Scottish independence

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

I don't really see how that could be done without a referendum in the rUK and I have my doubts people would vote for it even if they were marginally worse off after having had the original change imposed upon them.

If after 18 months of negotiations it's clear that Alex lied to the Scottish people and a currency union isn't possible could that be the point to reverse course? Independence wouldn't have been finalised so Scotland would still be part of UK then.

I also fund it intriguing that George Galloway is backing no. If someone so anti establishment and anti Tory isn't supporting yes then you do really need to ask why.

pate-ci0

[FONT=&quot]My thoughts to the Yes campaigners:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oil will run out. If so much, why the push for fracking, extracting last drops from low grade shale deposits. North Sea will be uneconomic within my children's lifetimes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Economy dependent on oil so hostage to Grangemouth. They strike (again!), send in the army?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What army? To keep a standing military, conscription or National Service, won't be enough volunteers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Scotland won't have automatic entry to EU. This is good. But Salmond wants membership to gain access to EU money to fund his promises. This is bad. Swap Westminster rule for Brussels rule, even more remote and unrepresentative.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Independent country, independent currency. Can't have cake and eat it, make your mind up, all in or completely out. With point 4 above, we would have to join the Euro.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Since we will NOT have Sterling, Salmond may default on his duty to bear some of the National Debt. If so, the IMF and others will mark Scotland as a high risk for loans and Scotland will not be able to borrow (point 4 above)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is big business that controls countries now, perhaps more so than governments. Billions are exiting Scotland right now, Sterling is falling, markets are volatile, savings are at risk and it will only get worse if Yes prevails. And Salmond can’t do a thing about that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Get the govt you vote for? I didn't, got SNP. Scottish Labour? Had 10+ years of Labour, ruined the country. Conservative/Lib Dem coalition recovering economy and bringing prosperity as we speak. What's your problem with that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Control our own money? What Scottish revenue goes to Westminster re what comes back - depending on which statistics you look at, there's not much in it, Westminster may well be better off with independent Scotland.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Control our own services? Devolution has given broad control to SNP for many years - if it's a mess it's their fault and you want to give them MORE powers?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Control our own taxes? Governments never reduce taxation; Salmond must increase taxes to try to afford his promises (as in point 4.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On issues such as keeping Sterling, EU membership, when told this won't happen, Salmond just says 'They're bluffing', no backup plan. I wouldn't even buy a used car from this man[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]13. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If we can't blame the English for our problems, we'll fight each other. Rangers/Celtic, Glasgow/Edinburgh, Highland/Lowlands. Back to clans and tribalism. Remember, as many Scots fought against Bonny Prince Charlie as for him. Two Clan Campbells chatting in the dawn at Glencoe, one says to the other "I could really murder a MacDonalds!"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Historical enmity to the English? How far back do you want to go – hate Denmark and Norway for the Viking pillaging, Italy for the Roman Legions?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Salmond talks about “People power” – what he means is mob hysteria, the Braveheart syndrome. As a friend said, “My brain says No, but my heart says Yes”. Making life changing irreversible decisions based on emotion rather than logic and reason is not the way to run a country.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]People literally dying to get into UK. Why are we trying to get out?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]UK only organisations, events, membership no longer available (compers, be very worried!). We would be equivalent to Eire, or Denmark. RUK would go it's own way.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Currently a part of one of the most stable, peaceful and prosperous nations, a world superpower. If some Scots think they are hard done by, try living in Iraq, Ukraine, Somalia .....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Has the Yes campaign never heard of Synergy, or Economies of Scale?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Voting Yes is irrevocable. Unlike electing Parliament every 5 years, we can’t go back if it all goes wrong.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is this scaremongering? You should be scared, the consequences could be disastrous (see Ukraine). A Yes vote is walking out of a warm, well-lit house into the unknown on a moonless misty night; you might be at the edge of a cliff.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If Salmond asks "Do you agree that Scotland can be a successful independent country?", answer is 'Yes it can be an independent country, but successful? The honest answer is I don't know; and NEITHER DO YOU! You may hope and wish it to be so but I will not gamble the future of my children on your promises, estimates, guesses and speculation.'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Salmond, Sturgeon…it all sounds affy fishy tae me! For the sake of all our futures, vote NO[/FONT]

InvestInPoker

Originally posted by "ash28" in another thread on a different part of this board but spot on the money and deserves to be reposted here.

Good article by author Ewan Morrison on why he joined and subsequently left YES campaign. He is spot on on the way things have been for the yes campaign.

http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/

From that article

Four months ago I joined the Yes camp out of a desire to take part in the great debate that the Yes camp told me was taking place within their ranks. Being a doubter I thought maybe I’d failed to find this debate and that it was exclusive to the membership of the Yes camp, so I joined hoping I could locate it and take part. But even as I was accepted into the ranks – after my ‘Morrison votes Yes’ article in Bella Caledonia, I noted that 5 out of the meagre 20 comments I received berated me for either not having decided sooner or for having questioned Yes at all. Another said, and I paraphrase: ‘Well if he’s had to mull it over he could easily switch to the other side.’ That comment in Bella Caledonia worked away at me like a stone in my shoe. Beneath it, I realised, was a subconscious message: ‘Now that you’re in with us you have to toe the line – ask questions about Yes and you’re out.’

It was within a public meeting that I realised there was no absolutely no debate within the Yes camp. Zero debate – the focus was instead on attacking the enemy and creating an impenetrable shell to protect the unquestionable entity. In its place was a kind of shopping list of desires that was being added to daily. So there was: Get rid of Trident, raise the minimum wage, lower corporation tax, promote gay and lesbian rights, create a world leading Green economy, exploit oil to the full and become a world leading petro-chemical economy, nationalise the banks, nationalise BP, be more attractive to foreign investment. The shopping list of ‘positive’ ideal goals could never tally up, the desires of the Yessers were incompatible and contradicted each other, but to raise this was seen as being ‘negative’. Every kind of Yes had to be included, and this meant there could be no debate. Instead there was a kind of self-censorship and conformism.

I left the Yes camp and joined the No camp not because I like the UK or think the status quo works well as it is. No. I think things are as complicated and compromised as they always are and that we live in trying times. The Yes camp understand that and so have created an illusion of a free space in which everything you’ve ever wanted can come to pass – overnight. How can it? There are exactly the same political conflicts within the factions of Yes as there are within the UK. After a Yes vote the fight for control of Scotland will begin and that unity that seemed like a dream will be shattered into the different groups who agreed to silence themselves to achieve an illusion of an impossible unity – the kind of unity you find in faith, not in politics.

rpc

silverwhistle wrote: »

You couldn't find the reference, could you? If it's true it's rather strong [additional?] evidence that the man is a fantasist.

It was on the BBC Referendum Live feed and still shows on Google News searches but I don't think there is a fixed news story. Any links have the live feed in a sidebar so it's a cached version getting picked up by searches.

He said it on 13th September during his meeting with Business for Scotland.

edit: sounds like it was Andrew Marr show just before he met with BfS

Reaper

I was very disappointed to read all 3 main parties have committed to keeping the Barnett funding formula if there is a No vote.

This dreadful formula was even criticised even by the person who came up with it:

It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding.

Nobody likes it and yet the UK is now stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

black_taxi_2

Can I ask my English,welsh,Northern Irish friends on here,what they think of this article

In fairness,I agree with a lot of it


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/16/Whatever-happens-on-Thursday-an-English-parliament-is-now-inevitable

rpc

Alex_Salmond_on_Good_Morning_Scotland wrote:

Asked whether an independent Scotland would have to pay more to borrow money, the first minister replies: "No, you have to have sustainable level of borrowing and debt. As far as the cost is concerned, we'll be borrowing at Sterling rates."

Cloud cuckoo land!

Best forecasts are in the region of borrowing 1% higher than the UK does at present, most likely 1-1.5% and that assumes a debt share is agreed.

Bear in mind that the UK can currently borrow on negative real yields (i.e. pay back less than you borrow - nice!), over long time periods and has an average maturity longer than most, maybe all, Western nations. In terms of ability to borrow from markets, the UK is just about as good as it gets just now.

pate-ci0 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oil will run out. If so much, why the push for fracking, extracting last drops from low grade shale deposits. North Sea will be uneconomic within my children's lifetimes.[/FONT]

It's expected to happen within my lifetime (albeit not by much) if you go on the 40-50 years estimates. So how will my state pension be paid? Not with oil money. Never mind, its OK, Nicole says state pension are secure because we already pay income tax and national insurance.

Reaper wrote:

I was very disappointed to read all 3 main parties have committed to keeping the Barnett funding formula if there is a No vote.

Yes are scaremongering by saying that Westminster wants to remove Barnett to punish Scotland. This pledge will swing some voters.

That Barnett is broken and not fit for purpose is a moot point. Anyone who supports Barnett is a fool in my view. The main proposal is that Barnett is replaced by a needs-based system. Sadly, that will ensure that nobody is ever happy because every region will decide that their needs are worthy of more funding than they get.

kingrulzuk

2 days to go for IScotland

rpc

kingrulzuk wrote: »

2 days to go for IScotland

The way he speaks, I'm not even sure Salmond believes that (I think it is still possible, but unlikely).

No are clearly targeting the undecideds. The switherers. The ones who think they know their vote, but aren't sure.

Yes seem to be taking a harder line, if anything, and speaking to their core. Strengthening their ranks, but that doesn't appeal to those in the middle.

Not to mention that he looks tired. I think the marathon has taken it out of him.

Sturgeon on the other hand, comes across as a "true believer" and is as relentless as ever.

InvestInPoker

rpc wrote: »

Yes seem to be taking a harder line, if anything, and speaking to their core. Strengthening their ranks, but that doesn't appeal to those in the middle.

.

Yeah agreed, that has always been their tactic. Swell the ranks with propaganda and shout down/obfuscate issues and questions/ignore realities presented to them by the no voters. Coupled with organised abuse and threats towards no supporters both physical and written with a healthy dollop of no internal debate allowed. They don't really try and attract new voters except those duped by facebook posts.

If that is the style that wins this vote then god help us. I have confidence that common sense and intelligence will prevail on Thursday however.