Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Patrick Bateman]

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.

 

 

Those quotes aren't inconsistent and you're fully aware of that. This debate is about which parliament is better placed to make decisions about Scotland's future; Westminster or Holyrood. FM Salmond leads Holyrood, PM Cameron leads Westminster. It's really that simple. As I've said before, I'm sure they'd have debated Brown had he not been a complete failure. The fact it's a Tory PM who is deeply unpopular here is tough; why should he be afraid to speak her? Because he isn't popular and has no democratic mandate here? Fine. Then why should he be our PM? It's a really awkward position for the anti-independence campaign. I totally understand why Cameron wants to distance himself from this as much as possible. He has both eyes on next year's UK general election; if he accepted a debate and lost, which he would, his reputation and PM would be irrevocably damaged. Still, it's pretty laughable to see the way folks are defending this.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Those quotes aren't inconsistent and you're fully aware of that. This debate is about which parliament is better placed to make decisions about Scotland's future; Westminster or Holyrood. FM Salmond leads Holyrood, PM Cameron leads Westminster. It's really that simple. As I've said before, I'm sure they'd have debated Brown had he not been a complete failure. The fact it's a Tory PM who is deeply unpopular here is tough; why should he be afraid to speak her? Because he isn't popular and has no democratic mandate here? Fine. Then why should he be our PM? It's a really awkward position for the anti-independence campaign. I totally understand why Cameron wants to distance himself from this as much as possible. He has both eyes on next year's UK general election; if he accepted a debate and lost, which he would, his reputation and PM would be irrevocably damaged. Still, it's pretty laughable to see the way folks are defending this.

 

It's also laughable how desperate the SNP are to stage this debate. They are pissed off that Cameron won't take the bait.

[Patrick Bateman]

It's also laughable how desperate the SNP are to stage this debate. They are pissed off that Cameron won't take the bait.

 

Why is it laughable? They'd win and it give the Yes campaign a massive lift. Besides, the more pressure they put him under, the better. They can paint Cameron as the Toff with zero interest in Scotland, yet who still controls major policy decisions that impact upon Scotland. Whatever way you look at it, the No campaign do not look good by refusing to debate.

 

On another note, here's an anti-suffragette pamphlet. Does anyone see any similarities?

 

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Those quotes aren't inconsistent and you're fully aware of that. This debate is about which parliament is better placed to make decisions about Scotland's future; Westminster or Holyrood. FM Salmond leads Holyrood, PM Cameron leads Westminster. It's really that simple. As I've said before, I'm sure they'd have debated Brown had he not been a complete failure. The fact it's a Tory PM who is deeply unpopular here is tough; why should he be afraid to speak her? Because he isn't popular and has no democratic mandate here? Fine. Then why should he be our PM? It's a really awkward position for the anti-independence campaign. I totally understand why Cameron wants to distance himself from this as much as possible. He has both eyes on next year's UK general election; if he accepted a debate and lost, which he would, his reputation and PM would be irrevocably damaged. Still, it's pretty laughable to see the way folks are defending this.

You're ignoring the point that he's been invited to come and 'debate against Scotland' by the SNP. Given that this is how they're framing it, why would he?

[Patrick Bateman]

You're ignoring the point that he's been invited to come and 'debate against Scotland' by the SNP. Given that this is how they're framing it, why would he?

 

So he's refusing to debate the future of the United Kingdom because he doesn't like the way the debate has been framed? He doesn't like something, so he doesn't even try? Why is he PM then?

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

Robin Harper is probably the closest.

 

Bloody Greens, wouldn't bet against him changing his mind again though...

[TheMaganator]

 

 

So he's refusing to debate the future of the United Kingdom because he doesn't like the way the debate has been framed? He doesn't like something, so he doesn't even try? Why is he PM then?

You must see the SNP have had a shocker here?

 

His job as PM is to do what's best for the country. That doesn't mean walking into a SNP framed anti-Tory-fest.

 

I know you think that it makes him look foolish. How do you think Salmond looks going on about it? Pretty pathetic tbh

Edited January 5, 2014 by TheMaganator

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why is it laughable? They'd win and it give the Yes campaign a massive lift. Besides, the more pressure they put him under, the better. They can paint Cameron as the Toff with zero interest in Scotland, yet who still controls major policy decisions that impact upon Scotland. Whatever way you look at it, the No campaign do not look good by refusing to debate.

 

On another note, here's an anti-suffragette pamphlet. Does anyone see any similarities?

 

 

Er, no, no I don't but then I'm not looking for political conspiracy in everything.

[Patrick Bateman]

You must see the SNP have had a shocker here?

 

His job as PM is to do what's best for the country. That doesn't mean walking into a SNP framed anti-Tory-fest.

 

I know you think that it makes him look foolish. How do you think Salmond looks going on about it? Pretty pathetic tbh

 

I don't think it makes him look foolish at all. As I've said, I understand why he doesn't want to do it; he cannot win. However, the fact he can't win, is deeply unpopular and has no democratic mandate here, well, that all speaks for itself. Salmond looks like he wants to dictate the narrative, which is what both sides what to do. Whatever way you look at this, Cameron's refusal to debate makes him look weak, or makes Scotland's place within a Union lead by someone so indifferent, look weak.

 

Er, no, no I don't but then I'm not looking for political conspiracy in everything.

 

Did I suggest some sort of conspiracy? No, it's that Better Together have appropriated similarly risible arguments against independence. The best one being the creation of 'wasteful'/ 'unwanted' competition.

[Ulysses]

On another note, here's an anti-suffragette pamphlet. Does anyone see any similarities?

 

Haven't you got any arguments from the 21st century? Just wondering.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I don't think it makes him look foolish at all. As I've said, I understand why he doesn't want to do it; he cannot win. However, the fact he can't win, is deeply unpopular and has no democratic mandate here, well, that all speaks for itself. Salmond looks like he wants to dictate the narrative, which is what both sides what to do. Whatever way you look at this, Cameron's refusal to debate makes him look weak, or makes Scotland's place within a Union lead by someone so indifferent, look weak.

 

 

 

Did I suggest some sort of conspiracy? No, it's that Better Together have appropriated similarly risible arguments against independence. The best one being the creation of 'wasteful'/ 'unwanted' competition.

 

Sorry, Better Together have created an pro-union argument? When did this happen?

[Ulysses]

It's also laughable how desperate the SNP are to stage this debate.

 

Is it, though? I've been saying for a good while that the SNP need to ratchet up the campaign. Since the arguments for and against don't seem to be making any difference, why not make the debate or non-debate the issue?

 

And why is it OK for Cameron to use his office to support the campaign for a No vote while at the same time refusing to debate to defend the Union of which he is PM?

[Big D]

None of us are looking for political conspiracy, but it is world wide. The web means it can't be buried by governments and it's becoming obvious how much there is and always has been. Surely the NY revelations about 1984 in the U.K.(sic) must even allow the staunchest to accept we are lied to daily, for the benefit of the few. Would our new Scottish Government lie, probably. As extensively and disgustingly as the U.K.(sic) governemnts? Why would we have to?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Is it, though? I've been saying for a good while that the SNP need to ratchet up the campaign. Since the arguments for and against don't seem to be making any difference, why not make the debate or non-debate the issue?

 

And why is it OK for Cameron to use his office to support the campaign for a No vote while at the same time refusing to debate to defend the Union of which he is PM?

On the last question, my view is that since he doesn't have a vote, he shouldn't take part. However, I accept an alternative view can be made.

 

The rest is realpolitik on both sides.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Is it, though? I've been saying for a good while that the SNP need to ratchet up the campaign. Since the arguments for and against don't seem to be making any difference, why not make the debate or non-debate the issue?

 

And why is it OK for Cameron to use his office to support the campaign for a No vote while at the same time refusing to debate to defend the Union of which he is PM?

On the last question, my view is that since he doesn't have a vote, he shouldn't take part. However, I accept an alternative view can be made.

 

The rest is realpolitik on both sides.

[Patrick Bateman]

Haven't you got any arguments from the 21st century? Just wondering.

 

I'm assuming you've seen most of the posts on this thread. A couple of folk have complimented me for the standard of my arguments, maybe you can pour over the thread again to find them. I wouldn't want to repeat myself.

 

Sorry, Better Together have created an pro-union argument? When did this happen?

 

Well, they claim to have created pro-union arguments, but most of their campaign has focused on how Scotland is uniquely incapable/inferior at governing itself. I guess they're hopeful that playing on some peoples inferiority complex is the right way to go.

[TheMaganator]

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

Apparently this guy has been a member of the SSP for years. The SSP are supporters of the Yes campaign anyway.

 

At best, this story is misleading

[Ulysses]

I'm assuming you've seen most of the posts on this thread. A couple of folk have complimented me for the standard of my arguments, maybe you can pour over the thread again to find them. I wouldn't want to repeat myself.

 

If you believe that the only alternative to repeating yourself is to post something from decades ago that has nothing to do with the debate, that's up to you.

 

What matters is why voters should vote No, or Yes, not what swipes (for failings real or imagined) one side wishes to level at the other side.

[Ulysses]

On the last question, my view is that since he doesn't have a vote, he shouldn't take part. However, I accept an alternative view can be made.

 

The rest is realpolitik on both sides.

 

But he is taking part, and using his office to do so, while shying away from a debate on the subject.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

But he is taking part, and using his office to do so, while shying away from a debate on the subject.

Absolutely. However, if you look at the 1997 referendum, how many debates did Blair and Hague get involved in? Answer: None.

[TheMaganator]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-backs-more-devolution-1-3256693

Latest YouGov poll

 

Yes support still at 30% but more devolution seems to be popular.

[Ulysses]

http://m.scotsman.co...ution-1-3256693

Latest YouGov poll

 

Yes support still at 30% but more devolution seems to be popular.

 

That's not comparable to other polls. It doesn't count the Yes-No votes on the referendum question.

[Boris]

Absolutely. However, if you look at the 1997 referendum, how many debates did Blair and Hague get involved in? Answer: None.

 

Devolution a bit different from independence though Geoff. Here we have one parliament arguing against the other so things have escalated to PM level. IMO.

 

I get a negative message from Cameron if the PM of the UK can't be arsed telling me why the union is such a wonderful thing and that Scotland is a much valued and needed part of that union. And, as the PM of the UK, if he can't make the argument in person versus the leader of the pro independence group, then that makes it appear as if he couldn't care, imo.

[Boris]

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?

http://m.scotsman.co...ution-1-3256693

Latest YouGov poll

 

Yes support still at 30% but more devolution seems to be popular.

 

I'd have liked to see a two question referendum.

 

Q1 - should Scotland be an independent country (yes/no)

 

Q2 - should the Scotland be given greater devolution (or words to that effect).

 

If Q1 led to a 50%+ return for independence the Q2 irrelevant. If No won Q1 then Q2 comes into play.

 

Easy.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Devolution a bit different from independence though Geoff. Here we have one parliament arguing against the other so things have escalated to PM level. IMO.

 

I disagree. It directly affected Westminster via the good old West Lothian question and whether it impacted the status of MPs at Westminster.

 

I get a negative message from Cameron if the PM of the UK can't be arsed telling me why the union is such a wonderful thing and that Scotland is a much valued and needed part of that union. And, as the PM of the UK, if he can't make the argument in person versus the leader of the pro independence group, then that makes it appear as if he couldn't care, imo.

 

The thing is Boris, you know as well as I do that any debate would quickly descend into party politics, like the bedroom tax and it being "imposed" on Scotland. That is a far more emotive argument compared to the case for a shared benefit policy across the UK, which is pretty dry.

 

In saying that, Cameron has the least to lose with a laissez-faire approach as opposed to winning "hearts and minds", his latest vacuous nonsense. If he gets involved and loses, his credibility is shot. If he remains stand-offish, he can blame Labour for the defeat as the main Unionist party and claiming that devolution would kill independence stone dead.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

I'd have liked to see a two question referendum.

 

Q1 - should Scotland be an independent country (yes/no)

 

Q2 - should the Scotland be given greater devolution (or words to that effect).

 

If Q1 led to a 50%+ return for independence the Q2 irrelevant. If No won Q1 then Q2 comes into play.

 

Easy.

That would have worked, I suppose. The question of whether the SNP had a mandate to frame it that way would need to be addressed though.

[Boris]

That would have worked, I suppose. The question of whether the SNP had a mandate to frame it that way would need to be addressed though.

 

I don't think that the SNP wanted it, given it's independence or bust for them. Was disappointed that the Unionist parties didn't say more about it, but then I think it suggests a distinct lack of interest in it on their part DESPITE it being a vote winner (imo).

[JamboX2]

Had Brown held on in 2010 through Coalition (if numbers had matched up for a Lab-Lib government), Salmond would still have called for a PM v FM debate, however I doubt he'd be so readily up for it as he is with Cameron. As Geoff points out, this will descend to Salmond pointing to his policy positions vs Cameron's Coalition ones. For right and wrong none of that should impact the debate on whether or not Scotland should stay in the UK. Governments are short term and Scotland may well opt for Scottish brand of Toryism if Yes won.

 

To me that sounds a lot like what Robin Harper said of Salmond in his "I'm voting No" release - Salmond is a great politician in that he uses deflection very well. It's more talking in positive tones on a few things whilst slating his opponents and turning it on them.

[JamboX2]

I don't think that the SNP wanted it, given it's independence or bust for them. Was disappointed that the Unionist parties didn't say more about it, but then I think it suggests a distinct lack of interest in it on their part DESPITE it being a vote winner (imo).

 

The SNP proposed it and the Unionists - for their own myriad of reasons - thought it a vacuous position proposed by Salmond as his Plan B. I tend to agree, Salmond said we want independence, but what about a multi-option vote in which there's this "Devo-Max" concept, which I myself quite like. If he'd said "we want independence, but we are offering the Unionists to come together and offer their position on further powers, we are more than happy to work with them on that". If the latter had been the case it'd be impossible for Lamont, Rennie, Davidson, Darling and whoever else to not take it up. As it was, Salmond set them the perfect trap - take my option or look like you're proposing nothing. In that lies the mess of the No Campaign's current message - No to Yes Scotland and the SNP's offer and "devolution is an issue for our parties, not us".

[southside1874]

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/8500-russian-ship-exposes-lack-of-royal-navy-vessels-in-scotland

 

Interesting news.

[JamboX2]

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/8500-russian-ship-exposes-lack-of-royal-navy-vessels-in-scotland

 

Interesting news.

 

Was dealt with a few weeks ago on here. To think this was not monitored and tracked by satelite and the nuclear submarine patrol and NATO listening stations is nonsense. The RAF base at Kinloss was also no doubt on alert. If it acted aggresively I'd argue the good folks of Sutherland would've had a spectacular fireworks show as it sunk.

[Gizmo]

If you believe that the only alternative to repeating yourself is to post something from decades ago that has nothing to do with the debate, that's up to you.

 

What matters is why voters should vote No, or Yes, not what swipes (for failings real or imagined) one side wishes to level at the other side.

 

Wouldn't be much of a debate if we ignore the actual campaigns. Bateman's post was spot in - the similarities between that pamphlet and the "arguments" put forward by Better Together are quite obvious. And it leads back to the point that if you now asked women if they wanted to give up their voting rights you'd be told to bolt. Exactly the same when you poll people in Scotland as to whether they would vote for the Union or vote to give up independence.

 

History tells us a lot about the future, particularly when politicians seem duty bound to repeat the same spin, bluster, lies and adversarial approach that they have since centuries ago.

 

As far as modern day publications, I'm still waiting on that substantive publication from Better Together who seem to think that they can ask as many "what if" questions of YES Scotland, speed-read and dismiss a large paper that they repeatedly demanded, yet get away with offering little substance themselves other than reasons why Scotland "can't" take care of itself.

 

In light of Osborne's further ?25 BILLION of cuts (to welfare, can't have the rich shouldering this burden) I want to know how they can continue to claim we are better off within this bankrupt union. I bet come September I'll still be waiting because they honestly believe that only YES Scotland have to make a case. They want their cake and to eat it too - well I hope this ridiculous approach sees them wearing the damn cake post referendum.

[JamboX2]

As far as modern day publications, I'm still waiting on that substantive publication from Better Together who seem to think that they can ask as many "what if" questions of YES Scotland, speed-read and dismiss a large paper that they repeatedly demanded, yet get away with offering little substance themselves other than reasons why Scotland "can't" take care of itself.

 

In light of Osborne's further ?25 BILLION of cuts (to welfare, can't have the rich shouldering this burden) I want to know how they can continue to claim we are better off within this bankrupt union. I bet come September I'll still be waiting because they honestly believe that only YES Scotland have to make a case. They want their cake and to eat it too - well I hope this ridiculous approach sees them wearing the damn cake post referendum.

 

I agree with you that the No campaign is a botched failure. However, the fact that Yes is struggling to make headway is equally worrying imo - however, as I've said on here before, the polls will narrow considerably come the summer and the "full" campaign. Whether Yes wins is another issue. I agree with you though that Better Together, or the three parties constituting them, must produce some form of document on what they propose to happen after a No win. No doubt it'll not be as detailed as the White Paper, however, I'd argue even outlining their next steps on devolution is necessary. Things like Barnett will change if you see greater tax and borrowing powers devolved - rightly so, however, Barnett isn't a sacred cow, nor should it be. With increased fiscal powers comes the need for better distribution mechanisms, and there's plenty good examples in Europe for replacement of Barnett - Germany being the best. However, those issues are ones which will need discussed between the UK, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, London and other large local authorities and governments, after the vote, as that is negotiation between these parties. Bit like Currency Union is merely a hope right now as it needs negotiation to set out and to enable the BoE to be reformed to meet the new needs if that arose come a Yes vote.

 

As for the Cuts. Scotland come a Yes vote is not immune to this. I know the SNP have proposed a couple of things here, all of which point to belt tightening. Personal taxation is to remain the same, corporate taxation is to be reduced along with some property levies in order to boost the housing market (in saying that it's pretty centre-right). So the balance to reduce the smaller Scottish deficit will involve cuts - defence and foreign affairs are the main aim to cut under the SNP's white paper and certain "reforms" to help here and there in reducing the budget. I agree with you those with the broadest shoulders should take more strain than others. But to argue the Union is the only place where cuts are coming from is wrong. As it stands an independent Scotland under the White Paper adopts a lot of the fiscal thinking of the current UK thinking, it just uses terms like "fiscal retrenchment" instead of "cuts" and in fact retains a lot of things we shouldn't be having - reduced income tax rates at the top end and cutting corporation tax by 3% more than the UK level at all times. It all points to cuts.

[Coco]

Lots of people want a 'No' document. Would make sense to rebut many of the claims in the White Paper and those made outside. Many of the arguments to be found on this thread of course.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-70-want-no-document-1-3256688

 

Perhaps the Scottish Government will fund it - including making the civil service available in the way that they were used for the Manifesto/White Paper.

[Patrick Bateman]

Lots of people want a 'No' document. Would make sense to rebut many of the claims in the White Paper and those made outside. Many of the arguments to be found on this thread of course.

 

http://www.scotsman....ument-1-3256688

 

Perhaps the Scottish Government will fund it - including making the civil service available in the way that they were used for the Manifesto/White Paper.

 

Materials explaining why Scots are uniquely incapable/inferior at self-governance can be devised at Whitehall.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Coco]

Materials explaining why Scots are uniquely incapable/inferior at self-governance can be devised at Whitehall.

 

I'm not very familiar with these campaign groups and not too interested in what they are doing. But I doubt that many people are saying that Scots are uniquely incapable/inferior of self-governance.

 

But given that the Scottish civil service were used for the White Paper Manifesto I think it would be fair for a similar amount of resources to be made available to the 'No' document. After all the aim is to answer all the questions.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm not very familiar with these campaign groups and not too interested in what they are doing. But I doubt that many people are saying that Scots are uniquely incapable/inferior of self-governance.

 

But given that the Scottish civil service were used for the White Paper Manifesto I think it would be fair for a similar amount of resources to be made available to the 'No' document. After all the aim is to answer all the questions.

 

They have had the ability and time to do it for months and they've refused. What does that tell you? When you consider that they want to shut down as many debates as possible, and prevent Cameron from being involved, it's almost as though they want to keep people in a state of ignorance. After all, any balanced assessment of Westminster would see it as a largely corrupt, inefficient mess, where Scotland has a 9% say in what goes on, in a 'country' whose best days are irrefutably behind it. It's that, or the far more exciting option of becoming an independent sovereign state once again, where we are guaranteed governments that we elect and whose paramount consideration is Scotland.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Coco]

They have had the ability and time to do it for months and they've refused. What does that tell you? When you consider that they want to shut down as many debates as possible, and prevent Cameron from being involved, it's almost as though they want to keep people in a state of ignorance. After all, any balanced assessment of Westminster would see it as a largely corrupt, inefficient mess, where Scotland has a 9% say in what goes on, in a 'country' whose best days are irrefutably behind it. It's that, or the far more exciting option of becoming an independent sovereign state once again, where we are guaranteed governments that we elect and whose paramount consideration is Scotland.

 

Perhaps the finance hasn't been available to create such a document. I don't think that they have had access to the civil service to write a Manifesto White Paper.

[Patrick Bateman]

Perhaps the finance hasn't been available to create such a document. I don't think that they have had access to the civil service to write a Manifesto White Paper.

 

Better together are coordinated by Westminster, it's inconceivable that they'd be unable to produce an anti-independence paper. For all their sophistry and negativity, they could spare themselves the effort and just tell Scotland that we are too small, poor and stupid to do any better than Westminster can. That's essentially what the no campaign argument is.

[Coco]

Better together are coordinated by Westminster, it's inconceivable that they'd be unable to produce an anti-independence paper. For all their sophistry and negativity, they could spare themselves the effort and just tell Scotland that we are too small, poor and stupid to do any better than Westminster can. That's essentially what the no campaign argument is.

 

Don't think that is right. I don't know much about their campaign but as I understand it - it is about retaining the Union. Nothing to do with people being too small, poor or stupid. Not sure where you get that idea.

 

Perhaps the best outcome would be for Sturgeon to direct funds and Scottish civil service time (and access to Government materials) equivalent to that spent on the White Paper Manifesto - towards the effort to create a Paper which considers the constitutional issues in the White Paper from the No side. Fair outcome and would help to give the Scottish people the information they deserve to help make their minds up.

[Patrick Bateman]

Don't think that is right. I don't know much about their campaign but as I understand it - it is about retaining the Union. Nothing to do with people being too small, poor or stupid. Not sure where you get that idea.

 

Perhaps the best outcome would be for Sturgeon to direct funds and Scottish civil service time (and access to Government materials) equivalent to that spent on the White Paper Manifesto - towards the effort to create a Paper which considers the constitutional issues in the White Paper from the No side. Fair outcome and would help to give the Scottish people the information they deserve to help make their minds up.

 

So Yes Scotland / the Scottish Government should act against its own interests, because the other side can't be bothered to produce a counterargument for themselves? Wow.

 

As for the too wee, poor, stupid thing, Better Together's own message was 'weaker apart' until they dropped it. Darling continually whinged about how uncertain the future was, and mislead people into thinking that Scotland would be fully liable for RBS and HBOS collapsing. Funny that he doesn't mention how he personally saved those banks anymore, I guess it might have something to do with them rigging lending rates. But then, for someone as shady as house-flipping Darling, it wouldn't surprise me if his motivation was more personal.

[Coco]

 

 

So Yes Scotland / the Scottish Government should act against its own interests, because the other side can't be bothered to produce a counterargument for themselves? Wow.

 

As for the too wee, poor, stupid thing, Better Together's own message was 'weaker apart' until they dropped it. Darling continually whinged about how uncertain the future was, and mislead people into thinking that Scotland would be fully liable for RBS and HBOS collapsing. Funny that he doesn't mention how he personally saved those banks anymore, I guess it might have something to do with them rigging lending rates. But then, for someone as shady as house-flipping Darling, it wouldn't surprise me if his motivation was more personal.

 

No. They used public resources to create their manifesto. Only fair that a similar level of public resources is provided to the other side.

[Patrick Bateman]

No. They used public resources to create their manifesto. Only fair that a similar level of public resources is provided to the other side.

 

I have already answered this, but perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. Westminster/Whitehall produces documents for better together, using tax money to do so. They had the opportunity to publish a black paper, but refused. Why do you think they'd do that? My belief is that they try to stifle and misinform as much as possible, because people being afraid and ignorant suits them.

[Ulysses]

 

No. They used public resources to create their manifesto. Only fair that a similar level of public resources is provided to the other side.

 

Is this correct? Is it true that resources funded by taxpayers were used solely to promote one side of the argument?

 

If that is the case, it doesn't bode well for fair and balanced debate on policy issues if Scotland does become independent.

[Boaby Ewing]

Lord Robertson trying to put the shitters up the Americans.

 

http://www.washingto...c0a9_story.html

 

Scotland secession could lead to re-Balkanization of Europe

 

 

This time next year, the country known as the United Kingdom may be about to disappear.

If Scotland?s separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September, the 300-year-old union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland ? the United States? oldest and closest ally ? will be on the road to disintegration...

Edited January 6, 2014 by Dave de le Noir

[Ulysses]

 

Devolution a bit different from independence though Geoff. Here we have one parliament arguing against the other so things have escalated to PM level. IMO.

 

 

Agreed. Effectively, the PM of the day was not in opposition to the devolution proposal, and therefore could stay out of the debate. The present PM has taken a position against the independence proposal and has intervened in the debate, but is using contradictory and indeed spurious grounds to avoid debating with the FM.

[Coco]

Is this correct? Is it true that resources funded by taxpayers were used solely to promote one side of the argument?

 

If that is the case, it doesn't bode well for fair and balanced debate on policy issues if Scotland does become independent.

 

Yes. So long as you see the White Paper/Manifesto as being one side of the argument and not a neutral document anyway. Civil service resources were used for it.

[Coco]

Agreed. Effectively, the PM of the day was not in opposition to the devolution proposal, and therefore could stay out of the debate. The present PM has taken a position against the independence proposal and has intervened in the debate, but is using contradictory and indeed spurious grounds to avoid debating with the FM.

 

I can understand the realpolitik involved here - the idea is to try to mock the Tory - but I can't understand why Cameron won't set up a debate and then debate on constitutional issues. A strong chair - perhaps someone like Andrew Neil - could keep the debate to constitutional rather than political issues.

 

It is something of a sign of cowardice that he is opting out.

[JamboX2]

PB, in some nations where referendums are on going both sides are funded by state monies and given access to civil service assistance in equal measure. It seems to be a uniquely Nritish/Scottish thing which thinks an impartial civil service cant do both here. Afterall this an aim of the SNP and its Yes partners. They politically constitute the Scottish Government. Administratively the Scottish Civil Service is an independent and neutral organisation which staffs the government. Why cant they therefore be used by both sides?

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Are folk seriously suggesting that better together is the underdog in terms of resources? Wow, indeed.