But you did refuse to discuss them.
A lot were posted about a wide range of issues and you just went "what do you expect from an anti snp source"
And that was it
Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
- Status
But you did refuse to discuss them.
A lot were posted about a wide range of issues and you just went "what do you expect from an anti snp source"
And that was it
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,541
- Location
- Scotland
If you can provide an anti SNP story from a independent, not clearly biased source then I will happily discus it.
I demonstrated that today when someone asked me what I thought of the SNP's stance on fox hunting which I said is lacking.
I notice nobody has said any more regarding the council tax underspend now that I have provided a good reason for why it occurred and also pointed out that the Labour/Lib Dem coalition has also been in a worse position.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So if another referendum was held and this time it was 55% YES and 45% NO, you would support a third referendum?
Something tells me if the boot were on the other foot you'd be saying "The Scottish People have spoken" and be talking down any chance of another vote.
Also, funny that when a YES vote was marginally ahead in the polls a month or so before the referendum Salmond never said anything about a close vote not counting and needing another. He only says it because the narrow victory wasn't his.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,541
- Location
- Scotland
Clearly you are new around here too!
For the umpteenth time, if Scotland became independent and a unionist party was able to form a majority government at Holyrood with a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum then I would say that is completely fair that they hold another referendum.
I wish people would actually read this thread before posting something that they think makes them look clever but in actual fact makes them look silly because it has been answered about 10 times already. In fact I answered the very same question earlier today.
Jeez!
Edit: In fact someone asked the exact same question at 8PM today. I even quoted it on this very page! Deary deary me!
Last edited:
Fixed that for you
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 895
- Location
- Sydney
Staying within the union presents it's own uncertainties. Nobody knows what the future holds regardless of whether Scotland become an independent nation or not.
What aspect of the Edinburgh agreement is not being upheld? Be specific.
Last edited:
However those uncertainties tend to be slightly fewer than for an independent Scotland, which would had a bunch of new uncertainties, ranging from minor things like it's relations with other countries - at the moment it benefits from a lot of UK treaties, as a new country it may have to renegotiate some/many of those (it may be able to temporarily use the same terms as the old UK ones but no telling).
Even membership of the EU isn't automatic, which means that potentially for a while Scotland may not be able to trade with the EU as part of it, and at the same time may not be able to trade fully freely with the rest of the UK (if nothing else the moment an independent Scotland's border policies start to vary from the rest of the UK, there would be a need for rUK/iScotland border controls/customs to come into effect).
One of the big things the "Yes" campaign tried to ignore was the uncertainties about how a newly independent Scotland would interact with the rest of the UK, and things like what currency it would be using.
At the moment there is zero doubt what currency the UK will be using for the next 5-10+ years (unless something massive happens), the SNP etc couldn't even come up with an answer to that question, instead they just said "we'll join the Euro" or "well they can't stop us using the pound" ignoring the fact that it would make Scotland possibly the only first world country to use a currency it had zero control over (having some control over your currency is one of the big things for a country).
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 895
- Location
- Sydney
I see no problem with Scotland establishing it's own treaties with other countries. I see it as entirely positive that we get to define our own relationship with the world.
Membership of the EU as part of the union cannot be taken for granted given the brexit debate which is looking like far from a foregone conclusion.
Actually, they said time and time again that they would use the pound no matter what.
No they never.
We have no control over our currency right now so the difference would be minimal.
It just so happens that the happiest country in the world does not have any control over the currency it chooses to use. It doesn't seem to have caused them many issues.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...rlds-happiest-country-panama-overtake-denmark
Membership of the EU as part of the union cannot be taken for granted given the brexit debate which is looking like far from a foregone conclusion.
Actually, they said time and time again that they would use the pound no matter what.
No they never.
We have no control over our currency right now so the difference would be minimal.
It just so happens that the happiest country in the world does not have any control over the currency it chooses to use. It doesn't seem to have caused them many issues.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...rlds-happiest-country-panama-overtake-denmark
See the Tartan Tories have part privatised Scottish water, how very left wing of them 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inisters-award-anglian-water-contract-private
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inisters-award-anglian-water-contract-private
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 895
- Location
- Sydney
No they haven't. They have merely followed the EU rules which state that they must put public sector contracts out to tender and have chosen the contractor who offered the best deal for the tax payer. Scottish Water is still ENTIRELY publicly owned. They even postponed the decision three times to give SW the opportunity to submit a competitive bid.
That is exactly the kind of dishonest reporting that lovelyhead has been talking about all along and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker.
That is exactly the kind of dishonest reporting that lovelyhead has been talking about all along and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker.
The link is the Guardian and left wing paper and it also covered the postponement and also stated Scottish water is publicly owned, it also stated it would potentially save the tax payer money, although thats the reason any government gives to sell off contracts to private firms isnt it?
Perhaps you need to wind your wee neck in
Despite the fact they had already stated they wouldn't because it didn't concern Scotland.
Actually the is major support for having a new vote on the subject, mainly because of the way it was undemocratically forced through originally (it was the second most unpopular thing any government has done this century, the only thing that had more people against it was the Iraq war).
Interesting, so if they weren't doing it to stir the pot and they do care about foxes and/or public opinion on it, why then do you think they have made 0 effort to introduce a ban in Scotland then? It should be easy with their majority...
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 220
- Location
- Ecosse
Well said, We had SLabour's Lewis MacDonald MSP on TV last night with the SNPbad story about the awarding Anglian Water Business contract for Billing and meter reading services for council buildings, hospitals and prisons. When it was it the very same Lewis MacDonald that introduced this legalisation in 2005 to allow this happen in the first place when Labour/Libdem where in power in Scotland. This is the normal with Labour they are utter hypocrites!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So you'd be happy with referendums every time the balance of power in Holyrood changes? Really?
Whilst it sounds very democratic, it's ridiculous. You can't have a system where you could potentially be part of the union and then independent 5 years later to go back to the union again 5 years after that and keep flipping between the two.
What happened to Salmond's "once in a generation" rule he was so found of before and just after the result? Why has that now changed to "once every parliament we get voted in but our indy ref fails"?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 220
- Location
- Ecosse
Too bad, as you point it's called democracy. Of this list of extensive countries :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...e_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom I don't see one of them wanting to be ruled by Westminster again, I wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...e_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom I don't see one of them wanting to be ruled by Westminster again, I wonder why.
You misunderstand. Our government do currently have control over our currency, so the difference would be massive.
And citing Panama's happiness as a case for being happy with a crippling lack of fiscal control over the currency of a 1st world economy is just crazy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,529
This paints a slightly different picture
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/
Perhaps the increased cost of new extraction and the impact that makes on profitability (therefore viability) and the austerity that would likely create? The decreasing yield and decreasing profitability of existing reserves? Issues pertaining to a unified currency without a unified fiscal policy? The holes in the SNP fiscal plan should they gain fiscal autonomy (IE projected £7-10bn black hole over the next 5 years meaning far less to spend per head)? The contradiction of the SNP regarding austerity in general - they are anti-austerity yet if they get what they want Scotland will see more austerity?
No, but it could be enough to settle marginal yes voters into the no camp. People want stability and want to see better results in their lives. If more Devolution helps to give them that, and they are content with it why would they risk massive unknowns and destabilisation by a yes vote? Chances are though, more devolution will shine a light on the inadequate economic plans of the SNP and will likely mean the removal of popular vote winning (bribe?) policies like free prescriptions and free further education.
I don't. No more than you know anything about why oil is not important to average Joe voters. It is an assumption, and rightly you called me out on it. There is a lesson there that I think could be legitimately applied to plenty of your posts.
If there is an appetite for another independence referendum in Scotland then let it happen. Personally between now and then, I think the SNP will be found out for what it is, a party seeking independence at all costs and not a party with the best interests of Scotland or her people at heart nor one with a viable fiscal plan. I really think Nicola should get fiscal autonomy though, just so the folk in Scotland can see the truth. But Westminister knows what would happen to Scotland and her people should Nicola get what she wants and despite what SNP propaganda would have us believe, Westminister (both the government and opposition) want what is best for Scotland and FFA is not it. The irony in this charade is the SNP denigrate Westminister for foisting policy onto Scotland which is not the will of the people who live there, yet the SNP with only 50% of the Scottish vote get 95% of the seats and are relentless in their pursuit of independence even though it is not the will of the people of Scotland. What are your thoughts on that double standard?
In terms of the over 65's, perhaps they are older and wiser and fully comprehend the consequences of a yes vote over and above the 16-17yr olds that were given the vote out of desperation, the majority of which voted yes without any life experience. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between people being older and arguably wiser and people voting no.
What are your thoughts on that?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
Except the SNP have said that they couldn't accept fiscal autonomy without fiscal balancing across the UK.
Personally, I don't want FFA. I live here and don't want to see the economic damage it would cause.
From what I've heard from a few farmers, the Scotland ban it basically set at the right level. It stops toffs going on a jolly good hunt but it doesn't particularly impact rural working. Scotland allows flushing to guns, E&W doesn't.
It's a weird law in implementation: using two dogs is OK, using three is not; setting dogs on a rabbit is OK, on a hare is not.
Basically, Scotland's law "says" it's illegal to hunt foxes with dogs, but they can claim they are hunting with guns and using the dogs to flush. Essentially the law has zero effect, fox hunting with dogs has actually increased in popularity since it was introduced.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,529
Right, so the SNP feel FFA would be economic suicide, but independence would be what exactly?
- Status