Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So by this logic, should Cumbria and Northumberland come under Holyrood as well since Westminster has failed? Maybe parts of Northern Ireland too?

[Patrick Bateman]

So by this logic, should Cumbria and Northumberland come under Holyrood as well since Westminster has failed? Maybe parts of Northern Ireland too?

 

Given that they aren't part of Scotland, no, and I don't really see the logic there. If they established assemblies and sought to become independent states themselves, then so be it. Decisions are best made closer to the people that are affected by them, particularly when the needs of people in the largest population bases (i.e. Essex and the rest of the South East of England) are radically different to the needs of people within Scotland. These needs can obviously be further broken down in terms of lowland/highland, city/country and so on, but that's another debate. There seems to be a view that Scottish independence is a curious or unique cause; the goings on in the rest of Europe prove otherwise.

[Groot]

Ha ha, not much between Norwegians & Swedes try telling them that

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Given that they aren't part of Scotland, no, and I don't really see the logic there. If they established assemblies and sought to become independent states themselves, then so be it. Decisions are best made closer to the people that are affected by them, particularly when the needs of people in the largest population bases (i.e. Essex and the rest of the South East of England) are radically different to the needs of people within Scotland. These needs can obviously be further broken down in terms of lowland/highland, city/country and so on, but that's another debate. There seems to be a view that Scottish independence is a curious or unique cause; the goings on in the rest of Europe prove otherwise.

The logic here is why does political failure only extend as far as the Tweed and the Solway? If I lived in Dumfries, wouldn't decisions affecting Carlisle impact me more than decisions affecting Aberdeen?

[JamboX2]

 

 

I have never, ever said Scots are particularly better at solving problems. However, when Westminster has failed to the extent that it has, and when you consider other countries comparable (or smaller size) to Scotland in terms of population size and assets are significantly better managed, then independence makes more sense. If it could have happened within the United Kingdom, why hasn't it? You've said you want a no vote because it means we remain part of the same foreign policies which cost vast sums of money, whilst people here live live in relative and fuel poverty in an otherwise wealthy and energy rich nation. I don't think that's acceptable, I can't see where this change will come from by voting no, because the political leverage will disappear and Scotland's needs will never be the paramount consideration at Westminster, nor should it be because of the numbers.

 

So if Westminster has failed what has caused the failure?

 

And if Cumbria and Northern Ireland shouldnt join us because they arent part of Scotland is that not part of a national identity strand? If this is purely due to a failed system, and for some reason you see a major chance for change with a Scots one, why stop them joining us? The problems they face are as much like the problems Scots face.

 

Independence creates options that do not exist as part of the UK. That excites me. A no vote guarantees more of the same uncertainties; democratic deficit, wasteful military spending, failed tax system and out of touch Governments. You seem to think there will be reform following a No vote; reform requires political leverage and will. You do not gain leverage by dispensing with it, ever. Indeed, I find it astonishing that Labour have the gall to make promises without power, and that people trust a Tory government who have implimented numerous damaging policies. Before they came to power, they said they'd tax the bankers; they went on to cut the top rate of tax. They said they'd 'Go green' and they scrapped energy related taxes for a short term boost. They didn't say anything about selling off the royal mail yet did it anyway, undervalue too. I'd much rather have the 'uncertainty' of independence with greater control over Scotland's future, rather than the uncertainty created by us having 9% of control as we do right now and being part of reckless, short term thinking that dictates Westminster politics. Now, I know you've said 'But you can't PROVE independence will change that' and of course I can't, I'm not saying it will, but to continue down this well travelled, and totally failed path, when independence offers a different direction, is astonishing.

 

1. What options? A change of politics and will seems far away from Scots politicians who'll inhabit Holyrood. RiC, Jimmy Reid, who's embracing their ideas and making policy from them?

 

2. Why cant a party out of power propose an alternative to those in power? Thats what youve said on Labour.

 

3. I dont like the Tories too but every government will let you down. Labour-LibDem-SNP-Tory-Green-SSP they'd all betray or not do something promised. The SNP have promised a lot not done. So why does that become a constitutional argument for Yes?

 

4. NATO, EU, Sterling, BBC, common defence, shared regulators, limited state involvement in areas like housing and the markets - all things Yes Scotland have said would stay. To me, its a more Scots face on it all. Not a fresh new exciting start.

[Patrick Bateman]

The logic here is why does political failure only extend as far as the Tweed and the Solway? If I lived in Dumfries, wouldn't decisions affecting Carlisle impact me more than decisions affecting Aberdeen?

 

I didn't say anything about political failure not existing in other parts of these islands, it evidently does. However, Scotland's jurisdiction has clear legal borders, under which Holyrood should have full political control. If Carlisle and Cumbria had some sort of local election where it decided it wanted to join Scotland, and the Scottish parliament accepted this request, then so be it. Whilst I'm sympathetic to issues in Carlisle, Liverpool and so on, I'm also sympathetic to issues in Barcelona, Bordeaux and so on, but it doesn't mean I think Scotland should be governed from there, nor should we seek to interfere in their affairs either.

[Vic Vespa]

The logic here is why does political failure only extend as far as the Tweed and the Solway? If I lived in Dumfries, wouldn't decisions affecting Carlisle impact me more than decisions affecting Aberdeen?

 

No systems perfect but I would imagine a decision for the benefit of Aberdeen would be better for Carlisle than a decision made for the benefit of Londonshire which in turn would make make Dumfries happy

[JamboX2]

 

 

Given that they aren't part of Scotland, no, and I don't really see the logic there. If they established assemblies and sought to become independent states themselves, then so be it. Decisions are best made closer to the people that are affected by them, particularly when the needs of people in the largest population bases (i.e. Essex and the rest of the South East of England) are radically different to the needs of people within Scotland. These needs can obviously be further broken down in terms of lowland/highland, city/country and so on, but that's another debate. There seems to be a view that Scottish independence is a curious or unique cause; the goings on in the rest of Europe prove otherwise.

 

The cost of living, wages, earnings, housing prices and shortfalls, youth unemployment, job security, national and personal debt are all common problems across Scotland, the UK and the EU. How do these radically differ for a poor man in Zagreb to one in Dumfries. Or a middle class man in Bognor Regis to Arbroath. Or a taxi driver from Edinburgh to one in London? In truth they dont really. The "system" doesnt work wherever you are to certain people. In the absence of real substantive change to the economy amd its running from Yes I fail to see how independence will alter this.

[JamboX2]

 

 

I didn't say anything about political failure not existing in other parts of these islands, it evidently does. However, Scotland's jurisdiction has clear legal borders, under which Holyrood should have full political control. If Carlisle and Cumbria had some sort of local election where it decided it wanted to join Scotland, and the Scottish parliament accepted this request, then so be it. Whilst I'm sympathetic to issues in Carlisle, Liverpool and so on, I'm also sympathetic to issues in Barcelona, Bordeaux and so on, but it doesn't mean I think Scotland should be governed from there, nor should we seek to interfere in their affairs either.

 

So do you believe in tinkering at the edges of the global failing of capitalism from varying small polities? Or of a group concerted effort? I favour the latter. From this I take it you the former. It is to me strange that if tge reason for independence is solely a failing of westminster that a national border on the Solway-Tweed is necessary at all. If its all merely how power is exercised then independence is replaced by a need for political change. Not constitutional ones in which borders arise.

[Patrick Bateman]

So if Westminster has failed what has caused the failure?

 

And if Cumbria and Northern Ireland shouldnt join us because they arent part of Scotland is that not part of a national identity strand? If this is purely due to a failed system, and for some reason you see a major chance for change with a Scots one, why stop them joining us? The problems they face are as much like the problems Scots face.

 

 

 

1. What options? A change of politics and will seems far away from Scots politicians who'll inhabit Holyrood. RiC, Jimmy Reid, who's embracing their ideas and making policy from them?

 

2. Why cant a party out of power propose an alternative to those in power? Thats what youve said on Labour.

 

3. I dont like the Tories too but every government will let you down. Labour-LibDem-SNP-Tory-Green-SSP they'd all betray or not do something promised. The SNP have promised a lot not done. So why does that become a constitutional argument for Yes?

 

4. NATO, EU, Sterling, BBC, common defence, shared regulators, limited state involvement in areas like housing and the markets - all things Yes Scotland have said would stay. To me, its a more Scots face on it all. Not a fresh new exciting start.

 

1. I don't have all day; a mixture of external and internal factors that Westminster has failed to adjust to over the past century. That's about as concise as I can express myself, I'm sure you know which events I'm referring to. It's an archaic, adverserial political system that is riddled with corruption and special interests. Not unique, of course, but there are far better ways of doing things.

 

2. Explained above.

 

3. Create a clear tax structure, choose to spend money on education rather than renewing Trident and storing nuclear weapons on our soil, creating a more equitable welfare system rather than one that pays amongst the lowest pensions and meagre unemployment support when compared to European neighbours. I'm sure there are many more examples; they don't exist within the UK, and why haven't they been created before now? The most obvious answer is a lack of political will. That's because Westminster is largely an old boys club, and one that believes itself to compete for a few hundred thousand swing votes in key marginals in the South East of England.

 

4. They can promise all they want; they don't have any authority to actually make those changes, and when this is a constitutional matter that will be settled before the next UK general election, it is disingenuous of them to suggest they claim they can offer something. A bit like their 'Vote Labour to send the Tories a message' campaign in 2011.

 

5. That's a little like saying 'All politicians are liars' - It just isn't true. Sure, no parties will uphold every election pledge, but I can't really think of the SNP implementing many policies that weren't in their manifesto. I can think of a fair few that weren't in the Tories. Again, I'm not claiming that independence will lead to some golden age of politics or some perfect model, but there will be no improvement in propping up the status quo. That's exactly what the no vote does.

 

6. First off, voting No means none of these things change, so it's not really an argument against independence. As for the BBC? We will have access to their programs but there will be an independent broadcaster, I'm pretty sure that has already been covered. I'm not sure where Yes Scotland has mentioned limited involvement in housing or the markets; these are quite separate party political issues. I'm sure a refreshed and reenergised Scottish Labour, who aren't lead by the hand from London, will come up with interesting and new policies. Or we could vote no and they'll stay the same. They had their 'reform' under devolution remember, JoLa is meant to be in control of Labour in Scotland and she clearly isn't.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I didn't say anything about political failure not existing in other parts of these islands, it evidently does. However, Scotland's jurisdiction has clear legal borders, under which Holyrood should have full political control. If Carlisle and Cumbria had some sort of local election where it decided it wanted to join Scotland, and the Scottish parliament accepted this request, then so be it. Whilst I'm sympathetic to issues in Carlisle, Liverpool and so on, I'm also sympathetic to issues in Barcelona, Bordeaux and so on, but it doesn't mean I think Scotland should be governed from there, nor should we seek to interfere in their affairs either.

Exactly. Scotland has a clear jurisdiction, defined on the Scottish nation and hence why nationhood cannot be dismissed.

[Patrick Bateman]

Exactly. Scotland has a clear jurisdiction, defined on the Scottish nation and hence why nationhood cannot be dismissed.

 

Scotland has a clear legal jurisdiction, it does not have the full political jurisdiction. That's what a Yes vote brings (aside from semantic discussions about EU membership and external forces, etc)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Scotland has a clear legal jurisdiction, it does not have the full political jurisdiction. That's what a Yes vote brings (aside from semantic discussions about EU membership and external forces, etc)

Quite. My point is in response to those dismissing nationhood as a reason for voting one way or the other.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Identity ! When folks ask where ma burds from and I say near Barton their eyes light up till I say Pilton......just sayin like!

 

[JamboX2]

1. I don't have all day; a mixture of external and internal factors that Westminster has failed to adjust to over the past century. That's about as concise as I can express myself, I'm sure you know which events I'm referring to. It's an archaic, adverserial political system that is riddled with corruption and special interests. Not unique, of course, but there are far better ways of doing things.

 

Of course. And even when we do things better they can be improved on still. My point to you would be Westminster has adjusted in it's operation. The major flaws are Lords reform and electoral reform. Those are the only real procedural issues at stake at Westminster in how it works. So to say Westminster has failed is wrong. The best way to put it would be that UK wide parties have adhered to the neo-liberal consensus - one the SNP don't mind adhering to either - and not structured a new way. I'd say to that Ed Miliband talks well on a "new" way. But whether that's followed up is open to debate.

 

2. Explained above.

 

3. Create a clear tax structure, choose to spend money on education rather than renewing Trident and storing nuclear weapons on our soil, creating a more equitable welfare system rather than one that pays amongst the lowest pensions and meagre unemployment support when compared to European neighbours. I'm sure there are many more examples; they don't exist within the UK, and why haven't they been created before now? The most obvious answer is a lack of political will. That's because Westminster is largely an old boys club, and one that believes itself to compete for a few hundred thousand swing votes in key marginals in the South East of England.

 

Trident amounts to ?200 million p.a. A lot, but not a great deal in the grand scheme of things in terms of Scottish expenditure. Considering it's estimated by the SNP that abolition of the Bedroom tax is half that amount, it shows that whilst it could be better spent, it's not a huge sum. The real issue here isn't cost but the morality of it. Money will always be wasted. But it's a bad thing to have. End of. Moving it a few hundred miles away wont change that. Neither will joining NATO and supporting nuclear weapons in collective defence.

 

Then again we could look North on unemployment benefits. 6 months max before reduced to a level below our own levels. Our welfare system is by no means perfect. Would be a joke to argue that. But it's not great elsewhere. It again is context dependent. A lot of Nordic model nations have generous benefits for those in work. Not for those out of it. There's also a high degree of contribution. Denmark's child care operates on a model of a sliding scale of contribution based on earnings. Sweden has a tough unemployment benefit which forces people back into work - in fact the deadlines on it are so structured that it made IDS winch. The benefits are structured to favour work and those in it. To look at unemployment rates is wrong. Look at it through the prism of for those in work and it's all structured to help those in work and people in work. Contribution, not universalism, is also the cornerstone of it. Two elements which Britian's, or an independent Scotland's welfare, should be based on. Universalism is not great at targeting help at those who need it most. So the question of equitable must be considered;

 

- is it for generous handouts

- is it for supporting people to better themselves

 

The UK model is stuck in limbo between the two in all honesty.

 

4. They can promise all they want; they don't have any authority to actually make those changes, and when this is a constitutional matter that will be settled before the next UK general election, it is disingenuous of them to suggest they claim they can offer something. A bit like their 'Vote Labour to send the Tories a message' campaign in 2011.

 

The 2011 message was non-existent imo. There was no message frankly. I don't get your point though. Is it in your opinion dishonest or not credible to say "we'll offer our alternative pre vote. If No wins then we'll enact it following the election". It's as credible as the SNP white paper on childcare - "vote yes, vote snp, get free childcare improved". It's basically the same type of offer. Or is your point that oppositions cannot offer anything against a government because outwith government they are powerless? If it's the former - well they're all at it. If the latter, then opposition is worthless as an occupation and we'd be better served by 1 party governance.

 

5. That's a little like saying 'All politicians are liars' - It just isn't true. Sure, no parties will uphold every election pledge, but I can't really think of the SNP implementing many policies that weren't in their manifesto. I can think of a fair few that weren't in the Tories. Again, I'm not claiming that independence will lead to some golden age of politics or some perfect model, but there will be no improvement in propping up the status quo. That's exactly what the no vote does.

 

No it's not. It's basically saying all governments will not please everyone, even their supporters, so dressing it up as - once we get independence it wont matter because it's the government "Scotland wanted" is wrong. Folk who voted Tory were let down in three ways - 1. They didn't get a centrist enough government, 2. They didn't get a right enough government, 3. They never got a full Tory government. The Liberals and Tories made a coalition, and in every coalition there's the compromise and policies lost and withered away. The SNP promised writing off student debt, re-regulating the buses, stopping the Tram project, cutting class sizes at all primary levels and maintaining spending levels at local level whilst reforming local government finance and having a funded freeze till then. None actually done effectively. A sign no government will, can or is able of doing all it promises. Down to different reasons in a lot of areas for all. But not quite they are all liars as you are saying. More just reality. So to be dissapointed by a government so readily is to ignore the reality. Governments must be viewed in totality of agenda and outcomes. So from that, I can say the SNP have done well. The Coalition is doing admirable for a coalition of liberals-social liberals-social democrats-eurosceptics-eurofanatics-thatcherites and heathites, even if I don't agree with their policies. The Labour Government of 1997-2010 done well, ended badly, but made some real progress on repairing some social wounds Thatcher exacerbated. The Lab-Libs in Scotland done well as well and took some principled stands against their Westminster parties and took the lead UK wide on many things. But none did all they said, all broke promisies, all did things unexpected which angered many. All governments won't please folk. That was my point.

 

You're right Yes wont change that. But to say politics can't change because the Act of Union remains valid. There's no guarantee either way. We both accept that. My point to you is I see nothing in Scottish politics now, or from those who'll be the leading lights post-Yes win that suggests it'll be any different. Therefore saying Yes is the only chance of improvement is mad.

 

6. First off, voting No means none of these things change, so it's not really an argument against independence. As for the BBC? We will have access to their programs but there will be an independent broadcaster, I'm pretty sure that has already been covered. I'm not sure where Yes Scotland has mentioned limited involvement in housing or the markets; these are quite separate party political issues. I'm sure a refreshed and reenergised Scottish Labour, who aren't lead by the hand from London, will come up with interesting and new policies. Or we could vote no and they'll stay the same. They had their 'reform' under devolution remember, JoLa is meant to be in control of Labour in Scotland and she clearly isn't.

 

The issues of markets and housing I address from the Yes endorsed White Paper. It offers light touch regulation, shared regulation and current market regulation. So nothing radically different there, or nothing we can radically depart from the UK on. Housing was a limp wristed response as well from it. Political issues, in a largely political document with no real good stuff to say on.

 

I'm sure come a Yes, or a No vote, political solutions will be offered by all parties. However, Scottish Labour on devolved policy and reserved policy has it's own opinions - the Jackie Baillie debacle as some coined it on the bedroom tax was one where it was clearly in voice opposed to and earlier on than the Westminster one. The Free Personal Care issue was one again where big differences were made and taken. I agree on Falkirk it was muddled on who was in charge of what. But in all No parties they are in charge of their own policies - especially relating to devolved matters. To say otherwise, imo, is disengenuous.

[Alfred]

 

 

Exactly. Scotland has a clear jurisdiction, defined on the Scottish nation and hence why nationhood cannot be dismissed.

 

 

Scotland has a clear legal jurisdiction, it does not have the full political jurisdiction. That's what a Yes vote brings (aside from semantic discussions about EU membership and external forces, etc)

 

Quite. My point is in response to those dismissing nationhood as a reason for voting one way or the other.

 

If by nationhood we're meaning ethnic Scots, then it's not a reason to vote one way or another, if on the other hand it's all the great variety of races etc (even hobos!) that make up the Scottish population then it is a reason to make a choice.... I.e. Do you want the decisions to be made closer to where you live and work/they impact on us?

 

I know we've mentioned Northumberland etc, I can't see how an argument for independence could ever get off the ground for them but all the English regions should really be given the chance at some form of Devolution, this would help tailor locally impacting policies right across the piece (and if this had been implemented when Scotland originally got devolution, the out of touch central government perception that some have would not exist and maybe the independence question would never have become so strong)

 

 

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If by nationhood we're meaning ethnic Scots, then it's not a reason to vote one way or another, if on the other hand it's all the great variety of races etc (even hobos!) that make up the Scottish population then it is a reason to make a choice.... I.e. Do you want the decisions to be made closer to where you live and work/they impact on us?

 

I know we've mentioned Northumberland etc, I can't see how an argument for independence could ever get off the ground for them but all the English regions should really be given the chance at some form of Devolution, this would help tailor locally impacting policies right across the piece (and if this had been implemented when Scotland originally got devolution, the out of touch central government perception that some have would not exist and maybe the independence question would never have become so strong)

 

The reason nationhood was brought up was to do with comments aimed at Ulysses and myself, both of whom are not Scottish. My point in this regard was that as someone who wasn't Scottish, I would deliberately not vote in any referendum even if I was still living in Scotland because to me it is up to Scots and no one else to determine their own future. This didn't seem to satisfy some people who do have votes who demanded we say whether we were YES or NO supporters, which I've shown to be arrant nonsense.

[Alfred]

 

 

 

The reason nationhood was brought up was to do with comments aimed at Ulysses and myself, both of whom are not Scottish. My point in this regard was that as someone who wasn't Scottish, I would deliberately not vote in any referendum even if I was still living in Scotland because to me it is up to Scots and no one else to determine their own future. This didn't seem to satisfy some people who do have votes who demanded we say whether we were YES or NO supporters, which I've shown to be arrant nonsense.

 

Fair dos... I noticed that line of questioning!

 

If like you I wasn't directly involved then I also wouldn't want pigeonholed into one camp or another.

 

As an aside though, I would also say that if you DID still live here paying taxes etc etc then it should be right that you at least have the chance to vote? (That's assuming Scotland was going to be a permanent home of course, I'd guess if it was a case of here for a few years working before leaving then abstaining makes sense)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Fair dos... I noticed that line of questioning!

 

If like you I wasn't directly involved then I also wouldn't want pigeonholed into one camp or another.

 

As an aside though, I would also say that if you DID still live here paying taxes etc etc then it should be right that you at least have the chance to vote? (That's assuming Scotland was going to be a permanent home of course, I'd guess if it was a case of here for a few years working before leaving then abstaining makes sense)

 

Well. I lived in Scotland for 15 years. In that time, I voted in every election except one - the 1997 referendum where I deliberately abstained.

 

I grew up in a country where the right of self-determination to me is paramount to its future - Northern Ireland. I therefore wouldn't be hypocritical in taking part in someone else's constitutional future.

[The Real Maroonblood]

There has been a lot of discussion if Scotland voted for independence they would have to negotiate to join the EU as a new country.

If so surely England would be in the same position. Or is it the case that the UK has always been really England.

[Alfred]

 

I grew up in a country where the right of self-determination to me is paramount to its future - Northern Ireland. I therefore wouldn't be hypocritical in taking part in someone else's constitutional future.

 

There has been a lot of discussion if Scotland voted for independence they would have to negotiate to join the EU as a new country.

If so surely England would be in the same position. Or is it the case that the UK has always been really England.

 

Thanks Geoff, that makes a lot of sense (again!)

 

Real M.... My understanding on the EU position, from SNP info as well as quotes from European politicians etc is that

 

IF Scotland voted yes, then negotiations would start... There's what, 14- 18 months until actual independence? If no agreement has been reached for Scotland to remain within the EU on the day of independence then Scotland would go into the BAU application process, the quickest was 24 months from a standing start, this time was to prove that you have proper political democratic processes (why Ukraine have recently pulled out?), proper justice systems and conform to human rights legislation, can't remember the country, was Sweden or similar? Of course, Scotland already conforms to all entry requirements.

 

The other element is getting approval from the rest of the EU, the biggest sticking point that gets raised is opposition from Spain. One of Spain's biggest industries is fishing (size wise ranked around 5th in the world). Over the years the UK and Spain have been at logger heads regarding access to Scottish waters, in one case the UK lost and paid ~14 million+ in compensation. A Spanish no vote would equate to the decimation of one of their major industries.

 

I also read that the rUK would also be involved in a negotiation, not to get "back in" but to agree new (lower) levels of payments, back subsidies etc.

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Geoff, that makes a lot of sense (again!)

 

Real M.... My understanding on the EU position, from SNP info as well as quotes from European politicians etc is that

 

IF Scotland voted yes, then negotiations would start... There's what, 14- 18 months until actual independence? If no agreement has been reached for Scotland to remain within the EU on the day of independence then Scotland would go into the BAU application process, the quickest was 24 months from a standing start, this time was to prove that you have proper political democratic processes (why Ukraine have recently pulled out?), proper justice systems and conform to human rights legislation, can't remember the country, was Sweden or similar? Of course, Scotland already conforms to all entry requirements.

 

The other element is getting approval from the rest of the EU, the biggest sticking point that gets raised is opposition from Spain. One of Spain's biggest industries is fishing (size wise ranked around 5th in the world). Over the years the UK and Spain have been at logger heads regarding access to Scottish waters, in one case the UK lost and paid ~14 million+ in compensation. A Spanish no vote would equate to the decimation of one of their major industries.

 

I also read that the rUK would also be involved in a negotiation, not to get "back in" but to agree new (lower) levels of payments, back subsidies etc.

I appreciate your reply which was very informative.

[Alba gu Brath]

Looks like the Tories aint taking the polls at face value.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Looks like the Tories aint taking the polls at face value.

 

And yet they have the least to lose!

[TheMaganator]

It was widely reported yesterday that there were many serious unresolved issues contained in the legal advice given to the SNP - for our entry into the EU.

 

Strangely these were left out of the White Paper.

 

The SNPs only goal is to get you to vote Yes.

 

Has anyone seen the laughable state of the poll they just conducted (via Panelbase, naturally) about a sterling zone?

 

"Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among each other's largest trading partners. Putting aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, if independence does happen do you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue using the pound in an agreed sterling area?"

 

It would be funny if what they were doing didn't have such serious consequences.

 

Edited December 29, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Alfred]

It was widely reported yesterday that there were many serious unresolved issues contained in the legal advice given to the SNP - for our entry into the EU.

 

Strangely these were left out of the White Paper.

 

The SNPs only goal is to get you to vote Yes.

 

Has anyone seen the laughable state of the poll they just conducted (via Panelbase, naturally) about a sterling zone?

 

"Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among each other's largest trading partners. Putting aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, if independence does happen do you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue using the pound in an agreed sterling area?"

 

It would be funny if what they were doing didn't have such serious consequences.

 

Regardless of being pro/anti on independence that question is a perfect example of how to word something to get the answer you want!

 

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Regardless of being pro/anti on independence that question is a perfect example of how to word something to get the answer you want!

True.

They are undoubtedly good at spin.

[smallfaces]

It was widely reported yesterday that there were many serious unresolved issues contained in the legal advice given to the SNP - for our entry into the EU.

HI

Strangely these were left out of the White Paper.

 

The SNPs only goal is to get you to vote Yes.

 

Has anyone seen the laughable state of the poll they just conducted (via Panelbase, naturally) about a sterling zone?

 

"Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among each other's largest trading partners. Putting aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, if independence does happen do you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue using the pound in an agreed sterling area?"

 

It would be funny if what they were doing didn't have such serious consequences.

 

Not being a follower of politics, what was the SNP currency policy prior to the White Paper?

A new Scottish currency? ?10m

Formally join the EU and use the Euro?

Or was a continuing Sterling always policy?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Not being a follower of politics, what was the SNP currency policy prior to the White Paper?

A new Scottish currency? ?10m

Formally join the EU and use the Euro?

Or was a continuing Sterling always policy?

They previously wanted the Euro. They then deemed a currency union to be bonkers so proposed...another currency union (because they know people are fond of sterling):

[JamboX2]

Looks like the Tories aint taking the polls at face value.

 

 

All newspapers love close races. George Eatons take on this story is worth a read:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/if-tories-are-worried-about-scotland-voting-independence-they-shouldnt-be

Edited December 29, 2013 by JamboX2

[TheMaganator]

 

 

All newspapers love close races. George Eatons take on this story is worth a read:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/if-tories-are-worried-about-scotland-voting-independence-they-shouldnt-be

As is Rev Stu Campbell's comment on same (he's the chap that runs Wingsoverscotland - he lives in bath but 'intends' to move back to vote). Anyway, when did the Yes campaign start?:

 

"The whole premise of this article is so bizarre. It's like a bookmaker paying out on the result of a football match because it's 2-0 after 35 minutes.

 

Last week I watched Aberdeen go in at half-time 4-0 up against Inverness and looking set for double figures. For the last 10 minutes I was hiding behind the sofa as Inverness looked for the equaliser.

 

Admittedly the Dons did cling on, barely, with battered woodwork, to win 4-3. But when a week is a long time in politics, only a complete muppet calls the result of anything nine MONTHS out with the polls all moving (albeit still slowly) in the other direction."

[JamboX2]

 

As is Rev Stu Campbell's comment on same (he's the chap that runs Wingsoverscotland - he lives in bath but 'intends' to move back to vote). Anyway, when did the Yes campaign start?:

 

"The whole premise of this article is so bizarre. It's like a bookmaker paying out on the result of a football match because it's 2-0 after 35 minutes.

 

Last week I watched Aberdeen go in at half-time 4-0 up against Inverness and looking set for double figures. For the last 10 minutes I was hiding behind the sofa as Inverness looked for the equaliser.

 

Admittedly the Dons did cling on, barely, with battered woodwork, to win 4-3. But when a week is a long time in politics, only a complete muppet calls the result of anything nine MONTHS out with the polls all moving (albeit still slowly) in the other direction."

 

So Aberdeen are the No camp. Caley the Yes. And he expects a narrow defeat? Strange for him.

 

I dont know how it'll pan out and I wont predict it but there's a distinct lack of backing or swing to Yes showing right now. If they are to win I'd expect to see this shift in the next 3 months. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

The Yes side speak of dynamic political realignment come a Yes win. However, the impact of a No vote is equally interesting and its based on the same principle - whats the SNPs place if their reason for being is rejected by the people?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

So Aberdeen are the No camp. Caley the Yes. And he expects a narrow defeat? Strange for him.

 

I dont know how it'll pan out and I wont predict it but there's a distinct lack of backing or swing to Yes showing right now. If they are to win I'd expect to see this shift in the next 3 months. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

The Yes side speak of dynamic political realignment come a Yes win. However, the impact of a No vote is equally interesting and its based on the same principle - whats the SNPs place if their reason for being is rejected by the people?

I read that the SNP think they'll have to be ahead in the polls by May in order to hold & go on to win it.

 

It certainly will be interesting as posters on here and in the Yes camp at large have stated that the real campaign hasn't started yet. Quite what they've got in their locker is anyone's guess.

[JamboX2]

 

I read that the SNP think they'll have to be ahead in the polls by May in order to hold & go on to win it.

 

It certainly will be interesting as posters on here and in the Yes camp at large have stated that the real campaign hasn't started yet. Quite what they've got in their locker is anyone's guess.

 

The Budget at Westminster would be my guess. That and a pushing of select parts of the white paper. If Yes wins it'll be rightly considered the greatest turn around in British politics. It'll bring down the PM, hand Labour the 2015 election and the SNP the 2016. I'm still skeptical such things will happen to swing a Yes vote.

 

I am still certain the No parties will propose their devo-next platforms and that may cause a push on the identity and scots patriotism buttons. Its always been there. Pete Wishart said at the outset said 2014 with the Glasgow Games, Ryder Cup and possibility of Scotland in Brazil's World Cup would help win a Yes vote.

[coconut doug]

JamboX2

 

In response to a statement that there will be no improvement in propping up the status quo You said ?You're right Yes won?t change that. But to say politics can't change because the Act of Union remains valid. There's no guarantee either way. We both accept that. My point to you is I see nothing in Scottish politics now, or from those who'll be the leading lights post-Yes win that suggests it'll be any different. Therefore saying Yes is the only chance of improvement is mad? There must be a lot of us mad people since around 35% of us think it?s the only or best way of going forward. Another 10-15% presumably are still trying to work out if we are mad.

 

I didn?t suddenly decide to become mad and support Yes. It was a long and considered journey and I am a relatively new arrival. I have not passed anybody coming in the opposite direction and so I know that the overall direction of travel is toward Yes, even if the current might not be strong enough for a yes majority. There is no guarantee as you say, that things will improve post Yes but I believe there is a strong likelihood that it will and that there are clear reasons for thinking this. We have very little to lose and a lot to gain.

 

Politics in the U.K. will not change because there is a democratic deficit, partly recognised by yourself but underplayed. We, in Scotland will have no House of Lords. This will speed up legislation but not at the cost of scrutiny because our bills will be considered by a wider range of democratically elected representatives because we have proportional representation.

 

The House of Lords will remain for the foreseeable future. Recent reforms reducing the hereditary element and replacing it with the Cash for peerages incumbents are seen as democratic reforms. I remember Labour promising to abolish the HOL by creating a thousand Labour peers. Instead we had Blair selling peerages and the HOL refusing to accept them as they were unfit even by their standards. Donors influencing and determining policy in return for a seat in the legislature shows the contempt Labour had for people and democracy.

 

Mrs Thatcher and her ilk declared Socialism dead and this could not have been better exemplified than with Blair and Brown. Perhaps a vestige remained in Scotland, that is our hope. We want the people we elect to understand and implement social justice not just pontificate about it. An example of this would be the promise Labour made to reverse anti Trade Union legislation. Did it happen? No, but wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did and many other covert illegal activities including extraordinary rendition and torture under the guise of an ethical foreign policy.

 

The hope for winning the referendum, which is a Yes vote, depends on convincing decent labour voters that their aspirations can best be met in an independent Scotland, free from the corruption and overbearing influence of southern vested interests. Scotland is still fertile ground for sensible left wing policies. Most of the rUK has shown that it is not. Why should we wait in the hope that they will catch up only to share our resources geographically but not on the basis of need.

 

You might see nothing in the ? leading lights post- yes? but i do. I see more democracy in Scotland for those reasons above and many other reasons i have not mentioned. We are tolerating and encouraging wider views than rUK and are rejecting reactionary outfits like UKIP. That makes us different and we can better express ourselves in our own institutions and the sooner we do that across all areas of government the better. Parliament is not sovereign the people are.

 

[JamboX2]

JamboX2

 

In response to a statement that there will be no improvement in propping up the status quo You said ?You're right Yes won?t change that. But to say politics can't change because the Act of Union remains valid. There's no guarantee either way. We both accept that. My point to you is I see nothing in Scottish politics now, or from those who'll be the leading lights post-Yes win that suggests it'll be any different. Therefore saying Yes is the only chance of improvement is mad? There must be a lot of us mad people since around 35% of us think it?s the only or best way of going forward. Another 10-15% presumably are still trying to work out if we are mad.

 

I didn?t suddenly decide to become mad and support Yes. It was a long and considered journey and I am a relatively new arrival. I have not passed anybody coming in the opposite direction and so I know that the overall direction of travel is toward Yes, even if the current might not be strong enough for a yes majority. There is no guarantee as you say, that things will improve post Yes but I believe there is a strong likelihood that it will and that there are clear reasons for thinking this. We have very little to lose and a lot to gain.

 

Politics in the U.K. will not change because there is a democratic deficit, partly recognised by yourself but underplayed. We, in Scotland will have no House of Lords. This will speed up legislation but not at the cost of scrutiny because our bills will be considered by a wider range of democratically elected representatives because we have proportional representation.

 

The House of Lords will remain for the foreseeable future. Recent reforms reducing the hereditary element and replacing it with the Cash for peerages incumbents are seen as democratic reforms. I remember Labour promising to abolish the HOL by creating a thousand Labour peers. Instead we had Blair selling peerages and the HOL refusing to accept them as they were unfit even by their standards. Donors influencing and determining policy in return for a seat in the legislature shows the contempt Labour had for people and democracy.

 

Mrs Thatcher and her ilk declared Socialism dead and this could not have been better exemplified than with Blair and Brown. Perhaps a vestige remained in Scotland, that is our hope. We want the people we elect to understand and implement social justice not just pontificate about it. An example of this would be the promise Labour made to reverse anti Trade Union legislation. Did it happen? No, but wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did and many other covert illegal activities including extraordinary rendition and torture under the guise of an ethical foreign policy.

 

The hope for winning the referendum, which is a Yes vote, depends on convincing decent labour voters that their aspirations can best be met in an independent Scotland, free from the corruption and overbearing influence of southern vested interests. Scotland is still fertile ground for sensible left wing policies. Most of the rUK has shown that it is not. Why should we wait in the hope that they will catch up only to share our resources geographically but not on the basis of need.

 

You might see nothing in the ? leading lights post- yes? but i do. I see more democracy in Scotland for those reasons above and many other reasons i have not mentioned. We are tolerating and encouraging wider views than rUK and are rejecting reactionary outfits like UKIP. That makes us different and we can better express ourselves in our own institutions and the sooner we do that across all areas of government the better. Parliament is not sovereign the people are.

 

 

I never said you were mad to back yes. I said it was mad to believe based on the personel in Holyrood and the MPs who'll return to stand in 2016 that things will improve in terms of dialogue between the parties.

 

Holyrrod is a deeply divided most of times. Committees rarely agree. Parties back legislation and the proposer turns the tables on them by creating hybrid bills on matters they dont agree on disrupting consensus. Leaderships make everything politically divisive when it needn't be.

 

My leading lights thing was about the fact that the leaders of each party post Yes vote wont be radically different and that we face years of political deadlock - that's my belief come a No vote as well.

 

Therefore my confidence in Scottish politics is low either side of this. We use a broken PR system imo. I also dont share your view that socialism has a lot of life left in Scotland. The post-Thatcher generation are more of the centre and light-right in Scotland - hence the softly soft talk from the SNP and their centrist pro-big business lines.

 

Its not a real change to me. Its all a Scots face on a brojen consensus imo. I feel disenfranchised by this vote and will happily go on either way. Currency union, NATO and no vote on the EU is for me what we already have. And these external forces will force Scotland to mirror what you say is broken.

[coconut doug]

JamboX2

I never said you were mad to back yes. I said it was mad to believe based on the personel in Holyrood and the MPs who'll return to stand in 2016 that things will improve in terms of dialogue between the parties.

 

So it?s not so much about the constitutional change or the policies, its more about the personnel. There is a lot of dialogue and agreement against the yes side.

 

Holyrrod is a deeply divided most of times. Committees rarely agree. Parties back legislation and the proposer turns the tables on them by creating hybrid bills on matters they dont agree on disrupting consensus. Leaderships make everything politically divisive when it needn't be.

 

Not as divided as Wesminster where representation comes from a narrower band of parties/individuals than Holyrood. Holyrood even has an independent. Is this the SNP you are talking about? Divisive and populist at the same time!

 

My leading lights thing was about the fact that the leaders of each party post Yes vote wont be radically different and that we face years of political deadlock - that's my belief come a No vote as well.

 

So we would be mad to vote no as well or are you saying that we in Scotland do not have talent of the calibre of Cameron, Milliband, Clegg, Osborne, Balls, Darling or Carmichael? Are you seriously suggesting that Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney lack something in comparison to their Westminster counterparts? What could it be intellect, integrity, vision? What about approval ratings? Are they significant or are Scots just easily pleased?

 

Therefore my confidence in Scottish politics is low either side of this. We use a broken PR system imo. I also dont share your view that socialism has a lot of life left in Scotland. The post-Thatcher generation are more of the centre and light-right in Scotland - hence the softly soft talk from the SNP and their centrist pro-big business lines.

 

Not totally disagreeing here but our situation is still favourable to that of rUK. Too risky to upset business this side of a referendum.

 

Its not a real change to me. Its all a Scots face on a brojen consensus imo. I feel disenfranchised by this vote and will happily go on either way. Currency union, NATO and no vote on the EU is for me what we already have. And these external forces will force Scotland to mirror what you say is broken.

 

I?ve read what you have said on these matters and again i pretty much agree but post ? yes it?s up to Scotland to forge new relationships based on its priorities and not those of our bigger neighbour or the city of London. As a small country we would be bullied but we would get some concessions from the EU and NATO as well. It?s what we already have but the conditions would change. If the conditions are not beneficial to Scotland then maybe that is the time to re-examine our membership but to do it at the same time as independence risks the independence vote. Sooner or later I expect the monarchy to be emptied and a new currency but proposing this now is both impractical and risky for the yes vote.

I watched the House of Commons debate on Syria and with a few notable exceptions witnessed a procession of arrogant, misinformed, party loyalists trying to persuade each other that bombing Syria was a good thing for Syrians. These parliamentarians have no interest in Syrians or Scots or even the English. Despite describing the most appalling atrocities no Syrians are to be admitted as refugees. It took Nigel Farage to point out the inhumanity and illegality of this. IMO Westminster is morally bankrupt. Scotland irrespective of the government would not unilaterally supported their Al Qaeda anti government forces and i?m sure it would have made space for a few refugees at least.

[southside1874]

The truth is the Union is valued and popular with a majority of Scots as shown in poll after poll.

 

I beg to differ here.

 

As it stands the No campaign are being hammered.

 

http://www.scotlandsvote.com/

[TheMaganator]

Did Salmond not say he would be in favour of 'intervention' in Syria?

 

A Palestinian chum of mine went bonkers about it to me and now loathes the SNP. Not that she gets a vote or anything

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I beg to differ here.

 

As it stands the No campaign are being hammered.

 

http://www.scotlandsvote.com/

These polls are a nonsense. You can vote more than once & the cybernats swarm all over this stuff. I saw a poll on a labour candidates page that had over 90% Yes support.

 

Take comfort in these if you want but these online polls have no reflection on reality. None.

[southside1874]

These polls are a nonsense. You can vote more than once & the cybernats swarm all over this stuff. I saw a poll on a labour candidates page that had over 90% Yes support.

 

Take comfort in these if you want but these online polls have no reflection on reality. None.

 

Is this anything to do with mainstream media backing the No campaign? Does the Yes voter use the internet to gain information? If we all listened to the media then it would be a no brainer and we wouldn't need a referendum as we would think we couldn't exist on our own.

[Alba gu Brath]

Did Salmond not say he would be in favour of 'intervention' in Syria?

 

A Palestinian chum of mine went bonkers about it to me and now loathes the SNP. Not that she gets a vote or anything

 

 

She must love your party's Conservative Friends of Isreal then?

[JamboX2]

 

She must love your party's Conservative Friends of Isreal then?

 

Every party has a Friends of Israel. It's a lobby group which transcends party's.

[JamboX2]

JamboX2

I never said you were mad to back yes. I said it was mad to believe based on the personel in Holyrood and the MPs who'll return to stand in 2016 that things will improve in terms of dialogue between the parties.

 

So it?s not so much about the constitutional change or the policies, its more about the personnel. There is a lot of dialogue and agreement against the yes side.

 

Don't quite get your point. But British politics as a whole is pretty weak right now. Minnows on all fronts. Rather stick to the thousand monkeys theory

 

Holyrrod is a deeply divided most of times. Committees rarely agree. Parties back legislation and the proposer turns the tables on them by creating hybrid bills on matters they dont agree on disrupting consensus. Leaderships make everything politically divisive when it needn't be.

 

Not as divided as Wesminster where representation comes from a narrower band of parties/individuals than Holyrood. Holyrood even has an independent. Is this the SNP you are talking about? Divisive and populist at the same time!

 

On representation - Westminster has 3 of the main parties. It has the SNP, PC, the Greens, UUP, DUP, Sien Feinn, SDLP and a few independents. It's narrow yes and the wee guys have few seats, but it's the same here. The SNP, Labour and the Tories are the masters of Holyrood based on seat distribution. The Greens have 2, we've 4 independents and 5 Lib Dems. It had the "Rainbow Parliament" in 2003-07, but that came and went pretty sharply. It's not as broad a chamber of the people as one would believe. So either way it's not much better in representational issues. Better not much. That's an issue aside from independence though. The division is different. It's less ideological and more structural. At Westminster Labour broadly disagrees with the Coalition on a lot. Vice versa. Therefore divisions are shown to be wider as there's a lack of agreement on direction. Holyrood is broadly in agreement on a lot - it's prejoratively centrist to centre-left - so the debates are on power and who does what, and in the main between independence and union.

 

My leading lights thing was about the fact that the leaders of each party post Yes vote wont be radically different and that we face years of political deadlock - that's my belief come a No vote as well.

 

So we would be mad to vote no as well or are you saying that we in Scotland do not have talent of the calibre of Cameron, Milliband, Clegg, Osborne, Balls, Darling or Carmichael? Are you seriously suggesting that Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney lack something in comparison to their Westminster counterparts? What could it be intellect, integrity, vision? What about approval ratings? Are they significant or are Scots just easily pleased?

 

The first is of Scots descent, the last two are Scots MPs. So it's not about talent. It's their vision. Which is lacking in most cases. Salmond is a great politician. Robin Harper said so in his article backing a No vote. However, he drew the line - correctly imo - in that he's a great strategist and political operator, but I don't think he's a great visionary in what he proposes. It's very safe and centre-right. I don't view him on the centre-left. If anything he made the same journey as Brown and Cook did from the 1980s to 1990s to now in slowly moving away from their old lefty positions. Swinney and Sturgeon are no better than anyone else. The SNP as a machine are well run and organised in comparison to their competitors. The talent out with Salmond is pretty equal in my opinion from seeing Chamber debates. And to say the Chamber of Holyrood isn't as divisive as Westminster ignores the debates, especially between the front benches.

 

Therefore my confidence in Scottish politics is low either side of this. We use a broken PR system imo. I also dont share your view that socialism has a lot of life left in Scotland. The post-Thatcher generation are more of the centre and light-right in Scotland - hence the softly soft talk from the SNP and their centrist pro-big business lines.

 

Not totally disagreeing here but our situation is still favourable to that of rUK. Too risky to upset business this side of a referendum.

 

True. But you can not upset business and not propose a 3% tax cut for the biggest corporations in Scotland, or not annoy your largest backer on busses serving all, or keeping those funding Yes by staying pro-UK on the ? and regulators. It's very much "little-UK" from the White Paper on the economics. Excepting the numerous quango committes to investigate issues we already know exist in wages and rights - a need for action sadly missed there with a commitment to "look into it further in the lifetime of the next parliament".

 

Its not a real change to me. Its all a Scots face on a broken consensus imo. I feel disenfranchised by this vote and will happily go on either way. Currency union, NATO and no vote on the EU is for me what we already have. And these external forces will force Scotland to mirror what you say is broken.

 

I?ve read what you have said on these matters and again i pretty much agree but post ? yes it?s up to Scotland to forge new relationships based on its priorities and not those of our bigger neighbour or the city of London. As a small country we would be bullied but we would get some concessions from the EU and NATO as well. It?s what we already have but the conditions would change. If the conditions are not beneficial to Scotland then maybe that is the time to re-examine our membership but to do it at the same time as independence risks the independence vote. Sooner or later I expect the monarchy to be emptied and a new currency but proposing this now is both impractical and risky for the yes vote.

I watched the House of Commons debate on Syria and with a few notable exceptions witnessed a procession of arrogant, misinformed, party loyalists trying to persuade each other that bombing Syria was a good thing for Syrians. These parliamentarians have no interest in Syrians or Scots or even the English. Despite describing the most appalling atrocities no Syrians are to be admitted as refugees. It took Nigel Farage to point out the inhumanity and illegality of this. IMO Westminster is morally bankrupt. Scotland irrespective of the government would not unilaterally supported their Al Qaeda anti government forces and i?m sure it would have made space for a few refugees at least.

 

Must of been a different debate from the one I watched. Many on both sides urged the government into caution and against rushing in. In fact the actions of the opposition and government backbenchers forced the second vote on that issue. The SNP were in quandry after Robertson called for action and then backtracked onto the oppostion-backbench second vote. Parliament voted ?4bn of aid to go to Syrian relief agencies and the UN effort. It's not uncaring aloofness. I fail to see what action you'd want - either you bomb and get Assad out, or you provide humanitarian relief whilst pursuing diplomatic channels to exert pressure to end it. This issue is too deep an issue for the UK Parliament to debate and show unanimity to the world on in an afternoon. If Holyrood can do it then it would show naievity on their behalf. Such sectarian and internal conflicts take a long time to heal. I thought Westminster as a Parliament in it's back benchers done well to hault the UK government rhetoric and actions and slowed the global push to bomb in the US and France - both executive systems which saw their legislatures demand a vote after what occured in the UK.

 

The argument exists - mainly from the wealthy - that cities of a cosmopolitan nature like London, Paris, Shanghai, New York etc should be independent as the nations they subside in wish to do them down. That is ofcourse down to them. However, I fail to see the benefits to London in NATO, the EU yes. But NATO? Scotland needs to assess these things before a vote which has jumbled all this up together into one - a Yes vote is a Yes for an EU-NATO Scotland. Hence the big Cannavan push on "eyes on the prize" to RiC folk after it's release. Which is disengenuous and undemocratic in my eyes. Such matters should be dealt with later as they are rightly separate due to their impact on Scotland as an independent nation. It's not good enough to say "we may be bullied" and if so "we can reassess later". It's not. If that's reality lets debate it separately. That's all I'm saying on this.

 

On the Currency Union, there has to be strong political will to make it work. Swinney and Salmond have both said it would need this to get off the ground. You're talking something that'll last a lifetime for markets to lend to Scotland and the UK on under a Currency Union. Nations can't walk out of them these days - look at Greece and Portugal and Spain with the Euro. As debated earlier, the one example akin to this is the Czechs and Slovaks. The Currency Union laster a matter of weeks before it was dissolved due to a lack of real will and a skeptical view on it from the markets as a result of varying voices on it. Didn't hurt to move away from that. Again an issue denied from the debate.

[southside1874]

Don't quite get your point. But British politics as a whole is pretty weak right now. Minnows on all fronts. Rather stick to the thousand monkeys theory

 

 

 

On representation - Westminster has 3 of the main parties. It has the SNP, PC, the Greens, UUP, DUP, Sien Feinn, SDLP and a few independents. It's narrow yes and the wee guys have few seats, but it's the same here. The SNP, Labour and the Tories are the masters of Holyrood based on seat distribution. The Greens have 2, we've 4 independents and 5 Lib Dems. It had the "Rainbow Parliament" in 2003-07, but that came and went pretty sharply. It's not as broad a chamber of the people as one would believe. So either way it's not much better in representational issues. Better not much. That's an issue aside from independence though. The division is different. It's less ideological and more structural. At Westminster Labour broadly disagrees with the Coalition on a lot. Vice versa. Therefore divisions are shown to be wider as there's a lack of agreement on direction. Holyrood is broadly in agreement on a lot - it's prejoratively centrist to centre-left - so the debates are on power and who does what, and in the main between independence and union.

 

 

 

 

The first is of Scots descent, the last two are Scots MPs. So it's not about talent. It's their vision. Which is lacking in most cases. Salmond is a great politician. Robin Harper said so in his article backing a No vote. However, he drew the line - correctly imo - in that he's a great strategist and political operator, but I don't think he's a great visionary in what he proposes. It's very safe and centre-right. I don't view him on the centre-left. If anything he made the same journey as Brown and Cook did from the 1980s to 1990s to now in slowly moving away from their old lefty positions. Swinney and Sturgeon are no better than anyone else. The SNP as a machine are well run and organised in comparison to their competitors. The talent out with Salmond is pretty equal in my opinion from seeing Chamber debates. And to say the Chamber of Holyrood isn't as divisive as Westminster ignores the debates, especially between the front benches.

 

 

 

True. But you can not upset business and not propose a 3% tax cut for the biggest corporations in Scotland, or not annoy your largest backer on busses serving all, or keeping those funding Yes by staying pro-UK on the ? and regulators. It's very much "little-UK" from the White Paper on the economics. Excepting the numerous quango committes to investigate issues we already know exist in wages and rights - a need for action sadly missed there with a commitment to "look into it further in the lifetime of the next parliament".

 

 

 

Must of been a different debate from the one I watched. Many on both sides urged the government into caution and against rushing in. In fact the actions of the opposition and government backbenchers forced the second vote on that issue. The SNP were in quandry after Robertson called for action and then backtracked onto the oppostion-backbench second vote. Parliament voted ?4bn of aid to go to Syrian relief agencies and the UN effort. It's not uncaring aloofness. I fail to see what action you'd want - either you bomb and get Assad out, or you provide humanitarian relief whilst pursuing diplomatic channels to exert pressure to end it. This issue is too deep an issue for the UK Parliament to debate and show unanimity to the world on in an afternoon. If Holyrood can do it then it would show naievity on their behalf. Such sectarian and internal conflicts take a long time to heal. I thought Westminster as a Parliament in it's back benchers done well to hault the UK government rhetoric and actions and slowed the global push to bomb in the US and France - both executive systems which saw their legislatures demand a vote after what occured in the UK.

 

The argument exists - mainly from the wealthy - that cities of a cosmopolitan nature like London, Paris, Shanghai, New York etc should be independent as the nations they subside in wish to do them down. That is ofcourse down to them. However, I fail to see the benefits to London in NATO, the EU yes. But NATO? Scotland needs to assess these things before a vote which has jumbled all this up together into one - a Yes vote is a Yes for an EU-NATO Scotland. Hence the big Cannavan push on "eyes on the prize" to RiC folk after it's release. Which is disengenuous and undemocratic in my eyes. Such matters should be dealt with later as they are rightly separate due to their impact on Scotland as an independent nation. It's not good enough to say "we may be bullied" and if so "we can reassess later". It's not. If that's reality lets debate it separately. That's all I'm saying on this.

 

On the Currency Union, there has to be strong political will to make it work. Swinney and Salmond have both said it would need this to get off the ground. You're talking something that'll last a lifetime for markets to lend to Scotland and the UK on under a Currency Union. Nations can't walk out of them these days - look at Greece and Portugal and Spain with the Euro. As debated earlier, the one example akin to this is the Czechs and Slovaks. The Currency Union laster a matter of weeks before it was dissolved due to a lack of real will and a skeptical view on it from the markets as a result of varying voices on it. Didn't hurt to move away from that. Again an issue denied from the debate.

 

Everyone else runs my life.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

She must love your party's Conservative Friends of Isreal then?

She's just told me (boozing on the Royal Mile)that the 'justice Minister' told her the polls were 48 52.

Kenny 'I was a shite lawyer & now I make the law' disgraces himself once more...but shhhhh don't ask any questions - don't rock the boat

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

The Budget at Westminster would be my guess. That and a pushing of select parts of the white paper. If Yes wins it'll be rightly considered the greatest turn around in British politics. It'll bring down the PM, hand Labour the 2015 election and the SNP the 2016. I'm still skeptical such things will happen to swing a Yes vote.

 

I am still certain the No parties will propose their devo-next platforms and that may cause a push on the identity and scots patriotism buttons. Its always been there. Pete Wishart said at the outset said 2014 with the Glasgow Games, Ryder Cup and possibility of Scotland in Brazil's World Cup would help win a Yes vote.

 

The No parties will only propose more devolution if the polls tighten significantly. At the moment they don't need to offer anything, as No has such a lead in the polling.

[Alfred]

Did Salmond not say he would be in favour of 'intervention' in Syria?

 

A Palestinian chum of mine went bonkers about it to me and now loathes the SNP. Not that she gets a vote or anything

 

Will she be moving away before the vote? ...... if not she can register and then vote (mind you, as a "yes" leaning person I should maybe shut up!)

 

 

 

Edit: of course dislike of the SNP is a different question to whether Scotland should be governed more "locally" or not

Edited December 31, 2013 by Alfred

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Going to be a fascinating year this one. To those who are following the debate closely (and I'd seriously like to do a word count of certain posters' posts on this thread), at what stage in 2014 do you think the two sides will reach the final straight? I mean, there's lots of coverage at the moment but it's not exactly headline news day after day, or not in England anyway. When will we head into the end game?

[TheMaganator]

Going to be a fascinating year this one. To those who are following the debate closely (and I'd seriously like to do a word count of certain posters' posts on this thread), at what stage in 2014 do you think the two sides will reach the final straight? I mean, there's lots of coverage at the moment but it's not exactly headline news day after day, or not in England anyway. When will we head into the end game?

It'll be full on up until the result, IMO.

 

Things will ramp up early in the new year and it wont stop.

 

It'll be as interesting as it is tiresome and frustrating. It will be a long 9 months.

 

Hopefully the No camp will prevail and that'll be an end of it. If the Yes supporters win its going to be a long next few years whilst we negotiate seperation. I don't think i'll hang about tbh. Maybe take a secondment or what not and return when things have settled down. I've said many times here (and I don't want to debate it again) - the seperation will take longer than 18months and it wont be pretty. (IMO, of course).

Will she be moving away before the vote? ...... if not she can register and then vote (mind you, as a "yes" leaning person I should maybe shut up!)

 

 

 

Edit: of course dislike of the SNP is a different question to whether Scotland should be governed more "locally" or not

 

Yes, she doesn't like the SNP but was talking up independence. It was interesting talking about it with someone with no vested interest in the outcome. Though they are not a fan of the British state in Palestine so that may cloud her judgement somewhat.