Scottish Independence yea or nay

Gordon

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Guaranteed? Just like the Lib Dems guaranteed no tuition fees?

This hand has been played multiple times before

There are no guarantees on our future with a yes vote.

A Dub in Glasgo

No guarantees in life apart from death? certainly agree with that

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No guarantees in life apart from death? certainly agree with that

..... and taxes.

Richard

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Guaranteed? Just like the Lib Dems guaranteed no tuition fees?

This hand has been played multiple times before

Well you could level that charge at all parties, SNP included.

But this is more important than just an election. In a normal election if politicians don't deliver then you vote them out at the next election. If the vote is Yes and people were lied to by the SNP then tough, there's no going back. If the vote is No and the Westminster parties lied then another independence vote will be held in the next 10-20 years.

bpb101

Richard wrote: »

. If the vote is Yes and people were lied to by the SNP then tough, there's no going back. If the vote is No and the Westminster parties lied then another independence vote will be held in the next 10-20 years.

why is there no going back? Yes , it would require a referendum on both sides but it could be done. 20 years is a long time. if your young 20's then you may have grandchildren by the time you may get another chance. its now or maybe never.

A Dub in Glasgo

Richard wrote: »

Well you could level that charge at all parties, SNP included.

See post 303

----

I wonder if the No campaign are now regretting their latest TV ad offering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmRvbFlcQdA

Richard

bpb101 wrote: »

why is there no going back? Yes , it would require a referendum on both sides but it could be done. 20 years is a long time. if your young 20's then you may have grandchildren by the time you may get another chance. its now or maybe never.

I honestly can't see it happening. If there was independence now, the only way I would see them become closer again is through further European integration, and that is unlikely as I get the impression that Scotland would be more pro-EU than the remaining UK.

I've read that many in the former Czechoslovakia regret the break up of the country, but there isn't a serious attempt to reunite the seperate republics that now exist.

Similarly if there was a vote against a United Ireland in a referendum, another one could potentially held 7 years later. In the event of a vote for a United Ireland, I can't see that being reversed - even most 'unionists' would just get on with it as they did in the Free State.

bpb101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KphfN-Bk7M

Iwasfrozen

This is what I don't like about the yes campaign, can you not just disagree with an ad instead of mocking it? Smacks of insecurity.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nearly everyone I know has mocked the ad including quite a lot of No people. This is not a Yes campaign thing, this is just a crap ad that feeds on the insecurities of people (women in this case) and something the No campaign has done for years

Richard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is what I don't like about the yes campaign, can you not just disagree with an ad instead of mocking it? Smacks of insecurity.

Sorry, maybe I'm thick, but I don't get it. Was that a Yes or No ad? Either way, it was rubbish. X

A Dub in Glasgo

It is the No ad released last week

Better Together offering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLAewTVmkAU

YesScotland offering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWnBX6BY5A

tipptom

Whats really in this for the British goverment that they are campaigning so much for a NO vote in what really should be a Yes or No decision by both sides in a Scotland only referendum?

Sam Russell

tipptom wrote: »

Whats really in this for the British goverment that they are campaigning so much for a NO vote in what really should be a Yes or No decision by both sides in a Scotland only referendum?

Obviously they see it as very important as they have wheeled out all the institutions they can. Surely the Bank of England should be neutral in this.

Richard

Sam Russell wrote: »

Obviously they see it as very important as they have wheeled out all the institutions they can. Surely the Bank of England should be neutral in this.

How have they wheeled out the Bank of England? They're independent of government. They seem to be staying neutral:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28777246

Iwasfrozen

tipptom wrote: »

Whats really in this for the British goverment that they are campaigning so much for a NO vote in what really should be a Yes or No decision by both sides in a Scotland only referendum?

Ideology. The same way Irish politicians nominally support unification even though it's not in our best interests.

Of course if you want to be cynical you could say unionism is the dominant ideology in England and politicians are reflecting that.

On another note I don't know why yes supporters are getting excited the no side is still set to win...

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On another note I don't know why yes supporters are getting excited the no side is still set to win...

You don't know? Quite clear then you have not been involved with a political campaign (or any campaign) that is getting closer

Gordon

It's definitely going to be very close. Really hoping there's going to be a large turnout, this is a really important referendum.

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You don't know? Quite clear then you have not been involved with a political campaign (or any campaign) that is getting closer

Close of course. But I don't believe the threshold can be crossed in such a short period of time. Could be wrong of course but things are better for the no side than yes.

tipptom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ideology. The same way Irish politicians nominally support unification even though it's not in our best interests.

Of course if you want to be cynical you could say unionism is the dominant ideology in England and politicians are reflecting that.

On another note I don't know why yes supporters are getting excited the no side is still set to win...

So you think the British governments only interest in a yes vote is an ideological one but besides that it is not in Britains interest for the union to remain?

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

but things are better for the no side than yes.

They always have been

The majority of the political parties in the UK are campaigning for No, the media is on the No side. The scare stories that put fear of change into people. In fact, it is surprising that the Yes side is doing so well

tipptom

I see Paddy Power is gone back from 1/8 a couple of weeks ago to 1/5,getting towards a nearly backable price for a NO win.

Iwasfrozen

tipptom wrote: »

So you think the British governments only interest in a yes vote is an ideological one but besides that it is not in Britains interest for the union to remain?

It's not in England's interest for the union to remain, particularly the affluent south east will benefit from less socialist Scottish MPs in Parliament. Just like it's not in our interest to unify with the north.

But like republicanism in Ireland, unionism is the dominant ideology in England so no politician can be seen to openly encourage the break up of the union.

Gordon

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They always have been

The majority of the political parties in the UK are campaigning for No, the media is on the No side. The scare stories that put fear of change into people. In fact, it is surprising that the Yes side is doing so well

I presume you mean that the majority of the media is on the No side?


Not sure if that's completely true, it still grates me that 'media' has sides, but that'll never change.

I don't find it surprising that Yes is doing so well, they have much better literature, website, campaign in general. The No side really hasn't seemed to have done half a good a job as the Yes side.

A Dub in Glasgo

tipptom wrote: »

I see Paddy Power is gone back from 1/8 a couple of weeks ago to 1/5,getting towards a nearly backable price for a NO win.

Betting odds is about the money put on

Look at this little bet which will skew the odds

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-31/political-punter-could-make-1m-if-scotland-votes-no/

Ignore the basic arithmetic error from the 'reporter'

A Dub in Glasgo

Gordon wrote: »

I presume you mean that the majority of the media is on the No side?


Not sure if that's completely true, it still grates me that 'media' has sides, but that'll never change.

I don't find it surprising that Yes is doing so well, they have much better literature, website, campaign in general. The No side really hasn't seemed to have done half a good a job as the Yes side.

Yeah, I mean the majority. The Sunday Herald is the only paper that has come out on the Yes side and it is a weekly paper.

Gordon

Could have sworn I saw a couple of other newspapers backing Yes. Who has come out on the No side?

DarkyHughes

tipptom wrote: »

Whats really in this for the British goverment that they are campaigning so much for a NO vote in what really should be a Yes or No decision by both sides in a Scotland only referendum?

it's a win - win situation for the government. If it's a yes, it basically means a Tory England, if it's a no then their credited with saving the union.

A Dub in Glasgo

Gordon wrote: »

Could have sworn I saw a couple of other newspapers backing Yes. Who has come out on the No side?

I think the following

Daily Record
Scottish Sun
Scottish Daily Mail
Daily Telegraph
Daily Express

bpb101

tipptom wrote: »

I see Paddy Power is gone back from 1/8 a couple of weeks ago to 1/5,getting towards a nearly backable price for a NO win.

pp is a bookmaker, they work the book. The reason the no side could be down is along with the polls closing , people are saying , jesus they might actually go independent and trow a few bob on it. to compensate that money on yes, they lower the odds on no so people will put money on it. so either way pp wins. even if no is garenteed to win and people are flooding money on yes, the no odds will lower

@dubinGlasgow that musics is prefect for the yes side. "if theres one great thing to happen in my life ... " very catchy heard it before in another video,Also there ad for yes is great

A Dub in Glasgo

Head of the Lib Dems in Scotland, it will cost more because it will!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no92Wq9lPIU

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Head of the Lib Dems in Scotland, it will cost more because it will!!

He's actually right though, say Scotland prints its own currency and that currency devalues against the pound (as it would at the start because it is not yet a trusted currency) then the relative price of all existing loans that were taken out in pound sterling would increase. So mortgages, car loans, students loans etc.

Richard

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think the following

Daily Record
Scottish Sun
Scottish Daily Mail
Daily Telegraph
Daily Express

According to this:
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/33889/ the Scottish Sun is staying neutral but I haven't actually read it to know whether that's true in practice. I do know that they were pro-SNP in the eighties or nineties, however.

There's an interesting (although probably incomplete) article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 outlining who's on what side.

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Head of the Lib Dems in Scotland, it will cost more because it will!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no92Wq9lPIU

Actually, if Scotland had no UK debt, the cost would go down because the economy would be stronger because the Sotish Government budget would be in surplus.

He obviously only could understand a little of what he was told to say and could not answer the hard question - '... but why?'

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, if Scotland had no UK debt, the cost would go down because the economy would be stronger because the Sotish Government budget would be in surplus.

He obviously only could understand a little of what he was told to say and could not answer the hard question - '... but why?'

Stop going on about no debt. It simply isn't going to happen.

dlouth15

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stop going on about no debt. It simply isn't going to happen.

The precise amount of debt will be a matter for negotiation. Whilst a newly independent Scotland would have zero international debt it may choose to assume some of the UK's debt in return for concessions from the rUK. One of these may be the currency issue though I think Scotland may opt in the end for its own currency rather than a currency union with the rUK.

who the fug

Sam Russell wrote: »

If they can keep the RAF and Royal Navy bases, but paying rent, that could help.
.

Never going to happen , the mood down South (beside who gives a feck) is if they want to go fine, but not one brass farthing more than they are due will be given.

Bases can move south along with shipbuilding etc etc

comongethappy

who the fug wrote: »

Never going to happen , the mood down South (beside who gives a feck) is if they want to go fine, but not one brass farthing more than they are due will be given.

Bases can move south along with shipbuilding etc etc

Britain are desperate to avoid the time & cost of moving bases though.

Also, an independent Scotland may find itself in a competitive position to bid for defence/commercial shipping contracts.

who the fug

comongethappy wrote: »

Britain are desperate to avoid the time & cost of moving bases though.

Also, an independent Scotland may find itself in a competitive position to bid for defence/commercial shipping contracts.

The Tories and Labour will be neck and neck in the England and Wales, and neither party are going to get elected by sending jobs north of the border.

Commercial shipbuilding is dead in the UK , the only client the Clyde has is the Royal Navy.

comongethappy

who the fug wrote: »

Commercial shipbuilding is dead in the UK , the only client the Clyde has is the Royal Navy.

True, hence the Royal Navy ships are so over priced.

Hypothetically (which this all is), a new Scottish pound would be pretty weak during its early days.

Immediately Scotland appears more attractive a place to build.

When the Irish Navy look to their next patrol vessel contract & a new Scotland was undercutting the UK, it would make sense to chose Scottish.

Sam Russell

We know from our own referendums that when the vote goes against the Government, as in the Senate vote, what is definitely off the table (like reform of the Senate) suddenly is back on after the vote is lost.

Many things that are threatened as a consequence of a YES vote will suddenly be up for negotiation. RAF stations are in Scotland for coverage of the North Sea, moving them south does not work. The nuclear naval base is in the Clyde because that was the best place for it, moving it would cost a lot and not be as good.

Anyway, I do not have a vote, I do not live in Scotland, but I do beleive that they would be better off on their own. Currently, the British economy is on a long downward slide (and has been for a century) and is tuned to benefit the SE and the City of London. Against the German currency they have lost 80% of value in the last 50 years, and against the US$ they have lost nearly 60% of value in the last 70 years.

They already have some devolution, but not the important bits, like control of their economy and taxes.

who the fug

comongethappy wrote: »

True, hence the Royal Navy ships are so over priced.

Hypothetically (which this all is), a new Scottish pound would be pretty weak during its early days.

Immediately Scotland appears more attractive a place to build.

When the Irish Navy look to their next patrol vessel contract & a new Scotland was undercutting the UK, it would make sense to chose Scottish.

Can't see the Irish navy keeping the Clyde going for long , and the Nationalists can't subsidise the yards if it wants to join the EU.

Lemming

comongethappy wrote: »

Also, an independent Scotland may find itself in a competitive position to bid for defence/commercial shipping contracts.

Commercial maybe; defence only if it's not for the UK, which is bad news as originally pointed out the only customer for quite some time has been the Royal Navy. And due to legal/security requirements, RN ships are required built in the UK, and Pompey was closed very recently to defer to the Clyde shipyards, so the infrastructure is all there. The result is closure of the Clyde shipyards.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Many things that are threatened as a consequence of a YES vote will suddenly be up for negotiation. RAF stations are in Scotland for coverage of the North Sea, moving them south does not work. The nuclear naval base is in the Clyde because that was the best place for it, moving it would cost a lot and not be as good.

On Faslane, the SNP have backed themselves into a corner. If they don't get rid of Trident, they've welched on a corner stone of their campaign for independence and will destroy their own credibility at grass roots level. So there is no ifs and buts, Faslane will have to go because the SNP have nailed their colours and most of their own bodies to the mast on that one.

Fratton Fred

Lemming wrote: »

On Faslane, the SNP have backed themselves into a corner. If they don't get rid of Trident, they've welched on a corner stone of their campaign for independence and will destroy their own credibility at grass roots level. So there is no ifs and buts, Faslane will have to go because the SNP have nailed their colours and most of their own bodies to the mast on that one.

Salmond's stance on faslane is a bit like Cameron's on the Heathrow extension. It's great when you're in opposition and are keen to grab a few populist votes, but when you get in to power, it suddenly seems like a bad idea.

Fratton Fred

dlouth15 wrote: »

The precise amount of debt will be a matter for negotiation. Whilst a newly independent Scotland would have zero international debt it may choose to assume some of the UK's debt in return for concessions from the rUK. One of these may be the currency issue though I think Scotland may opt in the end for its own currency rather than a currency union with the rUK.

If they want their two major financial institutions, they will need to take in some of the debt. If they want their own currency, they will need to take on debt.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If they want their two major financial institutions, they will need to take in some of the debt. If they want their own currency, they will need to take on debt.

I thought those two banks (RBS ans RoS) were nationised because they went bust.

It is all up for negotiation if there is a YES vote. It will all be up for negotiation before the next election if there is a NO vote.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought those two banks (RBS ans RoS) were nationised because they went bust.

It is all up for negotiation if there is a YES vote. It will all be up for negotiation before the next election if there is a NO vote.

They were bailed out the same as BoI and AIB, so they are owned by the UK government. If the Scottish government want them, they will need to pay for them, in some manner.

The alternative is, rUK voters start asking why their government is giving away valuable assets, or employing thousands of people in a foreign country, when those jobs could be moved back home.

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

And due to legal/security requirements, RN ships are required built in the UK

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/hms-elizabeth-naming-ceremony-hailed-pro-union-occasion

'Meanwhile, Hammond confirmed to the Guardian that work on fitting out the Queen Elizabeth and on building a second carrier, the Prince of Wales, would continue at Rosyth even if Scotland did vote yes in September.'

On the Clyde



Even if the Type 26 build were to move to England, Scotland would need her own ships

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Salmond's stance on faslane is a bit like Cameron's on the Heathrow extension. It's great when you're in opposition and are keen to grab a few populist votes, but when you get in to power, it suddenly seems like a bad idea.

There is nothing bad at all about getting rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction and spending the cash saved on more important things

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If they want their two major financial institutions, they will need to take in some of the debt. If they want their own currency, they will need to take on debt.

This is essentially what the Yes side are saying, we will take our share of the debt once we agree our share of the assets.

It is the No side which is saying one major part of the asset is out of bounds

who the fug

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/hms-elizabeth-naming-ceremony-hailed-pro-union-occasion

'Meanwhile, Hammond confirmed to the Guardian that work on fitting out the Queen Elizabeth and on building a second carrier, the Prince of Wales, would continue at Rosyth even if Scotland did vote yes in September.'

On the Clyde



Even if the Type 26 build were to move to England, Scotland would need her own ships

Patrol vessels same as Ireland yes, T26 sub's etc no. , there is no long term future in that .

The English And Welsh electorate are not going to subsidise shipbuilding on the Clyde.