SNP Referendum Nonsense

[BF-Bert]

put it this way though, no UK government is going to ever set our financial policy at a detriment to the country to help out the Scottish if they need them different. It would be political suicide.

So always the rates/ny financial decisions will be made purely on the UKs needs Scotland would have to lump it if they needed rates to go down but the uk wanted them up or vis versa.

The UK government don't set interest rates or control monetary policy.

 

[Stretch]

The UK government don't set interest rates or control monetary policy.

They do control policy. The governments monetary policy is implemented by the the MPC.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

the second option is not out - it hasn't been negotiated yet, a sound bite from someone with a clear agenda isn't an actual decision, it would be silly to rule something out until an actual formal decision has been made
who has said that business won't have access to free trade? surely that would only ever happen if we were refused entry to the EU (also what will happen if we stay in the union and get voted out of the EU) could end up in exactly the same situation

The second point, technically, is not out since its not being discussed. Just like me negotiating a free Ferrari with my local Ferrari garage is not out as we have not started negotiations.
You have to consider the expected value, most people think its highly unlikely Scotland would be able to negotiate option 2, just like its highly unlikely my local Ferrari garage is going to give me a free Ferrari.

One thing the Scots constantly forget is that the UK gov is playing nice right now, at the end of the day the represent ALL of the UK. IF scotland decides to vote for independance then they stop representing the views of the Scots and start representing the views of those who will be left behind. If there is a large upswell in general population for taking "revenge" on the Scots then that gives the UK gov a clear mandate to be very awkward.
Negotiating with Scotland would be just like negotiating with France, just look how that can often work out.

 

[the_r_sole]

The second point, technically, is not out since its not being discussed. Just like me negotiating a free Ferrari with my local Ferrari garage is not out as we have not started negotiations.
You have to consider the expected value, most people think its highly unlikely Scotland would be able to negotiate option 2, just like its highly unlikely my local Ferrari garage is going to give me a free Ferrari.

One thing the Scots constantly forget is that the UK gov is playing nice right now, at the end of the day the represent ALL of the UK. IF scotland decides to vote for independance then they stop representing the views of the Scots and start representing the views of those who will be left behind. If there is a large upswell in general population for taking "revenge" on the Scots then that gives the UK gov a clear mandate to be very awkward.
Negotiating with Scotland would be just like negotiating with France, just look how that can often work out.

I don't even know how to respond to that - it's almost like you believe there is nothing that an independent Scotland could offer the rest of the uk and that we are only being treated so well (?) by westminster because they have to be nice and we contribute nothing, if any one actually believes tripe like that I hope it's the people without a vote

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I don't even know how to respond to that - it's almost like you believe there is nothing that an independent Scotland could offer the rest of the uk and that we are only being treated so well (?) by westminster because they have to be nice and we contribute nothing, if any one actually believes tripe like that I hope it's the people without a vote

Its not that at all.

IF the scots voted for independance I would be EXPECTING the UK government to do the best they can for the remainder. Thats not picking on the Scots, thats what every government is expected to do. You think Salmond is going to be doing the best for the UK or the best for Scotland?

Its noting to do with what Scotland could offer, they would be no different to the French, Germans, Poles or any other country in the EU if they were independent.

You completely took the wrong end of the stick in that they are YOUR government now, they are not the no campaign they are YOUR government as a part of the UK. So they are doing you no favour they are doing what they are elected to do.
If they ceased to be your government then why would you expect them to represent your views? They would be expected to represent the views of the remainder, IF the remainder felt that a hard approach was needed would you expect them to NOT do that? I fully expect there would be some impact in UK politics if the Scots vote for indy. What for example would UKIPs views be at that point if it was appearing that the UK government was giving in to Salmond?

 

[the_r_sole]

yes, the point of negotiation is for each side to get the best compromise for their own interests - it's you that is comparing the negotiations as if scotland have nothing to offer, just like your ridiculous ferrari buying analogy, it is ALL to do with what each side can offer each other to be mutually beneficial!! you can't say negotiations are nothing to do with what scotland can offer, that is as silly as the rest of your posts

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

yes, the point of negotiation is for each side to get the best compromise for their own interests - it's you that is comparing the negotiations as if scotland have nothing to offer, just like your ridiculous ferrari buying analogy, it is ALL to do with what each side can offer each other to be mutually beneficial!! you can't say negotiations are nothing to do with what scotland can offer, that is as silly as the rest of your posts

Frankly all I see from you is if this, but that, negotiate this, why can't the debate be how I want it to be.

So if you consider my posts silly I see that as a good thing, your pretty obviously clueless when it comes to how politics are performed.

For the record I do NOT see any massive benefit Scotland can offer the rest of the UK. What do Scotland do better than anyone else within the EU that would have the rest of the UK desperate to negotiate with Scotland over?

Do you have a problem with comprehension, where have I said negotiations are nothing to do with what Scotland can offer. Negotiation is always to do with what someone can offer, its about getting the best deal for what you do have to offer.

 

[[TW]Fox]

and if the unionist can't/won't tell us what will happen after the vote, should we not be equally afraid?

Isn't it the job of those calling for the vote to tell us what will happen if they get what they want?

 

[the_r_sole]

erm...

Its noting to do with what Scotland could offer,

the point at the moment is that everything is up for discussion - I don't understand why you can't understand that it is important for some discussions to happen before the referendum to give people with a vote the best chance to make the best decision

Frankly all I see from you is if this, but that, negotiate this, why can't the debate be how I want it to be.

is the whole point in debating things not to have these discussions and negotiations?!
I guess I am clueless about politics, hence why I would like to hear the positives and negatives from BOTH sides and hear the cases each put forward, after all the only way we can make an informed decision is for the debate to be informed

 

[the_r_sole]

Isn't it the job of those calling for the vote to tell us what will happen if they get what they want?

normally what happens is that one side puts a case forward for their preferred outcome, and then the other side puts forward their case - at the moment we have one, where is the other?

do you not think it is the job of both side to educate the voters, it's a very dangerous way the no campaign are approaching this in my opinion, I would prefer to know what I am voting for or not voting for

 

[Biohazard]

Ian Swanson: Pressure’s on to make No case more positive

MOST of what Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon had to say as they unveiled the long-awaited White Paper had been said before – hardly surprising since they have been putting the case for independence for many years.

But the opposition parties are being less than fair when they say there’s “nothing new” in the 670-page document.

Even if there are no big surprises, it does add some detail to policies which seemed a bit vague before and confirms other proposals as part of the SNP’s plan.

The launch was deliberately low-key, we are told, as part of the SNP’s attempt to reassure voters and patiently persuade them of the case for independence rather than ramming it down their throats.

Glasgow is said to have been chosen as the venue for the occasion because the pro-independence campaign realises it is unlikely to secure majority support in Edinburgh but hopes it may be able to win in the west.

The White Paper has been variously described as a blueprint, a manifesto and a mission statement. It tries to deal both with the transition to independence and the question of what an independent Scotland might look like.

Anti-independence politicians are fond of complaining that constitutional issues are not what voters are interested in and demanding that the focus should instead be on the day-to-day concerns of ordinary people struggling to cope in a time of austerity.

The SNP has now responded by setting out how it believes independence would help Scotland to meet the economic challenges and the policies it proposes to do so – abolishing the bedroom tax, scrapping many aspects of welfare reform, expanding childcare, increasing the minimum wage and so on.

It has also put flesh on the bones of what it would do about hot issues such as Trident and airport passenger duty (APD). The White Paper sets a 2020 target for getting rid of nuclear submarines and it proposes a 50 per cent cut in APD within the first term of an independent parliament with a view to later abolition, when public finances allow. The levy currently costs a family of four flying to the United States an extra £348 on top of their flight and is forecast to lose Edinburgh Airport a million passengers by 2016. There has long been pressure for responsibility for APD to be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, but up until now the SNP has not spelled out what it would do with such power. Northern Ireland already has control of APD and has abolished it for long-haul flights.

Former chancellor Alistair Darling, who is spearheading the Better Together campaign, objects that the White Paper is full of assumptions about an independent Scotland being able to get exactly what it wants in negotiations with the remainder of the UK on matters such as a shared currency. And he says the policy proposals come without any explanation of how they would be paid for – indeed, with only one page on future finances.

But however justified the criticism, there is a danger that the anti-
independence camp is looking increasingly negative, always sniping at what the Scottish Government or the Yes campaign put forward.

Mr Salmond used yesterday’s debate in parliament on the White Paper to say the ball was now “firmly in the Unionists’ court”.

Another hefty tome putting the argument against independence might look too much like War without Peace. But there is pressure now on Better Together to make the No case more positive.

And we'll keep asking until we get one.

Hiding behind the status quo is pathetic. Scots want change, they want answers.

It's about time the coalition of Unionist parties started coming up with them.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why is independance less likely to receive majority support in Edinburgh than Glasgow?

Scots want change

There you go again, speaking for everyone in the country. If thats what Scotland wanted why would the Yes campaign be worried about getting majority support in the countries capital city and seat of power?!

 

[Biohazard]

Edinburgh is considered less nationalist than elsewhere, more than likely due to financial connections to London. Not exclusively though.

They say Edinburgh is run by lawyers, and I guess it would be the financial and insurance sector that primarily keep them on their toes.

In other words, some believe they have vested interests in the current arrangements.

Glasgow on the other hand is far more 'working class', industrialised, and radical. These are the demographics where independence is most popular.

 

[Biohazard]

There you go again, speaking for everyone in the country. If thats what Scotland wanted why would the Yes campaign be worried about getting majority support in the countries capital city and seat of power?!

Qualified by the attitudes surveys and numerous other polls on the matter. The opinion may not be ubiquitous, but it is certainly a long term majority trend.

It is unlikely that either side will obtain outright majority in each region, both have their relative strongholds and areas where they are weaker. Both campaigns will now be working hard on those who are undecided, not decided, as ultimately it is their votes that will swing this.

 

[Woden]

Qualified by the attitudes surveys and numerous other polls on the matter. The opinion may not be ubiquitous, but it is certainly a long term majority trend.

It is unlikely that either side will obtain outright majority in each region, both have their relative strongholds and areas where they are weaker. Both campaigns will now be working hard on those who are undecided, not decided, as ultimately it is their votes that will swing this.

Doesn't that bother you? Forcing a monumental irreversible change on whole regions of Scotland that simply don't want it? Devolution can go both forward and backwards but independence is permanent. No rejoining the union.

It's not like a general election, where things can change and every few years you get another say.

 

[Biohazard]

Democratic vote = forcing change?

It isn't any different to any other referendum, including the UK's own one coming up.

 

[scotty365]

As a Brit, I think all of this separation nonsense is just political ambition. It's common sense that groups of individuals are stronger when they come together - the same applies to societies and countries, especially tin-pot tiny countries like the UK. On a global scale we don't really have much clout, economic or otherwise, further disseminating that influence is just stupid short term ambition.

However if that's what people choose, then lets not hear any complaints in the next decade when the risks as individuals are less easy to bear.

From what I've seen both for and against, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors and grand promises. That always makes me suspicious.

Nail on head.
Political ambition is what sits at the bottom of this and the promises that are being made will hold no more water than the ones held by the MP's in the U.K parliament - in other words 'tell a load of lies to get the vote, who cares so long as we get the vote...' Scotland will inherit the same problems, the only difference is that the men in power will distribute the taxes and interfere with the laws to favor their own ends, the same sham will continue with a difference that more bureaucracy will be needed to iron out the **** that goes on between the sham parties in England and the other sham parties that they deal with around Europe and beyond.

I doesn't take a genius to realise that the people that are running this country are not the ones that the electorate 'REALLY' want.... any of them....

 

[SlyReaper]

As an Englishman who has never even visited Scotland, I really hope the No vote wins this one. Unlike some of my fellow countrymen, I think Scotland is a real asset to the UK, and I think we're stronger together. It would be a real shame to cut the country in half like that.

 

[chulainn]

As an Englishman who has never even visited Scotland, I really hope the No vote wins this one. Unlike some of my fellow countrymen, I think Scotland is a real asset to the UK, and I think we're stronger together. It would be a real shame to cut the country in half like that.

Scotland are an asset on both a financial and intellectual basis. Though I'm voting yes.

 

[Tefal]

the second option is not out - it hasn't been negotiated yet, a sound bite from someone with a clear agenda isn't an actual decision, it would be silly to rule something out until an actual formal decision has been made

well given that member states that you need to say yes have said no i wouldn't see that negotiation going well tbh. what are scotland going to offer Spain to change it's mind? given it's in spains interests for any state that is splitting to fail.

who has said that business won't have access to free trade? surely that would only ever happen if we were refused entry to the EU (also what will happen if we stay in the union and get voted out of the EU) could end up in exactly the same situation

well once you leave you're not a member of the EU, so no free trade. even if you get an 18 month grace period negotiations could be draged out for much much longer than that.