Scottish Independence discussion area

irishfeen

EunanMac wrote: »

Threatening the Scots ?, my he is getting desperate.
The No campaign are fecked now if they are resorting to this.

Yep if they go down the fear route it could spectacularly backfire.

LiveIsLife

I can't believe he's threatening border controls, he looks comical but is he actually that stupid?

A Dub in Glasgo

EunanMac wrote: »

my he is getting desperate.

Indeed, he was at a Miners welfare club about 3 miles from me a couple of days ago lovebombing the Scottish Labour folk

irishfeen

LiveIsLife wrote: »

I can't believe he's threatening border controls, he looks comical but is he actually that stupid?

The YES side could really make hay now with that sort of talk ... England stopping citizens with British passports visiting the seat of the commonwealth ... Etc - the NO side seems to be completely losing the plot.

smcgiff

irishfeen wrote: »

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/508353366154833922

And there you have it :eek: ... now the fun going to start.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

It's not so much that there's a poll showing a majority yes vote - that's noteworthy enough. But, this poll from the YouGov, which showed 19% lead back in June is some turnaround!

BonnieSituation

Headline on Sunday Times making the Twitter rounds.


https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/508355067016396800

Dozen Wicked Words

Unusual that people are taking a Daily Mail headline as a basis for discussion since they usually bear little resemblance to the actual content of the story. Guessing he said he would consider it, same as they consider everything.

Also, strange to have poll with no undecided option, or do yougov polls only ever have stark yes or no as options?

smcgiff

I think a yes poll now is very good for the Yes side.

What ditherer is going to risk a no when the tide is with yes and find they've backed the losing side - it'd be unpatriotic to the new country.

What with Miliband losing the plot I can now see the Yes side picking up even further momentum from here.

LiveIsLife

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Headline on Sunday Times making the Twitter rounds.


https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/508355067016396800

I want to know more about that piece of string...

cloud493

Thought this was interesting

I am a Norwegian who has been living in the UK for ten years and I understand the SNP looks at Norway as an example of how Scotland will be after independence. I have a number of friends in Scotland, love a good whisky and think the Scottish Highlands rival the beauty of my native country.

However, when pro-independence Scots look to Norway as a role model it’s obvious that they only see what they want to see and largely ignore the facts. It took us a long time to accumulate the wealth we now enjoy, and it wasn’t just a result of oil. Remember also that Norway voted on its independence in 1814, and the financial depression in the years that followed was the worst on record.

Our GDP per capita was consistently lower than Sweden, Denmark and indeed the United Kingdom every year since records began in the early 1800s until 1974. The few things that kept us going were unity, national pride and stupidity.

If Scots are willing to go through decades of hardship in order to build their own country, then fine, but no-one should assume that independence is a silver bullet that will automatically transform Scotland into Norway.

It is also worth considering the downsides of living in such a wealthy country as consumer prices in Norway are astronomical. VAT stands at 25 per cent, you pay £9 for a pint in the pub, and the price for a new, five-door Vauxhall Corsa is £20,490 (in the UK the same car is £9,600).

This is fine if you are a top earner, but I am sure no-one in Scotland believes that becoming independent will automatically lead to an accumulation of enormous personal wealth for the entire population.

Finally, if an independent Scotland succeeds it will be because it is totally united. When Norway wanted independence 99.5 per cent of the population voted Yes.

I don’t see that sort of unity in Scotland today, and for that reason alone there should not be a referendum at all.

Haakon Blakstad

Moore Street

London

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203?fid=12994&isc=1&did=27c713f2ab5ff515a02e357bd17e1b7893758111&ctp=article

EunanMac

cloud493 wrote: »

Thought this was interesting

It is interesting, in the sense that all the No camp can come up with in the end, is threatening and negativity, rather than give positive reasons for remaining in the UK

Fratton Fred

EunanMac wrote: »

You don't remember the Scots Guards and Tumbledown ?
Oh that's right, Scottish sacrifice and service doesn't count

Oh please, stop with the drama.

Yes I do remember tumbledown. probably a lot better than you do, considering I had actually been born at the time and had neighbours in the conflict.

The Scots guards played an important role, as did the Welsh guards and the ghurkas. but no, it was not pivotal.

Fratton Fred

EunanMac wrote: »

Some pals for Fred ! The classy products of the Union !

Nice one. If you have run out of arguments, attack the poster.

They call it ad hominem by the way.

everdead.ie

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Unusual that people are taking a Daily Mail headline as a basis for discussion since they usually bear little resemblance to the actual content of the story. Guessing he said he would consider it, same as they consider everything.

Also, strange to have poll with no undecided option, or do yougov polls only ever have stark yes or no as options?

Well it is very weird that that is how they report it but that is how it has always been reported all the no leads have been followed by *if you take away the undecided voters.

I think at best the no leads highest they had about 50-55% of the votes and almost 20% undecided voters.


EDIT:

Yup heres the 20 point lead no had http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/

YouGov's latest Scottish independence figures for the Sun, using an updated methodology, are YES at 35% (no change) and NO at 55% (+1)

So while the information is misleading it does show a big swing to the yes side unless this poll is an outlier.

BonnieSituation

Stephen Harper, the Clown Prince of Calgary opposes Scottish independence. If ever there was another compelling reason to vote yes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11076098/Canadian-Prime-Minister-opposes-Scottish-independence.html

Scottie99

cloud493 wrote: »

Thought this was interesting



http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203?fid=12994&isc=1&did=27c713f2ab5ff515a02e357bd17e1b7893758111&ctp=article

I did say it wouldn't be utopia.

LiveIsLife

What is the Scottish equivalent of boards?

bobbysands81

Why are people in the 'No' camp even bothering to vote when by voting they're saying they don't want to have a say in the future of their country that they'd prefer others, with vested interests contrary to theirs, to make their decisions for them?

My name is URL

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Tomorrows Mail

Ed Miliband : We'll put GUARDS on Scottish border

Wow.. I thought our lot were bad for fear mongering and hysterics in referenda

bobbysands81

cloud493 wrote: »

Thought this was interesting



http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203?fid=12994&isc=1&did=27c713f2ab5ff515a02e357bd17e1b7893758111&ctp=article

Basically they're saying that Scotland shouldn't be independent as it will never be like Norway and then compare arbitrary prices in both countries as some sort of proof?

No sense in that argument but throwing round baseless negativity is not working for the NO campaign and hopefully continues to not work.

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why are people in the 'No' camp even bothering to vote when by voting they're saying they don't want to have a say in the future of their country that they'd prefer others, with vested interests contrary to theirs, to make their decisions for them?

So voting no means the Scots give up the right to vote? I must have missed that bit.

Michael D Not Higgins

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why are people in the 'No' camp even bothering to vote when by voting they're saying they don't want to have a say in the future of their country that they'd prefer others, with vested interests contrary to theirs, to make their decisions for them?

You could make the same argument about anywhere. Why don't the people of Cork vote for independence? All those Dubs don't have Cork's interests at heart, stealing all that Kinsale gas money for themselves.

Someone mentioned that the No side were only saying the negative things about independence and not the positive things about remaining in the UK. This is just a matter of perception. Saying Scotland won't have Sterling is the same as saying by voting No they get to keep Sterling and the benefits of a currency union. They have to clarify it as the other way around because of the Yes side's assertion of keeping the currency union.

Sure they could be spoofing but it went a long way to highlight Salmond's lack of fallback options initially. This was my problem with independence, it seemed like big Alex was just saying 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it' which is a little too close to the gombeen Irish politics 'Ah sure it'll be grand'.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So voting no means the Scots give up the right to vote? I must have missed that bit.

Voting No allows Westminster to continue to make the most important decisions for Scotland without having Scottish interests to the fire.

I'm pointing out the idiosyncratic fact of those having their say in order to not have a say in the future.

Madness.

bobbysands81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You could make the same argument about anywhere. Why don't the people of Cork vote for independence? All those Dubs don't have Cork's interests at heart, stealing all that Kinsale gas money for themselves.

Someone mentioned that the No side were only saying the negative things about independence and not the positive things about remaining in the UK. This is just a matter of perception. Saying Scotland won't have Sterling is the same as saying by voting No they get to keep Sterling and the benefits of a currency union. They have to clarify it as the other way around because of the Yes side's assertion of keeping the currency union.

Sure they could be spoofing but it went a long way to highlight Salmond's lack of fallback options initially. This was my problem with independence, it seemed like big Alex was just saying 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it' which is a little too close to the gombeen Irish politics 'Ah sure it'll be grand'.

Your facts are wrong. Taxes collected in Dublin subsidise the rest of the country.

I must have missed Corks request for independence. If they asked for it I'm sure they'd get it. I'd vote for it.

pablomakaveli

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Voting No allows Westminster to continue to make the most important decisions for Scotland without having Scottish interests to the fire.

I'm pointing out the idiosyncratic fact of those having their say in order to not have a say in the future.

Madness.

Scots have it good i think. They enjoy the benefit of their own parliament will still having a say in Westminster. The English dont even have that luxury.

BonnieSituation

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Scots have it good i think. They enjoy the benefit of their own parliament will still having a say in Westminster. The English dont even have that luxury.

The English don't want that luxury. The first regional assembly was voted down at a referendum in the a north east.

pablomakaveli

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The English don't want that luxury. The first regional assembly was voted down at a referendum in the a north east.

Doesn't mean it's not wanted in other parts of England. The fact Scottish MP's get a say on English domestic matters while English MP's have none on some Scottish is a bit of a stickler for some people here.

BonnieSituation

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's not wanted in other parts of England. The fact Scottish MP's get a say on English domestic matters while English MP's have none on some Scottish is a bit of a stickler for some people here.

That's not Scotland's fault. The "West Lothian" question has been a topic for an age.

Soon enough they won't have to worry about Scots voting for English matters.

Scottie99

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You could make the same argument about anywhere. Why don't the people of Cork vote for independence? All those Dubs don't have Cork's interests at heart, stealing all that Kinsale gas money for themselves.

Someone mentioned that the No side were only saying the negative things about independence and not the positive things about remaining in the UK. This is just a matter of perception. Saying Scotland won't have Sterling is the same as saying by voting No they get to keep Sterling and the benefits of a currency union. They have to clarify it as the other way around because of the Yes side's assertion of keeping the currency union.

Sure they could be spoofing but it went a long way to highlight Salmond's lack of fallback options initially. This was my problem with independence, it seemed like big Alex was just saying 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it' which is a little too close to the gombeen Irish politics 'Ah sure it'll be grand'.

Salmond does have a Plan B - as he said before, he's not going into negociations with rUK letting them know what his plans. Also said, refusing currency union would be "tantamount to economic vandalism!"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8bf832a8-b984-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CdUQbpod

Currency union will happen and is now a non story after Darlings gaff

bobbysands81

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Scots have it good i think. They enjoy the benefit of their own parliament will still having a say in Westminster. The English dont even have that luxury.

The whole concept of one country ruling another and making it's decisions for it is harking back to ugly days of British imperialism.

Getting someone to make your own decisions for you just seems insane to me.

I'm not sure if YES will win but if they don't I think an unstoppable force has been unleashed.

Stand up for Scotland, vote YES!

Scottie99

Salmond making some great points

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=OJgSPN_LBEM

MadYaker

Its starting to look like this might actually happen. It seems to have sent most of the british establishment into a sort of political crisis, there's even talk of Cameron resigning if the yes vote wins, it's all quite amusing.

pablomakaveli

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The whole concept of one country ruling another and making it's decisions for it is harking back to ugly days of British imperialism.

Getting someone to make your own decisions for you just seems insane to me.

I'm not sure if YES will win but if they don't I think an unstoppable force has been unleashed.

Stand up for Scotland, vote YES!

It's not really like that though is it? The Scots can elect their own representatives to Westminster who have a say on what goes on there. I wouldn't call that being ruled over.

Zonda999

MadYaker wrote: »

Its starting to look like this might actually happen. It seems to have sent most of the british establishment into a sort of political crisis, there's even talk of Cameron resigning if the yes vote wins, it's all quite amusing.

The coverage of this really seems to have notched up in the last few days, I now expects the vested interests of the British media to do whatever they see fit to try and scare Scotland into voting No. Up to now, I think the same vested interests strategy was to try to give the referendum as little attention as possible.

If anyone wants to see any example of that scare tactic, the Daily Mail does a pretty good job of it

Camac Hibs

Zonda999 wrote: »

The coverage of this really seems to have notched up in the last few days, I now expects the vested interests of the British media to do whatever they see fit to try and scare Scotland into voting No. Up to now, I think the same vested interests strategy was to try to give the referendum as little attention as possible.

If anyone wants to see any example of that scare tactic, the Daily Mail does a pretty good job of it

I think the British establishment are now realizing the scare tactics are not working as well as they thought, and are hastily trying to club together a package of "more powers" - bizarrely after thousands of postal votes have already been cast!

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Voting No allows Westminster to continue to make the most important decisions for Scotland without having Scottish interests to the fire.

I'm pointing out the idiosyncratic fact of those having their say in order to not have a say in the future.

Madness.

Funny that someone who uses the name Bobby Sands would advocate Northern Ireland not voting for unification, but independence instead.

Fratton Fred

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The whole concept of one country ruling another and making it's decisions for it is harking back to ugly days of British imperialism.

Getting someone to make your own decisions for you just seems insane to me.

I'm not sure if YES will win but if they don't I think an unstoppable force has been unleashed.

Stand up for Scotland, vote YES!

What country rules Scotland presently then?

bobbysands81

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's not really like that though is it? The Scots can elect their own representatives to Westminster who have a say on what goes on there. I wouldn't call that being ruled over.

Scotland has 52 out of 600 MPs in Westminster. Approx 9%, so even if all Scottish MPs agree on something they can be outvoted 10 times over.

I would most definitely call that being ruled over.

pbear007

Polls reported by media suggest 51/49 in favour .Whats the betting this thing will be another George W Bush style 'job'?The powers that be dont want them to go and wont let them would be my guess.

bobbysands81

pbear007 wrote: »

Polls reported by media suggest 51/49 in favour .Whats the betting this thing will be another George W Bush style 'job'?The powers that be dont want them to go and wont let them would be my guess.

The game changer will come this week in the form of the All party agreement to give the Scots more permission to make up their minds about their own future but there'll be enough checks and balances to ensure they remain subservient.

bobbysands81

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What country rules Scotland presently then?

Well if it was Scotland there'd be no need for this referendum.

Dyr

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The game changer will come this week in the form of the All party agreement to give the Scots more permission to make up their minds about their own future but there'll be enough checks and balances to ensure they remain subservient.

Presumably there'd a bar on putting such proposals forward this close to the actual vote.

Although with the UKs' unwritten constitution god only knows

Camac Hibs

Bambi wrote: »

Presumably there'd a bar on putting such proposals forward this close to the actual vote.

Although with the UKs' unwritten constitution god only knows

There is under the Scottish Referendum Act - apparently they are getting round that one by presenting it as a proposal by the 3 unionist parties, rather than the UK government.

It is really desperate stuff cobbling this together after thousands of people have already voted

bobbysands81

Bambi wrote: »

Presumably there'd a bar on putting such proposals forward this close to the actual vote.

Although with the UKs' unwritten constitution god only knows

That's happening this week though.

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00458330.pdf

The No side refused to participate in a 3rd Darling / Salmond debate due to the postal votes going out :pac:

everdead.ie

The whole vote depends on what westminister commits to giving Scotland this week.

I think its also important that whatever is offered Better together say they will seek even more they dont have to actually do anything once the vote is done but t say they will seek even more will probably pacify a number of voters in the middle.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

everdead.ie wrote: »

The whole vote depends on what westminister commits to giving Scotland this week.

I think its also important that whatever is offered Better together say they will seek even more they dont have to actually do anything once the vote is done but t say they will seek even more will probably pacify a number of voters in the middle.

If they make an official offer they break the rules

cloud493

I just can't see it passing this generation. Maybe in 20 or so years.

everdead.ie

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If they make an official offer they break the rules

Oh really I didn't realise that interesting so.

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4322-moore-echoes-douglas-homes-infamous-1979-promise-of-qsomething-betterq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Perth

There is form here and it is highly unlikely that the people in Scotland will get more substantive powers if they give up their referendum

the UK establishment will go back to failing to deliver and will attack the Barnett formula