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. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Nonetheless, it is up to the Independence lobby to adequately demonstrate the differences and why that would be an improvement on the Union.
     
  2. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Well you only really have to read the news of late, even outwith nationalist vendors, to see BT retreating from public debate and attempting to close it down because of the inability to argue for the 'hugely successful status quo'.

    The media isn't reporting it anywhere as loudly as would be the case if the shoe was on the other foot, but that's to be expected with what is becoming clearer as an agenda ridden biased media as the recent academic reports display.
     
  3. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,966

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    This is just so wrong I don't know what to say. Firstly, Scotland has a completely separate legal system already so all of the acts of the parliament are enacted in both Scottish and English law where appropriate. Thus the NHS in Scotland was created by a second act. Secondly, acts of parliament don't cease to be binding what happens is that all existing law gets grandfathered through and the ability to change law gets transferred to the Scottish Parliament just as as happened with all the other places that gained independence. For example, the US legal systems still recognise some aspects of British law present at the time of independence.
     
  4. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The Union is worsening if you look at projected worsening of income equality, wealth distribution, child poverty fuel poverty as a starting point?

    Is that prospect hugely successful or just UKOK? Or nothing to talk about.

    The status quo is a fallacy, if we are constantly told independence is a trip into the unknown, what's going to happen to the UK in 20, 30 40 years time? The next general election? The EU referendum? This myth of 'guaranteed' further Devolution (as if this hasn't fallen flat on its face before).

    Better Together from the start have risked it all by undermining the ability of the Scottish Electorate to apply logic and reason equally to both sides when making such statements. Darling is the worst of it.

    It is of course the responsibility of those within Yes to argue for independence, just as it is for Better Together to argue for the UK in a positive manner. That is not standing on the unpopular and frankly failing, or "Broken", status quo OR just throwing rocks at Yes.

    Polling across the Yes/No divide have shown this to be the case and there is a strong desire for Better Together to change tact, the problem they have is undermining thier campaign to date and giving up on the original strategy. Scare their core support to the spot.
     
  5. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    iScotland would assume any relevent legislation. There are legacies still around from our old Parliament.

    The NHS would not cease to exist anymore than Scotland was 'extinguished' by the Union. ;)
     
  6. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    It is still up to the Independence Lobby to ADEQUATELY demonstrate the differences and why that would be an improvement on the Union.
     
  7. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    You can't debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge that it isn't as unevenly stacked as you present it, there are quite a lot of experts organisations and businesses lining up in various camps or saying the middle or opposite is true.

    Oddly enough, I think far too much weight is put into 'business opinion'.

    This might mean something in the City, it means bugger all in working class Scotland where this is arguably going to play out.

    We've heard it all before, Devolution will be bad for business and bad for Scotland. It wasn't, the opposite was true. It is the same people as last time telling us it will be all doom and gloom.

    They've been proved wrong once already.



    We are clearly watching different programmes.

    I also doubt the Deputy First Minister is going to shout over opponents initially as an argumentative offensive tact and purposefully ignore the debate host.

    Are there no wealthy families that could have donated similar amounts to Better Together?

    Personal wealth has always been influential in politics, this is unlikely to change anytime soon, although what annoys me more than the Weir's or Taylor's unfluence is the ability for 'grassroots' campaign groups to appear from no where with large start up capital - the origins of which are entirely secretive - like the recent 'Vote No Borders' nonsense.
     
  8. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I don't know why you are repeating a point that I have not disputed and have in fact confirmed I am in agreement with.

    What is evident is that you can't stand on the 'hugely successful union' as the status quo, and say your job is done and nothing further is required.

    A lot more is required, as an explanation as to what the future holds for Scotland in the UK.
     
  9. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Then why keep trying to argue through it and . Instead of trying to obfuscate, simply say 'I agree'. Instead you are attempting to portray your (own words) subjective opinion of the Union as being an objective view. I'll quite happily accept that you think the Union is a negative place for Scotland and its people, it's your raison d'être after all, but that doesn't really deal with the point made in the post you belated quoted.

    Make the case and adequately demonstrate it, what you subjectively think of the Union is immaterial to that.
     
  10. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I clearly agree with the idea that the respective campaigns and proponents have ownership of their side of the debate. I dispute the use of the status quo as such self-evident brilliance by independence opponents as having any creditability weight or substance.

    I'm trying to argue past it Castiel, I agree, you keep raising it in response to my questioning the validity of standing on the 'hugely successful' status quo and not having to ask the same questions about the future of the UK as is asked by BT and yourself of Yes.

    This is patently absurd.

    You continue to declare that this side - or myself - makes the independence case, and the opposing side or you don't have to make any case for the 'hugely successful union' because it is the status quo (and is never going to change?).. and somehow a model of governing Scotland independently now has got to have nothing to do with the current model of governance under the UK?

    Is it not up to Better Together and their protagonists to make the case that the UK isn't going to get worse and indeed 'Better Together'?

    It is not enough to suffer together. If a No vote is a vote for being ‘better together’ then we must know how we can be better. If Scotland rejects the Eurospecticism of UKIP, we must know how we can defeat it with a No vote. If Scotland wants to avoid Tory rule, we must know how we can end it with a No vote. If we are being told we can have a union for social justice, we must know how this will be achieved.

    And here lies the nub of the issue for the No campaign. Two years into the long campaign, Better Together and the UK Government are almost constantly criticised for their negativity. It must be frustrating for a campaign that tries to appear positive – to the extent of unsubtly choosing the word ‘Positive’ as a face book cover photo at one point. The problem is that promising a better future only works when people can relate to and understand the promise being offered. The ‘positive case’ – that we are simply ‘better’ ‘together’; that ‘UK’ is ‘OK’ – doesn’t reflect the experiences of Scots struggling to survive on a meager wages, who are unable to find meaningful work or seeing their friends or neighbors dependent on food banks to feed their families. What we are left with is a negative diatribe which offends far more than it convinces.

    Anyway if my subjectivity is irrelevant on one side but somehow not on the other, is yours more special or am I just missing something?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  11. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Then simply demonstrate the efficacy of independence. All you appear to be able to do is voice your self-confessed subjective negative opinion on the Union. You seem to be able to use ever increasing word counts to do so, but the avoidance of the primary question remains. Obfuscate and invent others opinions all you like, you are fooling no one, as I never voiced a negative or positive view on the efficacy of the Union in the post you quoted, in earlier ones I pointed out that it would be pretty blinded to claim the United Kingdom was not historically a successful union, one of the most successful in the world...if you dispute that then it is still incumbent on you to demonstrate why the alternative would have been better, as the Union and its history is a matter of historical record and therefore self evident.

    Whether you feel the Union is a success or a failure for Scotland today and whether there is a viable better alternative is indeed subjective, however the actual basic facts of the Union on Monetary Policy, Pensions, Governance, Welfare, and so on are a matter of record and are self evident...we know where we are with the current constitutional situation whether you think that situation is good or bad is a matter for the individual...the alternative is what you have yet to adequately demonstrate and increasingly spend inordinate amounts of time and words to avoid.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  12. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,451

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    Yet time and again you acknowledge that Scotland is generally better off than the rest of the UK, there was even a graphic posted many pages back which show average earnings in Scotland was higher than most of the UK with the exception of the south east and Manchester. You purposely paint a far bleaker picture to further your argument and feign faux offence as is your way.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  13. xs2man

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,686

    That's the problem with the Yes campaign. It's all doom and gloom, and how we will so doing so badly as the servants of the UK. Yet at the exact same time, turn around and say how much better we are doing.

    Well, if we are already doing better, than why is it all doom & gloom?

    One of the "best" arguments I have had over the issue, on another forum, was this statement :

    Now he does make some valid points. Free prescriptions and free University are good things. The rest of it, however, I'm not so sure of. For example, NHS Scotland is a completely separate entity to NHS England, so it is not a direct result of SNP rule.

    Circumvention of the "bedroom tax" isn't necessarily a good thing, in my opinion. The Scottish government themselves have put the cost at over £400 million. For the state to fund extra bedroom for those that don't NEED them. Now there are, of course, exceptions to this. Some bedrooms may be needed for medical reasons, or serving servicemen or whatever, but lets be generous and say 25% should be exempt. So the Scottish government are openly admitting to, and proud of the fact, that they are subsidising spare bedrooms for those that don't need them, to the tune of £300 million, while there are families who can't get the number of rooms the REQUIRE to be comfortable, and the country is trying to pay down a massive debt.

    Nuclear disarmament is a separate issue. I understand why people would be passionate about this. Didn't work out too well for the Ukranians though, my personal belief is the world isn't ready yet.

    On the other side of this argument is the "virtually permenant austerity", or, in reality, and attempt at balancing the books after over a decade of decadence by the previous government. What is wrong with a smaller state really?

    Tax cuts for the rich? They paid 50% for 35 days, then were reduced to 45%. Still 5% more than they were paying 6 weeks earlier.

    In / Out referendum on Europe? What's wrong with that? We are getting one for UK.

    Anyway, it's a difficult one, there are good reasons for and against iScotland. It does bother me somewhat that the Yes campaign don't seem to think their arguments through logically, and appear to just jump on whatever headline they can.

    The problem with this "fight" is that there is no clear evidence given either way. Although at least the BT campaign do try to back up their claims with facts and figures. While I have seen a lot of wildly speculative claims from the Yes side (one of which stating Scotland produces more Oil & Gas than UAE, without providing any actual evidence of such).
     
  14. q974739

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 4, 2009

    Posts: 638

    I'd take issue with that. A hospital failing so badly that the NHS didn't want to run it has been transformed in a year or two under private management. It's now won an award for "Best trust in England for care quality"

    http://www.hinchingbrooke.nhs.uk/hinchingbrooke-news/?p=299

    Reducing the degree of privatization of the NHS is not necessarily a good thing. (Ideological privatization yes; rational, specific and local...seems to work occasionally...but this is liekly suitable to another thread :))
     
  15. xs2man

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,686

    I don't disagree with you. It was a point made to me on another forum, in favour of iScotland.

    I think it's fairly obvious which way I lean on the issue. But I'm fed up being vilified for my opinions on the basis that I'm not patriotic, which isn't necessarily the case. I can just see through some of the lies that "Yes" are trying to promote for their own agenda.

    Everytime I see one of these little "Yes" shops on the high street, I'm tempted to go in and rip them apart. I choose not to though. I'll keep that for when they arrive on my doorstep.
     
  16. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,451

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    :D
    [​IMG]
     
  17. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    The problem is that businesses create jobs. Business create growth. Governments may create the environment, but at the end of the day it is business that drives the economy.

    Working class need jobs created by business. Those on benefits (and my family receives a reasonable does of child benefit and tax credits) rely on the taxes that can only be raised through business (income tax, NI, VAT, corp tax).

    It puts business in rather a good position to be able to say what would benefit their growth and employment. Of course, that has to be carefully weighed against the business need to make more profit.

    The conservatives know this and openly accept it. Labour know this and pretend to support the employees in public while privately courting big business. Lib Dems are just a mess and the SNP have never been in a position where it has really mattered to them.

    Are they? Free prescriptions benefit the middle classes because the old system was means tested. For those that needed a lot of prescription medication, there were prepaid certificates available at reasonable cost.

    Same with the council tax freeze - it does not benefit the poor as they don't pay it in the first place.

    I require regular prescriptions (6-8 a year). I'd rather pay a fiver and see the money spent elsewhere. I'd rather have paid inflationary rises on my council tax bill and see services improve or at least stay the same (although they would probably just blow it on the trams).
     
  18. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

  19. Rosbif

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 29, 2006

    Posts: 2,278

    Location:

    To be honest I find those kinds of articles absolutely appalling. Its like saying Scotland is a complete waste of space, an invalid that requires the support of Mum and Dad.

    Or it could read, It's 2062 and Scotland has a per capita income on par to Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden, after decades of radical development fostering Enterprise, Education, Research and Development blah blah blah.

    Who knows .. what I do know is its those kinds of articles that aren't going to foster support for the No campaign as they're quite frankly rather condescending.
     
  20. xs2man

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,686

    To be fair, it is part of a bigger article showing different scenarios that iScotland could face. It is, as a complete package, quite interesting reading.