SNP Referendum Nonsense

[the_r_sole]

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 entirely reasonable and responsible thing to do?

A balanced view would be much better - there is uncertainty, costs and drawbacks to both situations, why not talk about them openly and honestly?

The no campaign is a reactive campaign - i.e. wait for something to be said and say it's wrong or can't happen.
Why can't they have a pro-active campaign if everything is so rosy for Scotland in the union?

 

[the_r_sole]

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.

could end up with...
in the current political climate we are getting humped either way - and all this stuff about Europe might not be worth mentioning if we stay in the union we could end up out of Europe anyway given they have promised a referendum...

 

[Biohazard]

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?

I'm sorry, but it was Better Together who named themselves Project Fear.

 

[Amp34]

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

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy

Then again it already looks like the white paper is suggesting a "softening" on the nuclear issue...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/scottish-efforts-join-eu-salmond-independence
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/12/barroso-doubt-scotland-eu-membership
http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics...pendence-mep-claim-over-scotland-eu-1-2968907

And a few EU ones.

So presidents and vice presidents (alongside other MEPs) trump Salmond in this IMO. Yes, I'm sure Scotland would become a member of the EU, it may even be fast tracked, however th likelihood of it not having to make many concessions in things like opt outs and currency are slim...

Want to show example where members of the organisations believe that won't bbd the case, other than the MEP of Catalonia, who has a vested interest in independence...

 

[Biohazard]

Nobody can be forced into the Euro.

 

[Amp34]

A balanced view would be much better - there is uncertainty, costs and drawbacks to both situations, why not talk about them openly and honestly?

The no campaign is a reactive campaign - i.e. wait for something to be said and say it's wrong or can't happen.
Why can't they have a pro-active campaign if everything is so rosy for Scotland in the union?

Because the Yes campaign aren't talking about it openly and honestly...

The no campaign can't really have a proactive campaign because there are a million and one points they could talk about. Those things wold basically be "what the situation is now". Salmond wants to change the status quo, he needs to come up with reasons why it should be changed, then the no campaign can refute then.

 

[D.P.]

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.

But don't tell the braveheart wannabes such I convent truths.

If Scotland truly wants freedom then they will have to exclude themselves form the EU and the benefits that would bring to a small nation.


The economic model proposed is doomed from the outset, hedging bets on a finite and quickly dwindling resource which is slowly being phased out even is supply existed. No long term vision on how to develop any strong industry.

 

[Amp34]

Nobody can be forced into the Euro.

No, Scotland could just not join the EU... Salmond insists Scotland will though, if that's the case then the evidence points to Scotland having to join the euro to be allowed to sign up to the EU...

 

[the_r_sole]

Because the Yes campaign aren't talking about it openly and honestly...

The no campaign can't really have a proactive campaign because there are a million and one points they could talk about. Those things wold basically be "what the situation is now". Salmond wants to change the status quo, he needs to come up with reasons why it should be changed, then the no campaign can refute then.

If they have a million and one points then why are we not swamped by a campaign illustrating any of them!?
I don't get the logic that we have so many points to say that we can't say any of them, it would make it much easier for voters if these points were laid out, it's fine to say that it's just the current situation - but if that's all the information we are going to get then surely that is going to push undecided voters to vote for change when it's the only campaign using postives

 

[D.P.]

The last time I checked Scotland had a separate legal system, semi-separate health system (e.g. Free prescriptions), separate education system (from primary school right up to university), fully supported its separate language where Gaelic applies geographically and has largely followed the voting pattern of the rest of the UK historically speaking.

Why do some scots think they have any more right to control how their country is run compared to the 5million people that live in other geographic areas around the Uk like northern England or the SW? Democracy sucks for everyone, the highest voting party by constituencies gets in when potentially a majority of people voted for a different party. Being independent doesn't resolve that issue. An independent Scotland will find the central belt populists votes controlling the politics that many millions of other people may not be supportive of.

 

[grumpysculler]

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

Damn right I'm scared - independence could right royally arse up the country. The way I see it, there is far too much uncertainty to take such a large risk - better the devil you know.

We might end up all rich as heck, sitting in our castles and looking down on the English peasants. More likely, it will be more of the same. Even more likely, we will end up worse off because the SNP glorious vision depends on other people doing what the SNP want, when these other people have absolutely no reason to do so.

The fundamental problem with our current government is that it is full of politicians. Independence doesn't change that.

 

[Biohazard]

No, Scotland could just not join the EU... Salmond insists Scotland will though, if that's the case then the evidence points to Scotland having to join the euro to be allowed to sign up to the EU...

It's an existing member, and the EU doesn't have the power to force a nation to join the prerequisite mechanisms.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

The no campaign is a reactive campaign - i.e. wait for something to be said and say it's wrong or can't happen.
Why can't they have a pro-active campaign if everything is so rosy for Scotland in the union?

With all due respect, this is another stupid comment for reasons I will make clear with the analogy below.

One day you wake up and decide 'I want to cut my arm off'. Your family and friends are shocked and appalled with your decision and appeal to you not to cut your arm off. They say things like "If you cut your arm off, you'll not be able to pick things up!" but you tut and respond "Why do you focus on the negatives, how about you tell me the benefits of keeping my arm?"

THE BENEFIT IS YOU CAN BLOODY PICK THINGS UP!!

Every "negative" the Better Together campaign present is equally a positive. They are telling you what you lose by cutting your arm (the Union) off. Retaining the arm and everything that involves IS the positive.

I've personally listed a half dozen pretty big positives that are guaranteed and you've dismissed them with guesses about alleged benefits. You're comparing certainties with uncertainties.

 

[Stretch]

A balanced view would be much better - there is uncertainty, costs and drawbacks to both situations, why not talk about them openly and honestly?

The no campaign is a reactive campaign - i.e. wait for something to be said and say it's wrong or can't happen.
Why can't they have a pro-active campaign if everything is so rosy for Scotland in the union?

Ah, so the problem with Better Together is not presenting a balanced view. I though you said it was not making positive case for the union.

The No campaign supports the status quo. You can't dress the status quo up as something new and different because it isn't.

If 'No' were to make unrealistic promises for the future, they'd be open to the same allegations aimed at SNP i.e. it's wishful thinking. Or worse, it could lead to allegations of bribery. I don't think that's a good strategy.

Let be honest, there's always going to be some who disagree with the unionist campaign, rightfully or wrongly, for genuine and disingenuous reasons.

As much as the Nats try and goad Better Together into changing there strategy, they're not going to because they don't need to.

The biggest problem for "Yes" isn't Better Together. It's that many in Scotland don't want to the leave the UK regardless, and enough of the rest see the case for independence as too marginal.

 

[the_r_sole]

Damn right I'm scared - independence could right royally arse up the country. The way I see it, there is far too much uncertainty to take such a large risk - better the devil you know.

We might end up all rich as heck, sitting in our castles and looking down on the English peasants. More likely, it will be more of the same. Even more likely, we will end up worse off because the SNP glorious vision depends on other people doing what the SNP want, when these other people have absolutely no reason to do so.

The fundamental problem with our current government is that it is full of politicians. Independence doesn't change that.

great post - almost entirely agree (minus the points tying it the snp)
the only difference for me is that I would prefer to give something else a shot and see if it works because for me, the devil we know might not be better

 

[Biohazard]

With all due respect, this is another stupid comment for reasons I will make clear with the analogy below.

One day you wake up and decide 'I want to cut my arm off'. Your family and friends are shocked and appalled with your decision and appeal to you not to cut your arm off. They say things like "If you cut your arm off, you'll not be able to pick things up!" but you tut and respond "Why do you focus on the negatives, how about you tell me the benefits of keeping my arm?"

THE BENEFIT IS YOU CAN BLOODY PICK THINGS UP!!

Every "negative" the Better Together campaign present is equally a positive. They are telling you what you lose by cutting your arm (the Union) off. Retaining the arm and everything that involves IS the positive.

I've personally listed a half dozen pretty big positives that are guaranteed and you've dismissed them with guesses about alleged benefits. You're comparing certainties with uncertainties.

Which is all very well and good as a poor analogy, but what difference does that make when we were promised a positive case to stay in the union?

Doom gloom and apoplectic rage is all we've witnessed so far.

 

[Biohazard]

Ah, so the problem with Better Together is not presenting a balanced view. I though you said it was not making positive case for the union.

The No campaign supports the status quo. You can't dress the status quo up as something new and different because it isn't.

If 'No' were to make unrealistic promises for the future, they'd be open to the same allegations aimed at SNP i.e. it's wishful thinking. Or worse, it could lead to allegations of bribery. I don't think that's a good strategy.

Let be honest, there's always going to be some who disagree with the unionist campaign, rightfully or wrongly, for genuine and disingenuous reasons.

As much as the Nats try and goad Better Together into changing there strategy, they're not going to because they don't need to.

The biggest problem for "Yes" isn't Better Together. It's that many in Scotland don't want to the leave the UK regardless, and enough of the rest see the case for independence as too marginal.

So if no get to hide behind 'we'll tell you at the next general election', why do they run around demanding policy answers from Yes decades into the future?

 

[the_r_sole]

With all due respect, this is another stupid comment for reasons I will make clear with the analogy below.

One day you wake up and decide 'I want to cut my arm off'. Your family and friends are shocked and appalled with your decision and appeal to you not to cut your arm off. They say things like "If you cut your arm off, you'll not be able to pick things up!" but you tut and respond "Why do you focus on the negatives, how about you tell me the benefits of keeping my arm?"

THE BENEFIT IS YOU CAN BLOODY PICK THINGS UP!!

Every "negative" the Better Together campaign present is equally a positive. They are telling you what you lose by cutting your arm (the Union) off. Retaining the arm and everything that involves IS the positive.

I've personally listed a half dozen pretty big positives that are guaranteed and you've dismissed them with guesses about alleged benefits. You're comparing certainties with uncertainties.

so it's stupid to say the no campaign is a reactive campaign and not promoting positives - but it's not stupid to compare injuring yourself with a definite outcome, to a political discussion and debate where nothing is set in stone?

nothing is guaranteed on either side and that is the crux of the matter, what if the UK votes itself out of the EU in the next couple of years, bang goes half the argument for staying in the union!

Ah, so the problem with Better Together is not presenting a balanced view. I though you said it was not making positive case for the union.

The No campaign supports the status quo. You can't dress the status quo up as something new and different because it isn't.

If 'No' were to make unrealistic promises for the future, they'd be open to the same allegations aimed at SNP i.e. it's wishful thinking. Or worse, it could lead to allegations of bribery. I don't think that's a good strategy.

Let be honest, there's always going to be some who disagree with the unionist campaign, rightfully or wrongly, for genuine and disingenuous reasons.

As much as the Nats try and goad Better Together into changing there strategy, they're not going to because they don't need to.

The biggest problem for "Yes" isn't Better Together. It's that many in Scotland don't want to the leave the UK regardless, and enough of the rest see the case for independence as too marginal.

It isn't making a positive case for the union, only a negative case for independence - for a balanced view I meant that it would be better if the negatives and positives of both were laid out by both sides, so far we have heard the positive for independence, the negative against independence and negatives of staying in the union, there is one bit missing to balance the debate

 

[Stretch]

So if no get to hide behind 'we'll tell you at the next general election', why do they run around demanding policy answers from Yes decades into the future?

Because if you want people to back change, you need to have a credible plan.

 

[the_r_sole]

Because if you want people to back change, you need to have a credible plan.

but on the same token if you wait till the next election before hearing any plans you might be forced into change anyway