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: 4,828

    The SNP were polling at 40% and took 30%. UKIP took 10% and nobody thought they'd be anywhere in Scotland. So it looks like it was the SNP who lost out.
     
  2. Cooper

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 16, 2004

    Posts: 2,609

    Even more ironic is that by leaving the UK, they leave the EU by default....but that's just yet another realilty they like to ignore in their quest to be free from English tyranny and oppression.
     
  3. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    But Europe is a good union (four legs good, two legs better?)

    And that's despite that fact that there is a clear rise of eurosceptic sentiment across the union (mainly in richer states...) and the likes of the EPP group have suffered greatly this time round. Europe may yet reform to appease them.

    I forget who was being interviewed, but the radio this morning was talking about the National Front, UKIP and others gaining ground. He observed that the problems we now face were agreed to as far back as the Treaty of Rome - they were the primary objectives of European integration. But back when all of this stuff looked good, Europe was smaller and less diverse both economically and socially.

    In effect, Europe is now a collection of different shapes of different sizes and the original vision forces us to push them all through the same hole. The hole is still round, but some pegs are getting squarer.
     
  4. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    It depends on the mechanism we would use to gain membership.

    If we use Article 48 (treaty modification) then it can all be sorted before the break. No a whole lot of love for this option from anyone in Europe but the SNP. It would appeal to separatists elsewhere in the EU, so likely to get at least one veto.

    If, instead, the normal Article 49 route is used then iScotland would probably have to break from rUK and then join the EU. You can't join if you aren't a state. That's a long road that would cause all sorts of problems in Western Europe (break in membership) and Eastern Europe if any opt-outs are preserved (hey look they've just negotiated things that are non-negotiable - we want that too!).

    So it would probably be a mess. More than that is hard to say. I reckon the most likely scenario would be a highly accelerated Article 49 membership with no opt-outs preserved. But who knows.
     
  5. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,673

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    They did, but the Tories and UKIP polled virtually the same. When you consider how much some bleat on about their irrelevance in Scotland, it's quite significant.

    Up until today, many were (aggressively) suggesting that UKIP and Farage had no right even being in Scotland.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2014
  6. Cooper

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 16, 2004

    Posts: 2,609

    In that case the SNP should stop lying through their teeth and tell the Scottish people this reality, because no opt outs has a whole load of serious consequences for Scotland...Euro & Schengen being the most obvious.

    The Euro is not wanted in Scotland and open borders would be unacceptable to the UK.

    For so many years now the SNP has been allowed to get away with spoon feeding this nonsense to the Scottish people, that independence is a cost free, consequence free path...it isn't, there are real costs and consequences.

    Also, do you really think that UK wouldn't veto Scottish EU membership if Salmond did as he as already threatened to do so and walk away from UK historical debt?

    There are no 'have your cake and eat it' scenarios available to Scotland.
     
  7. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Now that's just bluff, bluster and bullying.

    And it's true.

    I don't think they would use their veto in that scenario (in fact I don't think they will use it at all). There are more effective means to deal with the debt - like keeping an extra 100bn of assets.

    Agreed. But that realisation would only come after the referendum.
     
  8. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,484

    The SNP don't let facts get in the way of a good hyperbole.
     
  9. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    And it looks as though the Scottish Affairs Committee agree with me. How nice of them.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27584747

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmscotaf/1241/124103.htm

    But, of course, Holyrood have dismissed this as untrue with little to back up that position. It's all opinion until the point it has to be done, but Westminster seem to be an awful lot better at backing up their opinions with reasoning and evidence than Holyrood.
     
  10. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,673

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    It's ok, give it a couple of days and the SNP will have a [unnamed] source close to central government or faux committee speak out to sooth the anxieties of the Scottish people.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
  11. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,828

    Translation: Salmond, Swinney or Sturgeon will come out and say "Och, they're just bluffing".
     
  12. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,739

    Location: Inverkip

    Just like Darling, Carmichael, Lamont, Sarwar and Baillie blaming the SNP for the sun setting at night?

    It's laughable that even Patrick Dunleavy of the LSE is also accusing the Treasury of vastly over-inflating the report based on the LSE's own figures.
     
  13. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Search the (fully referenced) report that the treasury issued today for any reference to Dunleavy's work. It isn't there, it wasn't used to produce the figures. Yes are shooting at the wrong target here.

    In any case, the proper reply to "We think it will cost this much because blah blah blah" isn't "you're wrong so there" but "no, it will cost this much instead and here are the reasons why". Yes don't really have this debating thing working yet - the object is to argue the points and not just repeat "la la la you're wrong I can't hear you." I would really really like to see Scottish Government estimates for the setup costs of a new state (no, honestly, I would). But they won't give them to us - don't they want us to know so that we can make an informed choice?

    The Scottish Government's report is even more laughable. They have concluded that Scotland (as a country, not as individuals) could be rather well off if we get economic and population growth far above what anyone else is achieving. Well no bleep Sherlock. Growing economies get richer - dear God stop the presses there must be a Nobel Economics prize in that.

    What they have failed to provide is any evidence that their growth assumptions are even vaguely correct or make any suggestions as to policies that will cause such unprecedented growth.

    They might as well tell me that if I buy a lottery ticket and my numbers come up then I'll be rich. It's obvious - the hard part is picking the right numbers. Nobody else can, but the SNP know how. They just won't tell us.

    Of course, if I did win the lottery then I could use my wealth to press political agendas that I agree with. That's what the nationalist democracy is all about, isn't it? Using personal wealth to achieve political ends?
     
  14. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,452

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    That's the laughable thing about the Yes campaign. The treasury says that oil is in decline which it is, there is a costly set up cost to independence which there will be, the Scots are getting older as a population which has increased costs, interest rates would be higher due to increased borrowing costs etc. these are very real costs.

    SNPs reply is to grow the economy and increase productivity, really ? You don't think that's the goal of every country in the world? How are they going to do it would be a start, perhaps the world has something to learn from Salmond so that the economies of the world can flourish. I'm sure many countries would pay him huge sums of money to guarantee that.
     
  15. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    The Scottish Government forecasts assume that this cost is £0. We can set up new departments, retask existing ones and create new IT infrastructure at no cost. Apparently.

    This will be fixed by net immigration of 15,000 working age people per year. That's a new Dundee every ten years. Nicola Sturgeon is also keen for us to keep dying young, rather than use the powers of independence to deal with Scotland's shorter life expectancy.

    Stuff of Farage's nightmares. I suspect immigration on that scale would see parties like his become rather popular.

    But then intra-EU immigration is not within the gift of iScotland to control and non-EU immigration is something that Brussels is increasingly getting involved in so iScotland would have limited control of that too.
     
  16. q974739

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 4, 2009

    Posts: 638

    The ScotsNats are claiming that every person in Scotland will be £1K better off… that's GDP per capita growth of ~3%. That is, assuming that this is better because of growth - they aren't quite clear on that. They imply (more employment, more tax take) but not state.

    Assuming that this is on top of the UK growth that's already happening (otherwise they can't claim credit, can they?) that's 3%+3% = 6% growth.

    In a year.

    That's…quite a number. I'd expect some quite hard evidence of such a claim...


    UK GDP number: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/29/uk-gdp-growth-2014-what-the-economists-say
    £1K claim: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27595415
     
  17. touch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 28, 2006

    Posts: 11,373

    Location: Sufferlandria

    £1000 doesnt seem like such a ridiculous claim when you consider that the No campaign says Scots will be £1400 better-off if we remain in the union.

    This is the main reason that puts me off voting Yes. They say that UK passports will be valid until their expiry date and then people will be issued with a new Scotland passport. There are passport offices in Scotland, so there is probably space+manpower for managing it without a massive investment, but where is the massive database system to control it going to come from?
    Same with driving licences, car tax, etc, etc, etc. These all need massive computer systems to run, which take far longer than the 2-year grace period to build and cost an awful lot.
     
  18. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,519

    Location: Wales


    how long does it take to set up the printing infrastructure too. for some reason i doubt the British would want machines capable of printing uk passports in a foreign countries hands
     
  19. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,452

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    I can't see that being a problem, surely the work can be subcontracted out to the IPS, just like the a Royal mint manufactures money for other countries. After all, UK passports used to be printed in the USA prior to the IPS.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2014
  20. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 13, 2003

    Posts: 16,070

    Location: UK

    This always gives me a chuckle. Getting older has never happened before, right?