Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JamboX2]

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?

 

Tactical positioning up to May/June. Personnel shuffles in the campaigns - not the heads but key extras. Bigger role for the First Minister is expected in the next few months. No parties will se their stalls in some way in the nrxt few months.

 

Then a pause at the Games - expect a political bungfight however in amd around it on it being used for political gain.

 

After that a summer of full campaigning till September 18th. Then a lot of soul searching for a lot of folk either way. If Yes wins there'll be a significant minority (40%-ish) very unhappy and disgruntled - especially if a narrow win prevails. If No eins expect Eck amd Nic out the door within the year, the SNP to be blamed by Yes-partners for dominating and ruining the Yes message and for the party to rip lumps from each other behind the scenes.

 

If Yes wins the SNP sail into majority rule again in 2016. Labour muddles along. Tory increase vote share and the wee guys to be squeezed out. No wins either a minority SNP government (the majority is huge to whittle down) or a Lab-someone else who arent Tories government.

 

I reckon for No voters, going from a position that as part of the UK there was a greater degree of influence internationally to being one of Europes wee voices will be hard. I actually question the need for a Foreign Office come a Yes vote as we'd be better served with EU representation in major economies.

 

Edit. Sorry for the spelling. On my phone. But an educated guess based on watching Scots politics for too long with dread and wonderment that it works somehow.

Edited December 31, 2013 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

 

 

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.

 

I reckon they have to or the polls will tighten. The Libs and Labs will be close on their proposals imo. Tories not far behind. It'll be discernable as to what you'd get. However, a joint platform commission here would've been able to rival the political and media impact of the white paper. However in the public it'd have been as effective as selling snow to eskimos, much like the white paper.

Edited December 31, 2013 by JamboX2

[Hearts Machine]

I know that this has been covered.

 

If Westminster doesn`t need us, and our financial revenue, why are they so DESPERATE to keep us?

 

Ever asked yourself that one?

[Hearts Machine]

Sorry. Forgot a key point.

 

A NO vote does NOT mean, nor equate to, "No Change."

 

Quite the opposite in fact.

[graygo]

I know that this has been covered.

 

If Westminster doesn`t need us, and our financial revenue, why are they so DESPERATE to keep us?

 

Ever asked yourself that one?

 

Many times.

 

I refuse to believe that they are doing it for our best interests.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I know that this has been covered.

 

If Westminster doesn`t need us, and our financial revenue, why are they so DESPERATE to keep us?

 

Ever asked yourself that one?

How are they being "desperate" precisely?

 

I see no evidence of bribing the electorate with alternatives to maintain the union.

[Hearts Machine]

How are they being "desperate" precisely?

 

I see no evidence of bribing the electorate with alternatives to maintain the union.

 

MSM? BBC? Sky? ITV? Daily fool? Johnson Press? All SNP doom-fairies casting doubt at every turn. They are smack bang OUT OF ANSWERS, so now it`s done subliminally.

 

Someone is pulling the strings of scare-mongering us into doubt. Do you think Wales, NI, would achieve the same propaganda?

 

If not, why not?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

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).

 

 

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.

 

That sounds strangely like a Therapist "bags packed, tickets booked, on the plane to Thailand in three hours' time" post.

 

I'm finding it all pretty tiresome at the moment but it's going to get very compelling, simply because of the massive step it would be. I never once thought that Scotland would go independent in my lifetime.

[Hearts Machine]

That sounds strangely like a Therapist "bags packed, tickets booked, on the plane to Thailand in three hours' time" post.

 

I'm finding it all pretty tiresome at the moment but it's going to get very compelling, simply because of the massive step it would be. I never once thought that Scotland would go independent in my lifetime.

 

Ken what matey? Be it September 2014, or 2020, IT IS COMING.

 

To a rich country near you.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

MSM? BBC? Sky? ITV? Daily fool? Johnson Press? All SNP doom-fairies casting doubt at every turn. They are smack bang OUT OF ANSWERS, so now it`s done subliminally.

 

Someone is pulling the strings of scare-mongering us into doubt. Do you think Wales, NI, would achieve the same propaganda?

 

If not, why not?

The media are irrelevant to my question. You said Westminster was desperate. Again, where is the evidence?

[Big D]

Boris, Dave and more importantly their controllers, have had it with Darling and Labour Unionists (occassionally) in Scotland. Read news briefs not controlled by Wastemonster. The glorious irony is that they can't take control of what they are paying for, because they have been briefed on their toxicity in our civilised nation. I mean civil in the true sense.

[Alba gu Brath]

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

 

Which makes Magnator's point even more redundant. Seems strange that a 'Palestinian' would rage against Salmond, who has no power to send any troops anywhere, but presumably side with either Labour or Tory whose record on 'intervention' in past decades is shameful. If she's a 'Green' peacenik then I presume she's pro-independence like most Greens in which case why raise it in this thread.

 

A happy new year all btw before I head. Amongst the many I'll be raising a glass to tonight is Jimmy Reid. Here's hoping 2014 is our year. Sl?inte.

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[TheMaganator]

My Palestinian comment was because Salmond was being discussed. It isn't redundant as it wasn't trying to get people to vote one way or the other.

 

Cameron is happy with Darling - look for Nelson's piece in the Spectator.

 

Finally the CBI are getting more involved in the debate ( which is a good thing). Naturally the SNP are attacking the questioner, rather than dealing with the issues - they are the Yes camps greatest asset, but also their greatest liability http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10545120/CBI-chief-accuses-SNP-ministers-of-reprehensible-attempt-to-discredit-him.html

[southside1874]

If Scotland was independent. Would the current no voters, vote yes to join the Union and have our parliament moved to Westminster. Have our oil and gas revenues handed over and have the largest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe open 30 miles from our largest city?

[The Comedian]

If Scotland was independent. Would the current no voters, vote yes to join the Union and have our parliament moved to Westminster. Have our oil and gas revenues handed over and have the largest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe open 30 miles from our largest city?

 

What about that seat at the top table though? Or the large selection of embassies in countries you'll never visit?

 

That's the kind of thing that would make me feel brilliant.

[JamboX2]

If Scotland was independent. Would the current no voters, vote yes to join the Union and have our parliament moved to Westminster. Have our oil and gas revenues handed over and have the largest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe open 30 miles from our largest city?

 

If Yes wins that wont happen. Personally I'd go with the majority and get on with it. Increasingly Scottish politics in the last 40 years has become a one issue debate - the constitution. As much as many mock Westminster for being obsessed with Europe or immigration or defence, it's clear to me Scottish politics is in a rut over this and the boil needs lanced either way.

 

What I'd argue is Yes will probably result in a centre-right revival up here. For better or worse. I would turn it back though and ask how different things can be if you want to share currency, interest rates and economic and utility regulators. Sounds like so much power but not the full hog to me.

Edited January 2, 2014 by JamboX2

[Ulysses]

That's another shedload of posts removed, plus four sets of warnings (three of which led to suspensions).

 

Forum rules, folks, forum rules. In mind keep do them posting please when.

[TheMaganator]

Did everybody see Sturgeon's interview with Taylor?

 

First of all - they are trying to win female votes, so quite why she came out with "women take longer to make up their minds" is beyond me?!

 

Secondly - she thinks the economy will win them the referendum - the next day, this is released:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10547796/Nicola-Sturgeon-Economy-will-decide-independence-referendum.html

 

The economy will definately influence the undecideds at the moment. I cant see any Yes supporters changing their vote if it was shown they would be worse off, though.

[Coco]

Did everybody see Sturgeon's interview with Taylor?

 

First of all - they are trying to win female votes, so quite why she came out with "women take longer to make up their minds" is beyond me?!

 

Secondly - she thinks the economy will win them the referendum - the next day, this is released:

 

http://www.telegraph...referendum.html

 

The economy will definately influence the undecideds at the moment. I cant see any Yes supporters changing their vote if it was shown they would be worse off, though.

 

The trouble with these calls to the 'experts' is that the other side always is able to trawl for some who support their case. So it comes down to who shouts the loudest.

 

And the trouble with the economic arguments is that they are merely arguments. The FACTs are all based on static historic measures and analysis thereof. Behaviour would change at corporate level in particular.

[southside1874]

What about that seat at the top table though? Or the large selection of embassies in countries you'll never visit?

 

That's the kind of thing that would make me feel brilliant.

 

It does worry me because we'll end up a poverty stricken backwater like Norway and Sweden etc. These places don't need embassies because Norwegians and Swedes can't afford to travel abroad..;-)

[southside1874]

Did everybody see Sturgeon's interview with Taylor?

 

First of all - they are trying to win female votes, so quite why she came out with "women take longer to make up their minds" is beyond me?!

 

Secondly - she thinks the economy will win them the referendum - the next day, this is released:

 

http://www.telegraph...referendum.html

 

The economy will definately influence the undecideds at the moment. I cant see any Yes supporters changing their vote if it was shown they would be worse off, though.

 

cognitive dissonance

 

?Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are

presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new

evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is

extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it

is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,

ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.?

? Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

[TheMaganator]

cognitive dissonance

 

?Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are

presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new

evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is

extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it

is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,

ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.?

? Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

 

You do realise that what you are implying me and other No voters are suffering from - can equally be turned around to the Yes camp?

 

There is a certain arrogance that eminates from many posts on this thread - 'you don't agree with me therefore you must be a dafty', 'you just belive what you have been told and cannot think for yourself', 'the better informed you are, the more likely you are to votre Yes'. Not only is it misplaced arrongance, it is also pretty tedious.

[Brian Whittaker's Tache]

Anyone who thinks we'll be "better together" after a no vote needs their heads checking. We'll be getting the Ron Jeremy treatment as a country but with considerably less warmth!

 

http://peterabell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/2013-year-of-fear.html

[TheMaganator]

Anyone who thinks we'll be "better together" after a no vote needs their heads checking. We'll be getting the Ron Jeremy treatment as a country but with considerably less warmth!

 

http://peterabell.bl...ar-of-fear.html

 

 

Opens his article complaining of a year of unionist scare stories and then proceeds to write an entire article based on his own scare strories if we vote No.

 

It's bad enough we're subjected to Rev Stu on here, but Peter Bell as well...

[Boris]

 

Opens his article complaining of a year of unionist scare stories and then proceeds to write an entire article based on his own scare strories if we vote No.

 

It's bad enough we're subjected to Rev Stu on here, but Peter Bell as well...

 

And therein lies the crux to the debate.

 

If Scotland decides to go for independence it will not become a third world country overnight. It just won't. I'd say it would remain as affluent as the rest of the UK.

 

Similarly, if it votes to stay in the Union it will do no worse than the rest of the UK given it is tied to it.

 

But surely the onus is on the Better Together side to explain the benefit of union rather than the "scare stories" regards independence? I've said this before.

 

Equally, the YES campaign should be focusing on the perceived benefits of independence instead of trotting out an SNP manifesto that is really quite irrelevant to the debate.

[TheMaganator]

And therein lies the crux to the debate.

 

If Scotland decides to go for independence it will not become a third world country overnight. It just won't. I'd say it would remain as affluent as the rest of the UK.

 

Similarly, if it votes to stay in the Union it will do no worse than the rest of the UK given it is tied to it.

 

But surely the onus is on the Better Together side to explain the benefit of union rather than the "scare stories" regards independence? I've said this before.

 

Equally, the YES campaign should be focusing on the perceived benefits of independence instead of trotting out an SNP manifesto that is really quite irrelevant to the debate.

 

I agree that the debate isn't really getting anywhere at the moment. But BT have explained the benefits of the Union, many times. The Yes camp will scoff at these, and disagree that with the 'benefit', but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. At the moment BT are spending a lot of time rebutting what is coming from the Yes camp - but that was inevitable with the White Paper coming out.

 

Equally, the Yes camp have explained what they think the benefits of independence will be.

 

The problem is, though, as I see it, the Yes camp cannot say with any certainty what will change. Their main argument (IMO of course) is that we will make decisions based purely on what the people of Scotland want as we will not have to 'answer' to Westminster. But that kind of goes out the window with the proposal of a currency union - and, worse than that (in terms of the anti-tory line) is that rUK will be more likely to return tory governments who will basically control the currency union - assuming one can be agreed.

 

The BT camp have that same issue - they cannot say what will happen if a No vote is returned - with any certainty. So, instead they highlight the problems with the Yes position (laughed off as scaremongering).

 

So we have both camps rubbishing the other with neither camp really in much of a position to do anything about it.

 

IMO in a referendum like this, people want guarantees, but none can be given.

 

Vote No and hope things improve (if you think they need improving) or be happy with the way things are or, vote Yes and hope for the best.

 

I personally don't think the undecideds will vote Yes in large numbers, because if you are not passionate one way or the other you will want to know what the vote will mean for you - which you can't be told. And it is large numbers (if not all of them) that the Yes camp will need.

[Boris]

I agree that the debate isn't really getting anywhere at the moment. But BT have explained the benefits of the Union, many times. The Yes camp will scoff at these, and disagree that with the 'benefit', but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. At the moment BT are spending a lot of time rebutting what is coming from the Yes camp - but that was inevitable with the White Paper coming out.

 

Equally, the Yes camp have explained what they think the benefits of independence will be.

 

The problem is, though, as I see it, the Yes camp cannot say with any certainty what will change. Their main argument (IMO of course) is that we will make decisions based purely on what the people of Scotland want as we will not have to 'answer' to Westminster. But that kind of goes out the window with the proposal of a currency union - and, worse than that (in terms of the anti-tory line) is that rUK will be more likely to return tory governments who will basically control the currency union - assuming one can be agreed.

 

The BT camp have that same issue - they cannot say what will happen if a No vote is returned - with any certainty. So, instead they highlight the problems with the Yes position (laughed off as scaremongering).

 

So we have both camps rubbishing the other with neither camp really in much of a position to do anything about it.

 

IMO in a referendum like this, people want guarantees, but none can be given.

 

Vote No and hope things improve (if you think they need improving) or be happy with the way things are or, vote Yes and hope for the best.

 

I personally don't think the undecideds will vote Yes in large numbers, because if you are not passionate one way or the other you will want to know what the vote will mean for you - which you can't be told. And it is large numbers (if not all of them) that the Yes camp will need.

 

To be honest, I've not really heard much from the BT group that is saying to me how much the rUK wants and needs Scotland. Equally, Swinney, Sturgeon et al cheapen things by saying "you'll be ?500 better off in an independent Scotland". Really? Aye...barry. For me, at least, it's not about being better off initially, it's about what's best for society as a whole and how that can progress. I'm minded to vote YES, given that all sides rejected the Devo Max option and I seriously do not think any Westminster Govt is going to hold another referendum on that (see the AV sell out by the Lib Dems over PR - another reason not to trust Westminster!)

 

However I think you are spot on when you say people want guarantees but none can be given, although that should be obvious to all and anyone expecting guarantees should have the vote withdrawn from them!

 

Independence is the unknown but I approach that with optimism, as it can be hewn and then sculpted by the Scottish people via the Scottish political process.

 

No is a vote for the known and given the current UK political landscape it is one I approach with pessimism.

[southside1874]

You do realise that what you are implying me and other No voters are suffering from - can equally be turned around to the Yes camp?

 

There is a certain arrogance that eminates from many posts on this thread - 'you don't agree with me therefore you must be a dafty', 'you just belive what you have been told and cannot think for yourself', 'the better informed you are, the more likely you are to votre Yes'. Not only is it misplaced arrongance, it is also pretty tedious.

 

I don't think my reply stated that cognitive dissonance only applied to No voters, however you seemed to have found something.

 

Maybe you can inform me how all these professors of economics can say how Scotland will fair after independence but none of them seem to see these great economic crashes coming? I also find it quite unbelievable that a newspaper reporter can get all these very busy folk to remark on Sturgeon so soon after she says something.

[TheMaganator]

I don't think my reply stated that cognitive dissonance only applied to No voters, however you seemed to have found something.

 

Maybe you can inform me how all these professors of economics can say how Scotland will fair after independence but none of them seem to see these great economic crashes coming? I also find it quite unbelievable that a newspaper reporter can get all these very busy folk to remark on Sturgeon so soon after she says something.

 

I don't think they heard what Sturgeon said and immediately got on the phone - they have probably been talking to them for a while. Unless, of course, you think that they are made up quotes or from made up people?

[southside1874]

I don't think they heard what Sturgeon said and immediately got on the phone - they have probably been talking to them for a while. Unless, of course, you think that they are made up quotes or from made up people?

I don't think they heard what Sturgeon said and immediately got on the phone - they have probably been talking to them for a while. Unless, of course, you think that they are made up quotes or from made up people?

 

Well you see how you thought my cognitive dissonance reply only referred to no voters although my post didn't actually say it??? It possibly could be quotes taken out of context. ;-)

[JamboX2]

To be honest, I've not really heard much from the BT group that is saying to me how much the rUK wants and needs Scotland. Equally, Swinney, Sturgeon et al cheapen things by saying "you'll be ?500 better off in an independent Scotland". Really? Aye...barry. For me, at least, it's not about being better off initially, it's about what's best for society as a whole and how that can progress. I'm minded to vote YES, given that all sides rejected the Devo Max option and I seriously do not think any Westminster Govt is going to hold another referendum on that (see the AV sell out by the Lib Dems over PR - another reason not to trust Westminster!)

 

However I think you are spot on when you say people want guarantees but none can be given, although that should be obvious to all and anyone expecting guarantees should have the vote withdrawn from them!

 

Independence is the unknown but I approach that with optimism, as it can be hewn and then sculpted by the Scottish people via the Scottish political process.

 

No is a vote for the known and given the current UK political landscape it is one I approach with pessimism.

I agree that the debate isn't really getting anywhere at the moment. But BT have explained the benefits of the Union, many times. The Yes camp will scoff at these, and disagree that with the 'benefit', but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. At the moment BT are spending a lot of time rebutting what is coming from the Yes camp - but that was inevitable with the White Paper coming out.

 

Equally, the Yes camp have explained what they think the benefits of independence will be.

 

The problem is, though, as I see it, the Yes camp cannot say with any certainty what will change. Their main argument (IMO of course) is that we will make decisions based purely on what the people of Scotland want as we will not have to 'answer' to Westminster. But that kind of goes out the window with the proposal of a currency union - and, worse than that (in terms of the anti-tory line) is that rUK will be more likely to return tory governments who will basically control the currency union - assuming one can be agreed.

 

The BT camp have that same issue - they cannot say what will happen if a No vote is returned - with any certainty. So, instead they highlight the problems with the Yes position (laughed off as scaremongering).

 

So we have both camps rubbishing the other with neither camp really in much of a position to do anything about it.

 

IMO in a referendum like this, people want guarantees, but none can be given.

 

Vote No and hope things improve (if you think they need improving) or be happy with the way things are or, vote Yes and hope for the best.

 

I personally don't think the undecideds will vote Yes in large numbers, because if you are not passionate one way or the other you will want to know what the vote will mean for you - which you can't be told. And it is large numbers (if not all of them) that the Yes camp will need.

 

Two of the most sensible posts I've read on this board. Pretty much this debate is on - 1. No - hope for the best and change, 2. Yes - hope for the best and change. I'm increasingly coming to the point where the outcome of this will be welcome (one more than the other) purely because it'll mean a back to normality shock for Scots politics. 40 years of constitutional bickering ends either way on 19th September 2014.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Two of the most sensible posts I've read on this board. Pretty much this debate is on - 1. No - hope for the best and change, 2. Yes - hope for the best and change. I'm increasingly coming to the point where the outcome of this will be welcome (one more than the other) purely because it'll mean a back to normality shock for Scots politics. 40 years of constitutional bickering ends either way on 19th September 2014.

That last sentence is very naive.

[JamboX2]

That last sentence is very naive.

 

In the sense that it's not been? Or an over simplification? I'd argue that, at the very least, since the Constitutional Convention the key issue and dividing line in Scots politics has been the constitution and whether it should be devo-something or independence. As someone who's spent most of his life with devolution, I have nothing to fear from independence, or devo-more. I'm just tired of the whole of Scots politics being shaped around it these days. (Although, I'm clearly more than happy to debate it... clearly... )

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

In the sense that it's not been? Or an over simplification? I'd argue that, at the very least, since the Constitutional Convention the key issue and dividing line in Scots politics has been the constitution and whether it should be devo-something or independence. As someone who's spent most of his life with devolution, I have nothing to fear from independence, or devo-more. I'm just tired of the whole of Scots politics being shaped around it these days. (Although, I'm clearly more than happy to debate it... clearly... )

Let's say the result is mid to high 50's for No. Do you think the question is settled?

[JamboX2]

Let's say the result is mid to high 50's for No. Do you think the question is settled?

 

If Yes wins then yes. I can't see a party or parties proposing re-unification and winning seats. If No wins by less than 60% then the SNP will continue to push it, but I reckon defeat bursts their tires and wrecks Salmond. 60%+ for No derails the debate for at least 20-30 years, imo.

[redm]

 

To be honest, I've not really heard much from the BT group that is saying to me how much the rUK wants and needs Scotland. Equally, Swinney, Sturgeon et al cheapen things by saying "you'll be ?500 better off in an independent Scotland". Really? Aye...barry. For me, at least, it's not about being better off initially, it's about what's best for society as a whole and how that can progress. I'm minded to vote YES, given that all sides rejected the Devo Max option and I seriously do not think any Westminster Govt is going to hold another referendum on that (see the AV sell out by the Lib Dems over PR - another reason not to trust Westminster!)

 

However I think you are spot on when you say people want guarantees but none can be given, although that should be obvious to all and anyone expecting guarantees should have the vote withdrawn from them!

 

Independence is the unknown but I approach that with optimism, as it can be hewn and then sculpted by the Scottish people via the Scottish political process.

 

No is a vote for the known and given the current UK political landscape it is one I approach with pessimism.

 

It might seem to cheapen the debate but it's one of the most commonly asked questions, right up there with "can Scotland afford independence?" It's not really a key issue for me either but for many others it's all about personal change rather than societal.

 

Which is a shame, but there you go.

[The Comedian]

Hopefully us Jock's get a right pumping come September, an put these daft ideas of taking responsibility for ourselves on the back burner for a generation. Preferably forever. Then we can get back to doing what we are telt such as handing over our oil, getting shot in wars which are nothing to do with us and tending to nuclear warheads.

 

I'm firmly of the opinion that, no matter how you dress it up, NO voters are saying we can't. We can't do it, we can't do as good a job, we can't run ourselves as well as we are run just now. Oh wait, we can run our own affairs equally as well you say? Cool. But you still don't want Independence? Nah. Well we wouldn't be Independent enough, cos, the pound an that. We won't control our currency so the rest of it is a waste of time.

 

Folk are also hiding behind 'wanting more information' or similar. A crumb to say NO a mountain for Yes. Some, given incredibly detailed answers to 10 impossible questions, still wouldn't vote YES. It's why the white paper was savaged by Alistair Darling, it was never going to win over folk who refuse to read it in the first place. Over 100 pages of people who never intend to vote for their own countries Independence but will proclaim it's up to YES to convince them.

 

I also agree the end of the debate will be a sweet relief. Then we can see what Scotland is going to be and whether to stick around for a new dawn or another 300 years of more of the same.

[JamboX2]

Hopefully us Jock's get a right pumping come September, an put these daft ideas of taking responsibility for ourselves on the back burner for a generation. Preferably forever. Then we can get back to doing what we are telt such as handing over our oil, getting shot in wars which are nothing to do with us and tending to nuclear warheads.

 

I'm firmly of the opinion that, no matter how you dress it up, NO voters are saying we can't. We can't do it, we can't do as good a job, we can't run ourselves as well as we are run just now. Oh wait, we can run our own affairs equally as well you say? Cool. But you still don't want Independence? Nah. Well we wouldn't be Independent enough, cos, the pound an that. We won't control our currency so the rest of it is a waste of time.

 

Folk are also hiding behind 'wanting more information' or similar. A crumb to say NO a mountain for Yes. Some, given incredibly detailed answers to 10 impossible questions, still wouldn't vote YES. It's why the white paper was savaged by Alistair Darling, it was never going to win over folk who refuse to read it in the first place. Over 100 pages of people who never intend to vote for their own countries Independence but will proclaim it's up to YES to convince them.

 

I also agree the end of the debate will be a sweet relief. Then we can see what Scotland is going to be and whether to stick around for a new dawn or another 300 years of more of the same.

 

I'd argue that for Yes to win those who support it need to stop the Scotland vs the rest and try convincing the rest to vote or at the least spell out what Yes offers. As Boris says trotting along the SNP's softly softly line will only result in defeat. For what it's worth a more spirited and meaningful Yes campaign and argument would appeal to a lukewarm no like myself. As it stands it is pretty light and airy.

 

And I stick to my guns that currency union run from the Bank of England in the heart of the City of London in the South East of the UK will result in no great economic change that is needed.

[The Comedian]

More secrets for us lucky Scotch folk's.

 

http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/thatcher-made-secret-cuts-to-scottish-budget-1-3253890

 

Stuff like this won't happen after a NO vote, though.

[JamboX2]

More secrets for us lucky Scotch folk's.

 

http://www.scotsman....udget-1-3253890

 

Stuff like this won't happen after a NO vote, though.

 

Whilst a shocking story. It's almost like the Finance Secretary using stealthily cutting local government funding in Scotland since 2007. All governments abuse those below them in the food chain of authority from local government, to Holyrood, to Westminster, to Brussels. It's not great or right, but happens.

[Coco]

Project fear from Darling:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-white-paper-should-scare-scots-1-3255313

 

Includes the terrible news for those who want a no vote that this man is going to have a greater involvement.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Project fear from Darling:

http://www.scotsman....scots-1-3255313

 

Includes the terrible news for those who want a no vote that this man is going to have a greater involvement.

 

Brown will save the world Scotland from itself...

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's an interesting prediction about what'll happen following a No vote. We've had implications that 'nothing will change' or that we'll suddenly be offered Devo Max, when it's completely disingenuous of the No side to do so.

 

[TheMaganator]

The SNP did not a Devo Max option either. The big constitutional question needs settled.

 

If we want to stay then we can look at how we want to change things.

 

Not wanting the referendum to feature Devo whatever does nit mean that you can't be in favour of it.

 

If there'd been a third option no side would have got the 50%. So then what?

 

 

[TheMaganator]

Here's an interesting prediction about what'll happen following a No vote. We've had implications that 'nothing will change' or that we'll suddenly be offered Devo Max, when it's completely disingenuous of the No side to do so.

 

Good God that's awful btw.

 

I don't know what's worse - the part about the SNP being forced to raise taxes (making them unpopular) or saying we're culturally etc subjugated.

 

The SNP have purposely not raised council taxes when they really should to make them popular - yet their champions are now complaining (in amongst a speech of nothing but scare mongery) they they may have to raise taxes - making them unpopular.

 

Governments have to do what's best for the country - if that's raising taxes then so be it. To complain about it (potentially having to happen) is just laughable.

[The Comedian]

Ex Labour leader of Lothian Council joins YES.

 

http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-labour-figure-joins-yes-1-3256076

[A Boy Named Crow]

Ex Labour leader of Lothian Council joins YES.

 

http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-labour-figure-joins-yes-1-3256076

 

Have there been many defections the other way? I only know of people (either in public life or personally) going from NO to YES having weighed up the options.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Have there been many defections the other way? I only know of people (either in public life or personally) going from NO to YES having weighed up the options.

Robin Harper is probably the closest.

[Patrick Bateman]

Cameron has again refused calls for him to do his job and explain why Westminster is better placed to make decisions than Holyrood. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25607826 Totally indefensible. The main reason from the no side is because he'll clearly lose, so he'll hide. In which case, why on earth should he have any powers over Scotland if he refuses to take responsibility for them? He's happy to snipe from the sidelines and let his dining club buddies use their cash to fund anti-independence propaganda, after all.

[TheMaganator]

Cameron has again refused calls for him to do his job and explain why Westminster is better placed to make decisions than Holyrood. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25607826 Totally indefensible. The main reason from the no side is because he'll clearly lose, so he'll hide. In which case, why on earth should he have any powers over Scotland if he refuses to take responsibility for them? He's happy to snipe from the sidelines and let his dining club buddies use their cash to fund anti-independence propaganda, after all.

The reason is that Salmond will use it as a 'us vs the Tories' event.

 

Like I said, the SNP have framed thus debate by telling Westminster politicians to butt out originally - more recently they've invited people to come and 'debate against Scotland'.

 

They're kicking up a stink now to deflect attention away from their embarrassing position on child care - which they thought would court the female vote they crave but is working against them.