Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Am I really going to have to break this down? Scotland is making the choice between two institutions. Cameron is the head of the Government at Westminster, which has control over reserved matters. Why should he be allowed to shirk his responsibility to explain why not just he, but his office and government, is better placed to make the decisions that effect Scotland than the people who live and work here? The simple answer is he shouldn't and that he's only avoiding it because it'll do his political career immense harm. Again, no amount of constructs, false arguments or syllogisms can detract from that point.

 

I'll turn this around; if Cameron was popular, do you think he'd run away from this chance to secure a No vote? After all, he vowed to fight with everything he has. I mean, he wouldn't lie about that, would he?

If Cameron was popular, do you think Salmond would be challenging him to a debate in the first place?

 

The whole point of this debate is that the Scottish people are sovereign. It is up to them to decide who runs their affairs, not to David Cameron or anyone else to explain why he should do it because that is the wrong way round. Power is granted by the vote.

[Patrick Bateman]

Because Westminster is good at governing. And before I get the tired, predictable, repetitive 'Yes, but enhanced devolution will fix that' party line, I'd politely rebut that by pointing out that the Tories aren't interested in it, and Labour had 13 years in power, including 8 overlapping years at Holyrood and they couldn't be trusted to address this. Seems to me that the only remaining counter 'argument' is that we can't say an independent Scotland would do any better, and apparently that's a reason to vote no in of itself. Bizarre.

 

[Arnold Rothstein]

Your argument is that this debate is 'Scots versus Scots' as to how Scotland should go forward. This is 'Scotland's future in Scotland's hands. Now, do we take the opportunity to keep Scotland's future IN Scotland's hands, or do we vote No and put Scotland's future back into Westminster's hands. I suggest this isn't a wise course of action, considering how inefficient and mistake prone Westminster has been for some time. Is that clearer?

 

Back from where?

 

Why would a Scottish government be any better?

[Patrick Bateman]

If Cameron was popular, do you think Salmond would be challenging him to a debate in the first place?

 

The whole point of this debate is that the Scottish people are sovereign. It is up to them to decide who runs their affairs, not to David Cameron or anyone else to explain why he should do it because that is the wrong way round. Power is granted by the vote.

 

I guess that's something we'll never know.

 

It seems odd that the Scottish concept of sovereignty involves delegating responsibility to governments that have no democratic mandate in Scotland.

 

 

Back from where?

 

Why would a Scottish government be any better?

 

And I could turn that around and ask back 'Why would it be any worse?' - Westminster has had ultimate governance over Scotland for 3 centuries. In that time, we've gone from being part of the largest Empire of all time, with all the benefits and pitfalls that brought, to being an underrepresented 'region' of the EU. Other countries of similar or smaller size AND resources to Scotland are comfortably better places to live, according to UN statistics (that I've supplied above) - It therefore stands to reason that Scotland is capable of emulating these countries. If it were possible for Scotland to realise its potential within the UK, it would have done so by now, and I'd argue that being part of the largest Empire, it probably did then. However, the world has moved on significantly since then, and it's clear that being part of a political system which routinely brings Governments that Scotland didn't elect, who implement 'blanket policies' that aren't tailored to Scotland's needs or tastes, is not beneficial for Scotland. So in all reasonableness, Scotland's interests would be served as an independent country. In short; if others can do it better, why can't we?

Edited November 28, 2013 by Patrick Bateman

[Arnold Rothstein]

I guess that's something we'll never know.

 

It seems odd that the Scottish concept of sovereignty involves delegating responsibility to governments that have no democratic mandate in Scotland.

 

 

 

 

And I could turn that around and ask back 'Why would it be any worse?' - Westminster has had ultimate governance over Scotland for 3 centuries. In that time, we've gone from being part of the largest Empire of all time, with all the benefits and pitfalls that brought, to being an underrepresented 'region' of the EU. Other countries of similar or smaller size AND resources to Scotland are comfortably better places to live, according to UN statistics (that I've supplied above) - It therefore stands to reason that Scotland is capable of emulating these countries. If it were possible for Scotland to realise its potential within the UK, it would have done so by now, and I'd argue that being part of the largest Empire, it probably did then. However, the world has moved on significantly since then, and it's clear that being part of a political system which routinely brings Governments that Scotland didn't elect, who implement 'blanket policies' that aren't tailored to Scotland's needs or tastes, is not beneficial for Scotland. So in all reasonableness, Scotland's interests would be served as an independent country. In short; if others can do it better, why can't we?

 

I've never suggested that we couldn't go it alone. There just isn't an appetite to do so.

[Patrick Bateman]

There just isn't an appetite to do so.

 

Yet we're having a referendum on whether we should in 10 months, so that point just isn't correct, is it? Anyway, this is a side point.

 

Ok, so you think we could be independent, I'm interested as to why don't you think Scotland should be?

[Arnold Rothstein]

Yet we're having a referendum on whether we should in 10 months, so that point just isn't correct, is it? Anyway, this is a side point.

 

Ok, so you think we could be independent, I'm interested as to why don't you think Scotland should be?

 

I don't think it's necessary. I'm happy as things are and enjoy being part of the UK. Simple as that easy.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

I don't think it's necessary. I'm happy as things are and enjoy being part of the UK. Simple as that easy.

I don't have any real huge gripes over the UK as a whole and sometimes I want us to go independent but the longer this thing goes the more I suspect Salmond actually wanted devo max and not full independence. He seems to be attempting to try take a lot of the things with us that would've been part of a devo max option. This is IMO anyway, I could be wrong.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

I'm an undecided voter, just watching question time the Green Party boy is the only one on the bench with a non scaremongering opinion.

[blairdin]

I'm an undecided voter, just watching question time the Green Party boy is the only one on the bench with a non scaremongering opinion.

 

I've said this about few times. Patrick Harvey is a rising star of Scottish Politics. He has been excellent.

[JamboX2]

 

 

I've said this about few times. Patrick Harvey is a rising star of Scottish Politics. He has been excellent.

 

Totally agree. Should the Greens ever do well enough to be a decider for a coalition then he'd be a welcome Minister to any government. The Scottish Greens deserve to do better. Good policies, a different view on things and they actually engage in debate not shouting matches.

[Das Root]

 

Yes, because he is a Scottish MP. He directly represents Scotland in reserved matters.

 

I wouldn't want him involved in Northern Ireland in the hypothetical either.

 

 

So basically as the PM is not Scottish or representative of a Scottish constituency he has no relevance here? Ok. Have to feel sorry for the Welsh and Northern Irish, they rarely if ever had any relevance in the UK.

 

Cameron only represents England, fair point made.

[Das Root]

 

 

Because like it or not he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that's his job. Polls would suggest most Scots like it that way.

 

Also, as an aside you make some good points but i get the impression you don't respect people's right to a 'no' opinion. I on the other hand totally respect your opinion and those of my 'yes' minded friends.

 

 

Polls would suggest most Scots like Cameron as PM?

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

 

Polls would suggest most Scots like Cameron as PM?

Like him? Hmm not sure about that but I respect him as PM and IMO he should come and debate about the referendum.

[Das Root]

 

 

Like him? Hmm not sure about that but I respect him as PM and IMO he should come and debate about the referendum.

 

 

He should but he won't unfortunately. I suspect it's just not that important to him. His and his party's powerbase is England, that's the only region of the UK he needs to satisfy.

[JamboX2]

 

Cameron only represents England, fair point made.

 

Technically on mandate from electors he only represents Whitney.

[Das Root]

 

 

Technically on mandate from electors he only represents Whitney.

 

 

Is that how it works? Is his job as PM for show then? Who is actually in charge of the UK...and don't say the bankers.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

 

He should but he won't unfortunately. I suspect it's just not that important to him. His and his party's powerbase is England, that's the only region of the UK he needs to satisfy.

We all know that just doesn't cut it tbh. He is a world leader and this is about the potential break up of the United Kingdom. He owes it to us to debate this. Im leaning towards independence but he could convince me to vote for the union without a doubt but if he won't even try?

[luckydug]

Like him? Hmm not sure about that but I respect him as PM and IMO he should come and debate about the referendum.

 

 

He wont though as he knows his input would give the yes campaign a boost.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Is that how it works? Is his job as PM for show then? Who is actually in charge of the UK...and don't say the bankers.

 

No. He's PM by virtue of leading the largest party who won the most seats. Total votes for a party dont matter a jot. Its who wins seat. Salmond isnt FM by virtue of most votes. His party won the most seats and then was able form government. The party and government is accountable not to the total electorate but to the electorate in each seat in electoral terms.

 

So really no one apart from voters in Whitney chose Cameron. No one other than those in Banff and Buchan chose Salmond.

Edited November 29, 2013 by JamboX2

[Patrick Bateman]

So really no one apart from voters in Whitney chose Cameron. No one other than those in Banff and Buchan chose Salmond.

 

So why were there leaders debates in the 2010 UK election and 2011 Scottish election?

[Das Root]

 

 

No. He's PM by virtue of leading the largest party who won the most seats. Total votes for a party dont matter a jot. Its who wins seat. Salmond isnt FM by virtue of most votes. His party won the most seats and then was able form government. The party and government is accountable not to the total electorate but to the electorate in each seat in electoral terms.

 

So really no one apart from voters in Whitney chose Cameron. No one other than those in Banff and Buchan chose Salmond.

 

 

So what you are saying is, as the Tories won nothing in Scotland, the PM of the Uk does not represent Scotland at all given he is the leader of a party with no mandate here as nobody voted for them?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

So why were there leaders debates in the 2010 UK election and 2011 Scottish election?

Because they lead parties!

 

Do you expect every MP to vote the way their party says it should?

[Patrick Bateman]

Because they lead parties!

 

Do you expect every MP to vote the way their party says it should?

 

No, that's what local hustings and townhall meetings are for. We had leaders debates, which were separate.

[southside1874]

I don't think it's necessary. I'm happy as things are and enjoy being part of the UK. Simple as that easy.

 

This is the way I view it. If you are happy with things then be content. I don't think there is a hope in hell of folk changing their mind and to be honest I don't really wish to influence them. We can't wish for more than contented folk.

[Darren]

Because like it or not he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that's his job. Polls would suggest most Scots like it that way.

 

I'd suggest the most important poll is a general election. Given that Scotland returned one Conservative MP, I think it is safe to say the majority of Scots would not like a Conservative MP to be Prime Minister.

 

The way Better Together are floundering, I would expect David Cameron to become more involved as the referendum approaches. That is if he really wants the No vote to prevail.

 

While this is a debate about the future of Scotland and it is up to the people of Scotland to decide, the decision will affect the rest of the UK. It would be useful, at some point, to hear why the rest of the UK would like us to remain part of it. To me, the union looks like a marriage of convenience. Who is losing out from Scotland leaving? If it is Scots then why was, and presumably still is, Cameron so keen to retain Scotland? This is something I think we need to know so that we can make an informed decision.

[Das Root]

Up in Inverness today for a Business for Scotland briefing. Some very interesting points made by Fergus Ewing with regards energy, currency, exports and rUK. All focused around the Highlands but made some solid points and I would say made some undecideds move towards Yes.

 

A question raised by an audience member...the WP has answered many questions on independence, is it now the time for Yes to pose questions to No...is it now time for No to sell to Scotland why it should stay in the union beyond arguing for the status quo?

 

Valid point imo. What questions would you all have Yes ask No?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Up in Inverness today for a Business for Scotland briefing. Some very interesting points made by Fergus Ewing with regards energy, currency, exports and rUK. All focused around the Highlands but made some solid points and I would say made some undecideds move towards Yes.

 

A question raised by an audience member...the WP has answered many questions on independence, is it now the time for Yes to pose questions to No...is it now time for No to sell to Scotland why it should stay in the union beyond arguing for the status quo?

 

Valid point imo. What questions would you all have Yes ask No?

 

Q1: Why do you claim there is a benefit in sharing a defence policy which makes the UK stronger when UK troops are used as fodder to justify American sabre rattling? What is independent about Westminster in that regard?

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

What polls?

I could do with a good laugh.

 

 

Polls would suggest most Scots like Cameron as PM?

 

 

 

Polls would suggest most Scots like Cameron as PM?

[Arnold Rothstein]

Polls would suggest most Scots like Cameron as PM?

 

I'd suggest the most important poll is a general election. Given that Scotland returned one Conservative MP, I think it is safe to say the majority of Scots would not like a Conservative MP to be Prime Minister.

 

My point was not about a Conservative PM. More that polls suggest being governed from Westminster headed by a PM of the UK seems to suit most people fine.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

 

 

My point was not about a Conservative PM. More that polls suggest being governed from Westminster headed by a PM of the UK seems to suit most people fine.

What? There's a bit of a whiff about that!

 

Still to hear a single positive point about staying part of the UK other than the usual "better to share". Aye better for rUK to share our wealth with themselves.

They don't want us to leave because they need us but Scotland can do much better on its own 2 feet.

 

If a country with the resources that Scotland has can't be a successful, prosperous, fair independent nation then show me a single nation anywhere in the world that can!

 

No = scaremongering nonsense.

[TheMaganator]

Most of the Yes voters are quite open about the fact that nothing would make them vote No.

 

The positive case for the union has been made a thousand times. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it less positive.

 

I see the papers have picked up on Salmond using an email he found on a nationalist website to back his claims that we'd have a smooth entry into Europe. It doesn't even totally back him up. He just selectively quoted it.

 

What other country would let their First Minister away with that? I've said many times before that this has been one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Why is no one in the SNP prepared to challenge this guy? Its utterly pathetic.

[luckydug]

 

Most of the Yes voters are quite open about the fact that nothing would make them vote No.

 

The positive case for the union has been made a thousand times. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it less positive.

 

I see the papers have picked up on Salmond using an email he found on a nationalist website to back his claims that we'd have a smooth entry into Europe. It doesn't even totally back him up. He just selectively quoted it.

 

What other country would let their First Minister away with that? I've said many times before that this has been one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Why is no one in the SNP prepared to challenge this guy? Its utterly pathetic.

 

 

 

Judging by the tone of your post nothing would make you vote Yes.

You are just as guilty of prejudging the issue as those you criticize.

[Boaby Ewing]

Most of the Yes voters are quite open about the fact that nothing would make them vote No.

 

The positive case for the union has been made a thousand times. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it less positive.

 

I see the papers have picked up on Salmond using an email he found on a nationalist website to back his claims that we'd have a smooth entry into Europe. It doesn't even totally back him up. He just selectively quoted it.

 

What other country would let their First Minister away with that? I've said many times before that this has been one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Why is no one in the SNP prepared to challenge this guy? Its utterly pathetic.

 

If only there was a host of newspapers you could write to.

[Das Root]

My point was not about a Conservative PM. More that polls suggest being governed from Westminster headed by a PM of the UK seems to suit most people fine.

 

 

A PM whose party won virtually nothing in Scotland, and runs a party essentially despised by the majority in Scotland. I would love to see that poll for sure

[Das Root]

Most of the Yes voters are quite open about the fact that nothing would make them vote No.

 

The positive case for the union has been made a thousand times. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it less positive.

 

I see the papers have picked up on Salmond using an email he found on a nationalist website to back his claims that we'd have a smooth entry into Europe. It doesn't even totally back him up. He just selectively quoted it.

 

What other country would let their First Minister away with that? I've said many times before that this has been one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Why is no one in the SNP prepared to challenge this guy? Its utterly pathetic.

 

 

How about you go for 1001? Why should Scotland want to remain in the UK?

 

Also, maybe you could answer Geoff's question?

 

Q1: Why do you claim there is a benefit in sharing a defence policy which makes the UK stronger when UK troops are used as fodder to justify American sabre rattling? What is independent about Westminster in that regard?

[Patrick Bateman]

I hear that better together is going to release a black paper, which explains why the 8th richest nation in the OECD is too wee and stupid to mange its own finances. It will answer all the questions we've been looking for, such as why energy bills have been allowed to rise 37% in three years, how storing nuclear weapons 30 miles from Scotland's biggest population centre keeps us safe, why Scotland's affairs are best managed with a 9% consideration in parliament and why being part of an increasing debt of ?1.2 trillion brings a strength and security.

 

 

Or maybe better together and their supporters will stick to filibustering and blocking meaningful debate, because the truth is intensely inconvenient to the anti-independence cause?

[JamboX2]

I hear that better together is going to release a black paper, which explains why the 8th richest nation in the OECD is too wee and stupid to mange its own finances. It will answer all the questions we've been looking for, such as why energy bills have been allowed to rise 37% in three years, how storing nuclear weapons 30 miles from Scotland's biggest population centre keeps us safe, why Scotland's affairs are best managed with a 9% consideration in parliament and why being part of an increasing debt of ?1.2 trillion brings a strength and security.

 

 

Or maybe better together and their supporters will stick to filibustering and blocking meaningful debate, because the truth is intensely inconvenient to the anti-independence cause?

 

Out of intetest, would you live with a No result and accept it as Scotland's will? Or would you view it a questionable result because you don't see merit in the No side whatsoever?

 

If Yes happens I can live with that quite happily and continue to vote as I do and engage etc.

[Patrick Bateman]

Out of intetest, would you live with a No result and accept it as Scotland's will? Or would you view it a questionable result because you don't see merit in the No side whatsoever?

 

If Yes happens I can live with that quite happily and continue to vote as I do and engage etc.

 

I will always believe Scotland's interests are better served by people who live and work here. If the lies and threats prevail and no succeeds, I don't see why people who believe in independence should just stop and give up. In any case, just like with the 1979 aberration, the narrative is set. If there's a No vote, the inadequacies of the union will always be brought to the forefront. Independence is now a mainstream concept and this narrative cannot be put to bed.

 

In other news, I see the *real* man who has a say over the BoE says he'd be open to talks about a currency union. Better together are running out of lies to spread.

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

 

Out of intetest, would you live with a No result and accept it as Scotland's will? Or would you view it a questionable result because you don't see merit in the No side whatsoever?

 

If Yes happens I can live with that quite happily and continue to vote as I do and engage etc.

 

And your vote will be much more meaningful than it is now

[JamboX2]

 

 

I will always believe Scotland's interests are better served by people who live and work here. If the lies and threats prevail and no succeeds, I don't see why people who believe in independence should just stop and give up. In any case, just like with the 1979 aberration, the narrative is set. If there's a No vote, the inadequacies of the union will always be brought to the forefront. Independence is now a mainstream concept and this narrative cannot be put to bed.

 

In other news, I see the *real* man who has a say over the BoE says he'd be open to talks about a currency union. Better together are running out of lies to spread.

 

 

I accept that point but that wasn't my question. It was of the legitimacy of a No win in your eyes.

 

And Carney can do all that. However it'll be the government he is accountable to who have to say yes or no. Fwiw I dont agree with currency unions in general. I see it as undemocratic as its removing political control away from a people directly, and may not in all ways see Scottish interests placed in a position of equality with the UK who has a larger economy to protect.

[Das Root]

Out of intetest, would you live with a No result and accept it as Scotland's will? Or would you view it a questionable result because you don't see merit in the No side whatsoever?

 

If Yes happens I can live with that quite happily and continue to vote as I do and engage etc.

 

 

Hey, you missed my question above (in response to one of your posts).

Edited November 29, 2013 by Das Root

[luckydug]

Up in Inverness today for a Business for Scotland briefing. Some very interesting points made by Fergus Ewing with regards energy, currency, exports and rUK. All focused around the Highlands but made some solid points and I would say made some undecideds move towards Yes.

 

A question raised by an audience member...the WP has answered many questions on independence, is it now the time for Yes to pose questions to No...is it now time for No to sell to Scotland why it should stay in the union beyond arguing for the status quo?Valid point imo. What questions would you all have Yes ask No?

 

 

 

Can the NO campaign guarantee that Scotland will not be considered an easy target for cuts in subsidy

once a decision to stay in the UK is achieved ?

 

Can the NO campaign guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished or have its powers diluted in any way if Scotland agrees to stay in the UK ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by luckydug

[Das Root]

 

 

 

 

Can the NO campaign guarantee that Scotland will not be considered an easy target for cuts in subsidy

once a decision to stay in the UK is achieved ?

 

Can the NO campaign guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished or have its powers diluted in any way if Scotland agrees to stay in the UK ?

 

 

From what Ewing said we will see an immediate cut to the block Westminster grant after a No due to austerity measures. Plus there are grumblings that Scotland receives higher spending per person...of course they forget Westminster receives higher taxation per person...so could see further cuts imposed.

[Arnold Rothstein]

A PM whose party won virtually nothing in Scotland, and runs a party essentially despised by the majority in Scotland. I would love to see that poll for sure

 

Yes that's what i was saying........ jings

 

THE POLLS I REFER TO ARE THE ONES SHOWING 'NO' BEING WELL AHEAD OF 'YES'.

 

That cool?

[Coco]

How about you go for 1001? Why should Scotland want to remain in the UK?

 

Also, maybe you could answer Geoff's question?

 

Q1: Why do you claim there is a benefit in sharing a defence policy which makes the UK stronger when UK troops are used as fodder to justify American sabre rattling? What is independent about Westminster in that regard?

 

I suppose that some of the generation (still with us) who fought or lived through the Second World War would appreciate the strength of the Union at that time.

 

I did not agree with Labour's warlust but there is a school of thought that they were an attempt at being a kind of world policeman. Would we rather that the Scottish troops were not involved in Sierra Leone or Kosovo?

[Coco]

Can the NO campaign guarantee that Scotland will not be considered an easy target for cuts in subsidy

once a decision to stay in the UK is achieved ?

 

Can the NO campaign guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished or have its powers diluted in any way if Scotland agrees to stay in the UK ?

 

The Barnett formula is a nonsense - out of date and should be reviewed properly. However, the reason why public spending is likely to fall - in money or real terms - is that the State has been overspending by a huge amount since 2002. There is still a huge structural deficit to correct. Scotland's structural deficit - within or outwith the Union is enormous too - and it is likely that if independent the risk premium on borrowing would be higher. So all told the belt tightening is likely.

 

No Parliament can bind another. So no there can be no guarantee that the Parliament would not be abolished or neutered. The UK constitution doesn't work like that. But there is no significant appetite for shutting down or hauling back powers from Holyrood that I can see. The process of shifting around political power - which has been going on in this country since the 1970s with the EC/regional to local Government in Scotland/devolution etc - looks more likely.

[Patrick Bateman]

How about something revolutionary like... the Scottish Government decides where every penny raised in Scotland is spent? Can someone explain why Scotland *shouldn't* be in charge of its own finances, given that Westminster has squandered the UK's as a whole? They do a lot of risk sharing on our behalf, with the rewards being seen in The City in London. Funny that.

[Das Root]

 

 

Yes that's what i was saying........ jings

 

THE POLLS I REFER TO ARE THE ONES SHOWING 'NO' BEING WELL AHEAD OF 'YES'.

 

That cool?

 

 

Its temporary at best

[Das Root]

 

 

The Barnett formula is a nonsense - out of date and should be reviewed properly. However, the reason why public spending is likely to fall - in money or real terms - is that the State has been overspending by a huge amount since 2002. There is still a huge structural deficit to correct. Scotland's structural deficit - within or outwith the Union is enormous too - and it is likely that if independent the risk premium on borrowing would be higher. So all told the belt tightening is likely.

 

No Parliament can bind another. So no there can be no guarantee that the Parliament would not be abolished or neutered. The UK constitution doesn't work like that. But there is no significant appetite for shutting down or hauling back powers from Holyrood that I can see. The process of shifting around political power - which has been going on in this country since the 1970s with the EC/regional to local Government in Scotland/devolution etc - looks more likely.

 

 

So basically Scotland is going to see some heavy duty squeezing to budgets if we remain in the union and Westminster could just shut everything down if they wanted to?

 

Sounds great, I'm changing my mind to No