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. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,713

    How exactly is it a win for Salmond if the referendum is defeated? His party is going to lose a lot of traction, and he personally will look like a bloody idiot after all his proclamations about how independence is what the Scottish people want. He'll probably have to step down as leader of the SNP and First Minister, and may well choose (or be forced) to retire from politics altogether.
     
  2. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Both the SNP and Yes are now starting to claim independence will solve the poverty "crisis" that faces Scotland. It is one of the hot topics in Holyrood this week and there are some interesting committee sessions coming out of it.

    I use the quotes around the word crisis because, statistically, Scotland doesn't seem to be worse than the UK. The problem, we are meant to believe, is that Westminster doesn't want to tackle poverty and won't let Holyrood do it.

    Glasgow, which has the worst poverty in Scotland, places the blame somewhere other than Westminster...

    Which follows on from years of similar grumbling:

     
  3. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,978

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Because I don't think that will happen. Instead I think it far more likely he'll cry a bit more about how the Scottish right has been defeated by bullying and scaremongering, and will then push for further devolution; all the while being able to carry on blaming Westminster, and the people that didn't vote Yes, for any problems they might have.

    If it's a yes? Well obvious independence aside, King Salmond gets his moment of glory, the SNP get their moment of glory, and then he can set to trying to make sure he rulesruns the newly independent country, with 400 years of Westminster rule to continually blame for all the ills the new country might face.
     
  4. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,616

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    Agreed, I fully expect the whining to be turned up to 11 which ever way the vote goes.

    In-fact nothing will change. We'll just have the same debate all over again under the guise of devo-max, instead of independence.

    I can see the SNP strategy already.

    210% of Scottish people support repatriation of what ever suites them. Scotland demands it now, and anything other than complete Westminster capitulation is an act of bullying and oppression.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014
  5. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    Wrong if it's a no vote we'll have the devo max discussion, then they'll immediately start banging on about needing another independence referendum as clearly devo max has worked for Scotland and proven the doubters wrong.

    Independence is probably inevitable for Scotland, it just may not happen within the next 50 years.
     
  6. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    RBS can move my home south of the border if they want, got relatives in the "norf" :)
     
  7. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,616

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    I don't think so. If Scotland isn't keen on independence this time round, I can't see how that will improve as the oil resource dwindles. It's too fundamental to the independence movement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014
  8. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    The oil isn't half as important as people think to the Scottish population as a whole especially the nationalists, who are a very vocal minority. There are also new fields coming on and we're able to extract more of the difficult to reach oil so it's not going to run out that quickly.

    SNP aren't going to give up, that's my point tbh and they have done a reasonable job in Holyrood so it's likely they'll get back in.
     
  9. Windle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 19, 2002

    Posts: 14,156

    Location: Scotland

    Aggreko have also waded into the debate publishing their opinion on Scottish Independence in their 2013 final results published today.

    http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/aggreko/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=53&newsid=396947

    Full quote in Spoiler tags

    "Scottish Independence

    Apart from the political risk which has always been an inherent part of our Power Projects business, we now face a new risk; this is the possibility that Scotland, which is where we are headquartered and have our global manufacturing and product development facility, might separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. Without wanting in any way to enter the political debate on this issue, we have a reporting responsibility to set out in our Annual Report the risks facing the business, and we believe that Scottish Independence could present a number of risks.



    At an operational level, it is likely that we would have to deal with significant additional administration cost and complexity in our UK operations, which we currently run as a completely integrated unit, sharing fleet and people without impediment. Following Independence, our UK business operations would have to be split into two separate trading entities, and every time we moved an item of fleet across the border, invoices would have to be raised, and balance-sheets adjusted; we would have to account for tax purposes for our employees' days spent either side of the border. Second, we assume that an independent Scottish Government would wish to have its own distinctive approaches to the taxes and regulations which we currently deal with on a UK level; if Scotland were independent there would potentially be different rates of VAT, personal and corporate tax, different approaches to employment rights, pensions and health & safety. Managing these differences would add complexity and cost to our UK business.



    There are also two major macro-economic risks which might affect us. The first is currency, where it seems that the two options for an independent Scotland are either a currency union with the rest of the UK, or a separate Scottish currency. Neither of these options are without risk for our business.



    The second macro-economic risk relates to the European Union and the regulation of international trade. Operating as we do in over 100 countries, and with equipment being shipped daily around the world from our factory in Dumbarton, the regulation of international trade is important to us; at present, we are largely governed by agreements negotiated by the EU, which has the heft of being one of the largest trading blocs in the world. We also make extensive use of EU and UK trade promotion. There is a risk that an independent Scotland might not be able to continue in membership of the EU, and that could impact the terms under which we export equipment around the world.



    In summary, if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom and become an independent country, it would likely burden our UK business with added operating complexity and cost. There is also a risk that the outcome of the issues of currency and membership of the EU will not be helpful to our business. At the very least, if Scotland votes for independence we will face some years of uncertainty and hiatus. We will, of course, find ways to manage around this challenge if it arises. The major impact will be in the UK, which accounts for less than 10% of our revenues, and as a global business we will have plenty of options."
     
  10. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    It's just common sense what they've said to be fair - all companies should be considering this on both sides of the border as it'll affect them all should there be a YES vote. I'm not saying it'll drive every company south and a handful north but it'd be foolish for companies not to at least have some form of plan ready for it happening.
     
  11. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,732

    Location: Inverkip

     
  12. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

  13. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,732

    Location: Inverkip

    Okay then, have another that reflects just how much Westminster has done for Scotland -

     
  14. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Perhaps you would care to construct an argument showing that the blame for this lies with Westminster? Then we can have a decent debate about it.

    Notwithstanding issues to do with the definition we use for poverty, Scottish figures are largely in line with the UK. If anything, poverty seems to be improving slightly faster in Scotland than elsewhere.

    Glasgow city council is the local authority with the worst poverty problem. If you read post 2345, they seem to have a very clear idea about who to blame. (Hint - the answer is Holyrood)

    Just because we have problems doesn't mean they are Westminster's fault and it doesn't mean that independence will fix them.
     
  15. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26489307

    Surprised nobody has posted this one, it's quite an eye opening figure that - 1000% I suspect it'll be getting entered into some BT leaflets as I speak!
     
  16. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,222

    Wasn't the recent fall in poverty in Scotland actually do to a larger fall in average wages in Scotland therefore more people were no longer "relatively" poor?
     
  17. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    I think the actual figure would be 1250% (it has been known for some time) but that assumes none of the financial sector up sticks and leave.

    Far more interesting to me were the predictions on borrowing rates (1.25% above UK) and that a failure to take on a share of debt would be perceived as a default.

    Swinney seems to think that refusing the debt is a super strong negotiating tactic and Yes/SNP have always asserted that there is no legal reason for them to take on the debt. Suggestions from unionists that it would be seen as a default have been shouted down. Now we have it virtually from the horses mouth - markets believe in trust more than they respect legal loopholes.

    I'm not entirely sure - it's quite possible and that is one of the key problems with the relative poverty measure. But then I think you know that :)

    We do have a poverty problem, but there is no easy fix and measures such as relative poverty just make it harder to identify.

    The recent fall may not have any long term significance and could just be a blip. Regardless, Scotland is still more or less in line with the UK.
     
  18. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,560

    Location: Wales

  19. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,725

    Threatening to default or even hinting at it is one of the major reasons I've cooled off from voting YES in recent weeks, it's an illogical and childish position to take, more so than the UK governments stance on just about everything.

    Whilst I disagree with the UK refusing to apparently have any contingency plans if there is a YES vote but happy to say it's not necessary whilst saying businesses should have contingency plans (double standards much?) it's far less insane than no real idea what to do on a currency, no alternatives to the one that's been knocked back by the UK government and the apparent threat to not pay our fair share.

    Does Swinney not realise many people up here have family etc down south? Does he not think we have morals and a sense of justice? Even if we believe everything the SNP are saying about Scotland being more wealthy as a nation if we go for independence is it not rather unjust to make ourselves so much richer by defaulting on a debt and landing our relatives and friends with that debt?

    Childish knee jerk reaction to not getting your way, toys well and truly out of the pram. Speaking positively about an independent future for Scotland whilst also threatening to ^%$& off our nearest neighbour if we don't get our way from day one is not what I'd call a statesman, or good governance.
     
  20. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 22,753

    Frankly neither side is being respectable, it would seem that the currency union tit-for-tat has equally respected support as it does distaste.

    Personally, i think its all down to people who would ultimately lose they jobs in Westminster if Scotland split, they would lose being part of this impossibly arrogant club and so deny everything to hurt the other side. Though of course i don't seem to like any government right now.