Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

 

You would have to ask them but you are right the No "campaign" isn't even worthy of the word.

 

Hands together at Hadrian's Wall?

 

It's a smear campaign if anything. The only arguments I come across are the "salmonds fat lol" and other such brainless arguments. Everything else coming out of their camp is pure drivel which is aimed at smearing the points of the Yes campaign. They've never came up with an argument of their own outwith the highly laughable EU effort. Instead they opt to let the Yes campaign make the points and the spray bullets at them from the distance in the small hope one will eventually hit.

 

The more baffling thing is that on here, a fair few of the No voters are amomgst the more intelligent members of the site.

 

I started as a no vote but it became more and more difficult to justify that vote because there is absolutely no substance to it whereas the yes comes off way better.

 

How anyone can be convinced by the No campaign is beyond me. It's probably fear of risk and change rather than anything with actual substance.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Ezio Auditore da Firenze

[jack D and coke]

 

It's a smear campaign if anything. The only arguments I come across are the "salmonds fat lol" and other such brainless arguments. Everything else coming out of their camp is pure drivel which is aimed at smearing the points of the Yes campaign. They've never came up with an argument of their own outwith the highly laughable EU effort. Instead they opt to let the Yes campaign make the points and the spray bullets at them from the distance in the small hope one will eventually hit.

The no campaign is doing more damage to the union than yes IMO.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jack D and coke

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

The no campaign is doing more damage to the union than yes IMO.

 

Certainly. It definitely played a huge part in me changing my mind.

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

I'm not going to watch it as I have a new drama biopic here about INXS to watch now. I'm guessing it doesn't mention the Scottish demographic issue though?

 

What's the INXS biopic called? Sounds interesting. The video doesn't go into demographics, but rather talks about deficits, GDPs, similar indepenr nations etc. It was a few weeks ago that I watched it and I can't just now, I don't want to misrepresent what he is saying.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What's the INXS biopic called? Sounds interesting. The video doesn't go into demographics, but rather talks about deficits, GDPs, similar indepenr nations etc. It was a few weeks ago that I watched it and I can't just now, I don't want to misrepresent what he is saying.

 

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/video/watch/21257816/blockbuster-sunday-on-seven/

 

First part was surprisingly good. Last part next week.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Scotland's economic future is what Scotland makes of it. As I said up the thread, it has comparative advantages in primary resources, particularly water, which will become even more valuable longer term. Demographics, however, are a big negative due to the relative age of the population and the lower birth rate.

 

Deficits and GDP are all well and good but they are meaningless as a guide to the future.

[dc-jambo]

Certainly. It definitely played a huge part in me changing my mind.

I hope some nasty rich people give more money to the No campaign: the more garbage they spin, the higher the Yes vote

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Certainly. It definitely played a huge part in me changing my mind.

BT have been weak.

 

I'm hoping that the amount of stick they're receiving will make them up their game. I think we'll see a change in tactics from here on in.

 

I made up my mind before either campaign started and ive heard nothing that makes me want to change it - quite the opposite. If I'd been wavering the currency union would have solidified my No vote. I cannot grasp why anyone would want to plunge Scotland into a Euro type union when we've seen what's happened in contental Europe.

[TheMaganator]

Predictably the Yes campaign have rounded on Glasgow Caley for having their logo on the lecturn that Cameron gave his lecture from.

Embarrassing

 

[The Comedian]

BT have been weak.

 

I'm hoping that the amount of stick they're receiving will make them up their game. I think we'll see a change in tactics from here on in.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/08/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-nationalist-juggernaut?CMP=twt_gu

 

The respective campaigns are not without their faults however the YES side IMO is out working BT and by quite a margin. Perhaps this is a result of the attitude, displayed here on occasion, that a NO vote is a near certainty and they don't need to do all that much.

 

It's just my gut feeling but I reckon the tide has changed.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/08/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-nationalist-juggernaut?CMP=twt_gu

 

The respective campaigns are not without their faults however the YES side IMO is out working BT and by quite a margin. Perhaps this is a result of the attitude, displayed here on occasion, that a NO vote is a near certainty and they don't need to do all that much.

 

It's just my gut feeling but I reckon the tide has changed.

I've heard they from a few people now - I just don't see it

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence-referendum

[GrimUpNorth]

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/08/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-nationalist-juggernaut?CMP=twt_gu

 

The respective campaigns are not without their faults however the YES side IMO is out working BT and by quite a margin. Perhaps this is a result of the attitude, displayed here on occasion, that a NO vote is a near certainty and they don't need to do all that much.

 

It's just my gut feeling but I reckon the tide has changed.

 

I don't think the tide has changed as the polls have barely shifted. In fact there is one out today which shows support for No increasing and Yes dropping.

 

No doubt whatsoever though that Yes are out working the No campaign. I think the Spectator article above from Alex Massie someone posted explains it perfectly.

[The Comedian]

I don't think the tide has changed as the polls have barely shifted. In fact there is one out today which shows support for No increasing and Yes dropping.

 

No doubt whatsoever though that Yes are out working the No campaign. I think the Spectator article above from Alex Massie someone posted explains it perfectly.

 

Just read it. Have to agree.

 

As I said, it's just a gut feeling, I'm positive we will be Independent.

[Gorgiewave]

"Shameful they gave this man a platform". There's anti-democracy right there. If you don't agree with us, you'd better shut up. He's the Prime Minister of a country Scotland got into because it bankrupted itself with the naturally social democratic policy of trying to found an Empire! On a mountain of debt!

 

The SNP are not democrats.

[TheMaganator]

"Shameful they gave this man a platform". There's anti-democracy right there. If you don't agree with us, you'd better shut up. He's the Prime Minister of a country Scotland got into because it bankrupted itself with the naturally social democratic policy of trying to found an Empire! On a mountain of debt!

 

The SNP are not democrats.

Spot on.

 

They attack those who disagree with them in an attempt to shut them up.

 

Let's not forget our Justice Minister, Kenny MacKascill (sp?) openly criticised Lord Hope, one of our most talented judges because he disagreed with an SNP policy - knowing full well a judge would never speak out to defend himself.

 

I get that people vote for them to have this referendum but if we return SNP governments post-referendum I'll have to seriously question living in a country where the majority of people have given the SNP their seal of approval.

[Gregory House M.D.]

"Shameful they gave this man a platform". There's anti-democracy right there. If you don't agree with us, you'd better shut up. He's the Prime Minister of a country Scotland got into because it bankrupted itself with the naturally social democratic policy of trying to found an Empire! On a mountain of debt!

 

The SNP are not democrats.

 

Maybe if he entered a debate rather than sniping from the sidelines people would be more inclined to welcome David Cameron's opinions. Until that day, he'll remain a spineless coward.

 

Fully expect a reply of "Why should he enter a debate, it's the yes campaign that has to convince us" and so forth.

 

Why should Cameron be given a platform to air this sort of stuff when he won't face Alex Salmond in a debate and continually distances himself with tripe like "it's for the Scottish people"?

 

Now all of a sudden he wants to dive into the referendum with his "Scottish heritage" yet still refuses to face Salmond.

 

The fact is that he'd get bullied by Salmond in a debate whether you like Salmond or not and he's too cowardly to risk his beloved union in such fashion.

 

Also, the SNP have just as much chance of running the country post independence as every other party will. Let's not skew it to make out we're rushing head long into an SNP dictatorship to suit your agenda.

 

Cameron is shiting it, and rightly so. The tide is turning and it's him and Better Together that are turning it.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Ezio Auditore da Firenze

[2NaFish]

"Shameful they gave this man a platform". There's anti-democracy right there. If you don't agree with us, you'd better shut up. He's the Prime Minister of a country Scotland got into because it bankrupted itself with the naturally social democratic policy of trying to found an Empire! On a mountain of debt!

 

The SNP are not democrats.

 

Saying something is shameful is not demanding someone shut up. Providing a platform and being able to speak are not the same thing. Moreoever, saying something is shameful is not even demanding an end to it, merely commenting on it.

 

Your attempts to obfuscate are shameful. Note how my saying that isnt demanding you stop, merely commenting on your methods.

 

edit. naturally, it's not actually shameful. just proving a point.

Edited February 9, 2014 by 2NaFish

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

 

 

Maybe if he entered a debate rather than sniping from the sidelines people would be more inclined to welcome David Cameron's opinions. Until that day, he'll remain a spineless coward.

 

Fully expect a reply of "Why should he enter a debate, it's the yes campaign that has to convince us" and so forth.

 

Why should Cameron be given a platform to air this sort of stuff when he won't face Alex Salmond in a debate and continually distances himself with tripe like "it's for the Scottish people"?

 

Now all of a sudden he wants to dive into the referendum with his "Scottish heritage" yet still refuses to face Salmond.

 

The fact is that he'd get bullied by Salmond in a debate whether you like Salmond or not and he's too cowardly to risk his beloved union in such fashion.

 

Also, the SNP have just as much chance of running the country post independence as every other party will. Let's not skew it to make out we're rushing head long into an SNP dictatorship to suit your agenda.

The problem is that a lot of people think that voting for Independence they are voting for the SNP forever more.

Anyway a good post

[coconut doug]

 

http://au.tv.yahoo.c...unday-on-seven/

 

First part was surprisingly good. Last part next week.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Scotland's economic future is what Scotland makes of it. As I said up the thread, it has comparative advantages in primary resources, particularly water, which will become even more valuable longer term. Demographics, however, are a big negative due to the relative age of the population and the lower birth rate.

 

Deficits and GDP are all well and good but they are meaningless as a guide to the future.

 

Plenty of water in rUK, A few local shortages now and again but no major sustained problem. Our comparative advantage is in oil.

 

Demographics area major advantage to Scotland. If not, why are they proposing to extend the time period for the introduction of pension age increase? A high birth rate is not a good thing, generally the higher the birth rate the poorer the country.

[Gorgiewave]

David Cameron would be likely to lose a debate with Alex Salmond, largely because there is mental short-circuiting and emotional blackmail throughout the Yes campaign. Tory is Evil, end of. English is Suspicious and the burden of proof is on them. Scotland is sick and tired of being run by an alien power. If you vote No you're a coward. None of this is open to reasoned arguments. It's like the Tea Party - if you say anything against guns or in favour of public spending and you get tarred and feathered and a D rating. In this sense, the Yes side is like a fundamentalist cult. Really quite weird.

 

 

[Gorgiewave]

PS: "political correctness" and some areas of feminism occupy the same mental black hole: fatally attractive but you can never escape and you live forever in a mental and emotional echo chamber.

 

It's very valuable political ground to occupy.

[TheMaganator]

All the committed Yes voters have no interest in what Cameron has to say. None.

 

They want a debate because they think, tactically it'll be good -Scots vs the evil Tories.

 

Cameron knows this so will not agree. Tactically, it's better he doesn't do it.

 

It's a simple as that.

 

The SNP have made a rod for their own back with their petty language used - "come and debate against Scotland".

 

I mean, WTF, they've implied that No voters are against Scotland. It's ******* pathetic.

 

They've also refereed to No voters as 'supposed Scots'.

 

Given that's how THEY'VE framed the debate - they can't now cry foul that Cameron won't come here 'to debate against Scotland'.

[Patrick Bateman]

It's amazing to see the unionists on this thread weave new and ever more ridiculous arguments as to why the PM of the UK shouldn't explain why Scotland should be part of the UK. The defence is 'he'll lose, so he shouldn't do it' is just weak and highlights where No voters often have trouble joining the dots. If he's so unpopular in Scotland, and his government has 1 seat out of 59, why on earth is he allowed to make decisions that effect Scotland? Because we have the 'strength' of being part of a trillion pound (and growing) debt and the 'security' offered by nuclear weapons? Objectively, that's just ridiculous. I now await the typical 'Yeah, well, that argument just shows your bias' non-sequitur. Those on the No side are happy to assert that everything will dissolve in an independent Scotland, despite there being zero evidence for it, and think that being governed from Westminster offers some inescapable, unmatchable benefits, when the evidence is contrary.

[Brandt]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/senior-oil-gas-industry-executive-declares-membership-of-business-for-scotland-supporter-of-scottish-independence/

 

Interesting read

[Gorgiewave]

"located in Dubai". None of his business.

[Brandt]

"located in Dubai". None of his business.

 

yeh, should only be the business of actual Scotland based folk

Edited February 9, 2014 by Brandt

[The Comedian]

 

 

yeh, should only be the business of actual Scottish based folk

 

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

He's right not to take the bait from Yes supporters, who are angry that he isn't doing what they want. The Prime Minister doesn't have a vote; the electorate is the adult population of Scotland. Cameron should offer to debate in exchange for the electorate being extended to the whole of the UK. Their country being broken up directly affects them, after all.

 

("How dare they open their mouths? They're ALIEN!")

 

It's irrelevant whether he has a vote or not, he wields political power at UK level, and that can't be denied. If he wants to have power over Scotland, surely as the UK's elected leader, he should accept the responsibility of explaining why Westminster is a better place to make decisions about Scotland than Holyrood. If Westminster had managed the economy, foreign affairs and welfare to a good standard at UK level, then the argument against independence would be much stronger.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

I had begun to think that there was a pleasant Catch-22 situation in this referendum: that the Scottish public was not swallowing the SNP's BS and so showed themselves capable of running themselves; had they gobbled it down and gone Yes they would have shown themselves to be gullible and pathetic.

 

But no longer. I am now informed by several posters and a good few others that voting No indicates cowardice and that voting Yes implies bravery. I imagine these people are all self-employed? If not, they're surely cowards. This is the kind of infantile level of politics we have to listen to from people who should know better and behave like they want to have the run of their house for a weekend while their parents are away.

 

Or that "it's our destiny". We all know how narrative arcs end up.

 

No means No.

 

Let's clear this up: do you think everyone voting Yes is "gullible and pathetic"? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[The Comedian]

 

 

It's irrelevant whether he has a vote or not, he wields political power at UK level, and that can't be denied. If he wants to have power over Scotland, surely as the UK's elected leader, he should accept the responsibility of explaining why Westminster is a better place to make decisions about Scotland than Holyrood. If Westminster had managed the economy, foreign affairs and welfare to a good standard at UK level, then the argument against independence would be much stronger.

 

He'd be up here telling us as much too.

 

Just as well, Alex would take the pish out of him.

[Gorgiewave]

Let's clear this up: do you think everyone voting Yes is "gullible and pathetic"? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

No.

[GrimUpNorth]

I'm not sure what plans there are for these debates, if it's a one off then it should be between the two heads of the campaigns, or two nominated from them, both who will have the vote.

 

If it's going to be a series of debates then Cameron 100% should be involved at some point.

[Gregory House M.D.]

A question, could the voiciferous No campaigners on here put forward an argument against independence without naming Alex Salmond or the SNP please? We might actually get somwhere.

[flecktimus]

I'm not sure what plans there are for these debates, if it's a one off then it should be between the two heads of the campaigns, or two nominated from them, both who will have the vote.

 

If it's going to be a series of debates then Cameron 100% should be involved at some point.

 

Dennis Canavan Chairs Yes Scotland - Alistair Darling chairs Better Togeather

 

David Cameron prime minster of the UK which includes Scotland - Alex Salmond first minister of Scotland

[Ulysses]

A question, could the voiciferous No campaigners on here put forward an argument against independence without naming Alex Salmond or the SNP please? We might actually get somwhere.

 

They have, frequently. They could also ask if Yes supporters would argue for independence instead of making vitriolic anti-UK posts, or if Yes supporters would concentrate on the issues instead of posting repeated complaints about the No campaign, or if Yes supporters would actually post what they think instead of just regurgitating articles from Newsnet and Wings.

 

But do you know what? With those questions we might NOT actually get somewhere, just as we might NOT actually get somewhere with your question above. The purpose of the thread is to debate the issues, not each other. So could everyone debate the issues, please?

[Gorgiewave]

They have, frequently. They could also ask if Yes supporters would argue for independence instead of making vitriolic anti-UK posts, or if Yes supporters would concentrate on the issues instead of posting repeated complaints about the No campaign, or if Yes supporters would actually post what they think instead of just regurgitating articles from Newsnet and Wings.

 

But do you know what? With those questions we might NOT actually get somewhere, just as we might NOT actually get somewhere with your question above. The purpose of the thread is to debate the issues, not each other. So could everyone debate the issues, please?

 

What's the general view from Ireland about this referendum, if any?

[Ulysses]

What's the general view from Ireland about this referendum, if any?

 

Most people don't know it's happening, and those who do assume it'll be passed easily.

[Adam Murray]

A question, could the voiciferous No campaigners on here put forward an argument against independence without naming Alex Salmond or the SNP please? We might actually get somwhere.

Personally I'm voting No because why should I put the lifestyle I have with my family at risk for a lot of what if's and maybes? Does that make me a coward? Have I been brainwashed?

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

No.

 

Thank you.

[syndicalist]

Personally I'm voting No because why should I put the lifestyle I have with my family at risk for a lot of what if's and maybes? Does that make me a coward? Have I been brainwashed?

It'll all be fine. You'll be much better off, much healthier, there will be no inequality and an MSP will be on the other end of the phone listening to your views 24/7 just in case there are any teething problems...and there will be lots of free stuff.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Plenty of water in rUK, A few local shortages now and again but no major sustained problem. Our comparative advantage is in oil.

 

Demographics area major advantage to Scotland. If not, why are they proposing to extend the time period for the introduction of pension age increase? A high birth rate is not a good thing, generally the higher the birth rate the poorer the country.

I am thinking of this longer term. Fresh water is becoming relatively scarcer due to the growth in world population and relative reduction in groundwater.

 

Your other comment makes no sense though. Countries that hit brick walls in economic growth tend to have demographic "crunches" with older populations, such as Japan. Faster growing countries have younger populations.

[The Comedian]

 

I am thinking of this longer term. Fresh water is becoming relatively scarcer due to the growth in world population and relative reduction in groundwater.

 

Your other comment makes no sense though. Countries that hit brick walls in economic growth tend to have demographic "crunches" with older populations, such as Japan. Faster growing countries have younger populations.

 

Vote YES and get Scotland pumping!

 

That's a vote winner right there.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Vote YES and get Scotland pumping!

 

That's a vote winner right there.

 

 

 

Sounds like something Jamesie Cotter would say!

[2NaFish]

It'll all be fine. You'll be much better off, much healthier, there will be no inequality and an MSP will be on the other end of the phone listening to your views 24/7 just in case there are any teething problems...and there will be lots of free stuff.

 

Since you seem to know what independence will bring, can you tell me whether the UK will be in europe in ten years time, what the state of the NHS will be, what the national debt will be, etc, etc. Simply saying there are unknowns, so therefore i'm against independence is to ignore the fact that a no vote will not ensure the status quo (if, you'd be keen to maintain this status quo), but is very much up in the air.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What's the general view from Ireland about this referendum, if any?

 

Gerry Adams wants a YES win but is savvy enough to stay out of things.

 

But then Gerry Adams is a relative nobody in the Republic.

[djf]

If Westminster currently held a Labour majority we would probably be well into a stream of BT pushed televised American style debates with the Labour PM put forwards as a shining defender of the union at each one.

 

Sure it's all political point scoring from both sides but PB is absolutely right in pointing out that it is extremely telling that BT are running scared from putting the current leader of the UK government up to debate as his politics are so utterly reviled north of the border.

 

So yeah, everyone gets why he doesn't want to get involved in direct discussion but by the same token he should have the respect to hold his own council on "love bombing" the Scottish people or how he feels a book called "Our Island Story: A Childs History of England" is a fine example of the story of the United Kingdom.

[maroonlegions]

oh the irony...lol... Cameron doing the yes vote subconsciously...lol..

 

 

 

[IMac]

So I'm a soft no voter. Can someone give me 5 straight forward reasons to vote yes? I haven't heard a convincing argument ither than no is a negative word....

[coconut doug]

I am thinking of this longer term. Fresh water is becoming relatively scarcer due to the growth in world population and relative reduction in groundwater.

 

Your other comment makes no sense though. Countries that hit brick walls in economic growth tend to have demographic "crunches" with older populations, such as Japan. Faster growing countries have younger populations.

 

My comments make absolute sense otherwise i would not have made them.

 

It may be true that some countries with younger populations grow faster but the growth in GDP rarely outstrips the growth in population. All countries, so far, have gone through demographic transition which results in population stabilty or even a slight drop in population. This is brought about by an increase in living standards which in turn leads to further reduction in birth rates. Thus population stability is an indicator of economic prosperity. The population in scotland is more stable than that of England.

Population structure in Scotland also offers advantages. On average people live 2 years less in Scotland making Scottish pensions more affordable. Our smaller proportion of children means there is less cost involved in paying for education and implementing the proposed transformative child care proposals. The Dependency ratio in Scotland is lower and the position will further improve because of our larger proportion of older people.

 

The stagnation in Japan was mainly to do with a strengthening yen, a regional financial crisis and the emergence of competitor regional economies.

 

Do you think there will be a "demographic crunch" in China when the forty year old, one child policy, kicks in?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

My comments make absolute sense otherwise i would not have made them.

 

It may be true that some countries with younger populations grow faster but the growth in GDP rarely outstrips the growth in population. All countries, so far, have gone through demographic transition which results in population stabilty or even a slight drop in population. This is brought about by an increase in living standards which in turn leads to further reduction in birth rates. Thus population stability is an indicator of economic prosperity. The population in scotland is more stable than that of England.

Population structure in Scotland also offers advantages. On average people live 2 years less in Scotland making Scottish pensions more affordable. Our smaller proportion of children means there is less cost involved in paying for education and implementing the proposed transformative child care proposals. The Dependency ratio in Scotland is lower and the position will further improve because of our larger proportion of older people.

 

The stagnation in Japan was mainly to do with a strengthening yen, a regional financial crisis and the emergence of competitor regional economies.

 

Do you think there will be a "demographic crunch" in China when the forty year old, one child policy, kicks in?

The dependency ratio is lower with more old people? I think you need to check how the dependency ratio is calculated, particularly when state pensions are paid on a pay as you go basis.

 

And yes, China will have the same problems as Japan has hit with its population, even more so in China when the desire is for the one child to be a son.

[coconut doug]

The dependency ratio is lower with more old people? I think you need to check how the dependency ratio is calculated, particularly when state pensions are paid on a pay as you go basis.

 

And yes, China will have the same problems as Japan has hit with its population, even more so in China when the desire is for the one child to be a son.

 

You can have more older people and a lower Dependency Ratio if you have fewer children. This is the case with Scotland and England.

 

Do you agree with the equation and accept that the dependency ratio could be lower with more old people?

 

Clearly you do not agree that the stagnation in Japan was brought about by a currency that was too strong, financial crisis etc otherwise you would not suggest that China would follow Japan. I've just googled the Japan crisis - its not about a demographic crunch.

 

The one child policy has been going for forty years, if demographics has such a potent effect as you suggest don't you think it would have kicked in by now?