Scottish Independence yea or nay

Fr Tod Umptious

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There was a guy on BBC News earlier answering viewer questions. I'm not sure was he part of the BBC's alleged bias coverage, or a Better Together plant, or just a genuinely impartial expert but he raised some interesting points.

The main one was the fact that even if the Yes vote won there would still have to be months/years of negotiations to sort out what goes where, almost like a divorce. He said the March 2016 date given by the SNP is an extremely optimistic date and it could take much longer. Also, even when all the negotiations are done, the UK parliament still has to sign legislation to pass it all. They can constitutionally refuse to. Now, it's unlikely they would seeing as they passed the legislation to allow the referendum in the first place, although it's possible they really didn't think it'd be quite as close as it's looking like being.

The main thing I took from his answers was that nobody on the Yes side can actually promise the Scottish people anything after the vote because pretty much everything from finance, education, defense, banks, civil servants in both countries even something about public buildings in other countries, will have to be negotiated after the vote.

So it makes you question how much of what Salmond is promising an actually be delivered.

Better Together plant

n-dawg

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There was a guy on BBC News earlier answering viewer questions. I'm not sure was he part of the BBC's alleged bias coverage, or a Better Together plant, or just a genuinely impartial expert but he raised some interesting points.

The main one was the fact that even if the Yes vote won there would still have to be months/years of negotiations to sort out what goes where, almost like a divorce. He said the March 2016 date given by the SNP is an extremely optimistic date and it could take much longer. Also, even when all the negotiations are done, the UK parliament still has to sign legislation to pass it all. They can constitutionally refuse to. Now, it's unlikely they would seeing as they passed the legislation to allow the referendum in the first place, although it's possible they really didn't think it'd be quite as close as it's looking like being.

The main thing I took from his answers was that nobody on the Yes side can actually promise the Scottish people anything after the vote because pretty much everything from finance, education, defense, banks, civil servants in both countries even something about public buildings in other countries, will have to be negotiated after the vote.

So it makes you question how much of what Salmond is promising an actually be delivered.

This is something I'm genuinely worried about. I can really see a narrow yes vote, followed by Westminster refusing to allow independence to happen. They would come up with some excuse for it, like the 16 year olds voting, or the fact that the popular support in England doesn't want it.

Fratton Fred

n-dawg wrote: »

This is something I'm genuinely worried about. I can really see a narrow yes vote, followed by Westminster refusing to allow independence to happen. They would come up with some excuse for it, like the 16 year olds voting, or the fact that the popular support in England doesn't want it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Fratton Fred

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Better Together plant

Not really, I don't think anything said there would be disputed by the yes side.

Sam Russell

Another possibility is that a narrow NO vote would be followed by the UK parties refusing to agree what they actually promised and it let slide forever. No devo-max.

They are all politicians and they all lie. Except for the Bankers and they all lie.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

It almost seems like the easy part has been convincing people to vote yes. The hard part, if the Yes vote wins, will be negotiating the terms afterwards. The UK will still hols all the power really.

The guy on BBC did say it was extremely unlikely that they wouldn't sign off on it once the negotiations were completed but given there's an election due in the UK next year things could change drastically on both sides.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not really, I don't think anything said there would be disputed by the yes side.

I was joking !

tbradman

n-dawg wrote: »

This is something I'm genuinely worried about. I can really see a narrow yes vote, followed by Westminster refusing to allow independence to happen. They would come up with some excuse for it, like the 16 year olds voting, or the fact that the popular support in England doesn't want it.

You worry too much... As long as the vote is 50% plus one person, then it will be a Yes or a No. As long as there is a majority of "1" in a free vote, then that's democracy, you have a result. It would not be in Scotlands or Englands interest to deny a democratic vote, whichever way it goes.

Everyone entered into this with their eyes open, including 16 year old voters, lying politicians (on both sides), dodgy bankers and various people trying to make a profit from their preferred outcome. There will be a vote, there will be a legitimate result and everyone will learn to live with that result for good or ill. Stop worrying and enjoy democracy in action.

This thread only has a few days to go, be patient and don't let it descend into a "sum of all fears" scenario.

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Appalling bad letter sent out by the Labour party to Labour voters on the Referendum - 'If you don't know - vote NO

The slogan "If you don't know - vote NO" is appalling but most of what is contained in the letter is true.

The "Yes" vote have no answer to the currency, pension, EU, NHS, state benefits and tax issues. All of those have to be worked out if there is a "Yes" vote but you would have thought that those advocating a "yes" vote would have managed to have got some understandings/agreements from the UK government before the referendum if they were really serious about independence.

n-dawg

Godge wrote: »

The slogan "If you don't know - vote NO" is appalling but most of what is contained in the letter is true.

The "Yes" vote have no answer to the currency, pension, EU, NHS, state benefits and tax issues. All of those have to be worked out if there is a "Yes" vote but you would have thought that those advocating a "yes" vote would have managed to have got some understandings/agreements from the UK government before the referendum if they were really serious about independence.

Westminster refused to negotiate before the referendum, the yes side did want answers to these questions. Its Westminster fault there are no answers. However, pensions have been guaranteed, NHS is (mostly) under Scottish control already and the SNPs election manifesto (the white paper) discusses the other issues. Hopefully after a yes, labour and others will come out with there own vision of an independent Scotland.

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

The slogan "If you don't know - vote NO" is appalling but most of what is contained in the letter is true.

The "Yes" vote have no answer to the currency, pension, EU, NHS, state benefits and tax issues. All of those have to be worked out if there is a "Yes" vote but you would have thought that those advocating a "yes" vote would have managed to have got some understandings/agreements from the UK government before the referendum if they were really serious about independence.

I'd have to agree with n-dawg there. It's not possible for one side of the debate to give the answers to those questions, because they will necessarily be settled by negotiation between Scotland and Westminster in the event of a Yes.

Westminster being very clearly on the No side, it has never had any interest in settling those questions before the vote. That the Labour party, also part of the No side and of Westminster politics, should then use their own unwillingness to clarify post-independence issues to argue for a No vote, is both absurd and repellent.

This isn't Lisbon, where the treaty had already been debated and fixed in form - where, if you "didn't know", it was largely because you hadn't bothered to find out. Here, you can't know without the cooperation of the No side itself - a cooperation it has not given.

While clearly that doesn't bode well for negotiations in the event of a Yes, it also doesn't exactly show the Westminster-Scotland relationship as one based on trust and mutual understanding. It's like a husband trying to put his wife off an amicable divorce by saying she doesn't know how he'll act in the custody/alimony/possessions negotiations - he might be a complete bastard. Most people would regard that as a clue that the divorce is really necessary, because the relationship is clearly not running on trust at that point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

n-dawg wrote: »

Westminster refused to negotiate before the referendum, the yes side did want answers to these questions. Its Westminster fault there are no answers. However, pensions have been guaranteed, NHS is (mostly) under Scottish control already and the SNPs election manifesto (the white paper) discusses the other issues. Hopefully after a yes, labour and others will come out with there own vision of an independent Scotland.

In some ways, I think it was complete arrogance on the part of Westminster, never once thinking perhaps that the vote would be close, hence no need to do anything. In the last few weeks, there has been promises of reform and more power....it's laughable now, that it takes the possibility of Scotland going independent to get any sort of offers. If the no camp win, there are going to an awful lot of disgruntled people from the yes side.

A Dub in Glasgo

Godge wrote: »

The slogan "If you don't know - vote NO" is appalling but most of what is contained in the letter is true.

The "Yes" vote have no answer to the currency, pension, EU, NHS, state benefits and tax issues. All of those have to be worked out if there is a "Yes" vote but you would have thought that those advocating a "yes" vote would have managed to have got some understandings/agreements from the UK government before the referendum if they were really serious about independence.

It is clear what the Labour party is up to with this letter and I do not agree what is in the letter reflects the truth

The LP are shit scared that their vote is moving to Yes in sufficient numbers that it puts the referendum on a knife edge

Sam Russell

To my mind, it is inconceivable that Scotland, where all citizens are EU citizens and all their laws are EU compliant, would be denied membership, or even denied a fastrack resoltution - particularly that this would be following such a democratic exercise that is likely to have a turnout of over 80%.

The EU wants Turkey to join, and Ukraine, both have severe internal problems close to, or actual, civil war. Any statements about EU membership by other member states or the Commission itself would be undue interference with the internal affairs of a member state.

However, this situation is unprecedented, and so would set a precedent which would be uncomfortable for some member states (Spain, Belgium, etc.)

However, Scotland must first vote YES.

Scofflaw

An interesting background brief on the referendum from/for the European Parliament: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/system/files/protected/whitepaper/Dods%20Scottish%20Referendum.pdf

Good roundup of quotes and reactions from business in particular.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Of course they could in the case of a close vote divide the country depending on how the vote turns out. Then again, that worked awfully in many other instances, so as an idea a complete non-runner.

tbradman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was trying to make a simple point, that a democratic outcome is binding irrespective of how small the majority is. Several posters had stated they were worried about a Yes vote and Westminster ignoring the outcome.

Personally I doubt this or any large Referendum will go down to a single vote. As I stated in one of my previous posts, it would be in Scotlands best interest to have a crushing vote for either Yes or No to avoid whinging. If its Yes then Scotland gets what it wants. If its No even by a narrow margin, both Tories and Labour have promised more power for Scotland anyway, which will then be used as a springboard for another Referendum in about 10 years. So may be a win/win for the Yes side no matter what the outcome.

Jelle1880

I don't see how this will help the Yes camp.

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/511892524039163904
https://twitter.com/SvenjaODonnell/status/511889705051619328



Trying to physically and verbally intimidate people that disagree with your point of view isn't exactly what I see under 'a fairer Scotland'.

bpb101

tbradman wrote: »

I was trying to make a simple point, that a democratic outcome is binding irrespective of how small the majority is. Several posters had stated they were worried about a Yes vote and Westminster ignoring the outcome.

Personally I doubt this or any large Referendum will go down to a single vote. As I stated in one of my previous posts, it would be in Scotlands best interest to have a crushing vote for either Yes or No to avoid whinging. If its Yes then Scotland gets what it wants. If its No even by a narrow margin, both Tories and Labour have promised more power for Scotland anyway, which will then be used as a springboard for another Referendum in about 10 years. So may be a win/win for the Yes side no matter what the outcome.

i agree however alex salmon said he will not put another vote to the people. so salmon will have to step down in the future. Also only the snps will put the vote ,labour wont

bpb101

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I don't see how this will help the Yes camp.




Trying to physically and verbally intimidate people that disagree with your point of view isn't exactly what I see under 'a fairer Scotland'.

take everything with a grain of salt. Its george galloways word against some person in a crowed.

Mr_Red

No Vote to Win by more then 70%

bpb101

Mr_Red wrote: »

No Vote to Win by more then 70%

thats an awful bold statement, care to explain that.

Madam

Svenja O'Donnell @SvenjaODonnell
Follow
Ed miliband visit to Edinburgh getting nasty- young yes campaigner just shoved an elderly No voter hard.

Lol The old person wasn't just shoved but shoved 'hard'!!!

I could go hunting for the same thing from NO voters but I'm not that petty;)

Godge

Madam wrote: »

Svenja O'Donnell @SvenjaODonnell
Follow
Ed miliband visit to Edinburgh getting nasty- young yes campaigner just shoved an elderly No voter hard.

Lol The old person wasn't just shoved but shoved 'hard'!!!

I could go hunting for the same thing from NO voters but I'm not that petty;)

From a quick google search Svenja O'Donnell is a journalist not an activist on either side. Why would you expect her to report something that is not true?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

What'll be interesting, if it's a No vote, is how Scotland votes in the 2015 General elections.
The SNP may lose some of their seats in a backlash from it's supporters for failing to deliver independence. The Lib Dem's pretty much killed their support in Scotland by going into government with the Tory's and the Tory's own record in Scotland speaks for itself.
It probably won't make much difference to the bigger picture of UK government as they've voted Labour most years and still ended up with a Tory government but still I think it would be very interesting to see what knock on effect this referendum could have even with a No vote.

bpb101

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What'll be interesting, if it's a No vote, is how Scotland votes in the 2015 General elections.
The SNP may lose some of their seats in a backlash from it's supporters for failing to deliver independence. The Lib Dem's pretty much killed their support in Scotland by going into government with the Tory's and the Tory's own record in Scotland speaks for itself.
It probably won't make much difference to the bigger picture of UK government as they've voted Labour most years and still ended up with a Tory government but still I think it would be very interesting to see what knock on effect this referendum could have even with a No vote.

what do you think the results will be and who are you supporting out of interest

Godge

tbradman wrote: »

I was trying to make a simple point, that a democratic outcome is binding irrespective of how small the majority is. Several posters had stated they were worried about a Yes vote and Westminster ignoring the outcome.

Personally I doubt this or any large Referendum will go down to a single vote. As I stated in one of my previous posts, it would be in Scotlands best interest to have a crushing vote for either Yes or No to avoid whinging. If its Yes then Scotland gets what it wants. If its No even by a narrow margin, both Tories and Labour have promised more power for Scotland anyway, which will then be used as a springboard for another Referendum in about 10 years. So may be a win/win for the Yes side no matter what the outcome.

A narrow Yes is probably the worst option.

In the case of a strong Yes or No vote the question is answered for a good time. In the case of a weak No vote, the SNP can argue that there is a mandate to explore what would happen and that it is the unknown outcomes that caused a "no" vote. Another referendum with more clarity on options would become a possibility within a short number of years.

A weak "yes" vote, however, runs the risk of serious problems, especially if, as I expect, things like being outside the EU, no sterling, no budget deficit, rise in unemployment, capital flight etc. happen fairly quickly (it only takes one or two, not all of those) as many of those who voted "yes" on the assurances given by the SNP will feel they were duped.

Remember, those things are not flights of imagination. I am old enough to remember runs on the Irish pound in the 1980s, let alone the things that were possible in 2008.

Godge

bpb101 wrote: »

what do you think the results will be and who are you supporting out of interest

for many of the Irish posting here, it is a spectator sport.

I don't care which way Scotland votes. I think they would be mad to vote for independence and I think it will be a "No" victory but a little part of me would be interested in seeing the panic all over the place if Scotland voted "yes", both north and south of the UK border and over here as the implications for the North took hold.

Madam

Godge wrote: »

From a quick google search Svenja O'Donnell is a journalist not an activist on either side. Why would you expect her to report something that is not true?

She's from London - nuff said:)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bpb101 wrote: »

what do you think the results will be and who are you supporting out of interest

In the referendum? I'm not sure. Luckily I'm not Scottish so I don't have to decide.
I think I'd lean towards Yes but I think they've managed to cause a big enough stir by closing the gap on No so much that either result could/should result in real change for Scotland. The real challenge will come after the result, Yes or No, in keeping up the pressure on the people that made the promises and making sure that Scotland comes out better off regardless of whether they're independent or not.

I think Labour have the most to gain from either result. If it's Yes they have a chance to completely rebrand themselves in Scotland, even in the UK they can use the resulting negotiations to gain support. If it's a No they can ream off a load of promises for more power to Scotland in the GE. I don't think it matters what Cameron promises them they won't vote Tory.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Godge wrote: »

for many of the Irish posting here, it is a spectator sport.

I don't care which way Scotland votes. I think they would be mad to vote for independence and I think it will be a "No" victory but a little part of me would be interested in seeing the panic all over the place if Scotland voted "yes", both north and south of the UK border and over here as the implications for the North took hold.

What implications would it have for the North though? The NI Assembly votes show that the majority of voters are Unionists. Unless they decided they wanted to be an actually independent country on it's own, which I don't think it could manage given they're currently financed by us and the UK.

Godge

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What implications would it have for the North though? The NI Assembly votes show that the majority of voters are Unionists. Unless they decided they wanted to be an actually independent country on it's own, which I don't think it could manage given they're currently financed by us and the UK.

SF would up the pressure for a referendum, it would be held too early and decisively lost, probably 70-30 against a united Ireland.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Godge wrote: »

SF would up the pressure for a referendum, it would be held too early and decisively lost, probably 70-30 against a united Ireland.

It wouldn't be as easy as that though. We would have to have a say in it in the Republic because it impacts on us.

irishfeen

Godge wrote: »

SF would up the pressure for a referendum, it would be held too early and decisively lost, probably 70-30 against a united Ireland.

I think it would be closer then that with an independent Scotland and a rebounding Irish economy ...

ardmacha

The NI Assembly votes show that the majority of voters are Unionists.

The "Unionist" vote is nowadays about 48%. Some of these, all of the "middle" and many nationalists would be mostly interested in the practicalities, much like Scotland.

TheCitizen

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to agree with n-dawg there. It's not possible for one side of the debate to give the answers to those questions, because they will necessarily be settled by negotiation between Scotland and Westminster in the event of a Yes.

Westminster being very clearly on the No side, it has never had any interest in settling those questions before the vote. That the Labour party, also part of the No side and of Westminster politics, should then use their own unwillingness to clarify post-independence issues to argue for a No vote, is both absurd and repellent.

This isn't Lisbon, where the treaty had already been debated and fixed in form - where, if you "didn't know", it was largely because you hadn't bothered to find out. Here, you can't know without the cooperation of the No side itself - a cooperation it has not given.

While clearly that doesn't bode well for negotiations in the event of a Yes, it also doesn't exactly show the Westminster-Scotland relationship as one based on trust and mutual understanding. It's like a husband trying to put his wife off an amicable divorce by saying she doesn't know how he'll act in the custody/alimony/possessions negotiations - he might be a complete bastard. Most people would regard that as a clue that the divorce is really necessary, because the relationship is clearly not running on trust at that point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good points.


Scotland and Scottish people need to take their courage in their hands and back themselves as a society and as people. They can run their own country - there's no doubt about that. They need to take charge of their affairs and will do a far superior job of running their country than Westminster has.

Voting Yes will just be the start. It'll take courage to do it, but by enlarge when all is said and done a Yes result will be hugely beneficial to Scotland and it's people.

I hope they Vote Yes.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Nice press release from the Scottish Police, or Polis

www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/

A Dub in Glasgo

Great statement, wonder if will be reported in the media

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Great statement, wonder if will be reported in the media

Was just thinking the same thing. Probably not.

Fratton Fred

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Was just thinking the same thing. Probably not.

It's the 8th most read article in the BBC website. Not sure what it proves though, both sides have been complaining about bullying.

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Great statement, wonder if will be reported in the media

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Was just thinking the same thing. Probably not.

for the conspiracy theorists out there:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29235197

Godge

getting back to the serious issue of what happens if there is a yes:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/spain-independent-scotland-years-eu-membership

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29234242


No easy way back into the EU.

oscarBravo

From the Guardian article:

"Five and a quarter million people ceasing to be EU citizens against their will … is more than absurd. There is simply no legal basis in the EU treaties for any such proposition. And it is against the founding principles of the European Union."

That's more than a bit disingenuous. If EU membership isn't a given post-independence (and it appears not to be), then those voting for independence are not ceasing to be EU citizens against their will, but are in fact voting to cease to be EU citizens by the very fact of seceding from an EU member state.

Mr_Red

I dont think it will be close at all when the results come out

No I believe will win by a high %

I think alot of Yes People will go on and bottle it tomorrow after thinking about it tonight

The SNP should have delivered concrete evidence that Scotland could be self sustainable a long time ago and delivered this to the people on a daily basis for the past 2 years

Actually unquestionable evidence that could not be picked apart from the outside.

I believe Scotland will stick to the Norm rather then been lead into the Unknown

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

From the Guardian article: That's more than a bit disingenuous. If EU membership isn't a given post-independence (and it appears not to be), then those voting for independence are not ceasing to be EU citizens against their will, but are in fact voting to cease to be EU citizens by the very fact of seceding from an EU member state.

That was a Salmond quote but there is a lot not understood about the consequences of a yes vote.

It is one thing to say that pensions will be unaffected but if your UK sterling pension is turned overnight into a Scottish pound pension, and as capital flight takes hold, the Scottish pound declines against sterling, the real value of your pension will be cut drastically in the face of imported inflation. Even if you tried to reverse it then, it will not be possible to restore its value, just prevent further decline.

It is very silly to vote yes in a binding referendum like that without knowing or understanding the consequences.

TheCitizen

Godge wrote: »

getting back to the serious issue of what happens if there is a yes:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/spain-independent-scotland-years-eu-membership

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29234242


No easy way back into the EU.

If it's a Yes vote, there will be a 2 year withdrawal phase from the UK. EU matters can be resolved in that period in relation to Scotland's potential application for membership.

Spain's paranoia is misplaced, they aren't even offering an opportunity for Catalonia or other Spanish regions to hold a Referendum.

oscarBravo

TheCitizen wrote: »

If it's a Yes vote, there will be a 2 year withdrawal phase from the UK. EU matters can be resolved in that period in relation to Scotland's potential application for membership.

If I was voting, I'd want more than a blithe hand-waving assurance that "don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll figure something out".

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I was voting, I'd want more than a blithe hand-waving assurance that "don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll figure something out".

Is this in response to the Brown proposals?

JacquesDeLad

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I was voting, I'd want more than a blithe hand-waving assurance that "don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll figure something out".

Then vote for God or a liar.