Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Alba gu Brath]

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

 

What, Finland doesn't have the Euro?

 

As to the rest of the post, [modedit]

[Patrick Bateman]

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.

 

If Cameron and better together thought he'd help the campaign, it would happen, easily. But it clearly doesn't; Cameron would be dismantled by Salmond, Sturgeon, or whomever and better together know this. It'll make him look weak ahead of the 2015 election, which is his main priority, not Scotland's future. That unionists will defend the PM shirking his responsibility to argue for the union on the grounds that he's from England is profoundly ironic.

[JamboX2]

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.

 

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official campaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

[JamboX2]

What, Finland doesn't have the Euro?

 

As to the rest of the post, [modedit]

 

In fairness to reaths17 he isn't a fan of the EU, and has said should we go Yes he'd not want into the EU. Yet we wont get a say on that will we? Why won't we? That's a proper democratic point to answer imo.

 

Also, that Alan Little, has argued that one thing he learnt in Finland for "Our Friends in the North" was surrendering currency control to the European Central Bank has been somewhat of a regret. A salutory lesson for Scotland perhaps with Sterling...

[Alba gu Brath]

So how do you feel about the SNP policy of being in NATO?

 

I'm against NATO membership. Would gladly get rid off the Queen too.

[Patrick Bateman]

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official campaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

 

Come on, you know the reason Cameron isn't debating is because it wouldn't be in his or better together's interests, otherwise he would, as part of his 'head, heart and soul' defence of the union. He's bottled it, and understandably so. You don't really believe what you've posted there, surely?

[Das Root]

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official campaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

 

 

No mention of Lamont I see. I would quite happily see the Welsh FM chucked into the mix too. Cameron could represent England if he so wishes.

[henry]

 

 

I'm against NATO membership. Would gladly get rid off the Queen too.

 

Give it a couple of years and salmond will get rid of the Queen don't you worry about that, he's only saying he's keeping the queen just now to make certain voters think he supports the royal family.

[Alba gu Brath]

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official campaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

 

No.

 

Cameron was 'elected' to represent Scotland as well and as a Unionist, he should see it as his duty to debate Salmond as leader to leader.

 

Then we have the campaign leaders - Darling v Canavan

 

As to Finland, the 'regret' may have surfaced recently but that's not the point. Finland, despite being 'tied' to this central bank have done very very well. The Euro has probably also brought them a lot of trade too. I know Finland relatively well, have friends there, and ordinary people seem content with the Euro and very proud of their social services. Their education is the best in the world and there social housing is superb. Their efforts to integrate immigrants are also excellent. The Finnish certainly don't feel or appear to be 'less Finnish' because of their 'surrendered' currency - something the English seem scared of.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with the Euro. A currency is not the be all or end all of the argument. After all, if we vote no we'll still be tied to the Euro and the UK's crippling debt except of course we'll have less or no control over our future course.

[Alba gu Brath]

Give it a couple of years and salmond will get rid of the Queen don't you worry about that, he's only saying he's keeping the queen just now to make certain voters think he supports the royal family.

 

Like you would know? Show us the evidence please as I hope you're right. I can't stand the parasites - and that's a class issue not a national one. I love the Germans.

[smallfaces]

No mention of Lamont I see. I would quite happily see the Welsh FM chucked into the mix too. Cameron could represent England if he so wishes.

 

I'd prefer the entire debate was contained to Scotland and that the Scottish Parliament could debate the merits in a wholly responsible, mature fashion.

Looks like I'm never going to see that.

The more I see of our elected MSP's, the less enamoured I become. No debate and poorly crafted attempts at media friendly soundbites.

[Das Root]

I'd prefer the entire debate was contained to Scotland and that the Scottish Parliament could debate the merits in a wholly responsible, mature fashion.

Looks like I'm never going to see that.

The more I see of our elected MSP's, the less enamoured I become. No debate and poorly crafted attempts at media friendly soundbites.

 

 

Like I always say, if you do not like it, then run for parliament and fix it from the inside.

[reaths17]

What, Finland doesn't have the Euro?

 

As to the rest of the post, you might as well be one of the airheads on the Wright/Madeley show today. Care to be anymore offensive?

 

[modedit] scratching around to find countries alike, then tell us we should be independent because were different. we're not finland, finlands not norways, norways not ireland. all your examples are different from each other in lots of ways, so is independence, being different and standing on our own doing things that suit us or are you wanting us just to copy other dis-similar countries because their roughly the same size.

[JamboX2]

Come on, you know the reason Cameron isn't debating is because it wouldn't be in his or better together's interests, otherwise he would, as part of his 'head, heart and soul' defence of the union. He's bottled it, and understandably so. You don't really believe what you've posted there, surely?

 

No I do. The debate on STV from 1997 between Dewar-Salmond-Wallace and Ancram-Findley-Dayell was much more informative and interesting than a head to head like the 2010 general election and 2011 FM debates were. And much more civil. Do you fear letting Salmond share a platform with others?

 

Why should it be head to head? Surely you don't think all unionists subscribe to Cameron's political convictions, or all nationalists back Salmond's? Because, I hope, you aren't blinkered enough to think this is more than a debate in which a Tory Englishman faces a well liked SNP First Minister? Tear him a part? All this talk of the ability of Salmond and Sturgeon is stretching to breaking point. Salmond was pretty poor when pressed last night on Newsnight Scotland, and has rarely looked convincing in the Chamber for a while now. Cameron would give him a good show, but he'd still loose in the eyes of most Scots because he's a Tory.

 

No mention of Lamont I see. I would quite happily see the Welsh FM chucked into the mix too. Cameron could represent England if he so wishes.

 

Darling can ably represent the Labour position as part of Better Together. Plus she's not that good. Why play your weaker players in a cup final?

 

No.

 

Cameron was 'elected' to represent Scotland as well and as a Unionist, he should see it as his duty to debate Salmond as leader to leader.

 

Then we have the campaign leaders - Darling v Canavan

 

Cameron was chosen to represent Whitney and Whitney alone. Much like Salmond was elected by the electors of Banff and Buchan to represent them. By virtue of their party positions they take on the extra mantle. As this is a debate of nationhood and sovereignty not politics, would the two best placed not actually be Canavan and Darling? Remove party politics, to old Labour men yelling at each other and debating the ins and outs of independence? Instead of Salmond arguing SNP policy against a Conservative Prime Minister? Surely the former would get to the nub of the debate people are having better.

 

As to Finland, the 'regret' may have surfaced recently but that's not the point. Finland, despite being 'tied' to this central bank have done very very well. The Euro has probably also brought them a lot of trade too. I know Finland relatively well, have friends there, and ordinary people seem content with the Euro and very proud of their social services. Their education is the best in the world and there social housing is superb. Their efforts to integrate immigrants are also excellent. The Finnish certainly don't feel or appear to be 'less Finnish' because of their 'surrendered' currency - something the English seem scared of.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with the Euro. A currency is not the be all or end all of the argument. After all, if we vote no we'll still be tied to the Euro and the UK's crippling debt except of course we'll have less or no control over our future course.

 

Finland's greatest economic achievement in the last 30 years, Nokia, came about due to a competative currency in comparison to those around it. I'm not taking away from the achievements they've made elsewhere, hopefully Scotland can change for the better there too - but a lot of that involves a cultural change as well as a mere political and cultural change.

 

Currency union requires tighter economic and fiscal integration, and an element of political as well. Norway, Sweden and Denmark do well in trade and are proseperous internationally and competatively with their own currencies. Can Scotland not do likewise? Or must we be close to Westminster fiscally and economically come a Yes vote?

[reaths17]

Come on, you know the reason Cameron isn't debating is because it wouldn't be in his or better together's interests, otherwise he would, as part of his 'head, heart and soul' defence of the union. He's bottled it, and understandably so. You don't really believe what you've posted there, surely?

 

why should cameron be even remotely involved?

 

yes is saying they want away from westminster/union because it doesn't represent scotland. so scotland will get a vote on whether we want this, not england or wales or n.ireland. should they all be getting involved when it's a directly scotland issue. cameron has no say, this is a directly scotland yes or scotland no debate why the hell should he be given a say and more important does he really, really give a flying, his own country will still be there no matter what. maybe thats more a problem with the unionist, who might like a hand and shouldn't the independent lot just get on with it instead of side tracking away from their goal. you would think that would be the most pressing matter rather than trying to drum up opposition.

[Sooperstar]

I'd quite like an actual physical copy of the White Paper. Where would I find such a thing?

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

 

 

 

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official pcampaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

Flipper Darling is not Scottish, ie he was not born here.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Bonnie Prince Charlie

[JamboX2]

Flipper Darling is not Scottish, ie he was not born here.

 

On Salmond's breakdown on who's Scottish he is as he lives and works here.

[Das Root]

 

 

On Salmond's breakdown on who's Scottish he is as he lives and works here.

 

He might live and work here, his eyebrows I'm not so sure of.

[jamboceej]

I'd quite like an actual physical copy of the White Paper. Where would I find such a thing?

 

Your library. If you want one sent to you you can go to scotreferendum.com and there should be email address & phone number to order one. E-book and online version gives you the benefit of being able to search by keyword etc though. Bit quicker to navigate!

[blairdin]

Nicola Sturgeon has just ripped Alastair Carmichael a new bumhole on STV. I'm quite surprised how poorly he debated. Resorted to a slanging match.

Edited November 27, 2013 by blairdin

[JamboX2]

He might live and work here, his eyebrows I'm not so sure of.

 

They are very suspicious eyebrows

 

Have to say the BBC debate - well mannered, informative, interesting, well done by both participants and was pretty amicable.

The STV debate - watched 10 mins and nearly threw the tele out the window. Deary me. A debate? More a shouting match. No answers from either.

 

More of the former less of the latter.

 

I'd rather till July we just say "let's agree to disagree" if we are to get more debates like the STV one and leave it for a 3 month campaign.

 

Ordered my white paper tonight. Looking forward to a barnstorming read instead of looking up references on my laptop's pdf. Love a good work of fiction

[Sarah O]

Alistar Carmichael

 

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

Alistar Carmichael

 

 

 

Both were poor to me. In terms of who can shout and make a cheap point Sturgeon narrowly won it. Dreadful debate though. Nothing was really debated.

[Patrick Bateman]

So much for Carmichael the bruiser, I'm pretty sure he cried out for help from the moderator at one point. He seemed poorly briefed and, as Ponsonby pointed out, he chose topics that probably aren't as important to viewers as child poverty and admitted that he couldn't offer any guarantees, despite demanding them from the pro-independence side. Another emphatic debate victory for the Yes campaign.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Patrick Bateman

[The People's Chimp]

Couldn't stomach more than a few seconds of that "wright stuff" clip. "They take our English taxpayers money."

 

Incredible.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Carmichael was on the verge of tears at points in that debate. I caught the first half on the Newsnicht debate, and it was pretty good. Then turned over for Sturgeon vs. Carmichael. A clear victory for the former.

 

I love how Rajoy's quote (although I believe he's been misrepresented somewhat) has been jumped on. This is the Spain that's turning the screw on Gibraltar. Seems like it's fine when you go against those meddling Scotch separatists, though.

[Das Root]

Carmichael was on the verge of tears at points in that debate. I caught the first half on the Newsnicht debate, and it was pretty good. Then turned over for Sturgeon vs. Carmichael. A clear victory for the former.

 

I love how Rajoy's quote (although I believe he's been misrepresented somewhat) has been jumped on. This is the Spain that's turning the screw on Gibraltar. Seems like it's fine when you go against those meddling Scotch separatists, though.

 

 

"give us back Gibraltar and I'll make sure those Scotchers never join the EU."

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I'm against NATO membership. Would gladly get rid off the Queen too.

Cool. So shouldn't you have a vote on those things too?

[Gregory House M.D.]

Couldn't stomach more than a few seconds of that "wright stuff" clip. "They take our English taxpayers money."

 

Incredible.

 

Absolutely astounding stupidity from Hopkins. Still, at least she's only missed 20bn in revenue before including the North Sea Oil and ignores the

fact that it it is us subsidising the UK.

 

If there is a sure fire way of sealing independence it's having ignorant tory welts like her spouting complete falsehoods on national TV.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Jay Gatsby

[Nookie Bear]

They are very suspicious eyebrows

 

Have to say the BBC debate - well mannered, informative, interesting, well done by both participants and was pretty amicable.

The STV debate - watched 10 mins and nearly threw the tele out the window. Deary me. A debate? More a shouting match. No answers from either.

 

More of the former less of the latter.

 

I'd rather till July we just say "let's agree to disagree" if we are to get more debates like the STV one and leave it for a 3 month campaign.

 

Ordered my white paper tonight. Looking forward to a barnstorming read instead of looking up references on my laptop's pdf. Love a good work of fiction

 

You can read this in the meantime.

 

[Boris]

Tony Blair never faced John Major on devolution in 1997. It was Dewar v Ancrum. The type of debate needed is a line debate;

 

BT Yes

 

Darling Salmond

Davidson Cannavan

Carmichael Harvie

 

This is a debate for Scots, about ourselves and how we relate to the UK - to me how close a union you want with some stuff in the white paper. It should also be between the leading lights of the Yes and No Campaigns, a voice from each "wing" of it. So in my idea, you'd have two from the official groups, then nominated members - Salmond and Harvie/ Davidson and Carmichael.

 

Cameron is the PM. He has a right to enter the debate, much like the Welsh FM. However, he has no duty to represent an official campaign grouping, as he is not a Scot, nor does he live here. That live here thing was the SNP/Yes position till polls started sliding.

 

You are confusing the issue.

 

Blair didn't need to face off with Major over devolution as it was a Westminster mandate, ergo the secretary and shadow secretary of state faced off.

 

Here, we are talking about nationhood. If the PM who represents the UK isn't going to debate why Scotland should stay within the UK then I think that speaks volumes.

[Das Root]

 

Cool. So shouldn't you have a vote on those things too?

 

 

First things first.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

You are confusing the issue.

 

Blair didn't need to face off with Major over devolution as it was a Westminster mandate, ergo the secretary and shadow secretary of state faced off.

 

Here, we are talking about nationhood. If the PM who represents the UK isn't going to debate why Scotland should stay within the UK then I think that speaks volumes.

 

If there was a Border Poll in Northern Ireland, as requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly, would you expect Cameron to make the case for the Union in that debate?

[Boris]

If there was a Border Poll in Northern Ireland, as requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly, would you expect Cameron to make the case for the Union in that debate?

 

By Border Poll, I assume you mean a poll to see if the North wanted to join a United Ireland?

 

If so, then that would need ratification by the South too, I would imagine (although it may already be in their constitution)

 

But anyway, yes, he should.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

By Border Poll, I assume you mean a poll to see if the North wanted to join a United Ireland?

 

If so, then that would need ratification by the South too, I would imagine (although it may already be in their constitution)

 

But anyway, yes, he should.

 

Quite frankly, the last person I would want to represent the unionist cause in that scenario is an English Prime Minister.

 

I would guess that Scottish unionists feel the same way.

[flecktimus]

Carmichael was on the verge of tears at points in that debate. I caught the first half on the Newsnicht debate, and it was pretty good. Then turned over for Sturgeon vs. Carmichael. A clear victory for the former.

 

I love how Rajoy's quote (although I believe he's been misrepresented somewhat) has been jumped on. This is the Spain that's turning the screw on Gibraltar. Seems like it's fine when you go against those meddling Scotch separatists, though.

 

Warning: don't watch if you are a Unionist

 

http://player.stv.tv/programmes/scotland-tonight/

[Boris]

Quite frankly, the last person I would want to represent the unionist cause in that scenario is an English Prime Minister.

 

I would guess that Scottish unionists feel the same way.

 

Which, if you stay in Union, is what you are going to get more often than not.

 

Granted, the political landscape in Northern Ireland is somewhat different, but surely if unionist want to justify the union and membership of it, who better than the head honcho, the PM?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Which, if you stay in Union, is what you are going to get more often than not.

 

Granted, the political landscape in Northern Ireland is somewhat different, but surely if unionist want to justify the union and membership of it, who better than the head honcho, the PM?

The simple reason why is that the PM would not have a vote on the issue, that's why.

 

If anything, the sovereign should be the one making the case for the integrity of the realm, but that would never happen.

[Boris]

The simple reason why is that the PM would not have a vote on the issue, that's why.

 

If anything, the sovereign should be the one making the case for the integrity of the realm, but that would never happen.

 

Whether the PM can vote on the issue is neither here nor there, imo.

 

Regarding Scotland, I would like to here other voices from the Union saying what Scotland brings and how much it is needed by the rUK. Who better to do that than the PM?

[Coco]

I would not expect the PM to have a handle on the intricacies, particularly the non-constitutional issues which the debate is bogged down in. But he should be expected to be able to argue on the constitutional principles.

 

But of course the pressure is on so an out of touch Tory toff from London can be embarrassed by not knowing policy on childcare and the likes in a debate.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Whether the PM can vote on the issue is neither here nor there, imo.

 

Regarding Scotland, I would like to here other voices from the Union saying what Scotland brings and how much it is needed by the rUK. Who better to do that than the PM?

So Carwyn Jones' intervention was relevant?

[Boris]

I would not expect the PM to have a handle on the intricacies, particularly the non-constitutional issues which the debate is bogged down in. But he should be expected to be able to argue on the constitutional principles.

 

But of course the pressure is on so an out of touch Tory toff from London can be embarrassed by not knowing policy on childcare and the likes in a debate.

 

But the Tory Toff should be able to turn it by saying these issues are devolved issues and as such outwith my remit. He would have to defend the "bedroom tax", immigration policy, could be pressed on EU membership, trident etc but could also say that these things while affecting Scotland muddy, as you say, the real issue which is purely constitutional.

 

He could take the authors of the white paper to task over what an independent Scotland would look like constitutionally. Unicameral, Bicameral? (are these even in the WP?)

 

DC could quite possibly make the FM look rather silly.

[Boris]

So Carwyn Jones' intervention was relevant?

 

In as much as he has an opinion and how it relates to the rUK.

 

Whether what he said was relevant is moot.

[Boris]

But if people like Jones do add comment, it may well stimulate the debate about further constitutional change within the UK should a no vote win the day next year.

[Das Root]

Quite frankly, the last person I would want to represent the unionist cause in that scenario is an English Prime Minister.

 

I would guess that Scottish unionists feel the same way.

 

 

If Brown had still been in charge, would your position change?

[Das Root]

I would not expect the PM to have a handle on the intricacies, particularly the non-constitutional issues which the debate is bogged down in. But he should be expected to be able to argue on the constitutional principles.

 

But of course the pressure is on so an out of touch Tory toff from London can be embarrassed by not knowing policy on childcare and the likes in a debate.

 

 

Cameron has a brain and an ability to learn, he has to get a handle on many situations daily for his job. No difference here. His social background should also be secondary to the position he holds as leader of the UK. Scotland is deciding on whether to remain in the UK, if Cameron will not take a debate with Scotland's leader then it's a poor show imo, especially when he is happy to discuss the issue on any other platform available.

 

Is it a case Cameron doesn't see Scotland's decision as important to him? Or the UK? Or is it the case he knows he would be shown up by Salmond and thus dent his own profile as UK leader...scuppering his re-election chances? I would imagine the powerful Tory backbenchers would not like to see their head man smacked down by a Scot, they might look to move him on and replace him with somebody else.

[IMac]

 

 

 

If Brown had still been in charge, would your position change?

I don't understand the premise of your question.

[Das Root]

I don't understand the premise of your question.

 

 

If you have a read at the thread above it should become clear. Was directed at Geoff though, not yourself.