Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Ulysses]

 

I get what you are saying. All I'm saying is that it is a bit difficult to be neutral on the resource front when one side appears to have no use for them.

 

I mentioned that if the offer of resources is made and declined, that meets the obligation for equal access.

[Patrick Bateman]

Champagne socialist Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale asking for a 'truce' during the commonwealth games. I mean, of course he does, better together have a track record for preventing debate and discussion. The idea that campaigning should stop a few weeks before the biggest vote in centuries is just daft. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25645859

[TheMaganator]

Champagne socialist Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale asking for a 'truce' during the commonwealth games. I mean, of course he does, better together have a track record for preventing debate and discussion. The idea that campaigning should stop a few weeks before the biggest vote in centuries is just daft. http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-25645859

 

I am surprised Salmond isnt in favour of this. He has a history of not politicising sporting events...

 

I have no doubt that Scotland will, at some stage during the games, be embarassed by the 'campaiging' of either party.

 

I don't think there should be campaigning at the events themselves (including banners) but you cannot stop the whole debate.

[Templeton Peck]

Not sure if either side is willing to risk another one of these

 

[pablo]

[modedit]

[deesidejambo]

I am surprised Salmond isnt in favour of this. He has a history of not politicising sporting events...

.

 

Salmond politicised the British Open golf by opening a party debate regarding women membership on golf Clubs a week before the Open. Interestingly he gushed support for Royal Aberdeen hosting the Scottish Open in 2014, only to find out later RAGC has restrictions on women playing and has two seperate clubhouses for males and females.

 

He also took the oppotunity of Andy Murrays win at Wimbledon to wave the Saltire behind Cameron. Noting that he waited for the win before he did it. A true sporting fan would be waving the flag before the game, not after it was won. Would Eck have waved his flag if Murray had lost? No way.

 

He is a political opportunist and the above are two examples of where he used sporting events to make political capital..

Edited January 8, 2014 by deesidejambo

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Salmond politicised the British Open golf by opening a party debate regarding women membership on golf Clubs a week before the Open. Interestingly he gushed support for Royal Aberdeen hosting the Scottish Open in 2014, only to find out later RAGC has restrictions on women playing and has two seperate clubhouses for males and females.

 

He also took the oppotunity of Andy Murrays win at Wimbledon to wave the Saltire behind Cameron. Noting that he waited for the win before he did it. A true sporting fan would be waving the flag before the game, not after it was won. Would Eck have waved his flag if Murray had lost? No way.

 

He is a political opportunist and the above are two examples of where he used sporting events to make political capital..

I know - I was being sarcastic. He is an opportunist who politicises everything.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.businessf...pendent-nation/

 

Nothing much to argue with there. :-)

 

I haven't had the chance to review this in full but is number 2 not just an out and out lie?

 

Is it not only possible if these two percentages are related to the same source...which they are not?

 

The "9.9%" (which includes an illustrative geographical share of North Sea Revenue) is related to UK Tax Revenue. This is the money the UK makes through receiving taxes.

 

The "9.3%" is related to UK Expenditure (which includes a per capita share of the interest payments on the National Debt). This is the money the UK spends.

 

If UK Tax Revenue and UK Expenditure were the same value, the statement "This means Scotland would have been ... better off as an independent country" would be true - but they are not.

 

UK Tax Revenue for the year 2011-12 was ?574bn. UK Expenditure for the same period was ?693bn.

 

9.9% of ?574bn of Tax Revenue is ?56.9bn.

9.3% of ?693bn of Expenditure is ?64.5bn.

 

So, how on earth ccould we have been ?4.4bn better off? I know the author is a former SNP councillor/candidate but I thought business for Scotland was meant to be a bit more than SNP-party-line-economic with the truth-based?

[JamboX2]

Champagne socialist Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale asking for a 'truce' during the commonwealth games. I mean, of course he does, better together have a track record for preventing debate and discussion. The idea that campaigning should stop a few weeks before the biggest vote in centuries is just daft. http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-25645859

 

I don't think it's calling for the whole debate to be shut down and for people in pubs who mention the "i" or "r" word to vanish with men in black coats.

 

I think it's for the top brass to tone it down and not overly politicise a huge moment for Scotland on the global stage and not alienate either sides supporters from the games by making them the "Yes Games" or the "No Games". Not necessarily a bad idea. It'll never catch on. No doubt one side will really bug the other side over the games. Someone like Jenkins or Wishart or Foulkes or Forsyth will say something daft, half thought out and potentially offensive to the thin skinned during it and make it an issue for Scots politics to fall out over...

[number-16]

I haven't had the chance to review this in full but is number 2 not just an out and out lie?

 

Is it not only possible if these two percentages are related to the same source...which they are not?

 

The "9.9%" (which includes an illustrative geographical share of North Sea Revenue) is related to UK Tax Revenue. This is the money the UK makes through receiving taxes.

 

The "9.3%" is related to UK Expenditure (which includes a per capita share of the interest payments on the National Debt). This is the money the UK spends.

 

If UK Tax Revenue and UK Expenditure were the same value, the statement "This means Scotland would have been ... better off as an independent country" would be true - but they are not.

 

UK Tax Revenue for the year 2011-12 was ?574bn. UK Expenditure for the same period was ?693bn.

 

9.9% of ?574bn of Tax Revenue is ?56.9bn.

9.3% of ?693bn of Expenditure is ?64.5bn.

 

So, how on earth ccould we have been ?4.4bn better off? I know the author is a former SNP councillor/candidate but I thought business for Scotland was meant to be a bit more than SNP-party-line-economic with the truth-based?

 

So by those figures Scotland would have a deficit of ?7.6bn

 

Now let's take Scotland's share of the UK deficit:

An 8.4% population share of a ?119bn deficit is ?10bn

But lets also look at the share of deficit by contribution (9.9%) which is ?11.8bn.

(Spending share of 9.3% would be ?11.1bn)

 

There's an argument that if Scotland is contributing 9.9% of revenue then it will currently be paying 9.9% of past deficits so a 9.9% would be a fairer reflection.

 

That would mean a difference of ?4.2bn, the difference may be explained by where figures have been rounded off in calculations.

 

Even taking the ?2.4bn difference under population share, that is either less debt to pay off on a yearly basis, reducing future expenditure, or more to invest in the economy, increasing future revenue, or a combination of both. The result being, ceteris paribus, that the difference between Scotland and rUK would become more pronounced each year.

[The Comedian]

Fill your boot's back in 2012 though...

 

In the Spectator, London mayor Boris Johnson jeered: "One of the many happy features of these wonderful Olympics is surely that they have retarded Alex Salmond in his campaign to end the union." Iain Martin, in the Telegraph, wrote: "One of the most powerful and pleasing images of the last week has been the omnipresence of the union flag. Winners have wrapped themselves in it and spectators have waved it proudly. For those of us who want the United Kingdom to survive the SNP's wrecking crew, this is a great sight."

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser added: "We have seen a reclamation of British identity over the last year with the queen's jubilee and the passage of the Olympic torch."

Tory MEP Struan Stevenson: "Andy Murray, great Scot and Olympic champion, holding a gold medal and proudly draped in the union jack ? eat your heart out Alex Salmond!"

Even Gordon Brown has weighed into the debate, arguing at the Edinburgh international book festival that the Olympics has shown that"pooling and sharing" of national resources worked out best for everyone.

 

The First Minister would be pretty stupid not to use all available advantages. He's not stupid.

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Comedian

[TheMaganator]

Fill your boot's back in 2012 though...

 

[/font][/color]

 

The First Minister would be pretty stupid not to use all available advantages. He's not stupid.

How many of those were during the games themselves?

 

And nobody doubts for one moment that Salmond was try to politicise the games - embarrassing himself & Scotland in the process.

Edited January 8, 2014 by TheMaganator

[The Comedian]

How many of those were during the games themselves?

 

And nobody doubts for one moment that Salmond was try to politicise the games - embarrassing himself & Scotland in the process.

 

Those quotes were taken from a article written on Aug 14th, two day's after the closing ceremony.

 

I'd brace yourself for Alex having a Scotland flag mate.

[JamboX2]

Fill your boot's back in 2012 though...

 

[/font][/color]

 

The First Minister would be pretty stupid not to use all available advantages. He's not stupid.

 

Of course he wouldn't. The man is a political machine. He makes statements all the time in areas where you'd think he'd know better. He told Rangers fans if asked he'd make representations on their behalf to the HMRC to "help" them through. He said in Dublin in 2012 that he and the Scottish nation understood the colonialism exerted on Ireland in it's history and it was a driver of independence. He called the Scots who were in the Team GB "Scolympians" which was reportedly roundly mocked by them - no wonder, it's cringey, not as cringey as the Scottish Cabinet saying Scolympians together in the "go on" video. He had that photo with Hearts season tickets too. He jumps into things all the time. He's lucky he gets away with a lot of it. Then the Open, his trip to America for the Ryder Cup. Some politicians would be cruxified for that stuff.

 

Politicians and sport/major cultural events sometimes don't work. Salmond has had a few blinders here where he looks a fool. But he gets away with it. These games and the Ryder Cup are part of the reason his government agreed on 2014. Electoral cycles and all the other excuses mean little. Bannockburn, the Games and the Ryder Cup all give him some sort of aimed for feel good factor to pick up pace. Well planed.

[Ulysses]

He said in Dublin in 2012 that he and the Scottish nation understood the colonialism exerted on Ireland in it's history and it was a driver of independence.

 

To the delight, as I recall, of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams and the annoyance of many other political figures in Ireland. It was gauche and undignified, in complete ignorance of the way in which relations between Britain and Ireland have developed over the last 20 years, and in sharp contrast to the dignity and graciousness shown by Queen Elizabeth in the course of her visit to Ireland only a few months before. But in fairness most of us just ignored it, which is probably fair enough in that we weren't the intended audience.

[Patrick Bateman]

I am surprised Salmond isnt in favour of this. He has a history of not politicising sporting events...

 

I have no doubt that Scotland will, at some stage during the games, be embarassed by the 'campaiging' of either party.

 

I don't think there should be campaigning at the events themselves (including banners) but you cannot stop the whole debate.

 

I personally can't wait to see this replicated when Scotland storms home to gold in the lawn bowls.

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

To the delight, as I recall, of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams and the annoyance of many other political figures in Ireland. It was gauche and undignified, in complete ignorance of the way in which relations between Britain and Ireland have developed over the last 20 years, and in sharp contrast to the dignity and graciousness shown by Queen Elizabeth in the course of her visit to Ireland only a few months before. But in fairness most of us just ignored it, which is probably fair enough in that we weren't the intended audience.

And in the same breath, he will appear on BBC Northern Ireland and say that people in Ulster are Scotland's kith and kin (Hearts and Minds when the SNP first took control at Holyrood). He is good at playing to his audience.

 

However, Alex Salmond <> Independence referendum.

[JamboX2]

Double post

Edited January 8, 2014 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

 

 

To the delight, as I recall, of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams and the annoyance of many other political figures in Ireland. It was gauche and undignified, in complete ignorance of the way in which relations between Britain and Ireland have developed over the last 20 years, and in sharp contrast to the dignity and graciousness shown by Queen Elizabeth in the course of her visit to Ireland only a few months before. But in fairness most of us just ignored it, which is probably fair enough in that we weren't the intended audience.

 

It was recalled by a member of SDLP at the time that much of the oppression in Ireland was exerted by Scots due to sectarian angst and the settlement of Ulster. Of course, that is also neglected in such comments.

[JamboX2]

 

And in the same breath, he will appear on BBC Northern Ireland and say that people in Ulster are Scotland's kith and kin (Hearts and Minds when the SNP first took control at Holyrood). He is good at playing to his audience.

 

However, Alex Salmond <> Independence referendum.

 

Hence Robin Harper calling him a magician amd showman. He's got a lot of the Galloway, the careerist self interest.

 

However, your last point is right. But that'll again do his career wonders.

[Ulysses]

And in the same breath, he will appear on BBC Northern Ireland and say that people in Ulster are Scotland's kith and kin (Hearts and Minds when the SNP first took control at Holyrood). He is good at playing to his audience.

 

However, Alex Salmond <> Independence referendum.

 

Agree with all that - and as I've said before, he's head and shoulders above anyone else on the political stage in Scotland, or most politicians on these islands for that matter (IMO of course).

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It was recalled by a member of SDLP at the time that much of the oppression in Ireland was exerted by Scots due to sectarian angst and the settlement of Ulster. Of course, that is also neglected in such comments.

 

Without wanting to get off topic, the "success" of the plantation of Ulster was the unofficial settlement in Down and Antrim in the 1580's / 90's by Montgomery and Hamilton. James VI / I 's official plantation struggled.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Without wanting to get off topic, the "success" of the plantation of Ulster was the unofficial settlement in Down and Antrim in the 1580's / 90's by Montgomery and Hamilton. James VI / I 's official plantation struggled.

 

True. But its still Scots taking lands off Gaelic Catholic Irishman. Be it the Kings or these guys Hamilton amd Montgomery, Scots were not the best in Ireland. So for Salmond, an educated man, to say what he said was really bad form.

 

Like you say this would veer off topic. But Scotland's history is one unlike Irelands in relation to England and the idea of Union. The 1707 AoU gained greater support here than the one between GB and Ireland in 1801. If anything Scots were co-oppressors there.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

True. But its still Scots taking lands off Gaelic Catholic Irishman. Be it the Kings or these guys Hamilton amd Montgomery, Scots were not the best in Ireland. So for Salmond, an educated man, to say what he said was really bad form.

 

Like you say this would veer off topic. But Scotland's history is one unlike Irelands in relation to England and the idea of Union. The 1707 AoU gained greater support here than the one between GB and Ireland in 1801. If anything Scots were co-oppressors there.

 

The 1801 Act of Union in Ireland followed the 1798 rebellion which was the only time that Catholic and "Dissenter" acted together. Indeed, the Scots-Irish in the US inspired the revolution with the Declaration of Independence. You have to remember that Scots Presbyterians were also treated as second class citizens because they were not part of the Church of Ireland. However, the 1798 rebellion descended outside of Ulster into blatant sectarianism again. It is only after this point that Orange culture took off, having only been founded in 1795 and for Anglicans only.

[JamboX2]

 

 

The 1801 Act of Union in Ireland followed the 1798 rebellion which was the only time that Catholic and "Dissenter" acted together. Indeed, the Scots-Irish in the US inspired the revolution with the Declaration of Independence. You have to remember that Scots Presbyterians were also treated as second class citizens because they were not part of the Church of Ireland. However, the 1798 rebellion descended outside of Ulster into blatant sectarianism again. It is only after this point that Orange culture took off, having only been founded in 1795 and for Anglicans only.

 

Totally agree with all of that. Good summation. Its a messy past.

[southside1874]

I haven't had the chance to review this in full but is number 2 not just an out and out lie?

 

Is it not only possible if these two percentages are related to the same source...which they are not?

 

The "9.9%" (which includes an illustrative geographical share of North Sea Revenue) is related to UK Tax Revenue. This is the money the UK makes through receiving taxes.

 

The "9.3%" is related to UK Expenditure (which includes a per capita share of the interest payments on the National Debt). This is the money the UK spends.

 

If UK Tax Revenue and UK Expenditure were the same value, the statement "This means Scotland would have been ... better off as an independent country" would be true - but they are not.

 

UK Tax Revenue for the year 2011-12 was ?574bn. UK Expenditure for the same period was ?693bn.

 

9.9% of ?574bn of Tax Revenue is ?56.9bn.

9.3% of ?693bn of Expenditure is ?64.5bn.

 

So, how on earth ccould we have been ?4.4bn better off? I know the author is a former SNP councillor/candidate but I thought business for Scotland was meant to be a bit more than SNP-party-line-economic with the truth-based?

 

Imagine if politicians told lies eh!!! If you honestly believe that Scotland would be financially deficient if it was independent, then I can't debate such a stupid notion. You can say SNP this and SNP that but if I put the future of my country in the hands of one politician or political party then I would feel stupid. This debate won't go away after the referendum.

[southside1874]

True. But its still Scots taking lands off Gaelic Catholic Irishman. Be it the Kings or these guys Hamilton amd Montgomery, Scots were not the best in Ireland. So for Salmond, an educated man, to say what he said was really bad form.

 

Like you say this would veer off topic. But Scotland's history is one unlike Irelands in relation to England and the idea of Union. The 1707 AoU gained greater support here than the one between GB and Ireland in 1801. If anything Scots were co-oppressors there.

Deary me..............lets bring this to the fold. Seriously.....wear your badge with pride.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Imagine if politicians told lies eh!!! If you honestly believe that Scotland would be financially deficient if it was independent, then I can't debate such a stupid notion. You can say SNP this and SNP that but if I put the future of my country in the hands of one politician or political party then I would feel stupid. This debate won't go away after the referendum.

No, I don't. But you said not much to argue with there (in that article) and I was merely pointing out that point 2 was at its highest misleading. GMK isn't daft - he knew that when he wrote it, but it didn't stop him passing it off as 'fact'.

[JamboX2]

 

Deary me..............lets bring this to the fold. Seriously.....wear your badge with pride.

 

I dont see your point. Do you think I'm not a good Scot?

 

Scots and Scotland were willing participants in Empire and all its ills. The involvement in Ireland was not always one of kinship with the Irish nationalist movement, nor is our history of Union remotely comprable. What the First Minister was a fiction. Nationalism has a way of negating the bad parts of a nations past.

 

To point that out and the notion Scots experience of Union is remptely comprable to the Irish is proper. The First Minister plays to his audiences, hence incoherences in his messages on a lot of things - EU, the pound and shared markets and regulators.

Edited January 9, 2014 by JamboX2

[southside1874]

I dont see your point. Do you think I'm not a good Scot?

 

Scots and Scotland were willing participants in Empire and all its ills. The involvement in Ireland was not always one of kinship with the Irish nationalist movement, nor is our history of Union remotely comprable. What the First Minister was a fiction. Nationalism has a way of negating the bad parts of a nations past.

 

To point that out and the notion Scots experience of Union is remptely comprable to the Irish is proper. The First Minister plays to his audiences, hence incoherences in his messages on a lot of things - EU, the pound and shared markets and regulators.

 

If there is one important thing to remember when making your mind up regarding this referendum it is the fact that you are not voting for any person or political party here. These folk will come and go and we will be left to pick up the pieces when they make a mess of things. What the first ministers vision of the future today will not be our First Minister of the futures vision. This is what we will hopefully have more control. The UK as it stands relies far to much on attracting foreign cash and the way it attracts foreign cash is by keeping inflation in check to make the ? appeal to foreign investors. The UK government deliberately create poverty to keep inflation down. Scotland on it's own will attract foreign cash by selling the goods it produces.

"L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers."

?Napoleon I

 

 

The problem with this is that it doesn't sell nearly enough of it's own goods in their shops.

[Boris]

A couple of stories from today's papers that, to me anyway, highlight the nick of our society. Something needs to change.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/benefits-street-a-healthy-media-would-stand-up-to-the-powerful-and-wealthy-ours-targets-the-poor-and-voiceless-9046773.html

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-12-hauled-out-class-268999#ixzz2pmG2SnlI

[The Comedian]

A couple of stories from today's papers that, to me anyway, highlight the nick of our society. Something needs to change.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/benefits-street-a-healthy-media-would-stand-up-to-the-powerful-and-wealthy-ours-targets-the-poor-and-voiceless-9046773.html

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-12-hauled-out-class-268999#ixzz2pmG2SnlI

 

That last one...

 

 

 

[Boris]

That last one...

 

 

Indeed. Still, if he lived in Tottenham he would no doubt have been shot.

[southside1874]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/pre-election-pledges-tories-are-trying-wipe-internet

 

You just gotta laugh.

[Patrick Bateman]

A couple of stories from today's papers that, to me anyway, highlight the nick of our society. Something needs to change.

 

http://www.independe...ss-9046773.html

 

http://www.mirror.co...9#ixzz2pmG2SnlI

 

The number of people who believe you can achieve change by voting against the potentially greatest change ever offered to people in Scotland is quite alarming. I thought Patrick Harvie spoke well again on Newsnicht last night when he said that 'Although independence guarantees nothing, it opens doors that would otherwise be closed' or words to that effect. Some will always focus on the 'uncertainty' of independence, as though voting no offers some benevolent assurances. In reality, the only thing that is guaranteed is that Scotland will get the government Britain votes for, and whether that's what Scotland wants is virtually irrelevant.

[jack D and coke]

A couple of stories from today's papers that, to me anyway, highlight the nick of our society. Something needs to change.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/benefits-street-a-healthy-media-would-stand-up-to-the-powerful-and-wealthy-ours-targets-the-poor-and-voiceless-9046773.html

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-12-hauled-out-class-268999#ixzz2pmG2SnlI

You could only imagine the unionists howling blue murder if the second one was about Salmond. Jesus H!

[southside1874]

A Birmingham Mail independent survey has rubbished a national newspaper (The Daily Mail) reports that nine out of ten households in the benefits street ( JamesTurner Street ) on the channel 4 program were all claiming benefits. The doors of the 101 households in James Turner Street were knocked by the survey who found that at least 22 households were in work and not on benefits. There was also no answer at 61 of the homes, but other tenants interviewed suggested many others were at full time work or were employed part time. Only ten households out of the 101 doors knocked said they were on benefits ( averaging ?700-800 per month ) , four were either pension age or disabled, three were young families or single parents and seven refused to comment. It also became clear that a lot of people who were filmed on the street did not actually live on James Turner street but lived in other areas of the city and were only visiting or had been drawn to the area by word of mouth of the channel 4 filming of the street. I asked a Loughborough university economic lecturer who is a friend of mine to calculate the benefit bill from the information above and accepting an average of the doors with no reply as unemployed but also accepting that some households who were claiming would have a person in that family who was in employment ,we did not include working tax credits ( as you are employed but not paid a living wage and you are paying tax and NI) or disabled or pensions as those claims are unavoidable on any street in the UK. I would like to add that i went easy on Downing Street as i only took a percentage of the 5.2 million that the government sanctioned on renovations to all the flats in Downing Street as the rest of the country was thrown in to austerity by them,the rest of the figure was made up of the people who work in Downing Street and their expenses and David Cameron's 28,000 pound newly fitted kitchen was thrown in for good luck on top of his renovation bill...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The number of people who believe you can achieve change by voting against the potentially greatest change ever offered to people in Scotland is quite alarming. I thought Patrick Harvie spoke well again on Newsnicht last night when he said that 'Although independence guarantees nothing, it opens doors that would otherwise be closed' or words to that effect. Some will always focus on the 'uncertainty' of independence, as though voting no offers some benevolent assurances. In reality, the only thing that is guaranteed is that Scotland will get the government Britain votes for, and whether that's what Scotland wants is virtually irrelevant.

 

And that is a fair argument. What I never understood with that argument though is the self-imposition of shackles that stop those changes happening.

[Boris]

And that is a fair argument. What I never understood with that argument though is the self-imposition of shackles that stop those changes happening.

 

But they can be decided upon by the electorate at any given time Geoff. Those shackles are not set in stone.

[Boris]

The number of people who believe you can achieve change by voting against the potentially greatest change ever offered to people in Scotland is quite alarming. I thought Patrick Harvie spoke well again on Newsnicht last night when he said that 'Although independence guarantees nothing, it opens doors that would otherwise be closed' or words to that effect. Some will always focus on the 'uncertainty' of independence, as though voting no offers some benevolent assurances. In reality, the only thing that is guaranteed is that Scotland will get the government Britain votes for, and whether that's what Scotland wants is virtually irrelevant.

 

I see independence as the unknown, but approach it with optimism.

 

I see the status quo as the known, and approach it with pessimism.

[Patrick Bateman]

And that is a fair argument. What I never understood with that argument though is the self-imposition of shackles that stop those changes happening.

 

I agree to an extent. I'm not particularly a fan of the currency union because I think the pound is goosed in the medium/long term, but it's nowhere near a sufficient reason to vote No. As I have said consistently throughout this thread, I don't expect independence to change Scotland overnight, make Scotland perfect and that we will make mistakes, such is human nature. However, independence creates opportunities and possibilities that don't, nor can they ever, exist so long as Scotland's political fate is determined at Westminster.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[southside1874]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ib-hansen-nordic-alliance-sets-example-to-scots-voters-1-3261710

 

A sensible view of things.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I agree to an extent. I'm not particularly a fan of the currency union because I think the pound is goosed in the medium/long term, but it's nowhere near a sufficient reason to vote No. As I have said consistently throughout this thread, I don't expect independence to change Scotland overnight, make Scotland perfect and that we will make mistakes, such is human nature. However, independence creates opportunities and possibilities that don't, nor can they ever, exist so long as Scotland's political fate is determined at Westminster.

I take that on board as well but then it is also being used as a "soft soap" to wary undecided voters. That's poor.

[reaths17]

You could only imagine the unionists howling blue murder if the second one was about Salmond. Jesus H!

 

how this is seen as a + for voting independence, when the SNP flagship "polis scotlund" tried to impose west coast heavy handed policing in edinburgh and had to go crawling back west with the tail between their legs is strange, clutching at straws.

 

the media one, the media are so far up the weegie fitbas erse that its coverage of anything else is worse than the british coverage.

 

the white paper doesn't offer a different political sphere, just the same as we've got with a different shade of erse barking the orders, infact the white paper offers very little real change, tinkering at best.

 

the opportunity is there for REAL change, unfortunately there isn't a movement/politician willing or capable of delivering real change.

 

recent big programs in scotland have shown that scots are no more likely to return better efforts for the people than union representatives have. the scandal of the compulsary works orders issued by councils in scotland plus the expenses scandal shows that scots are just as corrupt as their union counterparts.

 

NATO running our military, No Change

EU running our legeslation, No Change

London running our money, No Change

 

a big expense and upheavil for what exactly ?

[Boris]

how this is seen as a + for voting independence, when the SNP flagship "polis scotlund" tried to impose west coast heavy handed policing in edinburgh and had to go crawling back west with the tail between their legs is strange, clutching at straws.

 

the media one, the media are so far up the weegie fitbas erse that its coverage of anything else is worse than the british coverage.

 

the white paper doesn't offer a different political sphere, just the same as we've got with a different shade of erse barking the orders, infact the white paper offers very little real change, tinkering at best.

 

the opportunity is there for REAL change, unfortunately there isn't a movement/politician willing or capable of delivering real change.

 

recent big programs in scotland have shown that scots are no more likely to return better efforts for the people than union representatives have. the scandal of the compulsary works orders issued by councils in scotland plus the expenses scandal shows that scots are just as corrupt as their union counterparts.

 

NATO running our military, No Change

EU running our legeslation, No Change

London running our money, No Change

 

a big expense and upheavil for what exactly ?

 

I can understand your sense of political alienation due to the malaise in our current political and societal structures.

 

Independence at least gives us (the electorate) the mechanisms to make progressive change which we are currently denied via Westminster.

 

I think the link to the Scotsman article a few posts up is well worth a read.

[reaths17]

I can understand your sense of political alienation due to the malaise in our current political and societal structures.

 

Independence at least gives us (the electorate) the mechanisms to make progressive change which we are currently denied via Westminster.

 

I think the link to the Scotsman article a few posts up is well worth a read.

 

that article just re-enforces my opinion, that they aren't giving us a choice an option its the exact same with a scottish front man. why are we not getting a danish choice on the EU, why are we not getting a vote on NATO.

 

we're getting no change. if they actually offered a change, apart from your staunch hun and the elite capitalists every scots person would vote for independence but this wishy washy musical chairs, thats gonna eat up a fortune in inept committees and quangoes trying to extricate us from the union isn't giving anything back in the way of real change. the independence movement have went from "we'll be running everything ourselves" to, "it gives us an opportunity to change things and run more ourselves"

[Patrick Bateman]

The way I see the White paper is that it's a sort of artist's impression of independence, it's designed to show some of the possibilities. It's there to give people an idea of the sort of Scotland that could be constructed in the next couple of years. Folk claiming it isn't radical or different enough, fine, with a yes vote, you're more likely to see the changes you want implemented than you will with the status quo.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The way I see the White paper is that it's a sort of artist's impression of independence, it's designed to show some of the possibilities. It's there to give people an idea of the sort of Scotland that could be constructed in the next couple of years. Folk claiming it isn't radical or different enough, fine, with a yes vote, you're more likely to see the changes you want implemented than you will with the status quo.

If that's the case though, why can't the No campaign turn round and say that any future devolution will vary by party and there is no consensus view?

[Boris]

that article just re-enforces my opinion, that they aren't giving us a choice an option its the exact same with a scottish front man. why are we not getting a danish choice on the EU, why are we not getting a vote on NATO.

 

we're getting no change. if they actually offered a change, apart from your staunch hun and the elite capitalists every scots person would vote for independence but this wishy washy musical chairs, thats gonna eat up a fortune in inept committees and quangoes trying to extricate us from the union isn't giving anything back in the way of real change. the independence movement have went from "we'll be running everything ourselves" to, "it gives us an opportunity to change things and run more ourselves"

 

I suppose such is the nature of international relations, HOWEVER, I do actually agree that as an independent nation we should ask the people to ratify membership of these extra-national organisations.

 

The way I see the White paper is that it's a sort of artist's impression of independence, it's designed to show some of the possibilities. It's there to give people an idea of the sort of Scotland that could be constructed in the next couple of years. Folk claiming it isn't radical or different enough, fine, with a yes vote, you're more likely to see the changes you want implemented than you will with the status quo.

If that's the case though, why can't the No campaign turn round and say that any future devolution will vary by party and there is no consensus view?

 

At least with independence Geoff, the mechanisms are there to smooth the rough edges or to radically alter the constitution. Devolution, regardless of how much, still leaves you impotent to Westminster's fancies.

[jack D and coke]

 

how this is seen as a + for voting independence, when the SNP flagship "polis scotlund" tried to impose west coast heavy handed policing in edinburgh and had to go crawling back west with the tail between their legs is strange, clutching at straws.

 

the media one, the media are so far up the weegie fitbas erse that its coverage of anything else is worse than the british coverage.

 

the white paper doesn't offer a different political sphere, just the same as we've got with a different shade of erse barking the orders, infact the white paper offers very little real change, tinkering at best.

 

the opportunity is there for REAL change, unfortunately there isn't a movement/politician willing or capable of delivering real change.

 

recent big programs in scotland have shown that scots are no more likely to return better efforts for the people than union representatives have. the scandal of the compulsary works orders issued by councils in scotland plus the expenses scandal shows that scots are just as corrupt as their union counterparts.

 

NATO running our military, No Change

EU running our legeslation, No Change

London running our money, No Change

 

a big expense and upheavil for what exactly ?

I don't recall saying it was a reason for voting yes mate.