First Minister is ENTIRELY because of which political party he represents

 

[planty]

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.

I completely agree with you - I think the Scottish economy will suffer in the short-to-medium term if they gain independence, and I do believe the NO vote will win because of this. However if it were me voting I would try and vote based on my feeling towards the politics of the issue rather than what may or may not happen. I'm sure the Scottish economy would eventually recover, but the general population are not willing to forgo their current living standards on a leap of faith.

Disclaimer: I'm English and would actually vote no it it were my choice.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

whilst that may be correct in an ideal world - in the real world, the reason that we don't have the UK prime minister debating the issues with the Scottish First Minister is ENTIRELY because of which political party he represents

Even if we accept that is true, what of it? There is nothing sinister about letting Labour leading the No campaign; they ARE the opposition in the Scottish parliament, which is where this question is being debated. Until the Scottish people hold a referendum and make their voice clear, this is not a question for the British government, which is why they haven't negotiated anything.

It doesn't change the stupidity of the argument that you should vote for secession because the Tory's don't represent Scottish politics. Newsflash: Obama doesn't present nearly half of Americans. Hollande doesn't represent nearly half of the Frogs. Merkel couldn't form a majority government etc. That is how representative government works.

The North East is Labour heartland, should they leave the Union also? Scotland was voting Tory back when Tyne and Wear was deep in red territory after all.

I completely agree with you - I think the Scottish economy will suffer in the short-to-medium term if they gain independence, and I do believe the NO vote will win because of this. However if it were me voting I would try and vote based on my feeling towards the politics of the issue rather than what may or may not happen. I'm sure the Scottish economy would eventually recover, but the general population are not willing to forgo their current living standards on a leap of faith.

Based on SNP economic models, Scottish fortunes stand to be worse in the long-term when the oil starts to run out, as they have bet highly on the income for the North Sea. So I think it's really the reverse of what you say: Scotland may gain some medium term benefits from secession, but somewhere between 2020 and 2040 the oil revenues will drop off and there will be an economic black hole.

Now, it may be that Scotland can address this by increasing output in other sectors, but they've not really set out a plan for that. They've hinged everything on finite resource.

 

[the_r_sole]

Even if we accept that is true, what of it?

It is clearly a problem when the people campaigning to keep the union can't use the prime minister of the UK to debate the issues, for fear that the action of him doing it will highlight the arguments for the other side.
He should be the figurehead of what is good about the union, however as I've said previously, it is clear that the political ideals of Scotland and the UK are divergent and therefore our "democratically elected leader" only reinforces the case for political separation.
I'm not saying there is anything sinister about letting Alasdair darling lead the no campaign, however if you have a career politician who has got himself into position of prime minister that you can't use it weakens the campaign significantly
Why do you have such a problem with Scotland wanting to elect representatives with complete control of our country?
Again you are comparing cities with countries - this is not a valid argument.
If the people of Scotland voted a majority of tory representatives into the parliament, I would be surprised but not upset as it would be the will of the population of this COUNTRY, the problem we have at the moment is we have a parliament in Scotland with a completely different makeup than the UK parliament which holds lots of power over us - if you look at the difference where devolution has allowed the Scottish Parliament to implement it's own policies you will see that there is a clear difference in the political ideals of both parliaments - again we are a country, it is normal for a country to want to have a political set up that represents the will of the nation

 

[kindai]

We should build a giant wall across the length of the scotland/england border or something...

 

[Schlong&Stable]

It is clearly a problem when the people campaigning to keep the union can't use the prime minister of the UK to debate the issues, for fear that the action of him doing it will highlight the arguments for the other side.
He should be the figurehead of what is good about the union, however as I've said previously, it is clear that the political ideals of Scotland and the UK are divergent and therefore our "democratically elected leader" only reinforces the case for political separation.
I'm not saying there is anything sinister about letting Alasdair darling lead the no campaign, however if you have a career politician who has got himself into position of prime minister that you can't use it weaken the campaign significantly
Why do you have such a problem with Scotland wanting to elect representatives with complete control of our country?
Again you are comparing cities with countries - this is not a valid argument.
If the people of Scotland voted a majority of tory representatives into the parliament, I would be surprised but not upset as it would be the will of the population of this COUNTRY, the problem we have at the moment is we have a parliament in Scotland with a completely different makeup than the UK parliament which holds lots of power over us - if you look at the difference where devolution has allowed the Scottish Parliament to implement it's own policies you will see that there is a clear difference in the political ideals of both parliaments - again we are a country, it is normal for a country to want to have a political set up that represents the will of the nation

This is an extremely naive view of Scottish politics, and one that reeks of historical ignorance. As I've told you, Scotland has not always been a stronghold of the Left. If you look back to the early 90's you'll see the Tory's getting nearly as many votes as Labour. The fact it is dominated by Labour and the SNP today, does not mean it will be tomorrow.

Labour is currently polling ahead of the Conservatives, so if they won the next General Election your argument would be sunk, would it not? Scotland would have a Government which represented it's politics, which are apparently marginally left of centre. I say marginally, since Scotland voted New Labour which most Leftists don't even consider to BE leftist. The ACTUAL Leftists parties didn't even get a sniff at the elections.

You're trying to base the future of Scotland on an argument which hangs entirely upon the politics of the day, rather than any long-term view of things.

 

[the_r_sole]

This is an extremely naive view of Scottish politics, and one that reeks of historical ignorance. As I've told you, Scotland has not always been a stronghold of the Left. If you look back to the early 90's you'll see the Tory's getting nearly as many votes as Labour. The fact it is dominated by Labour and the SNP today, does not mean it will be tomorrow.

Labour is currently polling ahead of the Conservatives, so if they won the next General Election your argument would be sunk, would it not? Scotland would have a Government which represented it's politics, which are apparently marginally left of centre. I say marginally, since Scotland voted New Labour which most Leftists don't even consider to BE leftist. The ACTUAL Leftists parties didn't even get a sniff at the elections.

You're trying to base the future of Scotland on an argument which hangs entirely upon the politics of the day, rather than any long-term view of things.

what I have said was that I would be happy for any party to be in control in the Scottish Parliament if they were voted in by the Scottish population, they would represent the people that voted for them and have full control over powers - we can only go on the current situation when it's a current affair issue -I'm not sure why you are resorting to saying I am ignorant of history and have a naïve view of Scottish politics - can you tell me again what your problem is with Scotland being allowed to be run by people voted for by the Scottish population (without comparing it to a city)

 

[Amp34]

i see it more like a divorce where the partners should get an equal (proportional) split of everything and can continue to have the same family name, relationships with people etc - guess it just depends on whether you are being deliberately negative about one side trying to outline the aims rather than discussing the potential opportunities in the equation
there are many issues to be discussed but I don't understand why the uk government don't outline a case for the union rather than just telling scotland they can't have this, they can't have that when everything is up for discussion/negotiation

There are four (actually, quite possibly more when you include smaller dependencies and dominions) entities in this country. England, Scotland, northern island and Wales. One of these countries wants to separate from the union. It's not that one half wants to go one wanly and the other another, it's a small part of the unillon wanting to leave (both politically, proportion of nations and population wise). The reason many Scots complain about their inability as a whole (Scotland) to have a major say in UK politics is the same reason it's like A partner leaving an organisation rather than a divorce. Scotland has an 8th of the population, in no way should it ever have more say than the majority of the UK population when it affects the whole county.

As for the no campaigns argument, it's that we already know what the benefits of the union to Scotland are, you see it every day. Salmond wants to change the status quo, he needs to prove (or at least make the majority of those eligable to vote) believe things will be better in an independent Scotland.

 

[Amp34]

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

Ok, a few simple questions.

Can you show any evidence that Scotland would be invited into the EU with the same deal it has now?

Can you show any evidence that NATO would accept Scotland into the organisation as a seperate entity, while it still forces the removal of the nuclear subs?

So far there are sources high up in each organisation that have suggested things will not be that simple (such as EU commission members and other member states). The only person suggesting things will be that simple is Salmond. The negativity you attribute to us isn't negativity for the sake of it, it's pointing out the currently understood situation, formed by listening to those that actually have knowledge of the inner workings of the organisations, rather than a politician who is trying to make a legacy...

 

[the_r_sole]

Ok, a few simple questions.

Can you show any evidence that Scotland would be invited into the EU with the same deal it has now?

Can you show any evidence that NATO would accept Scotland into the organisation as a seperate entity, while it still forces the removal of the nuclear subs?

So far there are sources high up in each organisation that have suggested things will not be that simple (such as EU commission members and other member states). The only person suggesting things will be that simple is Salmond. The negativity you attribute to us isn't negativity for the sake of it, it's pointing out the currently understood situation, formed by listening to those that actually have knowledge of the inner workings of the organisations, rather than a politician who is trying to make a legacy...

Can you show actual evidence that either of those things won't happen?
That's the point, everything is up for discussion - no one has definitive answers

 

[Amp34]

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.

The synic in me thinks the independence vote is timed like it is for the very reason of economics... It's much easier to get people to vote for you and you're just coming out of a recession and you're singing the white roses of what "will" happen if they vote for independence... Much like Spain and Gibraltar and argentina and the Falklands, far more nationalist sabre rattling when times are hard...

I wonder if Scottish passports will be better than British passports visa wise? If so I may have to apply for dual nationality if Scotland gets independence.

 

[Muffin`]

Can you show actual evidence that either of those things won't happen?
That's the point, everything is up for discussion - no one has definitive answers

On the EU front there is Spain, which has it's own Devolution issues which it could cause it block new membership, at the very least make it difficult.

The EU is moving away from Nationalism and towards Federalism and Scotland is flying into the headwind with these actions, how it quite plans to keep Veto options or opt out of the Euro is quite frankly laughable and another clear indicator of deceit.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Scotland has had a government reflective of its politics for years - we all have, because since 1997 we have had only 3 years during which a Prime Minister was not a Scot and the leading party was not one of the most popular parties in Scotland..

 

[grumpysculler]

The Yes campaign is represented by Blair Jenkins. Alex Salmond represents the Scottish Government.

Ah ok, that's why all the fuss yesterday was led by Blair Jenkins. Oh, hang on - it wasn't. It was led by Alex Salmond and Nicola (Face-Like-A) Sturgeon.

Can you show any evidence that Scotland would be invited into the EU with the same deal it has now?

<snp>It's a perfectly sensible proposition</snp>

Can you show any evidence that NATO would accept Scotland into the organisation as a seperate entity, while it still forces the removal of the nuclear subs?

<snp>It's a perfectly sensible proposition</snp>

Can you show actual evidence that either of those things won't happen?
That's the point, everything is up for discussion - no one has definitive answers

So we are expected to vote Yes and cross our fingers and hope that the good things will happen? We don't all live in some fairy tail where the good guys always win. Everyone involved in those discussions has their own agenda and the best interests of Scotland are NOT their main priority.

NATO membership could be blocked unless we base nuclear subs here - UK has a veto.

EU membership could be blocked by Spain because of ETA, or France and Germany because they want to expand their Euro-empire.

 

[Turambar]

Ah ok, that's why all the fuss yesterday was led by Blair Jenkins. Oh, hang on - it wasn't. It was led by Alex Salmond and Nicola (Face-Like-A) Sturgeon.

You're right. It's ridiculous to assume that two separate organisations could possibly support the same thing.

 

[the_r_sole]

So we are expected to vote Yes and cross our fingers and hope that the good things will happen? We don't all live in some fairy tail where the good guys always win. Everyone involved in those discussions has their own agenda and the best interests of Scotland are NOT their main priority.

any vote is a leap of faith, the whole point in negotiations is that you negotiate, no one is saying that negotiations would not be required - the political make up of Scotland could change significantly after the vote anyway...
it seems that project fear has really kicked in with some folks, maybe I'm just a risk taker that thinks change could be a good thing

what I would like to see is, instead of hearing the no campaign saying "An independent Scotland can't..." hearing "Scotland in the union can..."

 

[wildman]

I think it would be very unlikely for the EU not to accept Scotland as a member, but that will come with conditions that may be unpopular with the Scottish people.

Yep such as:

1. Single Currency
2. Standard EU Interest rates controlled by ECB rather than Scotland.

Any scot voting for independence are simply voting for a change of master as they will dance to the tune from Brussels

Any Scot who thinks that the EU will meet any kind of crazy demands from Salmond to join the EU that don't include single currency and interest rates is on drugs.

There is no way on Gods earth you are getting EU membership without the above 2 should Salmond somehow pull out the win of the centuary.

 

[Stretch]

any vote is a leap of faith, the whole point in negotiations is that you negotiate, no one is saying that negotiations would not be required - the political make up of Scotland could change significantly after the vote anyway...
it seems that project fear has really kicked in with some folks, maybe I'm just a risk taker that thinks change could be a good thing

what I would like to see is, instead of hearing the no campaign saying "An independent Scotland can't..." hearing "Scotland in the union can..."

Scotland, by all accounts is a very successful country. So by staying in the union, it can continue to be a successful country. That's fairly unambiguous, and requires little faith.

Project "fear" as yes campaigners like to phrase it, are highlighting the risks, uncertainty, cost and drawbacks associated with Scotland leaving the UK.

Is that not an entirely logical, reasonable and responsible thing to do?

 

[Stretch]

double post

 

[wildman]

any vote is a leap of faith, the whole point in negotiations is that you negotiate, no one is saying that negotiations would not be required - the political make up of Scotland could change significantly after the vote anyway...
it seems that project fear has really kicked in with some folks, maybe I'm just a risk taker that thinks change could be a good thing

what I would like to see is, instead of hearing the no campaign saying "An independent Scotland can't..." hearing "Scotland in the union can..."

a leap of faith that could end up with lots of negatives is simply a bridge to far for normal everyday folk. Salmond shoul dhave done his homework properly rather than hand out idle promises which he could in no meanigful way keep.

At the end of the day people vote with their wallets. As it stands an independant Scotland would cost normal everyday folk in the wallets more than stayin in Team GB.