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. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    The nationalist core don't. Jim Sillars (as much as I despise his politics) is honest about this and clear as to what he wants.

    But that core "independence no matter the cost" vote is nowhere near what is needed to actually pass. Under Alex's leadership (despite him having similar politics to Sillars) the party has moved into much more mainstream. He isn't daft and knows what people will vote for.

    Which is a proposition that will get far more votes than independence for independence's sake. NATO, the Queen, the currency (fifth plan in 15 years!) are all things that the core of Yes don't give two hoots about. The current policies are to broaden the appeal so that there is a fighting chance of a Yes vote and not because they are what the nationalists actually want.
     
  2. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,474

    Which suggests that the majority who vote yes don't want independence, but just to pretend they do.
     
  3. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    That's fine, there is a lot to be said for wanting independence for independence's sake. Why not fight the battle on those terms instead of the myriad spin and lies, and disingenuousness of the SNP? Oh that's right, because it wouldn't be anywhere near as successful.

    Do you have difficulties with reading? Just because you close your eyes and click your heels three times won't make it true, no matter how hard you wish it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  4. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    The majority want devolution (in one of current, plus or max flavours). The present independence pitch is cleverly arranged so it is as close to devomax as possible. Of course, that depends on an awful lot of non-Scots agreeing to the pseudo-independence that is proposed in the white paper.
     
  5. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Does it? We're not exactly going to get much say in the matter are we?
     
  6. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    In a roundabout way we do. Scotland can't implement devo-max unilaterally, it requires agreement with the rest of the UK.

    This goes to the core of the debate. The YES campaign wish to write the terms of devolution, but the rest of the UK say it would be at the expense of the rest of the UK.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  7. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf


    Same old contemptuous pejorative underlines the posters position. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you come across like the Beano?. Everyone else seems to have a disability but you!

    First of all what exactly is it that’s SO wrong about cherry picking the good bits of any system and applying them in a new one? Am I missing something here? What would you do if it were you creating a new independent state? After all if Scotland becomes independent why wouldn’t the people who lived and worked there want the best they could imagine? Incidentally no one on the independence side is asking anyone for anything that they haven’t contributed towards.

    Finally Braveheart?

    Apart from the glaring inaccuracies in that particular Hollywood yarn what exactly is it that is wrong with embracing Scotlands history and culture? Why do you think it is OK or even acceptable to use Scotlands history of fighting an oppressive regime during the wars of independence as a slur or an insult? I can assure you the way this Braveheart tag is being used isn’t having the desired effect. There is absolutely nothing embarrassing or cringe worthy about Scots ancestors fighting invading armies for their nations independence nor with this modern day political campaigning for a nations independence either.


    ------
     
  8. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    The independence-lite proposal that is being pitched requires rUK to agree a monetary union and common travel area. It requires the EU to agree membership with all existing opt-outs retained. It requires NATO to agree membership with no particular conditions. etc etc.

    That gives non-Scots an awful lot of say in the future of the country post-Yes and is why so many people take issue with the white paper.
     
  9. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Yes, I just thought for some reason that you were alluding to us "mere mortals" having more of an input, which naturally would happen in a perfect democracy, but I can't see it having much effect realistically.

    Should independence occur I'd certainly be asking my MP to firstly clarify his position on several of the questions, and if necessary support my/his position in the Commons, but in reality what good would that do?
     
  10. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Of course there's no problem with starting from that point, why wouldn't you? Conversely the wails of "bullying" and "arrogance" if the government of potential rUK, who also have a responsibility to their citizens to get the best possible deal, say no really sets the tone for the maturity of the discussion to "Beano" level.

    Any future iScotland government should absolutely try to get the best deal possible for their citizens, unsurprisingly the same applies to any rUK government even if it's to the detriment to iScotland.

    Ultimately it's just politics but you do get the feeling some in the YES campaign are actually starting to believe their own propaganda that iScotland would get 100% of everything it demands and are hoping the voters swallow that particular work of fiction until it's too late. It fits in with the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" poor little Scotland being bullied by the Welsh, Irish and English xenophobic slant to the YES campaign though so shouldn't be a surprise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  11. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    Nothing's wrong with it. It's just it's not always possible, you have to respect other peoples tree.

    The two things are often conflated though. Which is wrong imo.

    Scotland shouldn't consider its past angst with England in this debate, any more than the UK/England should consider its past trouble with France and Germany when contemplating its position in Europe.

    Dam busters and great escape before a EU referendum would look a bit ridiculous wouldn't it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  12. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

  13. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf


    Your first point, I feel, is a rather odd one as it seems to imply that self-determination/independence is a 'state' that is granted by some superior to a subordinate with attached conditions rather than the more modern and European notion of 'a natural right'. If the people of Scotland decide via referendum to retain ALL sovereignty then no one has the right to stand in the way of that democratic will. I know it can sometimes be difficult to separate the issues here so I'll cut you a little slack as that’s not what’s being discussed. What is being discussed is 'a general model' of independence applicable only after a YES return and the debate that is taking place is around the semantics of such. In ALL partnerships if a party owns 10% of the partnership then that party is entitled to 10% in return on withdrawal, sale of interests or even buy out. No more no less is being asked. Whether ALL the other partners are comfortable with that or not is irrelevant. This is where the politics of it all comes into play as ANY politicking is merely each partner setting out their position pre-negotiation and settlement.

    It would be absolutely ridiculous. As for the second point you make you are absolutely correct therefore I'm sure you'll agree there'll be no need for the 'Braveheart' reference in future?



    ------
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  14. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Indeed, it's not like anyone would schedule the vote to coincide with something like the anniversary of the Bannockburn to drum up a bit of Xenophobic fervour is it.... Oh, wait...
     
  15. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    I agree. Scotland can vote to retain all sovereignty. However, that's not what's being proposed as the general model of "independence". This is where accusations of cherry picking creep in.

    Far more (or less in some cases) than a clean 10/90 split is on the table.

    The major sticking points are :

    • Currency Union (including LLOR, and shared institutions)
    • The UKs treaties with the rest of the world
    • Natural resources, namely oil and gas

    It's very difficult to see how a the first two can be split 10/90. The UK has as much right to maintain sovereignty over its currency as Scotland does over all other issues. The assets that underpin the public finical institutions of the UK can be split, but not sovereignty of the institutions themselves. That would need agreement between two sovereign states.

    Scotland's treaties with the rest of the world are a matter for Scotland, but Alex seems to think Scotland has a right to take what's convenient.

    The third is something the independence movement quite clearly isn't prepared to split on the same terms.

    If Scotland votes yes, no one would disagree that 10/90 split of ASSETS and liabilities would be unfair.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  16. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    But WHICH assets is a bit of a sticking point.

    I doubt iScotland would want half a vanguard sub, 6 Trident II missiles and 20 nuclear warheads...

    It's easy enough to agree what value of assets iScotland is entitled to. Agreeing exactly which physical items to transfer is a different matter!
     
  17. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    Stretch I hate to say it but if Scotland does leave the UK it's an unfair split for the rUK, that's a lot of territory to lose, lot of natural resources and remember how important strategically the north of Scotland/Shetland/Orkney are for the navy.

    There's no such thing as a fair split, Scotland won't see it as fair either, regardless of the outcome, heck even if there is no split I've no doubt there will be a huge amount of mud slinging both sides of the border anyway by the knuckledraggers.
     
  18. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    All assets would be split. That's not a literal split, it's a logical split.

    I think it's abundantly clear the split would be hugely disruptive and bad for everyone, which is why it should be avoided.

    My post was highlighting that the 10% share for Scotland isn't what's being proposed, and is unworkable on some key issues.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  19. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    The 10% share is a bit of pie in the sky, it's impossible to split Scotland off and only take 10% when it accounts for such a large chunk of the land mass, natural resources and maritime territory.

    Basing it on population 10% is around the right number, but I've still to see any reason why legally that number would be used.
     
  20. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf


    Are you serious? I cant expect everyone to know everything or even anything about Scottish history but the Battle of Bannockburn was on the 24th June 1314 and is remembered on that day EVERY year not the 18th of September which is the date the referendum is scheduled to take place.


    ------