Scottish Independence yea or nay

comongethappy

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".

When has anyone voted based on certain future predictions?

If I was voting, I would know there would be short term pain for long term gain.

The unknown is no reason to reject independence, otherwise no one would seek to attain it.

Manach

Given there is no effective remedy for politicians' promises that are given pre-vote that are post-vote excused as part of the electoral campaign, then as per OscarBravo, having from either side vagueness on what the future plans are for Scotland merely re-enforces that no matter Yes/No, the same breed of politicians will still be in power.

Grudaire

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".

Surely this uncertainty is an issue for the No side as much as the Yes side (if not moreso)?

A lot of the uncertainty is a product of Westminsters refusal to negotiate in advance of the vote. Uncertainty plays into the hands of the No side, and I wouldn't be surprised if people can see this as a cynical tactic from the No side which may backfire in the ballot boxes.

n-dawg

Grudaire wrote: »

Surely this uncertainty is an issue for the No side as much as the Yes side (if not moreso)?

A lot of the uncertainty is a product of Westminsters refusal to negotiate in advance of the vote. Uncertainty plays into the hands of the No side, and I wouldn't be surprised if people can see this as a cynical tactic from the No side which may backfire in the ballot boxes.

From chatting to many people in the last few weeks, many do see right through the No sides tactic.

I'm feeling very hopeful for a yes vote no, certainly in Glasgow I think it will be a majority yes.

Scofflaw

comongethappy wrote: »

When has anyone voted based on certain future predictions?

If I was voting, I would know there would be short term pain for long term gain.

The unknown is no reason to reject independence, otherwise no one would seek to attain it.

Every child that attains adulthood and leaves their parents' care enters a world of uncertainty. Yet generation after generation they do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TheCitizen

n-dawg wrote: »

From chatting to many people in the last few weeks, many do see right through the No sides tactic.

I'm feeling very hopeful for a yes vote no, certainly in Glasgow I think it will be a majority yes.

Yes. Hopefully Scottish voters will increasingly see the wood for the trees. The No campaign has been largely characterised by negative scaremongering, red herrings and downright lies.

Any change will create a degree of uncertainty, but hopefully the Scottish people will recognise that the benefits for themselves of Voting Yes far outweigh the negative alternative.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think with all the uncertainties there's maybe a feeling of safety in staying as they are. What is the worst that could happen if it's a no vote? Things stay exactly as they are. Things might not be great now but at least they're familiar. With a Yes vote anything could happen.

n-dawg

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think with all the uncertainties there's maybe a feeling of safety in staying as they are. What is the worst that could happen if it's a no vote? Things stay exactly as they are. Things might not be great now but at least they're familiar. With a Yes vote anything could happen.

I think for starters, Scottish MPs would not be allowed vote on English issues (I don't really have a problem with this but it could cause some interesting control of Westminster issues).
Next, Barnett formula would be re-adjusted reducing what the Scottish government gets to spend and forcing them to make tough choices on NHS and Education.
After that, Westminster would continue on its path of investing heavily in London at the expense of everywhere else, further reducing investment and jobs in Scotland.

TheCitizen

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think with all the uncertainties there's maybe a feeling of safety in staying as they are. What is the worst that could happen if it's a no vote? Things stay exactly as they are. Things might not be great now but at least they're familiar. With a Yes vote anything could happen.

No-one would ever do anything with an attitude like that. There will be uncertainty no doubt, but their world will not be all of a sudden turned upside down on Friday morning if they Vote Yes either.

I read somewhere - will have to look it up - that every time a country/potential nation has been offered the chance to vote for their own Independence they have taken the plunge every time. I hope Scotland wont buck that trend - for their own sakes. Very hopeful they'll Vote Yes tomorrow.

golfball37

TheCitizen wrote: »

No-one would ever do anything with an attitude like that. There will be uncertainty no doubt, but their world will not be all of a sudden turned upside down on Friday morning if they Vote Yes either.

I read somewhere - will have to look it up - that every time a country/potential nation has been offered the chance to vote for their own Independence they have taken the plunge every time. I hope Scotland wont buck that trend - for their own sakes. Very hopeful they'll Vote Yes tomorrow.

Australia 1999?

whatstherush

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.

I wonder what Mr Rajoy attitude will be if the pop of England votes the Scots out of the EU in a couple of years time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

whatstherush wrote: »

I wonder what Mr Rajoy attitude will be if the pop of England votes the Scots out of the EU in a couple of years time.

The Spanish fishermen will love Rajoy if that does happen

Gerry T

n-dawg wrote: »

I think for starters, Scottish MPs would not be allowed vote on English issues (I don't really have a problem with this but it could cause some interesting control of Westminster issues).
Next, Barnett formula would be re-adjusted reducing what the Scottish government gets to spend and forcing them to make tough choices on NHS and Education.
After that, Westminster would continue on its path of investing heavily in London at the expense of everywhere else, further reducing investment and jobs in Scotland.

I have family living in Scotland, over 20yrs now. When she comes home she can't get over the average standard of living in IRL. We were a third world country in IRL back in the 50's, but having control over our own future def benefited us Irish.
Scotland on the face of it has far better natural resources, can look at what IRL did and copy (corporation tax to attract FDA), are land locked with the UK which will bring trade.

I think an independent Scotland could spell trouble for Ireland. But I do feel from a Scottish perspective that having total control over decisions is far better than having the UK do it, Scotland will prosper with Independence.

Scotland had Oil and the UK sort of developed Scotland for it. Wales has nothing and its got nothing from the UK, I happened to be in England with work for 2-3 yrs and the attitude they had to Wales was terrible, spoke about them as if they were 4th class citizens. In my mind, Scotland should take control of their own destiny.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TheCitizen wrote: »

No-one would ever do anything with an attitude like that. There will be uncertainty no doubt, but their world will not be all of a sudden turned upside down on Friday morning if they Vote Yes either.

I'm not saying it's the right attitude to have but it's certainly the attitude you see time and again when it comes to referendums here.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry T wrote: »

Scotland had Oil and the UK sort of developed Scotland for it. Wales has nothing and its got nothing from the UK, I happened to be in England with work for 2-3 yrs and the attitude they had to Wales was terrible, spoke about them as if they were 4th class citizens. In my mind, Scotland should take control of their own destiny.

Poor Wales isn't even represented on the flag.

serfboard

Even though I support their move to Independence, the fear-mongering campaign that the No side has waged, particularly in the last few "shock and awe" days, makes me think that at the last moment, people will stick with the devil they know.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Is this in response to the Brown proposals?

It's in response to Salmond's blustering about how the EU will be the ones forcefully ejecting the Scots in the event of Scotland seceding from the Union(s).

comongethappy wrote: »

When has anyone voted based on certain future predictions?

I'm not necessarily talking about certainty; I'm talking about the attitude of "musha, let's not worry about it, it'll probably be grand".

jameshayes

Any chat here about John Olivers video being blocked in the UK, the only one of his videos which is blocked..

Godge

comongethappy wrote: »

When has anyone voted based on certain future predictions?

If I was voting, I would know there would be short term pain for long term gain.

The unknown is no reason to reject independence, otherwise no one would seek to attain it.

In the case of referenda on the EU, Ireland has always voted on the basis of what is in the text and what can reasonably be concluded will happen as a result of that text.

When voting in Constitutional referenda, we have also voted on the basis of a text.

This referendum in Scotland is voting for a question to which nobody knows the answer to what happens if yes.

Michael D Not Higgins

jameshayes wrote: »

Any chat here about John Olivers video being blocked in the UK, the only one of his videos which is blocked..

They started blocking the longer videos on their Youtube channel a few weeks ago, nothing to do with the referendum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

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.

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

It is not just Spain.

Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Greece would share Spanish concerns on a potential breakaway getting automatic membership of the EU.

Gerry T

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Poor Wales isn't even represented on the flag.

Well if they took Ireland off the union jack (st particks flag https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=st%20patricks%20flag ) then they could put Wales in

TheCitizen

Godge wrote: »

It is not just Spain.

Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Greece would share Spanish concerns on a potential breakaway getting automatic membership of the EU.

If the Scottish people vote Yes, they will adapt to it - all of them.

Gerry T

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You make good points but a lot is debatable. The sub-prime lending crashed many a countries economy, that couple with our over borrowing and construction bubble did hit us hard, throw in the what if's---what if we didn't pay the full € back to the german bond holders, they managed to make profits out of the global economic crash by IRL paying all the money back.
Look at how people lived in the 50's and look now. Yes some got seriously stung in the bubble burst but also some made big time. But generaly speaking we live far better than our parents or grandparents did.

In comparison Scotland hasn't moved at the same pace we did or the same pace as southern UK did.

Jelle1880

n-dawg wrote: »

From chatting to many people in the last few weeks, many do see right through the No sides tactic.

I'm feeling very hopeful for a yes vote no, certainly in Glasgow I think it will be a majority yes.

Most likely this is because you mainly talk to other Yes voters ?

This whole claim of 'No is trying to scare the people' is pretty pathetic.
The No camp is asking valid questions, raising equally valid concerns and are saying that people should vote with their head, not heart.

Of course according to Yes that comes down to 'scaremongering', but that's probably more because they can not answer the questions from No.

bpb101

folks referring to the spanish saying an independent scotland would not be a member of the eu.

Currently the uk , which is the united kingdom of great Brittan and northern Ireland is in the eu. However if Scotland leaves the uk . the uk is not the uk anymore as it would be the united kingdom of Brittan and northern Ireland . would this not expel the uk as it stands for the eu. Why would Scotland be one to have to leave the eu , as compared to the rest of the uk.

ardmacha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is fair to say that Ireland is hardly a model for what any country should do with its independence, but is a model for independence all the same.

In the period before independence, the population halved, after independence it grew by 60%. At independence living standards were half those of Britain, now they are similar. Ireland grew more quickly than the UK in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and will in the 10s.

The health system is indeed dreadful in parts, yet life expectancy significantly exceeds Scotland and exceeds Northern Ireland. We are excessively tolerant of horsecrap and poor performance from politicians, but they are at our behest none the less and some of us hope for change.

Jelle1880

bpb101 wrote: »

folks referring to the spanish saying an independent scotland would not be a member of the eu.

Currently the uk , which is the united kingdom of great Brittan and northern Ireland is in the eu. However if Scotland leaves the uk . the uk is not the uk anymore as it would be the united kingdom of Brittan and northern Ireland . would this not expel the uk as it stands for the eu. Why would Scotland be one to have to leave the eu , as compared to the rest of the uk.

The UK will still be the UK, just not with Scotland anymore.

If Scotland leaves it'll be interesting to see if the EU uses Article 48 or Article 49 for their application.

Article 49 requires a 5 year wait and adoption of the Euro, whereas Article 48 would be business as mostly usual following agreement from the key EU countries.

Gerry T

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Of course according to Yes that comes down to 'scaremongering', but that's probably more because they can not answer the questions from No.

the no side say the yes side won't answer questions
the yes side say the no side are scaremongering

But from what I see the yes side are answering all the questions but the no side has been throwing out some funny comments, like your not answering the questions"
Its a good debate from both sides, in the end the Scottish people will look at how this affects them and make a decision, hopefully a strong majority and that way their country won't be divided.
I tend to think the no side will gain momentum as people get scared with the unknown, its part of human nature. People won't risk on a "perceived loss" but will gamble on a "perceived gain" if that makes sense

Jelle1880

Gerry T wrote: »

the no side say the yes side won't answer questions
the yes side say the no side are scaremongering

But from what I see the yes side are answering all the questions but the no side has been throwing out some funny comments, like your not answering the questions"
Its a good debate from both sides, in the end the Scottish people will look at how this affects them and make a decision, hopefully a strong majority and that way their country won't be divided.
I tend to think the no side will gain momentum as people get scared with the unknown, its part of human nature. People won't risk on a "perceived loss" but will gamble on a "perceived gain" if that makes sense

From what I've seen Yes may indeed answer things, only to contradict themselves later.

Making promises that they can not hold won't help either (Salmond is still going on about a currency union by the way, claiming it will happen).
They seem to be promising everything to everyone, which is an age-old political tactic that simply never works.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

bpb101 wrote: »

folks referring to the spanish saying an independent scotland would not be a member of the eu.

Currently the uk , which is the united kingdom of great Brittan and northern Ireland is in the eu. However if Scotland leaves the uk . the uk is not the uk anymore as it would be the united kingdom of Brittan and northern Ireland . would this not expel the uk as it stands for the eu. Why would Scotland be one to have to leave the eu , as compared to the rest of the uk.

European leaders have been quite clear on this one. The UK will remain a part of the EU, Scotland will have to apply. This is really old news. People on the "yes" side have known about this since 2012.


http://www.scottishtimes.com/scottish/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-nationalist-split-emerges-over-eu-policy/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/meps-could-block-scotlands-eu-membership-if-it-pushes-euro-opt-out-308434

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prospects-of-eu-membership-for-a-newly-independent-scotland

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-membership-row-continues-1-3310377

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/impossible-for-scotland-to-join-eu-says-barroso-1-3308359


Unilateral declarations from the "Yes" campaign that it will be all right on the night are not based on any substance

Michael D Not Higgins

ardmacha wrote: »

It is fair to say that Ireland is hardly a model for what any country should do with its independence, but is a model for independence all the same.

In the period before independence, the population halved, after independence it grew by 60%. At independence living standards were half those of Britain, now they are similar. Ireland grew more quickly than the UK in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and will in the 10s.

The health system is indeed dreadful in parts, yet life expectancy significantly exceeds Scotland and exceeds Northern Ireland. We are excessively tolerant of horsecrap and poor performance from politicians, but they are at our behest none the less and some of us hope for change.

The population halved because of the famine, a different time and a different life. Populations around Europe boomed following the wars. The economy grew quicker as it had a lower baseline to start from. The Glasgow effect is still baffling people as no one knows what's causing it.

How any of these relate to independence is beyond me.

Gerry T

Jelle1880 wrote: »

From what I've seen Yes may indeed answer things, only to contradict themselves later.

Making promises that they can not hold won't help either (Salmond is still going on about a currency union by the way, claiming it will happen).
They seem to be promising everything to everyone, which is an age-old political tactic that simply never works.

The problem is no one really knows what will happen if the yes win. It's uncharted territory.
In the end its business and people make business decisions. What I mean is if yes win and the UK perceive that this will negatively impact the UK economy/sterling then they would happily let Scotland use sterling. But if the UK determines that Scotland would have a negative impact then they won't let Scotland join the Sterling.

Looks like the only people that can answer the question is Westminster, not anyone in Scotland. So why are the no side asking the yes side the question ? looks like a derailing attempt to me.

I think the UK are really terrified that Scotland will walk, why else are politicians going north, just since Tuesday making all sorts of promises to give Scotland more powers if the stay in the union.

FFS if I were Scottish I would be seething, to me that's like an employer that is under paying and getting you working long Hrs, only to say they will give you market rates when you say your leaving for another Job......... Why hasn't the UK given this to Scotland before now ???

Godge

Gerry T wrote: »

The problem is no one really knows what will happen if the yes win. It's uncharted territory.
In the end its business and people make business decisions. What I mean is if yes win and the UK perceive that this will negatively impact the UK economy/sterling then they would happily let Scotland use sterling. But if the UK determines that Scotland would have a negative impact then they won't let Scotland join the Sterling.

Looks like the only people that can answer the question is Westminster, not anyone in Scotland. So why are the no side asking the yes side the question ? looks like a derailing attempt to me.

I think the UK are really terrified that Scotland will walk, why else are politicians going north, just since Tuesday making all sorts of promises to give Scotland more powers if the stay in the union.

FFS if I were Scottish I would be seething, to me that's like an employer that is under paying and getting you working long Hrs, only to say they will give you market rates when you say your leaving for another Job......... Why hasn't the UK given this to Scotland before now ???

But the "no" side have answered the questions. They have said that Scotland will not be able to keep sterling, they have said that Scotland will have to reapply to the EU. The "yes" side are putting their fingers in their ears and saying "we don't hear or believe you, everything will be fine". They have no plan for what happens if there is a "yes".

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I don't think Ireland can be used in any comparisons here. Ireland under British Rule was practically a 3rd world country. We also had to physically force the issue for years before they gave in. Then we descended into Civil War, which is the case in a lot of countries when Independence is achieved in similar ways. We only caught up to the rest of the developed world in the last 2 decades really.

Scotland is doing it politically and are in a far better position than we were before 1922 both economically, financial and politically.

oscarBravo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If Scotland leaves it'll be interesting to see if the EU uses Article 48 or Article 49 for their application.

Article 49 requires a 5 year wait and adoption of the Euro, whereas Article 48 would be business as mostly usual following agreement from the key EU countries.

The Article 48 speculation is pure wishful thinking. Scotland isn't a member of the EU in its own right. If it wants to be a member - to have its name listed as a member state in the treaty documents, to have the right to nominate a Commissioner, to participate in Council meetings - it needs to apply for membership.

The treaties specify a mechanism for a non-member to apply for membership, and that mechanism is Article 49.

ardmacha

The population halved because of the famine, a different time and a different life.

Did it halve in other places?

Populations around Europe boomed following the wars.

Except Scotland.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry T wrote: »

I think the UK are really terrified that Scotland will walk, why else are politicians going north, just since Tuesday making all sorts of promises to give Scotland more powers if the stay in the union.

FFS if I were Scottish I would be seething, to me that's like an employer that is under paying and getting you working long Hrs, only to say they will give you market rates when you say your leaving for another Job......... Why hasn't the UK given this to Scotland before now ???

Political editor from one of the Glasgow papers was on one of the news channels the other day and he said that the Yes Campaign have managed to close the gap on No far more then Westminster ever thought they would. When they agreed to the referendum 2 years ago they were expecting a 70/30 win, maybe a 60/40 at a push. They have been taken by complete surprise that the polls at this point are so close.

The positive from that, if No wins, is that Westminster now know that they have only the smallest margin of support there and given how much the Yes Campaign has managed to achieve and how many young people it's drawn to be politically aware and politically active, they shouldn't be able to carry on as normal ignoring Scotland.

Michael D Not Higgins

ardmacha wrote: »

Did it halve in other places?

I don't get your argument. Sure, the Irish suffered in times gone past under British rule. Times have changed. Scotland don't face the same issues that Ireland did two centuries ago.

ardmacha

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I don't get your argument. Sure, the Irish suffered in times gone past under British rule. Times have changed. Scotland don't face the same issues that Ireland did two centuries ago.

Fair enough in relation to the 19th century. The difference in economic and population growth since 1960 are more relevant.

Gerry T

Godge wrote: »

But the "no" side have answered the questions. They have said that Scotland will not be able to keep sterling, they have said that Scotland will have to reapply to the EU. The "yes" side are putting their fingers in their ears and saying "we don't hear or believe you, everything will be fine". They have no plan for what happens if there is a "yes".

I don't agree that is what the no side would do if the yes win. Pre election they say that to get people to vote no. post election all bets are off and the UK will make decisions based on what's best for them. They may well say no at that point but that decision won't be made until all the facts come clear.

But more importantly a nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says Scotland can use sterling after the election with or without Englans approval
http://www.cityam.com/1410708099/joseph-stiglitz-scottish-independence-no-basis-fear-mongering-and-currency-non-issue

n-dawg

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Most likely this is because you mainly talk to other Yes voters ?

This whole claim of 'No is trying to scare the people' is pretty pathetic.
The No camp is asking valid questions, raising equally valid concerns and are saying that people should vote with their head, not heart.

Of course according to Yes that comes down to 'scaremongering', but that's probably more because they can not answer the questions from No.

I'll accept that most of them are yes voters, but it is hard to find no voters who are willing to talk in Glasgow.

As I've already said, the yes camp wanted to pre-negotiate independence before the vote. Westminster (no camp) refused. Most of the now unanswered questions are due to this refusal to pre negotiate...

While some of the points the no camp are valid, especially with regards to R&D funding. Some of them have been shocking, implying that Scotland will be a basket case, when clearly it wont!

Fratton Fred

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't agree that is what the no side would do if the yes win. Pre election they say that to get people to vote no. post election all bets are off and the UK will make decisions based on what's best for them. They may well say no at that point but that decision won't be made until all the facts come clear.

But more importantly a nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says Scotland can use sterling after the election with or without Englans approval
http://www.cityam.com/1410708099/joseph-stiglitz-scottish-independence-no-basis-fear-mongering-and-currency-non-issue

They can use whatever currency they like, but they will have no control over it and will eventually be forced to borrow to acquire it.

Michael D Not Higgins

ardmacha wrote: »

Fair enough in relation to the 19th century. The difference in economic and population growth since 1960 are more relevant.

Yes, but how much of that stagnation was due to movement of people within the UK? What's the point you're trying to get at?

eeepaulo

Gerry T wrote: »

But more importantly a nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says Scotland can use sterling after the election with or without Englans approval
http://www.cityam.com/1410708099/joseph-stiglitz-scottish-independence-no-basis-fear-mongering-and-currency-non-issue

At the bottom of that article

Also an advisor to the Scottish government, Stiglitz offers a slightly more positive view of Scottish independence than other economists have put forward in the past week.
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist and director of research at the IMF, and Princeton’s Paul Krugman last week put forward their own views.
Rogoff told CNBC an independent Scotland faced “disaster” and that there was no good outcome to the referendum as even a No would worry investors “because they might do it again.”
Krugman in a column for the New York Times said “the risks of going it alone are huge.”

A Dub in Glasgo

The Scottish Government asked the EU for the legal opinion on what would happen in the event of Scottish Independence. They refused to give that legal opinion as they rightly said it has to be asked by the UK Government. The SG asked the UK Government to ask the EU and the UK Government refused.

It is that refusal of the UK Government that has caused this uncertainty

Gerry T

eeepaulo wrote: »

At the bottom of that article

yes, you will get people agreeing with both sides of the argument. The point Stiglitz made was Scotland can use Sterling with or without the UK input. From what he intimated if the UK didn't agree then Scotland would have no control over Sterling. But then what control have we Irish over the Euro currency.

Have read the article you linked and the only comment quoted from Rogoff was
"It's certainly a disaster for Scotland, first and foremost, it's going to be a horrible adjustment".
Is that it, the adjustment will be tough ? he must get well paid for those gems.

A yes vote could go horribly wrong, a disaster, we won't know. But at least Scotland will make their own decisions based on what's best for people living in Scotland. England looks after English people first, that's not good for Scotland.