Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

incandescent

Buzby wrote: »

For many - it's is moot, as I'm aware of the les, dammed lies, and statistics to know you can present them any way you like. Far better to be a big fish in a small pond, than a small fish in a larger one.

I'd start looking to Cornwall as they put their case for greater autonomy - and the best of luck and wishes go to them.

These are the SNP's own figures, presented by the SNP. Even they couldn't hide the facts.

rpc

mikey_45 wrote: »

a lot of scottish bashing here, its not up to english people to stick there oar in about yes or no its our choice.

Why oh why do people who support Yes seem to think that any and all criticism of independence comes from the English? I see this on just about every discussion I come across on the internet.

Some of us are Scottish born and bred and will be voting NO because we love Scotland and think the union (while imperfect) is significantly better than the alternatives.

You perhaps also need to learn to differentiate between "scottish bashing" i.e. criticism of the Scottish people and the reality which is criticism of the arguments for independence.

islandannie

rpc wrote: »

Why oh why do people who support Yes seem to think that any and all criticism of independence comes from the English? I see this on just about every discussion I come across on the internet.

Some of us are Scottish born and bred and will be voting NO because we love Scotland and think the union (while imperfect) is significantly better than the alternatives.

You perhaps also need to learn to differentiate between "scottish bashing" i.e. criticism of the Scottish people and the reality which is criticism of the arguments for independence.

Hear Hear:T

ColdIron

mikey_45 wrote: »

so we are running the country at a loss are we

Yes, it's called a deficit. The rUK is in deficit as well just not so much proportionately

mikey_45 wrote: »

the scottish goverment has said this you say

Yup, the facts are beyond any doubt

mikey_45 wrote: »

so why are they saying lets go it alone

Beats me

mikey_45 wrote: »

if we could not do it we would not be doing it

But you're trying to and many people like yourself have been suckered into taking what Alex Salmond says as Gospel truth without looking at the facts objectively

Sorry and all that

islandannie

Buzby wrote: »

For many - it's is moot, as I'm aware of the les, dammed lies, and statistics to know you can present them any way you like. Far better to be a big fish in a small pond, than a small fish in a larger one.

I'd start looking to Cornwall as they put their case for greater autonomy - and the best of luck and wishes go to them.

Wow,where to start.

You do understand that the statistics and figures you are referring to are from the SNP Government don`t you.

innovate

mikey_45 wrote: »

60 years of oil left without any fracking

Just picking one of your arguments, and assuming it is actually true. Think about it - 60 years isn't a long time, is it? It takes about a decade or two to build new energy facilities and the related distribution network, so if you are prudent, you'd be starting to build those alternatives no later than in 40 years time. Or perhaps even earlier.

Energy facilities cost vast amounts of money. Where are you going to get this money from? Can't be from selling oil cos it's running out.

I don't know how old you are, but may be you don't care what will happen in 40, 60, 80 years time? Whether you will be around then or not, some people will be, and they might be your kids and grand kids. Are you happy if they won't be able to heat their houses? And may have to emigrate to find work?

But we don't even have to look 40 or 60 years into the future. As Archi Bald posted a couple of days ago, there is fuel poverty in Scotland in pretty epic proportions TODAY. How can that be if Scotland has all that oil? Don't tell me it is because those nasty englishers have been stealing your oil.

ColdIron

mikey_45 wrote: »

if we could not do it we would not be doing it

Therefore it must follow that since you are doing it you must be able to, yes? Leaving aside the fact that this has as much logical credibility as stating that God must exist because it says so in the bible, the reality is that you are doing it without knowing whether you can or not

Now it's not exactly water cooler conversation down here in the leafy shires yet but I imagine that there are some Scots that passionately believe in secession and will move heaven and earth to make it work despite it's inevitable hurdles and consequences

Equally there must be a similar proportion of people that are happy with the status quo believing it has served them well so far, and broadly it has, that are just not interested

However I believe that the vast majority of Scots fall somewhere in between these polar opposites and would like to know what they are getting into, and out of, before scribing their X into that box

This is not a generational event nor even centennial one, it is the permanent severance of two nations and believe me it will be irrevocable. It deserves proper and thorough examination but so far what passes as debate seems to generate more heat than light and the crying shame of it is that instead of trying to honestly address the many questions and concerns that people have, Salmond and Sturgeon are trotting out the 'it'll be the same but different' platitudes and absurd assurances in the White Paper such as 'if the English raise their pensions, we'll match it'. When this fails they resort to Ad hominem attacks and accusations of bullying and bluster

When your hand is hovering over the ballot sheet just remember that oily Al will be off on his toes with his pension long before any chickens come home to roost

So mikey 45, maybe you can do it and maybe you can't but make your decision with your eyes open and not just assume that we would not be doing it if we could not do it because it will be the Scots that will have to live with the thick end of the consequences

innovate

ColdIron wrote: »

So mikey 45, maybe you can do it and maybe you can't but make your decision with your eyes open and not just assume that we would not be doing it if we could not do it because it will be the Scots that will have to live with the thick end of the consequences

Brilliant summary, ColdIron, thanks. Hopefully mikey45 will make a considerate decision based on all available facts, and not just based on political slogans.

mikey_45

thanks all, very well said i must say. i just feel why not make a big change, i know you should not change things if they are not broken,, but lets face it its a big mess as it is. it might not get much better if we vote yes but can it really get any worse. am willing to gamble my kids and grandkids futures it wont and hope we prosper. thanks again for all your comments

incandescent

mikey_45 wrote: »

thanks all, very well said i must say. i just feel why not make a big change, i know you should not change things if they are not broken,, but lets face it its a big mess as it is. it might not get much better if we vote yes but can it really get any worse. am willing to gamble my kids and grandkids futures it wont and hope we prosper. thanks again for all your comments

The UK is forecast to be the fastest growing advanced economy this year. We're still the 6th largest economy in the world. We have political and financial stability that most of the world can only dream of. Things could be a lot worse.

And if we do split, we have no idea right now what our currency will be or if we'll remain part of the EU. We have a larger deficit than the rest of the UK, a less diversified economy, we'd have massive separate costs (creating new institutions, moving / dismantling old ones) and our borrowing costs would be higher because we'd have a lower credit rating than the UK. This all adds to an absolute certainty of austerity and/or large tax rises.

Why would anyone think that is better?

I'm rather surprised by this though:

am willing to gamble my kids and grandkids futures it wont and hope we prosper.