1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,474

    Why should the UK negotiate anything? The whole point of being independent is that you don’t need others, otherwise you end up being in a union.

    Which is what they don't want.

    Apparently.
     
  2. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You cannot negotiate anything until the mandate has been set. It's not arrogant or undermining anything...it's just a matter of 'let's see if the people want independence, and if they do then we will discuss how to deliver that", which seems to be a perfectly sensible and equitable position to me.
     
  3. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,474

    So basically the people who want independence have been watching too much Braveheart? They will vote for independence on the basis of "just because."
     
  4. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    People will want independence for many reasons, just as people will want to remain in the Union for many reasons. It is a decision that each individual has to take for themselves. I think the fundamental position is whether they wish to govern themselves under the current Union or as a sovereign state of their own. I suspect some will have a nationalist ideology, others will have a more pragmatic position.
     
  5. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    Castiel it would be easy for the UK government to highlight areas where there is potential for negotiation, if they can do it for the financial markets with regards to monetary union then they can do it for the citizens of the UK (not just Scotland) on other areas.

    The current situation is we get positive proposals (mostly pulled from Salmonds rear) publicised daily up here and nothing but negativity from Westminster.

    This referendum isn't going to be won by the SNP, if it's a YES vote it'll have been lost by Westminster by the lack of engagement and frankly lack of giving a $%&%. I'm probably voting no before you think I'm Biohazard in disguise, I'm simply concerned that we're now under 200 days to go and the UK government isn't doing themselves any favours.

    By all means saying we could negotiate on X, but you'd still lose out compared to what you have not - and highlight the loss. At least that's saying we're taking this seriously, treating the electorate like adults. Right now they're coming across as sitting the bored kid sitting in the corner waiting on this all going away.
     
  6. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    They have not negotiated anything on the financial markets..all The Treasury has done is reassure the UK commitment to underwriting its debt to the international markets and bond holders. A sensible position necessary to stabilise the markets. The Government have repeatedly said they will negotiate on a wide range of areas relevant to Scottish Independence, when the time is right to do so, which is after the People of Scotland get the opportunity to say whether they even want to negotiate a separation.

    Until there is a specific mandate for negotiation then it would be nonsensical to enter into such negotiations on Independence. There will be time enough for negotiation if it is necessary, it would be premature to begin negotiation before the premise or will of the people has been set. That is not childish or arrogant, it is the sensible and adult thing to do that respects the electorate as it doesn't presume a position for them before they have had the chance to voice whether they even want to negotiate a separation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  7. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,616

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    I think Westminster have implicitly stated what would be negotiated. However, every time they verbally rule anything in/out they're accused of scaremongering or bullying.

    It's nothing more than an SNP game.

    Both sides know that negotiations would take time, and they're not worth starting until after the vote, and probably not until after both country's have had an election.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  8. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    I think "green paper" would have been more fitting - white papers are meant to be fairly concrete.

    Personally, I would rather the minimum possible was spent until after a Yes vote. I would have preferred a two-vote referendum, but we don't have one so it all has to remain uncertain until after the single vote. The two votes would be firstly a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement and then a vote on whether to accept it or not.

    On another forum I read, one Yes member (as in paid up, active campaigner) is stating that a Yes vote is simple a mandate to negotiate for more independence. They are suggesting that the negotiations will be for more independence as opposed to total independence - i.e. a Yes vote could end in devo-max, or devo-plus or a fully independent state.

    Sounds like male bovine excrement to me and contrary to the public message, but this type of thing might attract votes. It's fairly well known that enhanced devolution is the most popular solution in Scotland and Yes are exploiting this to say that Independence is the closest option to devo plus/max (I disagree though). If some official yes campaigners are now muddying the waters by claiming that Yes could be a route to enhanced devolution then it may well net them more votes (even if they are misplaced).
     
  9. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    If they're claiming it's a tool to get greater powers then it sounds as if they're resigned to losing and are trying to save face tbh :)
     
  10. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Rather than a 1 line snipe and run (You can see why I think you're an SNP supporter), I'd be interested to know what you think to this, given that your post has been shown to be nonsense?

     
  11. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    I'm sorry but pre-Yes negotiations would be futile in the extreme, and used for further propaganda, on both sides, whilst doing little or nothing to further the actual debate.
     
  12. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Which is how the SNP seem to be waging their campaign, no? Any input from Westminster (such as Osborne stating his position based on treasury advice, or the EU president saying automatic entry is not definite) is immediately discounted as bullying and/or scare-mongering.

    What is the point in negotiating with that?
     
  13. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,732

    Location: Inverkip

    The Scottish economy was rated as AAA and it was cited that the banks threatening to move south actually helped to decrease the dependence on the financial sector and make Scotland a more rounded economy than that to the south.

    As to scaremongering, it was recently touted again that we wouldn't get the BBC (yeah right) and the National Lottery (again, yeah right). We actually pay £320 million towards the BBC whereas Ireland pays £20 million and gets the same service so no worries there and plenty of change for an SBC. The Unionists can take their Project Fear, Patriot computer system and their Dambuster campaign back home to Westminster when we vote YES.
     
  14. El Capitano

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 2,577

    No, it wasn't, as has been explained in this thread already.
     
  15. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,963

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    You pay £300 million at the moment (and IIRC actually get back more targeted content than much of the rest of the UK*).

    After independence there is zero guarantee that the BBC will even retain the rights to broadcast into an independent Scotland both for broadcast, and content, rights for TV and film are horribly complex things, and often dependent on specific wording.

    For an example of how the rights can be tricky, the definition of home video had to be renegotiated with loads of rights holders (which eventually took years) to include DVD and was in some cases extremely costly (given the number of people involved in an average show that have to be tracked down and agree)...
    And even then the music on many TV shows had to be altered as the musicians or the companies that held the rights to the music decided that something intended for distribution via TV (and the limited tape market) was not going to pay them enough for DVD release, so for a while it was fairly common for DVD releases of some shows to have the sound track remixed as it was cheaper to do that than pay the increased fees for the original music.

    This also assumes that Scotland will just allow the BBC to continue to broadcast, which is up to Salmond and co.
    And Salmond and co have said they want more Scottish programming which means that something will have to give - either the BBC has to create more Scottish programming (which means the budget for Scotland will likely be more than the TVL brings in, assuming iScotland pays a TVL to the BBC), the TVL gets redirected to a new Scottish broadcaster who has to buy in BBC content at international market rates, or the the TVL in Scotland increases to allow for both the BBC content to be shown in full, and additional Scottish programming on an SBC.

    It's not as simple as saying "yeah we'll still get it" or as Salmond has said "People will still get the BBC", as he basically has no say in it, other than possibly, if he becomes the leader of the new and improved Scotland by directing the new Scottish broadcasting regulator (another thing not mentioned AFAIK by the Yes campaign, but something they'll need), to allow the BBC to have a broadcast licence (and that just solves one of the legal issues).

    A TV programme can be stopped from being broadcast by a single performer who has what are called (from memory) "moral rights", which means that for example several high profile series from the past have been stopped from being shown for years because a key actor has decided he didn't want to be associated with the show any more, or wanted to be known for more serious work he did later (I believe Ant & Dec went one step further, they bought all the rights to Biker Grove from memory once they became rich enough, basically to bury it from what I understand).

    So it's potentially a very tricky problem to overcome, at least if you're not in a border region, or with a dish (and even then Sky for example could end up having to lock out non rUK boxes from decoding/showing non Scottish regional programming on the EPG).

    You just have to look at the complaints over the Scottish licence holder for the C3 frequencies to see the sort of compromises made for that, and get an idea of some of the sorts of financial compromises that might have to be made for an independent Scotland to get both the BBC content, and more "Scottish" content.

    I can't say about the National Lottery, but I suspect it would have to split, or for an iScotland to create their own....
    Again contracts and licences...

    As I say, the Yes campaign is great at saying "yeah this will be how it is", but not taking into account that other people, and in some cases literally thousands of other individuals might all have a veto on the decision they're assuming will be easy and in their favour.



    *IIRC by the "yes" campaign's own figures (when complaining about the BBC spend in Scotland), about half of that is spent pretty much directly in Scotland or for purely Scottish audiences, which means that the rest of the (non geographic related) content such as other news, and entertainment programme is relatively cheap for Scottish TVL payers.
    Also from memory at the moment Scotland gets specific additional funding to allow for purely Scottish channels that would never be justifiable for the BBC to spend the TVL on, let alone what a commercial operator might be interested in.
     
  16. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    <sigh> Engage Biohazard mode

    Perhaps you should try reading the document itself rather than relying on SNP/Yes spin? All the above quotes are verbatim from the S&P report.
     
  17. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,714

    You could have just listed the disclaimer at the bottom which says "This is just a quick assessment, it can't be a rating because it hasn't gone before a full panel".
     
  18. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,474

    Nationalists appear to want only the good stuff and none of the bad stuff. Some give the impression that they have Braveheart on repeat all day.

    "I want to be independent, oh, but I still want to watch the telly I like, borrow money of you whenever I want and have all the assets we used to share, if you don't give me all that I will proclaim you to be a bully......So there!"
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  19. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    Wales also get targetted funding, what I'd like to point out is that most Scots and I can say with this some certainty - couldn't care less about BBC Alba as so few of us talk Gaelic. I'm pretty confident I'm with the majority on this :p

    Personally I'd scrap the BBC in Scotland, I'm not a fan of the license fee and seem to get better news feeds from other commercial and mostly foreign channels anyway.
     
  20. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Except the claim is that the quick assessment points to AAA. It doesn't.