Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JamboX2]

Vote Yes ? vote SNP.

 

Yes. Exactly. So why did they feel the need to make the White Paper the 2016 SNP manifesto?

[Patrick Bateman]

A neo-liberal consensus on economic solutions exists in Scotland. A cut in corporation tax is seen by the Scottish Government as the key incentive for businesses. It proposes to maintain UK level tax rates and tax credits. All things dreamt up by the Blair and Major Governments as things designed to give money back instead of collecting it and spending on state services. It's all dependent on a free market making big money quick and spending it. Essentially it's proposing Blair-Brown economics. Not an innovative or lefty economic plan, not even nordic.

 

I am routinely dissapointed by all parties and governments. The Yes side as adopted a centrist and unimaginative approach to issues facing Scotland. It's groundbreaking childcare plan could be delivered under devolution. It proposes to keep a union in currency which will make the economy of an independent Scotland little different from what it is now and will not create a divergent economy of our own, but a convergent economy tied to London dogmas the movement rejects. That's not exactly progressive and imaginative, nor lefty.

 

And, as you know, Yes Scotland is a movement for independence, not a party political movement. The key is getting a Yes vote, then we can help create the sort of Scotland we want. What about the Radical Independence movement? I've posted about them repeatedly; they seem to be the sort of movement that chimes with your political views, yet you'd turn them down. There are no comparably mainstream 'british' left wing radical movements, and even if there was, they'd be slapped down by the financial interests in the City of London; that's political reality.

 

You seem to want to turn down independence on the belief that a No vote is more likely to see your views realised. Again, the reality shows that isn't the case.

[JamboX2]

 

 

And, as you know, Yes Scotland is a movement for independence, not a party political movement. The key is getting a Yes vote, then we can help create the sort of Scotland we want. What about the Radical Independence movement? I've posted about them repeatedly; they seem to be the sort of movement that chimes with your political views, yet you'd turn them down. There are no comparably mainstream 'british' left wing radical movements, and even if there was, they'd be slapped down by the financial interests in the City of London; that's political reality.

 

You seem to want to turn down independence on the belief that a No vote is more likely to see your views realised. Again, the reality shows that isn't the case.

 

You can have all the political ideals in the world. But you need a vehicle to enact them. RiC is saying interesting things but is not able to enact them. On the Unionist side Red Paper Collective is publishing excellent papers on Scotlands future for a yes or no vote. Both need a vehicle to be made possible.

 

Come a yes vote the SNP are the most likely government - barring a meltdown in 2016 come No then too. So what Scotland will look like and the shape of her political future is dependent on what they deliver. Its really that simple.

 

Currency union, a joint energy market, monarchy, NATO, the EU will all limit people power come a yes vote and the scope parties subsequent will have. They may be our choices, but they'll be mere marginal differences. For me, currency union, NATO and the EU are things come Yes need ratified. If not then we are voting for the SNP Yes vision imo.

[Patrick Bateman]

You can have all the political ideals in the world. But you need a vehicle to enact them. RiC is saying interesting things but is not able to enact them. On the Unionist side Red Paper Collective is publishing excellent papers on Scotlands future for a yes or no vote. Both need a vehicle to be made possible.

 

Come a yes vote the SNP are the most likely government - barring a meltdown in 2016 come No then too. So what Scotland will look like and the shape of her political future is dependent on what they deliver. Its really that simple.

 

Currency union, a joint energy market, monarchy, NATO, the EU will all limit people power come a yes vote and the scope parties subsequent will have. They may be our choices, but they'll be mere marginal differences. For me, currency union, NATO and the EU are things come Yes need ratified. If not then we are voting for the SNP Yes vision imo.

 

So you'll vote No because you disagree with a few policies and don't think they're radical enough... when the status quo is already inherently neoliberal and has no foreseeable change on the horizon? Do you not see the fallacy in that thinking?

 

The RiC is made up of people who can, and will, sit for 2016 elections and beyond. Previous successes for the SSP, Scottish Senior Citizens Party and Greens show that minority parties can have influence at Holyrood. There is absolutely no record of this happening at Westminster. The logical conclusion is that a Holyrood with full political powers is more likely to realise your politics.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Independence is a brand new start for Scottish politics. The SNP have indeed set out their vision: it has its merits, it has its weaknesses; it also will not bind an independent Scotland forever. What we do not know is a Labour or a conservative party's vision for a fledgling Scotland.

 

Independence gives these churches freedom from their counterparts in rUK. They may wildly diverge from their counterparts, or there might be slight differences. I hope it's the former if Scotland becomes independent. Of course, there isn't a certainty in this aspect.

 

However, I see more of a chance of a change in the overall political narrative in an independent Scotland than the UK as it is just now. I'd rather jump at the chance for a change rather than the near-certainty of the same old, same old Westminster.

 

You have thoughts, principles, and visions JamboX2; not too different from my own. So the question is: do you see these being realised in the political narrative of UK politics, or in an independent Scotland? As I see it currently, I think it's the latter.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Iago

[JamboX2]

Independence is a brand new start for Scottish politics. The SNP have indeed set out their vision: it has its merits, it has its weaknesses; it also will not bind an independent Scotland forever. What we do not know is a Labour or a conservative party's vision for a fledgling Scotland.

 

Independence gives these churches freedom from their counterparts in rUK. They may wildly diverge from their counterparts, or there might be slight differences. I hope it's the former if Scotland becomes independent. Of course, there isn't a certainty in this aspect.

 

However, I see more of a chance of a change in the overall political narrative in an independent Scotland than the UK as it is just now. I'd rather jump at the chance for a change rather than the near-certainty of the same old, same old Westminster.

 

You have thoughts, principles, and visions JamboX2; not too different from my own. So the question is: do you see these being realised in the political narrative of UK politics, or in an independent Scotland? As I see it currently, I think it's the latter.

 

Its, to me, not a choice between Westminster and Independence. Its how much power one has in Scotland. This multiple Unions business is a smokescreen to me. Its meaningless waffle.

 

Scotland has her own political narrative. The Scottish unionist parties have a history of taking big policy divergences from UK counterparts - free personal care, tuition fees, health provision, education policy. It is possible for difference in the UK. So to me that is a false argument.

 

I would also caution a belief parties will be radically different:

- The Scottish Tories are the Holyrood party these days.

- Labour will be predominantly what it is. The Holyrood parties domestic vision with the ideas of the Westminster MPs. Perhaps nuansced differences in foreign policy. But not much else.

- LibDems are a federal party. So their positions in Scotland now will be the same in 2016.

 

Its not a transformative event. Labour wont become Bennite, Tories wont become one nationers and the LibDems will be what they are. Equally the SNP arent going away and have set their very Westminster-esque position out. Sum total is more of the same.

 

Independence will not deliver much different and wont create a radically lefty Scotland. The SSP is a busted flush, the SSCP is non-existent and the Greens whilst doing well make little big impact these days. Call it pessimistic but I see it as pragmatic.

 

A lot of expectations are being developed on this - growth, better pensions, better child care, better services and neutrality. I reckon some may be dissapointed by all this.

[Boris]

Its, to me, not a choice between Westminster and Independence. Its how much power one has in Scotland. This multiple Unions business is a smokescreen to me. Its meaningless waffle.

 

Scotland has her own political narrative. The Scottish unionist parties have a history of taking big policy divergences from UK counterparts - free personal care, tuition fees, health provision, education policy. It is possible for difference in the UK. So to me that is a false argument.

 

I would also caution a belief parties will be radically different:

- The Scottish Tories are the Holyrood party these days.

- Labour will be predominantly what it is. The Holyrood parties domestic vision with the ideas of the Westminster MPs. Perhaps nuansced differences in foreign policy. But not much else.

- LibDems are a federal party. So their positions in Scotland now will be the same in 2016.

 

Its not a transformative event. Labour wont become Bennite, Tories wont become one nationers and the LibDems will be what they are. Equally the SNP arent going away and have set their very Westminster-esque position out. Sum total is more of the same.

 

Independence will not deliver much different and wont create a radically lefty Scotland. The SSP is a busted flush, the SSCP is non-existent and the Greens whilst doing well make little big impact these days. Call it pessimistic but I see it as pragmatic.

 

A lot of expectations are being developed on this - growth, better pensions, better child care, better services and neutrality. I reckon some may be dissapointed by all this.

 

I agree that immediately there will not be a massive sea change in the main parties agendas, however over time a new political landscape will emerge. Both the Tories and Labour will have to re-evaluate their positions, given they would be governing a country, and not a fiefdom.

[TheMaganator]

We are often told, by Bateman amongst others, that Scotland pays in 9.9% to the pot but only gets 9.3% back.

 

Has anyone actually looked at the actual figures though? According to GERS we pay in ?56,871bn but get back ?64,457bn.

 

Does anyone know how the discrepancy is explained?

Edited December 6, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Coco]

We are often told, by Bateman amongst others, that Scotland pays in 9.9% to the pot but only gets 9.3% back.

 

Has anyone actually looked at the actual figures though? According to GERS we pay in ?56,871bn but get back ?64,457bn.

 

Does anyone know how the discrepancy is explained?

 

Yes, this is described as paying in 'relatively' more. Discussed a number of times on the thread above.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Its, to me, not a choice between Westminster and Independence. Its how much power one has in Scotland. This multiple Unions business is a smokescreen to me. Its meaningless waffle.

 

Scotland has her own political narrative. The Scottish unionist parties have a history of taking big policy divergences from UK counterparts - free personal care, tuition fees, health provision, education policy. It is possible for difference in the UK. So to me that is a false argument.

 

I would also caution a belief parties will be radically different:

- The Scottish Tories are the Holyrood party these days.

- Labour will be predominantly what it is. The Holyrood parties domestic vision with the ideas of the Westminster MPs. Perhaps nuansced differences in foreign policy. But not much else.

- LibDems are a federal party. So their positions in Scotland now will be the same in 2016.

 

Its not a transformative event. Labour wont become Bennite, Tories wont become one nationers and the LibDems will be what they are. Equally the SNP arent going away and have set their very Westminster-esque position out. Sum total is more of the same.

 

Independence will not deliver much different and wont create a radically lefty Scotland. The SSP is a busted flush, the SSCP is non-existent and the Greens whilst doing well make little big impact these days. Call it pessimistic but I see it as pragmatic.

 

A lot of expectations are being developed on this - growth, better pensions, better child care, better services and neutrality. I reckon some may be dissapointed by all this.

 

Yes I see your point. Nothing will change so vote No to make sure nothing will change! Is that it?

[jambos are go!]

Yes I see your point. Nothing will change so vote No to make sure nothing will change! Is that it?

Giving up seats and influence at Westminster comes at a cost . A cost not worth paying if we alienate fellow Scots/ Family down south and have to adhere to UK monetary policy for starters

[JamboX2]

Yes I see your point. Nothing will change so vote No to make sure nothing will change! Is that it?

 

No, the independence movement has failed to come up with a radical alternative to the Westminster way in it's blueprint - which leading Yes Scotland-ers of a different bent politically have told their followers to rally behind. "Eyes on the prize" as Cannavan was quoted as saying at RiC in the Sunday Herald. As I've said political convictions do not take a secondary position to my belief in the constitutional position - which many in Yes Scotland have the other way around. I'd vote for independence if I truly believed I'd see a nation I'd want. I have read the white paper, the answer is, I won't. And from the position we will inherit in 2016 I'd say it'll be as hard to bring about a democratic socialist Scotland as it is a UK.

 

How many nations since 1948 have left NATO? How many have left the EU? - Because these two institutions will enforce interventionism and neo-liberal economics on us through their rules and will.

 

I agree that immediately there will not be a massive sea change in the main parties agendas, however over time a new political landscape will emerge. Both the Tories and Labour will have to re-evaluate their positions, given they would be governing a country, and not a fiefdom.

 

The Tories and Labour have to change and re-evaluate themselves either way to gain more ground on the SNP. Instead of opposing for opposing sake they need to be nuanced in challenging the SNP and exposing the inherent contradictions in their position.

The Tories should be probing the pro-business lines with arguments about their social demcratic wing. Labour by teasing differences on social policy and commitment to poverty reduction with the SNPs right being pro-market, pro-low tax and the cuts to anti-poverty. Independence wont force such a realisation of this sort on them.

 

So you'll vote No because you disagree with a few policies and don't think they're radical enough... when the status quo is already inherently neoliberal and has no foreseeable change on the horizon? Do you not see the fallacy in that thinking?

 

The RiC is made up of people who can, and will, sit for 2016 elections and beyond. Previous successes for the SSP, Scottish Senior Citizens Party and Greens show that minority parties can have influence at Holyrood. There is absolutely no record of this happening at Westminster. The logical conclusion is that a Holyrood with full political powers is more likely to realise your politics.

 

Your last point is more an argument for electoral reform rather than independence.

 

I don't quite see it that way. The UK has a history of gradual change. Coco has pointed to this gradual reform of power in the UK since joining the EU. Change can be affected with will. The reform Acts of the 19th century were kick started by a massacre. It took near 100 years to go from 1832 to 1928 to have universal suffrage of men and women. We are having a referendum on independence because the SNP won an election based on competent governance between 2007 and 2011. In fact polls showed that it was "valence" which won them it - leadership and image rather than policy which made them favourable in both.

 

Independence wasn't the key issue which won it for them. But it's here because of an election they won. If we elect pro-devolution parties or socialist parties in 2016 you will get that brand. Basically, we are let down by parties because we choose not to think outwith them and allow them to construct the debate around us, not us, the people, forming it.

[Alba gu Brath]

 

I am routinely dissapointed by all parties and governments. The Yes side as adopted a centrist and unimaginative approach to issues facing Scotland. It's groundbreaking childcare plan could be delivered under devolution. It proposes to keep a union in currency which will make the economy of an independent Scotland little different from what it is now and will not create a divergent economy of our own, but a convergent economy tied to London dogmas the movement rejects. That's not exactly progressive and imaginative, nor lefty.

 

Please explain?

 

Is the Finnish economy the same as the Greek or Belgian? The facts are that many small nations, either with a currency union (such as Finland and the other Euro nations) or without but in the EU (Denmark for example) or those outwith both such as Norway are all in a better state than we are. ALL are able to take virtually all important decisions by themselves. You make pick holes in the 'Yes' argument but how will your hopes be realised by voting 'no'?

 

Whatever one's views on currency union or the EU, surely we are better off having a direct voice either with the Bank of England and Brussels than using London as mediator 'on our behalf'?

 

As has been pointed out before, there is 'uncertaintly' on both sides however if your politics are progressive, green or left, 'yes' is the only option.

[JamboX2]

 

 

The Eurozone has become a bailout zone because of a LACK of economic convergence between fiscal discipline in the north and a lack of it in the south (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus). The uniform currency is sucking investment into Europes centre (Germany, France and the Benelux).

It has also raised the cost of living in the south to northern standards, yet wages there do no rise to match it. The ECB sets macroeconomic policy to suit the heart of the eurozone whilst bailing out the outer rim.

 

This Stetlingzone has similar ideas in it. A politically neutral bank (who is its political master?), unified interest rates (setting borrowing costs and ergo the costs of business and has a huge impact on housing policy) and the value of sterling itself.

 

The First Minister and Finance Secretary both want to stay convergent economically and that this arrangement must have a permanency to it.

 

Right or wrong, that ties Scotland and successor governments to a stetlingzone project to make it - (a) achievable in negotiations so as not to make the UK government think when it gets tough we'd ditch it (which would be akin to a Greek exit of the euro in market confidence on it) and ( workable.

 

Its a political and economic commitment of huge undertaking that'll be hard to walk from.

 

Convergence in economic policy ties Scotland to the Westminster economic consensus - that doesnt bother Salmond and Swinney becausr they accept those terms - but it does limit the scope for a radical or different way. Hence Green, SSP and RiC oppossition to it and also from Cannavan, MscDonald, Sillars and others on the right like Wilson.

 

So what price independence? The BoE is a state body which MUST review the whole UK economy. That is more than London and the SE of England btw. However, Nationalists want a "stakeholdership" arrangement. PB says 9% of seats. If its done on population that would be 9% of MPC seats go to Scots representatives. So 10 seats to the UK and 2 to Scotland? What chance a Scottish voice will win out?

 

No. If you want a radical future, I'm sorry to say the White Paper vision is not it. Yes RiC, the Greens, The SSP and all the others, but the impact of a Yes vote will create a "white paper consensus" akin to the 1945 one and tge Thatcherism one. It'll be centre-stone of Scottish politics for decades to come. I don't know if I want or think its good enough for Scots.

 

 

[davemclaren]

The Eurozone has become a bailout zone because of a LACK of economic convergence between fiscal discipline in the north and a lack of it in the south (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus). The uniform currency is sucking investment into Europes centre (Germany, France and the Benelux).

It has also raised the cost of living in the south to northern standards, yet wages there do no rise to match it. The ECB sets macroeconomic policy to suit the heart of the eurozone whilst bailing out the outer rim.

 

This Stetlingzone has similar ideas in it. A politically neutral bank (who is its political master?), unified interest rates (setting borrowing costs and ergo the costs of business and has a huge impact on housing policy) and the value of sterling itself.

 

The First Minister and Finance Secretary both want to stay convergent economically and that this arrangement must have a permanency to it.

 

Right or wrong, that ties Scotland and successor governments to a stetlingzone project to make it - (a) achievable in negotiations so as not to make the UK government think when it gets tough we'd ditch it (which would be akin to a Greek exit of the euro in market confidence on it) and ( workable.

 

Its a political and economic commitment of huge undertaking that'll be hard to walk from.

 

Convergence in economic policy ties Scotland to the Westminster economic consensus - that doesnt bother Salmond and Swinney becausr they accept those terms - but it does limit the scope for a radical or different way. Hence Green, SSP and RiC oppossition to it and also from Cannavan, MscDonald, Sillars and others on the right like Wilson.

 

So what price independence? The BoE is a state body which MUST review the whole UK economy. That is more than London and the SE of England btw. However, Nationalists want a "stakeholdership" arrangement. PB says 9% of seats. If its done on population that would be 9% of MPC seats go to Scots representatives. So 10 seats to the UK and 2 to Scotland? What chance a Scottish voice will win out?

 

No. If you want a radical future, I'm sorry to say the White Paper vision is not it. Yes RiC, the Greens, The SSP and all the others, but the impact of a Yes vote will create a "white paper consensus" akin to the 1945 one and tge Thatcherism one. It'll be centre-stone of Scottish politics for decades to come. I don't know if I want or think its good enough for Scots.

 

Salmond is a gradualist and that has worked so far for his ambitions of independence and is also reflected in the white paper. Personally, I think any independent Scotland should have its own currency but an independent country is free to make treaties and arrangements ( and also un-make them ) if both parties see fit.

[JamboX2]

 

Salmond is a gradualist and that has worked so far for his ambitions of independence and is also reflected in the white paper. Personally, I think any independent Scotland should have its own currency but an independent country is free to make treaties and arrangements ( and also un-make them ) if both parties see fit.

 

Whilst I cannot disagree with that position - both factually and principally - I don't accept that it's that simple.

 

The vision for an independent Scotland in the White Paper, backed by Jenkins and Cannavan and Yes Scotland, is a nation in:

 

Nato

The EU, and a

Sterling-zone

 

No popular vote, plebescite, referendum on this, and if the 18 month window pulls it all off, no election to give folk a say on any of those issues. Therefore Yes endorses a NATO, EU and Sterling Scotland - arguably also the child care and constitutional ambitions. That's a huge commitment to swallow.

 

Those 3 issues will shape Scotland as an independent state for 30 + years. They each deserve independent ratification once a Yes vote occurs. And to not get that is undemocratic to me.

 

Why is this an issue to me?

How many nations have left the EU after joining?

Same on NATO, how many? Is it moral to reject nuclear arms and agree to huddle for safety as a group under them?

Will the markets accept a Scottish exit from Sterling? Or will EU and UK political pressure be too much to bare an exit?

 

I am skeptical on all this being as simple as some in the Yes camp are near deluding themselves in to it being.

 

 

 

[davemclaren]

Whilst I cannot disagree with that position - both factually and principally - I don't accept that it's that simple.

 

The vision for an independent Scotland in the White Paper, backed by Jenkins and Cannavan and Yes Scotland, is a nation in:

 

Nato

The EU, and a

Sterling-zone

 

No popular vote, plebescite, referendum on this, and if the 18 month window pulls it all off, no election to give folk a say on any of those issues. Therefore Yes endorses a NATO, EU and Sterling Scotland - arguably also the child care and constitutional ambitions. That's a huge commitment to swallow.

 

Those 3 issues will shape Scotland as an independent state for 30 + years. They each deserve independent ratification once a Yes vote occurs. And to not get that is undemocratic to me.

 

Why is this an issue to me?

How many nations have left the EU after joining?

Same on NATO, how many? Is it moral to reject nuclear arms and agree to huddle for safety as a group under them?

Will the markets accept a Scottish exit from Sterling? Or will EU and UK political pressure be too much to bare an exit?

 

I am skeptical on all this being as simple as some in the Yes camp are near deluding themselves in to it being.

 

Of course it's not simple to change those commitments once they are made but it can be done if you really want to. But voting No effectively gives you the same outcome, assuming the Tories don't get back in, hold their referendum and take us out of the EU.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Of course it's not simple to change those commitments once they are made but it can be done if you really want to. But voting No effectively gives you the same outcome, assuming the Tories don't get back in, hold their referendum and take us out of the EU.

It'd be nice to get the choice on the EU & JamboX2's post above is spot on

[Alba gu Brath]

Of course it's not simple to change those commitments once they are made but it can be done if you really want to. But voting No effectively gives you the same outcome, assuming the Tories don't get back in, hold their referendum and take us out of the EU.

 

 

Naesayers can nitpick all they want but a 'Yes' vote is a start. With 'no' we simply continue the same old with Tory or Tory/UKIP or maybe Labour under Miliband. Independence gives us a choice.Now, if anyone here wants a union, why not unite with Germany or Norway? Let's face it, London is a pretty shoight capital to be ruled from.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[jambos are go!]

Whilst I cannot disagree with that position - both factually and principally - I don't accept that it's that simple.

 

The vision for an independent Scotland in the White Paper, backed by Jenkins and Cannavan and Yes Scotland, is a nation in:

 

Nato

The EU, and a

Sterling-zone

 

No popular vote, plebescite, referendum on this, and if the 18 month window pulls it all off, no election to give folk a say on any of those issues. Therefore Yes endorses a NATO, EU and Sterling Scotland - arguably also the child care and constitutional ambitions. That's a huge commitment to swallow.

 

Those 3 issues will shape Scotland as an independent state for 30 + years. They each deserve independent ratification once a Yes vote occurs. And to not get that is undemocratic to me.

 

Why is this an issue to me?

How many nations have left the EU after joining?

Same on NATO, how many? Is it moral to reject nuclear arms and agree to huddle for safety as a group under them?

Will the markets accept a Scottish exit from Sterling? Or will EU and UK political pressure be too much to bare an exit?

 

I am skeptical on all this being as simple as some in the Yes camp are near deluding themselves in to it being.

Excellent post highlighting the mirage of Independence being offered. Incidently, I think France left NATO for several years in a fit of misguided pique and national self determination. A bit like the YES campaign. Lets hope they repent after next September at least.

 

Other than that the SNP may be taught another serious lesson at next Holyrood Elections by the electorate. The ' Independence is inevitable' mantra ' being peddled even if the Referendum is lost must be put to the Sword if Scotland is to thrive. After all the NO campaign will not get a second chance.

[Ulysses]

The ' Independence is inevitable' mantra ' being peddled even if the Referendum is lost must be put to the Sword if Scotland is to thrive. After all the NO campaign will not get a second chance.

 

If there's a substantial No vote - which on current evidence there will be - then that's the issue settled for decades, if not generations.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

If there's a substantial No vote - which on current evidence there will be - then that's the issue settled for decades, if not generations.

I doubt that somehow.

[Ulysses]

I doubt that somehow.

 

Why? If there's a narrow No vote I can see why the issue would continue to surface. But right now it's looking like there could be a 2-to-1 majority No vote. A result on that scale would be more than just a defeat for the proposal. It would be a clear repudiation of independence by the electorate.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Why? If there's a narrow No vote I can see why the issue would continue to surface. But right now it's looking like there could be a 2-to-1 majority No vote. A result on that scale would be more than just a defeat for the proposal. It would be a clear repudiation of independence by the electorate.

Events, dear boy, events.

[davemclaren]

Excellent post highlighting the mirage of Independence being offered. Incidently, I think France left NATO for several years in a fit of misguided pique and national self determination. A bit like the YES campaign. Lets hope they repent after next September at least.

 

Other than that the SNP may be taught another serious lesson at next Holyrood Elections by the electorate. The ' Independence is inevitable' mantra ' being peddled even if the Referendum is lost must be put to the Sword if Scotland is to thrive. After all the NO campaign will not get a second chance.

 

If the 3 issues of Nato, the EU and the sterling zone comprise a mirage of independence then I suppose that means that the UK has a 66% mirage of independence. The SNP may well be taught a lesson at the next Holyrood election but that's politics. Regardless of the referendum result the SNP will still see Independence as the ultimate goal and should Scotland get further devolution that will be seen as a step in the right direction with an inevitable outcome, regardless of how long it takes.

Edited December 8, 2013 by davemclaren

[TheMaganator]

 

 

If there's a substantial No vote - which on current evidence there will be - then that's the issue settled for decades, if not generations.

You're assuming that camp will accept defeat gracefully. They won't.

 

They'll be hit hard by the loss but'll be back in a decade or so IMO

[TheMaganator]

 

 

If there's a substantial No vote - which on current evidence there will be - then that's the issue settled for decades, if not generations.

You're assuming that camp will accept defeat gracefully. They won't.

 

They'll be hit hard by the loss but'll be back in a decade or so IMO

[Nookie Bear]

You're assuming that camp will accept defeat gracefully. They won't.

 

They'll be hit hard by the loss but'll be back in a decade or so IMO

 

That's all very well and Scotland has every right to keep asking the question, however if they are unable to win a YES vote in the current circumstances then it is hard to imagine a time when they can.

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

 

That's all very well and Scotland has every right to keep asking the question, however if they are unable to win a YES vote in the current circumstances then it is hard to imagine a time when they can.

 

Maybe after the (highly likely) event of Scotland taking an absolute pasting off Westminster in terms of cuts to the block "grant", people will think they maybe shouldn't have swallowed Better Together's lies so easily.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Maybe after the (highly likely) event of Scotland taking an absolute pasting off Westminster in terms of cuts to the block "grant", people will think they maybe shouldn't have swallowed Better Together's lies so easily.

Think we're getting more next year, are we not?

 

How have Better Together lied?

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

Think we're getting more next year, are we not?

 

How have Better Together lied?

 

What do you think happens the next time the grant is decided after a no vote?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So if Scotland is so well off, why does it need the Barnett formula anyway?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

What do you think happens the next time the grant is decided after a no vote?

We'll definitely be punished for having the audacity to have the referendum.

 

Definitely.

 

The best way to appease the Nationalists is definitely to cut the grant and punish us.

 

What do you think will happen if we vote No?

[A Boy Named Crow]

So if Scotland is so well off, why does it need the Barnett formula anyway?

 

The Barnett Formula (supposedly) redistributes money collected at Westminster. In an independent Scotland we wouldn't send vast swathes of tax revenue to London, therefore no Barnett Formula.

[A Boy Named Crow]

We'll definitely be punished for having the audacity to have the referendum.

 

Definitely.

 

The best way to appease the Nationalists is definitely to cut the grant and punish us.

 

What do you think will happen if we vote No?

 

Noy punished in that sense, but there will be a feeling, like people are pointing out here, that it will have been put to bed for a generation. There will therefore be less incentive to play ball, we will be seen as a soft target.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Noy punished in that sense, but there will be a feeling, like people are pointing out here, that it will have been put to bed for a generation. There will therefore be less incentive to play ball, we will be seen as a soft target.

I don't understand why people think that Westminster is out to get us. It's not.

 

The economy is improving, things are picking up & we're hopefully going to see the end of recession.

 

The last few years have been tough, but given the overspending by the last administration cuts were unfortunately going to happen.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The Barnett Formula (supposedly) redistributes money collected at Westminster. In an independent Scotland we wouldn't send vast swathes of tax revenue to London, therefore no Barnett Formula.

 

Quite but to say the Union will give you a financial "kicking" if there is a No vote is a big jump, the equivalent of Better Together's scare stories.

[TheMaganator]

Danny Alexander in today's Scotsman

 

http://m.scotsman.com/news/insight-struggle-solidarity-and-social-justice-1-3224506

[flecktimus]

Danny Alexander in today's Scotsman

 

http://m.scotsman.co...stice-1-3224506

 

Is that the same Douglas Alexander that help New Labour move away from centre left policies.

Edited December 8, 2013 by flecktimus

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Is that the same Douglas Alexander that help New Labour move away from centre left policies.

Aye, Douglas

[Coco]

Some of the political personalities would obviously be finished - Salmond and Swinney presumably wouldn't survive long. They only get one shot at this. Sturgeon also presumably would be most likely to try to rekindle the fire.

 

And of course the zealots would not be satisfied with a 'no' vote and would continue to push for a further vote. A no vote on the scale of the current polls would likely set back their cause for a long time though.

 

Alternatively, surely Cameron would have to step down if there is a Yes vote. To be the Prime Minister who lost Scotland would outweigh even Lord North in the disastrous Prime Minister stakes!

[Ulysses]

 

And of course the zealots would not be satisfied with a 'no' vote and would continue to push for a further vote. A no vote on the scale of the current polls would likely set back their cause for a long time though.

 

 

A No vote on that scale would be as complete a repudiation of independence as it is possible to imagine. After a result like that, any zealots who insisted on pushing the independence agenda would become increasingly marginalised and regarded as cranks. They'd be the political equivalent of the boring pain in the arse that everyone tries to avoid at a party.

 

I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that the No vote will be over 60% and could be closer to a 2 to 1 majority - but that's what the polls are telling us, and the Yes campaign have a very big gap to close.

[Coco]

A No vote on that scale would be as complete a repudiation of independence as it is possible to imagine. After a result like that, any zealots who insisted on pushing the independence agenda would become increasingly marginalised and regarded as cranks. They'd be the political equivalent of the boring pain in the arse that everyone tries to avoid at a party.

 

I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that the No vote will be over 60% and could be closer to a 2 to 1 majority - but that's what the polls are telling us, and the Yes campaign have a very big gap to close.

 

I think it will be much closer than that. I expect that there will be a move from the failing 'managerial' arguments towards 'emotional' and this will find more favour.

[Patrick Bateman]

The Common Weal website has just gone up and is a central part of the independence movement. http://allofusfirst.org

 

Again, this sort of politics simply doesn't exist in the Oxbridge cabal at Westminster.

[Ulysses]

 

I think it will be much closer than that. I expect that there will be a move from the failing 'managerial' arguments towards 'emotional' and this will find more favour.

 

As you might guess from some of my previous posts on this thread, I fail to see why the Yes campaign ever tried this 'managerial competence' strategy in the first place. Of course Scotland can manage itself, and telling people it can isn't exactly big news or the stuff of great political campaigning. The themes of the Yes campaign need to change.

 

It's the vision thing, folks.

[Patrick Bateman]

As you might guess from some of my previous posts on this thread, I fail to see why the Yes campaign ever tried this 'managerial competence' strategy in the first place. Of course Scotland can manage itself, and telling people it can isn't exactly big news or the stuff of great political campaigning. The themes of the Yes campaign need to change.

 

It's the vision thing, folks.

 

People dismissing the Yes Campaign's tactics are ignoring the fact they're operated by people who know what they're doing. Better together are run by Labour activists, the same people who now have a track record for losing elections.

[TheMaganator]

The Common Weal website has just gone up and is a central part of the independence movement. http://allofusfirst.org

 

Again, this sort of politics simply doesn't exist in the Oxbridge cabal at Westminster.

It's calling for an increase in public sector jobs as it sees that as a way to stimulate the economy. It wants to couple this with increasing taxes on corporations - based on their global turnover.

 

Do they seriously expect big companies to want to operate here if they're going to be pummelled by a tax system that's much more severe than that of rUK?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

People dismissing the Yes Campaign's tactics are ignoring the fact they're operated by people who know what they're doing. Better together are run by Labour activists, the same people who now have a track record for losing elections.

Then why isn't their support increasing in the polls (the non-Panelbase-wings polls)?

[Ulysses]

Then why isn't their support increasing in the polls (the non-Panelbase-wings polls)?

 

The publication of the White Paper was followed by a poll with a huge No majority. In fact, it might have been the first poll to show more than a 2 to 1 No lead. No poll since the referendum question was set has shown a Yes lead, with the exception of one a few weeks ago which as it turned out had a methodological flaw in it compared to other polls.

[flecktimus]

Then why isn't their support increasing in the polls (the non-Panelbase-wings polls)?

 

As i have pointed out before it is a Grand National not a 5f sprint.

 

The real debate is still months away.