3fingersreid Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Should we ignore contalmaison? Cant change history,it happened, Remember them All ,no matter your blinkered view Couldn't agree more with you Two other things from other posts Is there another country that allows 16/17year olds a vote ? And where do the figures 9.6in against 9.3out from the treasury come from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number-16 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Couldn't agree more with you Two other things from other posts Is there another country that allows 16/17year olds a vote ? And where do the figures 9.6in against 9.3out from the treasury come from We certainly shouldn't ignore Contalmaison however announcing this at party conference has risked politicising this when it should have been handled better. Brazil, Austria, Estonia and a handful of states in Germany are among some places with a voting age of 16. Less have it at 17, the majority have it at 18 and a few higher than that. The figures come from the Governemnt Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number-16 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 We certainly shouldn't ignore Contalmaison however announcing this at party conference has risked politicising this when it should have been handled better. Brazil, Austria, Estonia and a handful of states in Germany are among some places with a voting age of 16. Less have it at 17, the majority have it at 18 and a few higher than that. The figures come from the Governemnt Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) statistics. And closer to home; Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey all have a voting age of 16 too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 We certainly shouldn't ignore Contalmaison however announcing this at party conference has risked politicising this when it should have been handled better. Brazil, Austria, Estonia and a handful of states in Germany are among some places with a voting age of 16. Less have it at 17, the majority have it at 18 and a few higher than that. The figures come from the Governemnt Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) statistics. Cheers always good to learn something new every day On a separate point the conference was most definitely not the place to announce it parliament was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Should we ignore contalmaison? Cant change history,it happened, Remember them All ,no matter your blinkered view Of course not. Read my post - my issue is about celebrating the start of a war. Never forget what happened, but celebrate the start of a war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 The latest piece of anti-independence DoubleThink is that Cameron has won some sort of strategic victory in ensuring that we'll have a Yes/No question, rather than there being a Devo-max option. I suppose they need a new lie to pedal having lost the 'fair, legal referendum nonsense. This may backfire. My view is that devo-max might have been a better option, but if the alternative to independence is the status quo, I'm more inclined to vote yes for independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 This may backfire. My view is that devo-max might have been a better option, but if the alternative to independence is the status quo, I'm more inclined to vote yes for independence. This is exactly where I am. Scotland needs full fiscal autonomy, as what is good for the south isn't always what is good for the north. It looks like full fiscal autonomy within the UK isn't an option, so that that leaves one option. A two question referendum would have given me lots to think about. A single question is a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 This is exactly where I am. Scotland needs full fiscal autonomy, as what is good for the south isn't always what is good for the north. It looks like full fiscal autonomy within the UK isn't an option, so that that leaves one option. A two question referendum would have given me lots to think about. A single question is a no brainer. Without monetary independence, you won't have true fiscal autonomy in any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobmisterdobster Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Devo-max/Fiscal autonomy is a non-starter! England/England's MPs will have to to agree to it. Which they will not. It's like asking for an open marriage. Either get divorced or stay in the marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 where do the figures 9.6in against 9.3out from the treasury come from Here you go. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/GERS-comment-07032012 Any benefits Scotland got from surrendering sovereignty to the Union disappeared decades ago, much like the UK's political and economic prowess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Without monetary independence, you won't have true fiscal autonomy in any case. Completely agree. The current prospectus on the macroeconomic situation on independence is to make the current UK a miniature model of the EU. The economy of the UK is so interconnected that you'd need constant negotiation and agreement on tax. It is interesting to note that Catalonia is now also going to have a poll on independence too now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Here you go. http://www.scotland....omment-07032012 Any benefits Scotland got from surrendering sovereignty to the Union disappeared decades ago, much like the UK's political and economic prowess. Ouch. Quite a bit of spin involved in that calculation, that's for sure. And probably even more spin involved in the calculation that Scotland's deficit would be lower than the UK's generally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Ouch. Quite a bit of spin involved in that calculation, that's for sure. And probably even more spin involved in the calculation that Scotland's deficit would be lower than the UK's generally The suppression of this document far exceeds anything from the Scottish Government website in terms of spin or deceit. http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 The suppression of this document far exceeds anything from the Scottish Government website in terms of spin or deceit. http://www.oilofscot...cronereport.pdf If you want to get to where to want to be, you have to start from where you are, not from where you want to be. What that means is that an independent Scotland would have a large budget deficit that it would have to eliminate in order to secure the confidence of lenders and investors. The first government (and quite probably the second) of an independent Scotland would be a right-wing government, irrespective of the platform on which it was elected. What that means is that politically, for a few years at least, there would be nothing to distinguish the policies of an independent Scottish government from those of the Conservative Party in the UK, or from Fianna F?il or Fine Gael/Labour in Ireland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Ouch. Quite a bit of spin involved in that calculation, that's for sure. And probably even more spin involved in the calculation that Scotland's deficit would be lower than the UK's generally A brand new Scottish Treasury would be faced with funding the enormous deficit (and its share of historic debt) that the new Scotland would be saddled with thanks to Brown. It would likely face a significant risk premium as it would have no history in debt management ... and it would not have to be a huge risk premium for it to be equivalent to the 'cash drain' to England at the moment. This has been a fundamentally dishonest spin from the SNP - they have repeatedly gone on about how Scotland would be ?500 per household better off (as if we would all have that cash in our pockets) ... not mentioning that these figures merely show a slightly smaller enormous deficit which would have to be funded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney from Sydney Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honestly don't know how a small country could support/finance the lifestyle of the thousands of lazy b@stards that have no intention of ever working. Devo max would have been a more realistic chance of improving living standards. Giving school kids a vote is unbelievable desperation. Scotland is no less dependant than the rest of the UK on welfare handouts, and a new country with this blueprint will go nowhere. We can't all work on oil rigs and there's not much else around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 A brand new Scottish Treasury would be faced with funding the enormous deficit (and its share of historic debt) that the new Scotland would be saddled with thanks to Brown. It would likely face a significant risk premium as it would have no history in debt management ... and it would not have to be a huge risk premium for it to be equivalent to the 'cash drain' to England at the moment. This has been a fundamentally dishonest spin from the SNP - they have repeatedly gone on about how Scotland would be ?500 per household better off (as if we would all have that cash in our pockets) ... not mentioning that these figures merely show a slightly smaller enormous deficit which would have to be funded. The power of positivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney from Sydney Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Without monetary independence, you won't have true fiscal autonomy in any case. That's true, just ask Spain/Greece/Ireland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honestly don't know how a small country could support/finance the lifestyle of the thousands of lazy b@stards that have no intention of ever working. Devo max would have been a more realistic chance of improving living standards. Giving school kids a vote is unbelievable desperation. Scotland is no less dependant than the rest of the UK on welfare handouts, and a new country with this blueprint will go nowhere. We can't all work on oil rigs and there's not much else around. We? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honestly don't know how a small country could support/finance the lifestyle of the thousands of lazy b@stards that have no intention of ever working. Devo max would have been a more realistic chance of improving living standards. Giving school kids a vote is unbelievable desperation. Scotland is no less dependant than the rest of the UK on welfare handouts, and a new country with this blueprint will go nowhere. We can't all work on oil rigs and there's not much else around. Sydney it appears you have a tent for reading my mind The thought if some - not all - of that age group being allowed to vote fills me with dread ,then again I suppose I feel the same about some adults that could vote On the lazy bassas.... living opposite me is a single mother who is in a private rent ?625 a month she doesn't work paid for by benefits - I know this as I know the house owner- but by god she can smoke and drink below us we have a woman in her mid to late 40's I guess, living in a council house who doesn't work and like the other woman smokes and drinks how can a country any country sustain this ? Especially a country beginning a new start in the current financial disaster we find ourselves in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney from Sydney Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 We? I live in Scotland mate. Have done for some time now. I also pay an excessive amount of various taxes although I have no power on how they're spent. I'm far from convinced about the merits of staying in the union or going solo, but I feel as informed, (or misinformed) as most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney from Sydney Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Sydney it appears you have a tent for reading my mind The thought if some - not all - of that age group being allowed to vote fills me with dread ,then again I suppose I feel the same about some adults that could vote On the lazy bassas.... living opposite me is a single mother who is in a private rent ?625 a month she doesn't work paid for by benefits - I know this as I know the house owner- but by god she can smoke and drink below us we have a woman in her mid to late 40's I guess, living in a council house who doesn't work and like the other woman smokes and drinks how can a country any country sustain this ? Especially a country beginning a new start in the current financial disaster we find ourselves in Don't mean to sound too negative as I'm enjoying Scotland after such a long absence, but the culture of "who to turn to for help" as opposed to what can I do for myself is endemic across the whole of the UK. I'm not sure how that will automatically change because we become independant. Please don't think I'm against social services because I'm not, far from it. I'm looking forward to the debate over the next couple of years. I hope the pro independence brigade vote without the infuence of romantic history fables which seem to be gathering momentum, and that the pro unionists can vote without the influence about the need for a governing class system that still exists in the UK. My wife and I were up in Culloden a couple of weeks ago, everyone should make the visit if just for clarity on what actually happened. The next couple of years should prove interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I live in Scotland mate. Have done for some time now. I also pay an excessive amount of various taxes although I have no power on how they're spent. I'm far from convinced about the merits of staying in the union or going solo, but I feel as informed, (or misinformed) as most. Fair do's. Got the idea you lived in Australia, not sure where that came from! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Statement at about 5.30 on the referendum in HoC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 1417: William Hill offering 7-1 against Scotland being fully independent by 2020. Odds of Scotland not being independent 16-to-one on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobmisterdobster Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638 Nearly all the Editor's Picks are cherrypicked anti-Independence posts. I wish we had an independent media like they do in Catalonia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Sounds like the Scottish Government's going to be in charge of the question and the rules around the referendum - sounds like a huge concession from Westminster, especially given they'd already conceded the 16-17yo issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) From what's been put up on the BBC Live updates the English are really a bitter bunch Paul, Harrow emails: It's fine for Scotland to have their referendum. But this is a marriage and in any marriage both sides have a say. Therefore, the English must be given their own separate referendum as well. If the English choose not to continue with unification, then Scotland must go it alone, whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum. I have a bit of sympathy for those who are Scottish but live in England not getting a vote, but if you choose to live in England (or anywhere else for that matter) why should you get a say? Edited October 15, 2012 by rossthejambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 From what's been put up on the BBC Live updates the English are really a bitter bunch I have a bit of sympathy for those who are Scottish but live in England not getting a vote, but if you choose to live in England (or anywhere else for that matter) why should you get a say? That quote is hilarious. Fails to get the idea that any English vote would be on English independence, not whether Scotland stays as part of the Union. Unless his idea of marriage is akin to the "Godsajambo Contract"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) The latest piece of anti-indepence DoubleThink is that Cameron has won some sort of strategic victory in ensuring that we'll have a Yes/No question, rather than there being a Devo-max option. I suppose they need a new lie to pedal having lost the 'fair, legal referendum nonsense. Except that he has. It's put up or shut up time now. No way out for the SNP; no more fudging; no more Salmond having his cake, and eating it. Personally, I think I agree with you that the polls don't mean very much at this stage. How could they? This has always been a hypothetical question until now; the Scottish people have never before actually had independence in their own hands in this way. The slate is wiped clean now: time for the people to actually decide. Though as an aside: romantic though the notion of an enlightened, socially democratic, forward thinking, pro-European Scotland is, I used to believe in those sorts of things too: before an economic crisis which continues to affect the entire planet, and before a currency crisis in Europe which is threatening the entire European project. If that project falls apart, all sorts of things which people take for granted - for example, peace - may be imperilled. Against a backdrop of at least a decade of Japanese-style stagflation in the UK, and worse across much of Europe, how on earth can Scotland hope to buck the trend? Answer: it can't. The whole world is completely interdependent nowadays, and arguably, no country (except maybe Switzerland: aren't Nazi gold reserves great?) has real economic sovereignty any longer. If a country doesn't have economic sovereignty, how can it have true political sovereignty either? Edited October 15, 2012 by shaun.lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Except that he has. It's put up or shut up time now. No way out for the SNP; no more fudging; no more Salmond having his cake, and eating it. Personally, I think I agree with you that the polls don't mean very much at this stage. How could they? This has always been a hypothetical question until now; the Scottish people have never before actually had independence in their own hands in this way. The slate is wiped clean now: time for the people to actually decide. Though as an aside: romantic though the notion of an enlightened, socially democratic, forward thinking, pro-European Scotland is, I used to believe in those sorts of things too: before an economic crisis which continues to affect the entire planet, and before a currency crisis in Europe which is threatening the entire European project. If that project falls apart, all sorts of things which people take for granted - for example, peace - may be imperilled. Against a backdrop of at least a decade of Japanese-style stagflation in the UK, and worse across much of Europe, how on earth can Scotland hope to buck the trend? Answer: it can't. The whole world is completely interdependent nowadays, and arguably, no country (except maybe Switzerland: aren't Nazi gold reserves great?) has real economic sovereignty any longer. If a country doesn't have economic sovereignty, how can it have true political sovereignty either? Smash the current economic system then as it's absolute cobblers. It consistently fails and it is the people/workers who again and again have to foot the bill. One world government may not be a bad idea though. Then the political consciousness of the working class could fully develop and we could actually move forward as a species in peace and harmony. Re Cameron...I reckon it's a risky strategy and one endorsed by Labour & the Lib Dems that may well come back and bite them on the arse. To have no mention of Devo-Max is a slap in the face to the Scottish electorate. Should the NO campaign win and the status quo remains, then surely the clamour for devo-max (currently the most popular option!) will grow and you will have in effect a repeat of the Scottish Constitutional Convention of the late 80's/90's. Labour will fudge the issue otherwise they would have come out in support of it already. Yet again the Scottish electorate are treated as patsies and don't get the opportunity to vote for what they actually want. Which, may in turn, play into the Yes campaign's hands. Edited October 15, 2012 by Boris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfie Conn Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Speaking as a born & bred Englishman (& even better, a Londoner) i hope the 'Union' remains together but if you Scotsmen vote otherwise then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Smash the current economic system then as it's absolute cobblers. It consistently fails and it is the people/workers who again and again have to foot the bill. One world government may not be a bad idea though. Then the political consciousness of the working class could fully develop and we could actually move forward as a species in peace and harmony. Re Cameron...I reckon it's a risky strategy and one endorsed by Labour & the Lib Dems that may well come back and bite them on the arse. To have no mention of Devo-Max is a slap in the face to the Scottish electorate. Should the NO campaign win and the status quo remains, then surely the clamour for devo-max (currently the most popular option!) will grow and you will have in effect a repeat of the Scottish Constitutional Convention of the late 80's/90's. Labour will fudge the issue otherwise they would have come out in support of it already. Yet again the Scottish electorate are treated as patsies and don't get the opportunity to vote for what they actually want. Which, may in turn, play into the Yes campaign's hands. And why do you think it's the most popular option, Boris? Really, why? Because: 1. The middle option's almost always the one favoured by people when faced with two opposites, one of which many dislike, the other which represents a total leap in the dark. But much more importantly... 2. Devo-Max really would be the ultimate case of having your cake and eating it. All the benefits of the Union; none of the costs; the costs effectively passed on to all the other suckers elsewhere in the UK instead. Devo-Max is a total abdication of responsibility on pretty much every level imaginable. No wonder it's so attractive. In the meantime, I'd like you to cite me a case of an independence referendum which, as well as 'Yes' and 'No' options, featured 'Yes but No' as well. Referenda are great because they're simple. Simple question; simple answer. It's for the Scottish people to decide what that answer is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 1350317056[/url]' post='3196326']And why do you think it's the most popular option, Boris? Really, why? Because: 1. The middle option's almost always the one favoured by people when faced with two opposites, one of which many dislike, the other which represents a total leap in the dark. But much more importantly... 2. Devo-Max really would be the ultimate case of having your cake and eating it. All the benefits of the Union; none of the costs; the costs effectively passed on to all the other suckers elsewhere in the UK instead. Devo-Max is a total abdication of responsibility on pretty much every level imaginable. No wonder it's so attractive. In the meantime, I'd like you to cite me a case of an independence referendum which, as well as 'Yes' and 'No' options, featured 'Yes but No' as well. Referenda are great because they're simple. Simple question; simple answer. It's for the Scottish people to decide what that answer is. Devo-max could lead to the complete federalisation of the UK making it stronger, IMO. It's not a cake and eat it option at all. In what way would costs be passed onto the rest of the UK? So, to answer your question about dual questions, I will cite you the devolution referendum in 98, or whenever it was. There were two questions to that. Scottish precedent, you might say! The Scottish electorate can only decide on the question(s) they are given. You didn't address my concern that after a straight yes/no referendum and future constitutional debate will be stymied. If that's not two fingers to the Scottish electorate, I don't know what is! And, for the record, I'm still no clearer on what way I shall cast my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 1417: William Hill offering 7-1 against Scotland being fully independent by 2020. Odds of Scotland not being independent 16-to-one on. Honestly, I think 7-1 by 2020 offers outstanding value. In fact, if I had a grand to spare, I'd be off down the bookies asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Without monetary independence, you won't have true fiscal autonomy in any case. Even with full independence, our currency will be governed by either Mervyn at the Bank of England or Angela in Berlin. It's the ability to have full control of taxation on whatever currency that matters to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Even with full independence, our currency will be governed by either Mervyn at the Bank of England or Angela in Berlin. It's the ability to have full control of taxation on whatever currency that matters to me. Spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Still pmsl at the fact that this vote is being held on the anniversary of Bannockburn. The lamest thing I've heard in ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 apparently the result of one poll shows that, if people were guaranteed to be ?500 better off per annum in an independent scotland, the yes vote would win 2:1. i honestly can't believe that so many people would be influenced by such a modest sum. a blizzard of facepalms and cornettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Still pmsl at the fact that this vote is being held on the anniversary of Bannockburn. The lamest thing I've heard in ages. On the other side of the coin the vote will take place very close to the anniversary of WW1 which could possibly make a few Scots feel more British. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Even with full independence, our currency will be governed by either Mervyn at the Bank of England or Angela in Berlin. It's the ability to have full control of taxation on whatever currency that matters to me. But that's the point. Scotland will run a fiscal deficit and to fund that gilts will be sold by the DMO. Scotland will therefore not be able to run a bigger deficit even if it chose to do so at the ballot box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) I wish the focus wasn't solely on money. It just seems to allow for both sides to argue, twist and issue financial figures which have been massaged or cherry-picked to support their position. As this vote slowly but inexorably draws closer, the more I have to wrestle with making a decision. Despite being switched on enough to see through most of the bullshit from both sides, it still isn't proving easy. Edited October 15, 2012 by Lionel Logue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I wish the focus wasn't solely on money. It just seems to allow for both sides to argue, twist and issue financial figures which have been massaged or cherry-picked to support their position. As this vote slowly but inexorably draws closer, the more I have to wrestle with making a decision. Despite being switched on enough to see through most of the bullshit from both sides, it still isn't proving easy. I think there's two ways of looking at it from a money perspective. One, financial control for the country to manage or mismanage and two, which group of politicians have the biggest pork barrel. The first one, IMO, is a valid debate. The second one isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Except that he has. It's put up or shut up time now. No way out for the SNP; no more fudging; no more Salmond having his cake, and eating it. I couldn't disagree with you more on this point, Shaun. It's accepted that Salmond is a shrewd political operator. He's also prepared for this moment for the best part of 30 years. As such, he's had time to devise strategies and approaches that are far more intricate and advanced than anything on team no. Take a look at the Tories; Taxes, Trains, the Police, U-Turns. They've been a shambles, what makes you think they'll win strategic battles against the SNP? Put it this way; even IF Scotland rejects Independence, the ball will be back to Cameron to outline what additional autonomy will be offered to Scotland, right in the lead up to a general election, whilst also trying to deal with the ailing economy. I'd also say; I have *never* once said that Independence will lead to some sort of golden era or that it will even come close to solving our various problems and challenges. BUT to say that we're better off being governed by a Westminster system which has lead the UK's economy, military and welfare state to this moment flies in the face of facts and basic logic. Scotland is a nation in so many ways, we can do much better once we take that step towards independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hold on a minute! Why should Cameron, if he wins the referendum, outline greater autonomy measures? It'll be a few months till the next General Election so nothing would be able to be enacted prior to then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honestly don't know how a small country could support/finance the lifestyle of the thousands of lazy b@stards that have no intention of ever working. Devo max would have been a more realistic chance of improving living standards. Giving school kids a vote is unbelievable desperation. Scotland is no less dependant than the rest of the UK on welfare handouts, and a new country with this blueprint will go nowhere. We can't all work on oil rigs and there's not much else around. There is an argument that 16 year olds should get the vote. After all they can leave school get a job, pay taxes (nb rankers), get married, join the army etc etc. However empowering them for only 1 specific vote and no others does imo smack of desperate measures by wee eck and is fundamentally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 A couple of questions I get from all of this Independence nonsense (as you may guess, I'm against it - can't we all just get along??): 1) Would an independent Scotland automatically become part of the EU? 2) If not, would the Schengen Treaty still apply for European travel, or would it change for Scots overnight? 3) Would I require a visa to remain living and working in England? 4) Would cross-border controls be instated - i.e. would I require a passport to go to my parents? 5) What happens to the UK military? Specifically the nukes at Faslane, and the number of Scottish soldiers in what would become English/Welsh units? 6) Do we automatically get possession of the North Sea oil in what would surely become 'our' territorial waters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) A couple of questions I get from all of this Independence nonsense (as you may guess, I'm against it - can't we all just get along??): 1) Would an independent Scotland automatically become part of the EU? 2) If not, would the Schengen Treaty still apply for European travel, or would it change for Scots overnight? 3) Would I require a visa to remain living and working in England? 4) Would cross-border controls be instated - i.e. would I require a passport to go to my parents? 5) What happens to the UK military? Specifically the nukes at Faslane, and the number of Scottish soldiers in what would become English/Welsh units? 6) Do we automatically get possession of the North Sea oil in what would surely become 'our' territorial waters? The answer to 1 is yes so the next 3 questions are irrelevant. The armed forces is an important question, I'm sure. Faslane will be shut down I would think but whether the bases stay open or not I don't know. As for the oil I'm under the impression that it becomes Scotland's oil but that's quite a pivotal question. Edited October 15, 2012 by rossthejambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) The answer to 1 is yes so the next 4 questions are irrelevant. As for the oil I'm under the impression that it becomes Scotland's oil but that's quite a pivotal question. Has automatic entry into the EU ever been confirmed? Ah, you edited it from 4 to 3 - my bad... Edited October 15, 2012 by trotter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.