Jump to content

Scottish independence and devolution superthread


Happy Hearts

Recommended Posts

Sorry if it's been covered but what's peoples thoughts on if the vote is very close (looking likely) that pretty much by a few votes half the country can decide the future of the other half?

 

Imagine a 51.1% winning margin either way and in actual fact if some don't vote, you could have less than half the country deciding for the rest. Should the percentage be set higher?

 

I'm not really sure how ~50% not getting their wish can be viewed as preferable to potentially up to ~60/70% not getting their preference?

 

Whatever way the vote goes everyone is going to have to learn to lump it and move on. In terms simply of moving on it might be likely that a 'No' win is preferable. At least in that case we can get a nice speech about 'not ignoring the democratic wishes of a sizeable minority of our people' and hopefully further powers which whilst not satisfying can hopefully somewhat appease.

 

A narrow 'Yes' win doesn't leave a lot to console unionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malinga the Swinga

[deleted]

 

If the vote is Yes, Salmond has already stated he has his team ready to negotiate terms of separation. You honestly don't think that his team won't be doing his bidding and following his decisions. To quote Ally, who are these people? Who elected them to negotiate terms, how experienced are they, are they lightweight or experienced, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll happen. You can be sure of that.

 

If it doesn't we'll be independent within a matter of a few years. No point winning the battle just to lose the war

 

My problem is that I have absolutely no idea what it means. The three parties have claim that they have been discussing these 'powers' for several months, but they haven't come to agreement on them, and their own backbenchers are livid that Westminster power is to be diluted without their debating them. It may happen but it may not be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Shame about those that have already sent their postal votes, eh?

 

My postal vote is going to the ballot box on Thursday morning. I would not now trust the Post given it can take up to a week for First Class reply-paid mail to be delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

watched that - very impressed indeed - without saying which side I'm on

 

Quite. His piece on the 10 o'clock news was decent as well. Straight down the middle and with a depth of understanding - and a clear explanation of the subtleties - a lot of the coverage has lacked.

 

Regardless of which way people are voting or what you think of the accusations of BBC bias, when it cut to Nick Robinson jabbering on like an excitable child about being able to 'smell the anxiety'... Well, the gulf in class was huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

If the vote is Yes, Salmond has already stated he has his team ready to negotiate terms of separation. You honestly don't think that his team won't be doing his bidding and following his decisions. To quote Ally, who are these people? Who elected them to negotiate terms, how experienced are they, are they lightweight or experienced, who knows?

 

[modedit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seeing things or is that third pledge, the NHS one , exactly the same as the current situation?

 

Pretty much. But lots of people don't seem to know or understand that's the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever wins will never live up to their promises, at least if Yes wins we can directly hold holyrood responsible and no more passing the buck that all our problems are due to WM! We will also have the power to kick them out!

 

If No wins and they don't follow up on their promises, then it doesn't matter as we can't change WM.

 

Which ever side you are on, I just wish the lies would stop, unlikely as people won't vote for the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson

Pretty much. But lots of people don't seem to know or understand that's the case

 

Thanks - I misunderstood and thought this was the Devomax proposal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there is no Devo max! That isn't on the ballot, there is no way WM will give us the powers that the people want and need. They will not act against their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson

It's part of it, but health is already fully devolved.

 

How can it be part of Devomax if it is no change to the current situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

[deleted]

 

[modedit]

 

Also there is no Devo max! That isn't on the ballot, there is no way WM will give us the powers that the people want and need. They will not act against their own interests.

 

Sure I was told categorically earlier in the thread that a vote for No was a vote for devo max. Are you saying that was a lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How can it be part of Devomax if it is no change to the current situation?

I don't think that's the point of putting the NHS in the Vow.

 

Salmond and the Yes camp have deliberately lied about the NHS being under threat in Scotland if we vote No. This is just trying to reassure the easily conned.

 

If Yes we're genuinely worried about the NHS (and if they had reason to be) they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years. It's been described as one of the most shameful moments of the campaign - it's hard to disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain's Europe minister has just said he expects accession to take around 5yrs and that any new member will be expected to join the Euro as the pprocess requirea. Hosie appears confident we'll retain all UKs terms of membership.

 

Former chair of US Reserve says Yes oil forecasts are "implausible" and should be "dismissed out of hand"

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smug grin that Salmond wears on his face is beginning to annoy me. Started as a 70% Yes, but am now 95% No. The lack of detail from Yes campaign is startling; they really want us to wing it and take a punt on destroying a success story that has lasted over 300 years, and hope a bunch on political lightweights can somehow muster up the intelligence and experience to run a country.

 

Guys like Sillars, Howie, and even Salmond worry me because they simply don't command respect in the outside world. Sillars is a dinosaur in political terms and his speech at the weekend was a shocker. Howie showed last night on the BBC that he is not suitable to govern. Rolling your eyes and looking bored when the opposite side are speaking is childish and looks pathetic.

 

I thought this was a good read

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that's the point of putting the NHS in the Vow.

 

Salmond and the Yes camp have deliberately lied about the NHS being under threat in Scotland if we vote No. This is just trying to reassure the easily conned.

 

If Yes we're genuinely worried about the NHS (and if they had reason to be) they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years. It's been described as one of the most shameful moments of the campaign - it's hard to disagree with that.

 

I wish someone would tally up all the lies that have being told by both sides.

 

The NHS in Scotland is under the control of Scotland but if we can't control our budget then we have to take money away from other things to keep it going. I would prefer not spending money on trident and spent it on the NHS. This isn't possible under the current set up.

 

Again lies are lies, and people should be held responsible for these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think that's the point of putting the NHS in the Vow.

 

Salmond and the Yes camp have deliberately lied about the NHS being under threat in Scotland if we vote No. This is just trying to reassure the easily conned.

 

If Yes we're genuinely worried about the NHS (and if they had reason to be) they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years. It's been described as one of the most shameful moments of the campaign - it's hard to disagree with that.

 

Who's described it as the most shameful moment of the campaign?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why settle for the offered little when we can have it all?

 

I do not understand why anyone would vote no. If we were really of no value to Westminister they would've let us walked 2 years ago without asking questions.

 

I hope these pledges do not change the mind of yes voters. Too little, too late and most defiantly not in the best interests of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I wish someone would tally up all the lies that have being told by both sides.

 

The NHS in Scotland is under the control of Scotland but if we can't control our budget then we have to take money away from other things to keep it going. I would prefer not spending money on trident and spent it on the NHS. This isn't possible under the current set up.

 

Again lies are lies, and people should be held responsible for these.

 

I don't think the Scottish government pays anything towards Trident? I imagine it's defence spending which is reserved. Might be wrong though.

 

Health spending in England is up 4%. Down 1% in Scotland. The money coming to Scotland from health spending down south is not all going to the nhs up here. Holyrood is choosing to spend that money elsewhere, like on funding council tax freezes.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who's described it as the most shameful moment of the campaign?

 

I'm guessing the telegraph or the Daily mail.

 

The bastion of truth that they are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think that's the point of putting the NHS in the Vow.

 

Salmond and the Yes camp have deliberately lied about the NHS being under threat in Scotland if we vote No. This is just trying to reassure the easily conned.

 

If Yes we're genuinely worried about the NHS (and if they had reason to be) they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years. It's been described as one of the most shameful moments of the campaign - it's hard to disagree with that.

 

Anyone on the M8 from the Airport into Glasgow will see an enormous statement of the "good health" of the NHS in Scotland - the new Glasgow Southern General Hospital, a development costing ?800m. A state-of-the-art facility (parking aside) replacing several others in the city. Built by an NHS in Scottish Government hands within the Union.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spanish foreign minister on newsnight saying that Scotland likely won't get back in the EU for 5 years.

 

I'm sure salmond can find one person who disagrees though therefore everything is ok

 

Haha Stuart hosie thinks he is wrong. Didn't roll his eyes this time though

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think the Scottish government pays anything towards Trident?

 

Health spending in England is up 4%. Down 1% in Scotland. The money coming to Scotland from health spending down south is not all going to the nhs up here. Holyrood is choosing to spend that money elsewhere, like on funding council tax freezes.

 

Scottish taxes directly and in directly go towards the armed forces, it's part of central government.

 

You should also look into why spending on the NHS is up 4%, it's because of the cost of privatizing the NHS in England. We also offer free tuition fees for all students in Scotland, something that England do not so they can use that budget to increase spending else where.

 

Please don't use the insulting "money coming to Scotland" like its a hand out. It's one of the most annoying things I've heard, it's our money in the first place. We sent it down in taxes that WM decides how much of our own money we get back.

 

Whatever happens, the NHS needs a major shake up, it isn't fit for a country of our status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I wish someone would tally up all the lies that have being told by both sides.

 

The NHS in Scotland is under the control of Scotland but if we can't control our budget then we have to take money away from other things to keep it going. I would prefer not spending money on trident and spent it on the NHS. This isn't possible under the current set up.

 

Again lies are lies, and people should be held responsible for these.

But if Barnet is being protected it shouldn't matter.

 

Any change in spending on the NHS will be down to Holyrood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

Scottish taxes directly and in directly go towards the armed forces, it's part of central government.

 

You should also look into why spending on the NHS is up 4%, it's because of the cost of privatizing the NHS in England. We also offer free tuition fees for all students in Scotland, something that England do not so they can use that budget to increase spending else where.

 

Please don't use the insulting "money coming to Scotland" like its a hand out. It's one of the most annoying things I've heard, it's our money in the first place. We sent it down in taxes that WM decides how much of our own money we get back.

 

Whatever happens, the NHS needs a major shake up, it isn't fit for a country of our status.

The NHS needs funding over inflation each year to stand still. As people live longer, the cost of keeping them alive increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadKiller Dog

Spanish foreign minister on newsnight saying that Scotland likely won't get back in the EU for 5 years.

 

I'm sure salmond can find one person who disagrees though therefore everything is ok

 

Haha Stuart hosie thinks he is wrong. Didn't roll his eyes this time though

 

And how will the Spanish minister appease they large Spanish fishing fleet that will have to stay in harbour after they could no longer fish our waters .

As ever after a yes the EU will cobble together a deal with a bit if give and a bit it take . It won't take 5 years .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spanish foreign minister on newsnight saying that Scotland likely won't get back in the EU for 5 years.

 

I'm sure salmond can find one person who disagrees though therefore everything is ok

 

Haha Stuart hosie thinks he is wrong. Didn't roll his eyes this time though

 

Cool, the EU are going to ban us, guess they don't want our money then.

We bring more to Europe than we take out, even if we don't get in are they going to put restricted on imports from Scotland? I very much doubt it as they haven't with Norway etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The comparison, in a lower section, with the Global Warming fanatics is spot on. In science, it is the norm to have a working hypothesis and then to challenge orthodoxy. Not in Global Warming - where is the truth and all else is denial - it is more akin to religion and apostasy than science. The same is true of the Yes camp; facts are irrelevant, debate turns quickly to abuse and reason has long since gone on leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So Better Together punters then? Damning indeed.

 

Personally I find it more shameful that it took a narrow Yes lead in an opinion poll for the leaders of the UK parties to show an interest in the referendum, never mind waiting til the week before the vote before pushing forward alleged new powers into the mix.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Scottish taxes directly and in directly go towards the armed forces, it's part of central government.

 

You should also look into why spending on the NHS is up 4%, it's because of the cost of privatizing the NHS in England. We also offer free tuition fees for all students in Scotland, something that England do not so they can use that budget to increase spending else where.

 

Please don't use the insulting "money coming to Scotland" like its a hand out. It's one of the most annoying things I've heard, it's our money in the first place. We sent it down in taxes that WM decides how much of our own money we get back.

 

Whatever happens, the NHS needs a major shake up, it isn't fit for a country of our status.

 

Agree on your first point. I was responding to a question about money being spent on the nhs in Scotland instead of Trident. Point being Holyrood doesn't, I don't think, pay toward Trident so money isn't being diverted from health under the budget.

 

Why health spending is increasing down south is another debate. If spending increases the Barmett formula takes account of it. If Holyrood doesn't want to use that increase on the nhs here that's its choice.

 

Second point. Was merely a turn of phrase. Didn't mean what you inferred So aapologies if it offended.

 

Agree the NHS needs a shakeup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The NHS needs funding over inflation each year to stand still. As people live longer, the cost of keeping them alive increases.

 

I agree, but we need to find the money first. England finds the money because it chooses not to spend on other things.

 

Again, I'm agreeing that peddling lies about the NHS isn't helpful and people should be held responsible. Even as a Yes support I can see the ills of the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And how will the Spanish minister appease they large Spanish fishing fleet that will have to stay in harbour after they could no longer fish our waters .

As ever after a yes the EU will cobble together a deal with a bit if give and a bit it take . It won't take 5 years .

 

Is that them getting their day of reckoning? What will we do to punish Belgium if they veto us? Or rUK who are likely to be feeling slightly scorned. Bit of a gamble just to hand over fiscal control to rUK (and that is presuming we get a CU which I doubt) without any representation in rUK. If we don't get the CU, we don't take our share of the debt (I didn't say default alex) and so England quite rightly veto us. Either way, bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it just fits the narrative that No voters have been subjected to throughout this debate :

 

If you're voting No you are less Scottish, anti-Scottish or one of two words now banned on here.

 

It's rotten and apart from anything else just adds to the deep division we're seeing

Because it implies his team, the Yes team, is the voice of Scotland. Why isn't a No voter part of 'Team Scotland'. It's quite exclusionary; I can see why they're getting their backs up about it.

 

Fair enough; just seems like yet another silly throw-away line to me. Amongst all the rhetoric that's been flying about, it seems a weird thing to get annoyed about.

 

So Better Together punters then? Damning indeed.

 

Personally I find it more shameful that it took a narrow Yes lead in an opinion poll for the leaders of the UK parties to show an interest in the referendum, never mind waiting til the week before the vote before pushing forward alleged new powers into the mix.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Agree on your first point. I was responding to a question about money being spent on the nhs in Scotland instead of Trident. Point being Holyrood doesn't, I don't think, pay toward Trident so money isn't being diverted from health under the budget.

 

Why health spending is increasing down south is another debate. If spending increases the Barmett formula takes account of it. If Holyrood doesn't want to use that increase on the nhs here that's its choice.

 

Second point. Was merely a turn of phrase. Didn't mean what you inferred So aapologies if it offended.

 

Agree the NHS needs a shakeup.

 

I might be wrong but the Barnett formula varies with the amount of taxes we pay directly. So money we spent on the NHS isn't taken in account when WM decides what our budget is.

 

Again, I strongly disagree with how both sides have used and talked about the NHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadKiller Dog

 

 

Is that them getting their day of reckoning? What will we do to punish Belgium if they veto us? Or rUK who are likely to be feeling slightly scorned. Bit of a gamble just to hand over fiscal control to rUK (and that is presuming we get a CU which I doubt) without any representation in rUK. If we don't get the CU, we don't take our share of the debt (I didn't say default alex) and so England quite rightly veto us. Either way, bad idea.

 

The point is the Spanish minister is just blowing off for air . The EU will not kick out 5m citizens it goes against it's founding principals .

A pragmatic agreement would be made we would have to accept some token losses and the EU will let us some gains that how things work .

 

The same will happen over any negotiations between a Scotland and RUk . There will be lots of hot air but in the end pragmatism would result in an agreement .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paper, Times I think, is reporting that the Conservatives now hold a commanding lead over Labour on the economy. Sure the 'Yes' campaign will milk that tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Does anyone genuinely believe that if Cameron thought it was in any way beneficial for Scotland to secede from the UK, that he'd openly admit that? He's bound by his duty as prime minister to campaign for the union. Facts and opinion don't come into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The point is the Spanish minister is just blowing off for air . The EU will not kick out 5m citizens it goes against it's founding principals .

A pragmatic agreement would be made we would have to accept some token losses and the EU will let us some gains that how things work .

 

The same will happen over any negotiations between a Scotland and RUk . There will be lots of hot air but in the end pragmatism would result in an agreement .

 

This, it's all about power & money. What is best for business is what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So Better Together punters then? Damning indeed.

 

Personally I find it more shameful that it took a narrow Yes lead in an opinion poll for the leaders of the UK parties to show an interest in the referendum, never mind waiting til the week before the vote before pushing forward alleged new powers into the mix.

You're ignoring the fact that UK Ministers were told repeatedly that this was for the people of Scotland.

 

When the campaigns started there were numerous comments made by both Salmond & Sturgeon about English MPs coming up here to argue against Scotland.

 

So, the Yes camp complained when they did come up and then complained when they didn't.

 

Rightly or wrongly I think (I don't know for certain) that BT told them to stay away.

 

You may not agree with how they went about it but you can't re-write history (not you, btw, but I've seen this line coming from plenty of Yes men)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're ignoring the fact that UK Ministers were told repeatedly that this was for the people of Scotland.

 

When the campaigns started there were numerous comments made by both Salmond & Sturgeon about English MPs coming up here to argue against Scotland.

 

So, the Yes camp complained when they did come up and then complained when they didn't.

 

Rightly or wrongly I think (I don't know for certain) that BT told them to stay away.

 

You may not agree with how they went about it but you can't re-write history (not you, btw, but I've seen this line coming from plenty of Yes men)

 

You are being naive to the max now, WM never expected for a second that yes would win. They kept they distance and are now panicking. How you can blame yes campaign is amazing. It's Yes that told them not to put any planning into the outcomes of a Yes vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The point is the Spanish minister is just blowing off for air . The EU will not kick out 5m citizens it goes against it's founding principals .

A pragmatic agreement would be made we would have to accept some token losses and the EU will let us some gains that how things work .

 

The same will happen over any negotiations between a Scotland and RUk . There will be lots of hot air but in the end pragmatism would result in an agreement .

 

He's not said there will be a veto or Scotland won't be admitted. All he said was that he expects tge accession process to take longer than has been suggested and inferred Scotland cannot expect to receive the same terms of membership the UK enjoys.

 

Not sure how any of that is hot air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...