Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Boris]

http://www.theguardi...nd-independence

 

Looks like we'd have to reapply to join the EU from scratch...

 

That'd give Salmond plenty of time to ask the people of Scotland if we want to actually join. Except he won't do that because he wants his vision of an independent Scotland.

 

Wouldn't these be the sorts of things that would be decided after the first elections to an independent Scottish parliament?

[Jamboross]

Is it true that SNP are sending a copy if their White Paper to every household in Scotland at the taxpayers expense?!

 

No, only 20,000 copies were printed.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Jamboross

[reaths17]

Exactly.

 

So why all the fuss? What will Labour or Tory do in Westminster 3 years from now? What if there's a Tory/UKIP coalition? Or Lib-Lab?

 

It seems as if a significant minority - maybe more- of Scottish Labour's core vote is pro-yes even though the MPs don't want to jeopardise their gravy train to London. So what would Labour do in the first post-indi government?

 

Bottom line is that we need the powers. At the moment we only have some powers - half, %70, %80? - but don't have the ultimate control - the power to raise money and to refuse to join military actions that Tory-Labour in London see as important.

 

As to costs - doesn't worry me. There are costs to everything. That only leaves priorities - is childcare more important than occupying Afghanistan or maintaining foreign military bases? ARe our hospitals more important than Trident? How about the costs of two layers of government we don't need - the House of Commons and the House of Lords against a better rail network?

 

Lastly, it may sound utopian but so what? What's in store if we vote no?

 

And the wee nations of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Ireland apparently have more of utopia than we have. Why? And, if I'm not mistaken, only Norway amongst them has oil to the same extent that we have. Finland doesn't seem to have the resources we have but yet have built up a strong industiral base and a strong economy with a population that enjoys superb social care and education. Sure, it costs money but the dividends are there to reap in the future.

 

 

none of the countries you've mentioned are tied or will be tied after independence to the european hub of finance that helped bring world economy to a grinding crash.

what about tonga, moldova, chad, el salvador, their all about as good an indicator as the countries you've mentioned as to how we would end up

[reaths17]

Wouldn't these be the sorts of things that would be decided after the first elections to an independent Scottish parliament?

 

wouldn't they be the kind of thing's an independent country would vote to be in, in the 1st place, freedom of choice, not, i've signed you up get back out if you can.

[TheMaganator]

I see the newspapers aren't impressed. What's the general impression from the Yes camp? Was the WP a success?

 

[henry]

 

Anything about still being British in wp? salmond I'm sure claimed we'd still be British after independence

[Boris]

 

 

 

wouldn't they be the kind of thing's an independent country would vote to be in, in the 1st place, freedom of choice, not, i've signed you up get back out if you can.

 

That was my point.

[The Comedian]

none of the countries you've mentioned are tied or will be tied after independence to the european hub of finance that helped bring world economy to a grinding crash.

what about tonga, moldova, chad, el salvador, their all about as good an indicator as the countries you've mentioned as to how we would end up

 

 

 

 

:

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I see the newspapers aren't impressed. What's the general impression from the Yes camp? Was the WP a success?

 

 

Quite unanimous all that.

[Gene Parmesan]

Anything about still being British in wp? salmond I'm sure claimed we'd still be British after independence

 

Geographically, we would be. Up the individual though, I guess. 'Identity' is a personal matter.

 

If we vote No and then end up voting for the UK to leave the EU, I imagine I would still consider myself European.

[Das Root]

 

 

 

 

The US Federal Reserve spent $1tn bailing out UK banks, far more than Westminster did, so should we sign up with them instead?

[Das Root]

 

Anything about still being British in wp? salmond I'm sure claimed we'd still be British after independence

 

 

I'm sure you can be British if you really want to, the Queen will still be head of state afterall.

[Das Root]

I see the newspapers aren't impressed. What's the general impression from the Yes camp? Was the WP a success?

 

 

 

After reading that I'm done with this independence malarkey! Those papers always tell the truth and have no agenda for sure

[djf]

RE: EU membership. Surely the easy thing here would be for the UK government to seek clarification from the EU in the form of a formal statement. I wonder why they will not?

 

RE: Financial union. Are there any practical reasons why a financial union would not be in the interests of both parties in a post yes vote referendum world?

 

I'd imagine we'll see London kicking and screaming about everything in the lead up to the vote however if Scotland did vote yes, they would be looking for as smooth a transition as possible in the aftermath.

[Das Root]

RE: EU membership. Surely the easy thing here would be for the UK government to seek clarification from the EU in the form of a formal statement. I wonder why they will not?

 

RE: Financial union. Are there any practical reasons why a financial union would not be in the interests of both parties in a post yes vote referendum world?

 

I'd imagine we'll see London kicking and screaming about everything in the lead up to the vote however if Scotland did vote yes, they would be looking for as smooth a transition as possible in the aftermath.

 

 

Exactly. Westminster could quite easily clear up all the confusion but won't. Better to bump gums and moan than do something positive.

[TheMaganator]

RE: EU membership. Surely the easy thing here would be for the UK government to seek clarification from the EU in the form of a formal statement. I wonder why they will not?

 

RE: Financial union. Are there any practical reasons why a financial union would not be in the interests of both parties in a post yes vote referendum world?

 

I'd imagine we'll see London kicking and screaming about everything in the lead up to the vote however if Scotland did vote yes, they would be looking for as smooth a transition as possible in the aftermath.

There are numerous & countless reasons why the financial union is bonkers. A few pages ago I listed a Financial Times article as well as a well written piece by Gordon Brown. People have attacked Gordon Brown personally but as yet have had nothing to say on his piece.

[kingantti1874]

I'm still on the fence, but that white paper is very poor. I was really hoping they could sell it, so many unanswered or poorly answered questions...

[JamboX2]

The Spanish Prime Minister has said tonight that an independent Scotland won't be negotiating from within for EU membership. I'm sure he has said this with Catalonia and the Basque country in mind. Interesting to see what other nations with large nationalist parties - Belgium being one which automatically springs to mind.

 

The Prime Minister today at PMQs responded in a reasoned manner, amazing for him, to Pete Wishart, once again making a balloon of himself. PM arguing this is a debate of nationhood for Scots, not a political one between the Conservative leader, and PM, and the SNP leader, and First Minister. I tend to agree. I know the demand is for a this in the Yes Camp, but it's to bring a Tory up and make it political instead of one of constitutional one. This politicisation by the SNP primarily is concerning to say the least, first a white paper which whilst outlining their aims in negotiation, outlined the SNP political vision and now a deman to make it a debate between Tories and the SNP.

 

The guerilla war is starting then.

[Das Root]

 

There are numerous & countless reasons why the financial union is bonkers. A few pages ago I listed a Financial Times article as well as a well written piece by Gordon Brown. People have attacked Gordon Brown personally but as yet have had nothing to say on his piece.

 

 

Nothing to say says it all imo.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Das Root

[Das Root]

The Spanish Prime Minister has said tonight that an independent Scotland won't be negotiating from within for EU membership. I'm sure he has said this with Catalonia and the Basque country in mind. Interesting to see what other nations with large nationalist parties - Belgium being one which automatically springs to mind.

 

The Prime Minister today at PMQs responded in a reasoned manner, amazing for him, to Pete Wishart, once again making a balloon of himself. PM arguing this is a debate of nationhood for Scots, not a political one between the Conservative leader, and PM, and the SNP leader, and First Minister. I tend to agree. I know the demand is for a this in the Yes Camp, but it's to bring a Tory up and make it political instead of one of constitutional one. This politicisation by the SNP primarily is concerning to say the least, first a white paper which whilst outlining their aims in negotiation, outlined the SNP political vision and now a deman to make it a debate between Tories and the SNP.

 

The guerilla war is starting then.

 

 

Debate between the PM and FM surely? Cameron just doesn't want to take him on

[JamboX2]

Debate between the PM and FM surely? Cameron just doesn't want to take him on

 

I suspect this may play a part in it, but not because he fears Salmond, but because he know's he wont be reserved as well as Salmond on the tele by the masses.

 

It's a debate between Yes and No to me. Not between the SNP, Labour, Tory, Liberal or Green. The First Minister and Pete Wishart can call it a debate between governments, but it'll be seen as a debate between a Tory-toff and the Scottish First Minister.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Cameron will only get involved if the polling really tightens.

[rossthejambo]

 

 

 

I suspect this may play a part in it, but not because he fears Salmond, but because he know's he wont be reserved as well as Salmond on the tele by the masses.

 

It's a debate between Yes and No to me. Not between the SNP, Labour, Tory, Liberal or Green. The First Minister and Pete Wishart can call it a debate between governments, but it'll be seen as a debate between a Tory-toff and the Scottish First Minister.

 

I agree that his reasons for not getting involved are because he knows he'll more than likely sway people towards a "yes" vote, however I think he definitely needs to be involved in a debate of some sort.

 

It's all well and good saying it's between the Yes campaign and Better Together campaign but the UK PM should definitely be involved somewhere along the line, because otherwise the Better Together campaign will never be able to answer questions with any certainty because they're not in charge of the UK. If it was a Labour PM, there wouldn't be any question about a debate IMO.

[Das Root]

 

 

 

I agree that his reasons for not getting involved are because he knows he'll more than likely sway people towards a "yes" vote, however I think he definitely needs to be involved in a debate of some sort.

 

It's all well and good saying it's between the Yes campaign and Better Together campaign but the UK PM should definitely be involved somewhere along the line, because otherwise the Better Together campaign will never be able to answer questions with any certainty because they're not in charge of the UK. If it was a Labour PM, there wouldn't be any question about a debate IMO.

 

 

Yes I would agree. However his stance is just aloofness imo. He's the UK PM and all this Scottish chatter is beneath him and his office.

 

Maybe just his mannerisms but always appears to consider himself better than the rest of us.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Nothing to say says it all imo.

It really doesn't. I've taken the time to post these links & articles so I'm not going search for them again.

 

The fact that you merely attacked Brown & made no comment re the substance speaks volumes. A currency union is a non-starter. Everyone knows it.

[Das Root]

 

It really doesn't. I've taken the time to post these links & articles so I'm not going search for them again.

 

The fact that you merely attacked Brown & made no comment re the substance speaks volumes. A currency union is a non-starter. Everyone knows it.

 

 

It says I do not value Gordon Brown's opinion.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

It says I do not value Gordon Brown's opinion.

You must value David Cameron's then.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

It says I do not value Gordon Brown's opinion.

Out of interest who would you listen to on this issue?

[Das Root]

 

You must value David Cameron's then.

 

 

Why?

[Das Root]

 

Out of interest who would you listen to on this issue?

 

 

Quite content to read the WP and form my own opinion.

[JamboX2]

Quite content to read the WP and form my own opinion.

 

So the SNP government's then?

 

It says I do not value Gordon Brown's opinion.

 

Disagree and disaprove with him and his policies and legacy. But the man was in the heart of Whitehall a long time. He know's the orthodoxy of the civil servants in key positions of influence. He know's them. He's well respected in the capitals of Europe, the Commonwealth and Washington. His opinion here is pretty authoratative. He knows the people at the heart of Whitehall from his experience there. For better or worse I think his opinion is pretty strong. Should we vote Yes, his expertise and exeprience will be invaluable in negotiations. More so than McConnell and McLeish, imo.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Why?

Because you desire a debate between him and Salmond.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'll just leave this here...

 

 

 

Staggering. Truly staggering.

[JamboX2]

I'll just leave this here...

 

 

 

Staggering. Truly staggering.

 

Out of all the videos you've posted, this by far is the worst attempt at garnering reasons for a Yes vote. Not only is it a channel 5 show, presented by a has-been, with a pannel of no-mark celebs, it's main aim is to be a live call-in "shock" show to gain some kind of respect for being "controversial". That would make me vote to shut down Channel 5, not guide me either way on this debate.

[Patrick Bateman]

Out of all the videos you've posted, this by far is the worst attempt at garnering reasons for a Yes vote. Not only is it a channel 5 show, presented by a has-been, with a pannel of no-mark celebs, it's main aim is to be a live call-in "shock" show to gain some kind of respect for being "controversial". That would make me vote to shut down Channel 5, not guide me either way on this debate.

 

Missing the point, entirely, JamboX2. Have you watched the full thing? There are plenty of people in England who think this way. Besides, on a basic level, why do they take offence? Why such indignation at Scottish independence?

 

Did you see Scottish Labour's behaviour during the independence white paper debate? Absolutely dreadful. As much as you yearn for some 'enhanced devolution' it will never be brought forward by parties who are so incompetent, and whose priorities lie with getting a promotion to London.

[pablo]

The Nats must be absolutely desperate for a posh Englishman to wade in and say something, anything to distract attention from the damp squib that is the white paper.

 

 

[Das Root]

Because you desire a debate between him and Salmond.

 

 

Between FM and PM, mainly as I would like to see him smashed by Salmond

[Patrick Bateman]

The Nats must be absolutely desperate for a posh Englishman to wade in and say something, anything to distract attention from the damp squib that is the white paper.

 

And you've read it, have you? [modedit]

 

Anyway, here's a pertinent graphic. (Can't display directly from twitter, sadly)

 

https://twitter.com/...2/photo/1/large

[Boris]

The Nats must be absolutely desperate for a posh Englishman to wade in and say something, anything to distract attention from the damp squib that is the white paper.

 

What were you wanting the white paper to say?

I assume you've read it to call it a damp squib...

[flecktimus]

Out of all the videos you've posted, this by far is the worst attempt at garnering reasons for a Yes vote. Not only is it a channel 5 show, presented by a has-been, with a pannel of no-mark celebs, it's main aim is to be a live call-in "shock" show to gain some kind of respect for being "controversial". That would make me vote to shut down Channel 5, not guide me either way on this debate.

 

I take it you have never lived in England, i listened to that kind of chat for 30 years.

[JamboX2]

Missing the point, entirely, JamboX2. Have you watched the full thing? There are plenty of people in England who think this way. Besides, on a basic level, why do they take offence? Why such indignation at Scottish independence?

 

Did you see Scottish Labour's behaviour during the independence white paper debate? Absolutely dreadful. As much as you yearn for some 'enhanced devolution' it will never be brought forward by parties who are so incompetent, and whose priorities lie with getting a promotion to London.

 

I agree, Labour painted themselves in little glory yesterday. Personally thought the "gaeing it alane" and the Sarwar "no answers here" thing was daft. Should've left it a day or two. A "we'll go off look into it and come back to you with a response." As someone said here earlier the 24 hour news cycle does not lend itself to reasoned debate well enough.

 

It's misinformation on this in the Daily Mail and the like which cause this. The Sun is a duplicitous rag cross the border as well. One thing in Scotland another in England on the same issue. Editorial independence plays a role, but it's shock tactics and culture. I don't put much faith and thought into shows like that. Do you really think a majority of English folk think us scroungers? Equally do you think a majority of Scots view the English as uninformed yobs and hooliganistic toffs? It's a bad place to lead a debate on how we relate as a people to the people across our only land border with, should we be independent, and how we improve that.

[TheMaganator]

Why would people base such an important decision about our future on the views of a few ignorant tossers?

 

Really?! And using it to attempt to gain votes for the Yes camp is beyond tragic.

Edited November 27, 2013 by TheMaganator

[JamboX2]

wrong thread...

Edited November 27, 2013 by JamboX2

[Hugh Phamism]

The Nats must be absolutely desperate for a posh Englishman to wade in and say something, anything to distract attention from the damp squib that is the white paper.

 

The whitepaper is a first draft 'instruction' manual on how independence would work. It is not a flag flying propaganda document.

[Das Root]

Why would people base such an important decision about our future on the views of a few ignorant tossers?

 

Really?! And using it to attempt to gain votes for the Yes camp is beyond tragic.

 

 

That's not a nice way to talk about Messers Darling, Carmichael and Jones

[Patrick Bateman]

Why would people base such an important decision about our future on the views of a few ignorant tossers?

 

Really?! And using it to attempt to gain votes for the Yes camp is beyond tragic.

 

Did I say, anywhere, that anyone should base their views on Scotland's constitutional future on the opinions of Richard Madeley and Katie Hopkins? No, I didn't. It's a more extreme version of the 'subsidy junky' lies that the wider media seems to revel in. And no, in my experience it's not a majority of people in England that thinks this, but there is a certain attitude amongst some (as JX2 has pointed out, fostered by elements of the media) that Scottish independence is about hating English people, and that we're reliant on 'their' hand outs. Can you imagine the outrage if this was said in Scotland, about England?

 

 

People who think we'll 'carry on as we are' or that Scotland's interests will be more closely realised if there's a no vote are simply deluding themselves. Things always change and I struggle to understand why people still insist that Westminster is better at making decisions effecting Scotland than the people who live and work here. There has been a period of undeniable, irreversible decline over the past century, and we're now at a point where the UK has moved from administrating the largest Empire ever known, to struggling to manage its own finances amongst other things. Illegal wars, the financial crash, expenses scandals, privatising the Post Office, etc etc. Can Scotland do better? Of course? Will voting no realise Scotland's potential? Well, the UK has had three centuries to take us to a point where tens of thousands of people are reliant on food banks, the inequality gap has grown exponentially and we're *still* occupying Afghanistan for no clear reason. Why should Westminster continue to govern Scotland? Because folk are afraid we might do worse?

[smallfaces]

Between FM and PM, mainly as I would like to see him smashed by Salmond

 

I'm keen to understand what the Yes campaign genuinely want to achieve from any such head-to-head debate.

Is it just simply to show up David Cameron as an ignorant, out of touch posh-boy?

It doesn't say much for us as a nation if that is what is hoped for. The debate is for us and no-one else, in my opinion.

[Das Root]

I'm keen to understand what the Yes campaign genuinely want to achieve from any such head-to-head debate.

Is it just simply to show up David Cameron as an ignorant, out of touch posh-boy?

It doesn't say much for us as a nation if that is what is hoped for. The debate is for us and no-one else, in my opinion.

 

 

Who knows what the Yes camp want, I want a good scrap though.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm keen to understand what the Yes campaign genuinely want to achieve from any such head-to-head debate.

Is it just simply to show up David Cameron as an ignorant, out of touch posh-boy?

It doesn't say much for us as a nation if that is what is hoped for. The debate is for us and no-one else, in my opinion.

 

David Cameron is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This debate is whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom or become an independent country. Why shouldn't he come to Scotland to explain why we're better off in the Union? Because it's massively inconvenient to better together, because people dislike him? Fine. Why should he have political control over Scotland without taking the responsibility of representing the government that holds it? For the record, I'd be utterly delighted for Brown, Darling, or any other high ranking unionist to debate independence. Because the more people engage with it, the more likely the are to move to a Yes vote. But really, why *shouldn't* the PM debate independence, given that he leads the Government that controls Scotland's purse strings, foreign and welfare policies? It's indefensible.

[Das Root]

David Cameron is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This debate is whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom or become an independent country. Why shouldn't he come to Scotland to explain why we're better off in the Union? Because it's massively inconvenient to better together, because people dislike him? Fine. Why should he have political control over Scotland without taking the responsibility of representing the government that holds it? For the record, I'd be utterly delighted for Brown, Darling, or any other high ranking unionist to debate independence. Because the more people engage with it, the more likely the are to move to a Yes vote. But really, why *shouldn't* the PM debate independence, given that he leads the Government that controls Scotland's purse strings, foreign and welfare policies? It's indefensible.

 

 

I would imagine this is the same idea Yes has. I'm still after a good old ding dong with Cameron coming off worse, not only would be a great thing for Yes, but also damage Cameron's own re-election prospects.