Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[The Comedian]

 

Its both sides let's be honest but I do agree to an extent this could do lasting damage no matter what way this goes, although I'm sure like most things it is very small minorities acting the goat.

 

I hope whatever happens though one side is crushed so there isn't any argument and we can put this behind us.

 

Broken Britain.

 

[TheMaganator]

 

Its both sides let's be honest but I do agree to an extent this could do lasting damage no matter what way this goes, although I'm sure like most things it is very small minorities acting the goat.

 

I hope whatever happens though one side is crushed so there isn't any argument and we can put this behind us.

I agree. I wasn't having a pop at Yes supporters. It was more a commentary on what this has descended into.

 

It won't end in September what ever way the vote goes.

[Boris]

 

I'm talking socially.

 

So was I!

[jack D and coke]

I agree. I wasn't having a pop at Yes supporters. It was more a commentary on what this has descended into.

 

It won't end in September what ever way the vote goes.

Tbh I think barring some people shouting and frankly making a apple runt of themselves it hasn't been too bad and most people realise life goes on after the event. It's like anything I suppose, there's people who go right over the top in any situation but the majority of people are sensible enough to live and let live.

[Gizmo]

One subtext to my question is that there is a high probability that an independent Scotland would have no choice but to adopt more stringent "austerity" policies than the UK for the first several years of its existence, regardless of the political colour of government voted in by the people. In that context, there is a reasonable risk that independence could lead to an increase in the level of child poverty over the next 10-12 years. It's neither certain nor inevitable, but there is a reasonable risk. Your contention is that independence would be worth voting for even if a decrease in child poverty was the only benefit. But if that is true, then logically it should follow that independence would be worth voting against if the reverse were so, and a reasonable probability existed of an increase in child poverty. Yet you and I both know that it doesn't follow.

 

The other subtext, of course, is that the cause and effect sequence isn't what it seems at first glance. It is not a case of voting Yes because we have evidence that voting Yes will improve child poverty; it is a case of believing that voting Yes will improve child poverty because we've already decided to vote Yes. The same can be said of a lot of issues. If you believe in voting No you will find all sorts of evidence to back that position up, just as you will find all sorts of evidence to support your view if you've decided to vote Yes.

 

Voting Yes won't make child poverty better. It might, but it might not, and it might make it worse. The same goes for voting No. But people are going to vote whatever way they're going to vote regardless.

 

Let's turn this around then since you ignored my reply which said I wouldn't vote if I honestly believed nothing would change. Do you think there is any chance of the style of politics materially changing (for the better) at Westminster?

 

And would you not agree that the white paper reflects the people of Scotland's desire for change and that is far more than being offered by better together which is a status quo which has failed and, imo, looks set to continue.

 

Tbh I think barring some people shouting and frankly making a apple runt of themselves it hasn't been too bad and most people realise life goes on after the event. It's like anything I suppose, there's people who go right over the top in any situation but the majority of people are sensible enough to live and let live.

 

We've seen the consequences of rampant nationalism based on ideas of racial purity/supremacy or along the lines of sectarian/religious divide. A shouting match, some stickers and some bluster on social media is hardly the mark of a country destined to collapse into civil war!

Edited May 24, 2014 by Gizmo

[Ulysses]

Let's turn this around then since you ignored my reply which said I wouldn't vote if I honestly believed nothing would change. Do you think there is any chance of the style of politics materially changing (for the better) at Westminster?

 

And would you not agree that the white paper reflects the people of Scotland's desire for change and that is far more than being offered by better together which is a status quo which has failed and, imo, looks set to continue.

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that voting Yes will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty. There is no evidence whatsoever that voting No will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty.

 

The only thing that might constitute some connection between how one votes and child poverty is this:

 

If the only change to come out of independence was a marked reduction in child poverty I'd consider that worth upsetting the status quo for.

 

See that? That's wishful thinking, that is. But by saying it you've managed to convince yourself that you're voting Yes to reduce child poverty. You're not. You're voting Yes to get independent - which let's face it is the only sound reason for voting Yes.

 

The trouble with the Utopian vision of voting Yes (which is what you're buying into despite your protestations to the contrary) is that it can quite readily be scuppered by economic realities. The only people around here doing any ignoring of realities are those who are peddling the idea of voting Yes for some sort of shift to the left. There exists the real prospect that an independent Scotland would start out with a bigger deficit than the rUK and - regardless of the political stance of its government - would have to take highly decisive corrective action to stabilise its public finances. In that situation, there is no prospect whatsoever of balancing the budget, paying for a load of socially and economically progressive policies, and building an oil fund for the longer term. That combination simply won't happen unless there is an economic boom in Scotland.

 

And no, the White Paper does not reflect anyone's desire for anything. It reflects almost exclusively the policies of the Scottish National Party. That's all fine and dandy for those who support that party, but it doesn't reflect the opinions and wishes of the many people in Scotland who don't.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the above is any reason for not voting Yes, and I am not arguing for a No vote. Vote Yes if you want, vote No if you want. But spare us the soft-focus soft-left paradise schtick, eh? Scottish exceptionalism is about as unpalatable as any other national variety.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that voting Yes will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty. There is no evidence whatsoever that voting No will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty.

 

The only thing that might constitute some connection between how one votes and child poverty is this:

 

 

 

See that? That's wishful thinking, that is. But by saying it you've managed to convince yourself that you're voting Yes to reduce child poverty. You're not. You're voting Yes to get independent - which let's face it is the only sound reason for voting Yes.

 

The trouble with the Utopian vision of voting Yes (which is what you're buying into despite your protestations to the contrary) is that it can quite readily be scuppered by economic realities. The only people around here doing any ignoring of realities are those who are peddling the idea of voting Yes for some sort of shift to the left. There exists the real prospect that an independent Scotland would start out with a bigger deficit than the rUK and - regardless of the political stance of its government - would have to take highly decisive corrective action to stabilise its public finances. In that situation, there is no prospect whatsoever of balancing the budget, paying for a load of socially and economically progressive policies, and building an oil fund for the longer term. That combination simply won't happen unless there is an economic boom in Scotland.

 

And no, the White Paper does not reflect anyone's desire for anything. It reflects almost exclusively the policies of the Scottish National Party. That's all fine and dandy for those who support that party, but it doesn't reflect the opinions and wishes of the many people in Scotland who don't.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the above is any reason for not voting Yes, and I am not arguing for a No vote. Vote Yes if you want, vote No if you want. But spare us the soft-focus soft-left paradise schtick, eh? Scottish exceptionalism is about as unpalatable as any other national variety.

[Captain1874]

 

 

 

The uncomfortable problem for many unionists is that they genuinely find it hard to answer that question.

 

What consideration has been given to the NHS? If say I was waiting on organ donation would my chances be cut if the union is broken up?

 

What consideration is being given to jobs? With Financial Services being a corner stone of Edinburgh employment, excluding Standar Life, do we know the intention of the other major institutions?

 

These are just a couple of questions I have and I apologise if there are obvious answers.

 

I think there are to many unknowns to make a leap of faith.

[dobmisterdobster]

What consideration has been given to the NHS? If say I was waiting on organ donation would my chances be cut if the union is broken up?

 

NHS Scotland has always been independent.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Captain1874]

That's my health sorted, now I only have to worry about my job!!!!

 

If only it was as simple as that. Better together for me

[jack D and coke]

That's my health sorted, now I only have to worry about my job!!!!

 

If only it was as simple as that. Better together for me

Exactly the way they want you to feel, create uncertainty and worry. One of the things i find hard to believe is that with all the talk of financials upping sticks and leaving is the assumption that a Scottish government wouldn't do all in its power to make favourable conditions for them to stay and tbh I think that's where Standard Life etc are being cute, they are putting a gun to an indy Scotland's head, make sure it's good for us to stay or we're off. Don't forget the positions of some of these people at the top of the likes of Standard Life are entwined with the Conservative party and government and they are looking out for themselves too.

 

I read this article yesterday about the financial stuff and although can't really answer your questions is interesting nonetheless.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/05/23/financial-times/

[Alba gu Brath]

What consideration has been given to the NHS? If say I was waiting on organ donation would my chances be cut if the union is broken up?

 

What consideration is being given to jobs? With Financial Services being a corner stone of Edinburgh employment, excluding Standar Life, do we know the intention of the other major institutions?

 

These are just a couple of questions I have and I apologise if there are obvious answers.

 

I think there are to many unknowns to make a leap of faith.

 

Has Standard Life not shed many jobs already?

[TheMaganator]

 

Exactly the way they want you to feel, create uncertainty and worry. One of the things i find hard to believe is that with all the talk of financials upping sticks and leaving is the assumption that a Scottish government wouldn't do all in its power to make favourable conditions for them to stay and tbh I think that's where Standard Life etc are being cute, they are putting a gun to an indy Scotland's head, make sure it's good for us to stay or we're off. Don't forget the positions of some of these people at the top of the likes of Standard Life are entwined with the Conservative party and government and they are looking out for themselves too.

 

I read this article yesterday about the financial stuff and although can't really answer your questions is interesting nonetheless.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/05/23/financial-times/

But it is uncertain.

 

We have absolutely no idea what we'll come out of the negotiations with.

 

Only a fool would say with any certainty what an independent Scotland would look like.

 

It's vote Yes & hope we negotiate a good deal. That's all it is.

 

Those favourable conditions that you think would be offered to business (I agree with that), will be looser regulations or better tax incentives. Which'll mean our taxes go up to subsidise, we'll have to borrow more or public services will be cut IMO

[curriehearts]

That's my health sorted, now I only have to worry about my job!!!!

 

If only it was as simple as that. Better together for me

 

Not seen anything from the company that says they will pull out of Scotland.

I have seen some sensible risk management that has outlined scenarios they may or may not have to manage in the future.

Next year you will see more of these scenarios being made public as the In/ Out vote proceeds.

[curriehearts]

But it is uncertain.

 

We have absolutely no idea what we'll come out of the negotiations with.

 

Only a fool would say with any certainty what an independent Scotland would look like.

 

It's vote Yes & hope we negotiate a good deal. That's all it is.

 

Those favourable conditions that you think would be offered to business (I agree with that), will be looser regulations or better tax incentives. Which'll mean our taxes go up to subsidise, we'll have to borrow more or public services will be cut IMO

 

No-one knows with any certainty what the UK will look in a few years.

 

You have clearly speculated around possible tax rises as any financial settlement between Scotland and rUK has to be concluded and an influencer of finances.

I am glad you recognise that more favourable conditions are required for business. The heavy inbalance in the economy between the South East and the rest of the UK must be addressed.

 

[Alba gu Brath]

Absolute roaster enrolls in the No campaign. Was gonna joke that he's more proof that we Scots are not only as right-wing as the English but as Nazi Germany except I think that MacConnachie is actually Zimbawean. Edit - born in Hong Kong. Ironic.

http://www.heraldsco...mbers-.24311143

Edited May 25, 2014 by Alba gu Brath

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that voting Yes will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty. There is no evidence whatsoever that voting No will make the slightest bit of difference to child poverty.

 

The only thing that might constitute some connection between how one votes and child poverty is this:

 

 

 

See that? That's wishful thinking, that is. But by saying it you've managed to convince yourself that you're voting Yes to reduce child poverty. You're not. You're voting Yes to get independent - which let's face it is the only sound reason for voting Yes.

 

The trouble with the Utopian vision of voting Yes (which is what you're buying into despite your protestations to the contrary) is that it can quite readily be scuppered by economic realities. The only people around here doing any ignoring of realities are those who are peddling the idea of voting Yes for some sort of shift to the left. There exists the real prospect that an independent Scotland would start out with a bigger deficit than the rUK and - regardless of the political stance of its government - would have to take highly decisive corrective action to stabilise its public finances. In that situation, there is no prospect whatsoever of balancing the budget, paying for a load of socially and economically progressive policies, and building an oil fund for the longer term. That combination simply won't happen unless there is an economic boom in Scotland.

 

And no, the White Paper does not reflect anyone's desire for anything. It reflects almost exclusively the policies of the Scottish National Party. That's all fine and dandy for those who support that party, but it doesn't reflect the opinions and wishes of the many people in Scotland who don't.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the above is any reason for not voting Yes, and I am not arguing for a No vote. Vote Yes if you want, vote No if you want. But spare us the soft-focus soft-left paradise schtick, eh? Scottish exceptionalism is about as unpalatable as any other national variety.

 

Excellent post.

[Gizmo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the above is any reason for not voting Yes, and I am not arguing for a No vote. Vote Yes if you want, vote No if you want. But spare us the soft-focus soft-left paradise schtick, eh? Scottish exceptionalism is about as unpalatable as any other national variety.

 

I've already shown that what Scotland desires is not "exceptional" merely what passes for the norm in most countries. The UK is the anomaly. So I don't know where you get the idea YES are pushing for "Scottish exceptional-ism", whatever that is, nor why you seem to be damning people for having aspirations.

 

Those voting YES hope for change, the White Paper reflects a lot of those aspirations and shows that the Scottish Government want to use a YES vote as a catalyst for change, the negotiating committee and those who form the next government are clearly going to use the White Paper as a template to enable that change.

 

I'm not expecting a shift to the left, this country clearly already holds that position - it's the whole reason why the SNP are in power as Labour dropped the socialist principles that saw them pretty much expect the majority vote at every election and the SNP stepped into that vacuum.

 

Post-Independence if Labour want to take power from the SNP they are absolutely going to have to return to their pre-Blair socialist principles to do so.

 

To suggest that these aspirations, which are commonly held by YES minded voters, incidentally, are no reason to vote for independence is bizarre - why else would we want freedom and full autonomy if not to effect changes for the betterment of the country's people?

[Ulysses]

I've already shown that what Scotland desires is not "exceptional" merely what passes for the norm in most countries. The UK is the anomaly. So I don't know where you get the idea YES are pushing for "Scottish exceptional-ism", whatever that is, nor why you seem to be damning people for having aspirations.

 

Those voting YES hope for change, the White Paper reflects a lot of those aspirations and shows that the Scottish Government want to use a YES vote as a catalyst for change, the negotiating committee and those who form the next government are clearly going to use the White Paper as a template to enable that change.

 

I'm not expecting a shift to the left, this country clearly already holds that position - it's the whole reason why the SNP are in power as Labour dropped the socialist principles that saw them pretty much expect the majority vote at every election and the SNP stepped into that vacuum.

 

Post-Independence if Labour want to take power from the SNP they are absolutely going to have to return to their pre-Blair socialist principles to do so.

 

To suggest that these aspirations, which are commonly held by YES minded voters, incidentally, are no reason to vote for independence is bizarre - why else would we want freedom and full autonomy if not to effect changes for the betterment of the country's people?

 

And therein lies the difference between us.

 

I think the only reason for voting Yes is to vote Yes. I don't believe a Yes supporter needs or should have any reason or justification for voting Yes other than that they want Scotland to be independent.

 

You believe exactly the same - but the difference is that because I'm debating and you're campaigning, I can own up to that and you can't. That might also explain why you can treat the White Paper as representing Scottish opinion even though it doesn't - it represents your opinion, and the SNP's opinion.

 

There is a reasonably high probability that an independent Scotland's fiscal policies would have to shift to the right for a long time after independence - and with its track record of centre-right populism the SNP would be the very party to deliver that. But in my opinion you should still vote Yes anyway, even though you'd like those policies to shift to the left. Why? Because you want to, and what's the point in my annoying you by suggesting you should do differently?

 

Ireland was independent of Britain for over 70 years without getting to grips with child poverty, but then drastically reduced it in a period of 15 years. Why? Because an economic boom gave a series of centre-right governments the chance to do that.

[whyskey]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

When the desire is for things like currency unions, it isn't quite that simple.

[The Comedian]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

 

 

There is absolutely no shame in putting Scotland first.

[IMA MAROON]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

 

Or if you were honest/unbiased you might have said...The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from Edinburgh all decisions made for Scotland decided in Scotland or vote to be ruled from London, all decisions made for the UK decided in the UK.

[TheMaganator]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benrileysmith/100273086/sharp-practice-at-holyrood-how-the-snp-uses-committees-to-push-the-case-for-independence/

More shady SNP practices through the committee system on EU Membership.

[TheMaganator]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

Hmm.

 

I take it you aren't in favour of a currency union then?

 

And you'll be looking t leave the EU ASAP after independence?

[Arnold Rothstein]

The vote is simple, you either vote to be ruled from edinburgh all decissions made for scotland decided in scotland or vote to be ruled from london, a london goverment that is only interested in london and the south east. Everything else will take care of itself. By the way the union was suppost to be equal so how come we have about 60 mps when they have a few hundred, does not seem equal to me, make no mistake england rule us and we have to do as we are told and accept there policies. guess which way i am voting

 

You think in the current setup Scotland should have just as many MPs as England do?

[JamboX2]

I've already shown that what Scotland desires is not "exceptional" merely what passes for the norm in most countries. The UK is the anomaly. So I don't know where you get the idea YES are pushing for "Scottish exceptional-ism", whatever that is, nor why you seem to be damning people for having aspirations.

 

Those voting YES hope for change, the White Paper reflects a lot of those aspirations and shows that the Scottish Government want to use a YES vote as a catalyst for change, the negotiating committee and those who form the next government are clearly going to use the White Paper as a template to enable that change.

 

I'm not expecting a shift to the left, this country clearly already holds that position - it's the whole reason why the SNP are in power as Labour dropped the socialist principles that saw them pretty much expect the majority vote at every election and the SNP stepped into that vacuum.

 

Post-Independence if Labour want to take power from the SNP they are absolutely going to have to return to their pre-Blair socialist principles to do so.

 

To suggest that these aspirations, which are commonly held by YES minded voters, incidentally, are no reason to vote for independence is bizarre - why else would we want freedom and full autonomy if not to effect changes for the betterment of the country's people?

 

Your post itself holds much of the mythology around Scottish politics that Uly was getting at.

 

Where is the demand in Scotland for socialism? Please point me to it. Scotland is NOT a nation which is overtly left wing. Nor is the SNP by any means a socialist party at all. Read that white paper again and analyse it. The policies they espouse on the economy sound very centre right. Low taxes for large corporation, maintaining their regressive council tax freeze, not touching the top rate of income tax fo fear of "tax competition".

 

As the excellent Scottish journalist David Torrance has wrote repeatedly, if you ask an SNP minister what their policies on the alleviation of poverty and promoting social justice in Scotland, they have very little to say but "oh it's all about getting a Yes vote first...", there's nothing to that, it's a light weight as the Blairism you dislike.

 

The nations around us aren't overly socialist either, Ireland isn't, Sweden isn't, Denmark was but has moved away from that, Iceland isn't left wing, Germany, Holland and Belgium aren't either. The two most socialist nations near us are France and Norway, and one has a centre right government wanting to reform that position and France has seen the polls move to favour the UPM since the Socialists took back the Elysee Palace. So technically the UK is not an exception to anything, it may not have the same universal policies of those nations, but it has long favoured more targetted measures on fighting social deprivation - and that goes back to the height of the post-war consensus. Even then, the universalism of the past 4 Scottish governments has lead to increases in poverty and has also seen a reversal of social mobility through the education system, with less poorer students going to college and university.

 

Instead of actually re-assessing the system, the Scottish polticial class, especially the SNP, seem to have blissfully ignored it and claimed there is no issue. Where's the social conscience there? Where's it been since 2007 when the underfunded council tax freeze has seen a marked reduction of anti-poverty spending from central and local governments? Where's it on the living wage campaign? Where repeated attempts from the Greens and Labour to introduce a clause in the public procurement legislation to force contractors with the Scottish government to pay the living wage have been defeated by SNP backbenchers and the government numerous times.

 

I'll ask again, where's the demand for socialism or a "new way"? Business don't want it, and the people are happy with the third way populism of the SNP. If they weren't we'd not have an SNP government.

 

I'll finsih on the bit I've highlighted. No future government is bound to follow the SNP's White Paper. The Greens, a yes party, have said they wont, and have their Green Paper - a real lefty peice. Labour even has a "Red Paper" from their conference on what they're aiming to do if elected in 2016, devolved or indy, in terms of health, education etc. The White Paper is the outline of what the SNP will do if they win in 2016. What they are doing is boxing in the Scottish parties come a Yes win, because they've set out policies some may not want - ie currency union - and then said that is what the cross party team will negotiate as "Team Scotland" (the most glib and insultingly stupid name for a group of such importance). To me if Yes won, there should've been a subsequent election for a body to negotiate separate of the parliament, done on a pure PR method and with no one group being dominant.

 

The only future government that'll follow the White Paper to the letter and enact it are the SNP. And if Yes wins I bet that the SNP will dominate the negotiation process, rightly so some may say.

 

The more this debate has rumbled on, and rumbled is the right word because it's never set the heather alight, the biggest issues to have been raised are these two;

 

1. Scotland has a frankly lightweight political class nowadays. The majority of our politicians are poor and lack any intellectual weight. They are complacent and unable to think out with a blind assertion that Scotland and Scots are more left wing than the rest of the British Isles (a joke when you look at some of their policies).

 

2. This debate should've been devoid of party politics.

[TheMaganator]

The Danish Foreign Minister has said that we'll need to reapply for EU Membership

[Ulysses]

The Danish Foreign Minister has said that we'll need to reapply for EU Membership

 

I think that's legally correct, but almost certainly irrelevant politically.

The EU political and administrative leadership would pull out all the stops to ensure that Scotland would be eligible to accede on the same day it became independent - provided, of course, that it was clear to the Union that an independent Scotland would wish be a member.

 

On the other hand, if there's a No vote, what happens to Scotland's position in the EU if the Tories are elected in 2015? The PM has committed to holding a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU - and the Conservatives might find themselves in a coalition government with UKIP by this time next year.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I think that's legally correct, but almost certainly irrelevant politically.

The EU political and administrative leadership would pull out all the stops to ensure that Scotland would be eligible to accede on the same day it became independent - provided, of course, that it was clear to the Union that an independent Scotland would wish be a member.

 

On the other hand, if there's a No vote, what happens to Scotland's position in the EU if the Tories are elected in 2015? The PM has committed to holding a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU - and the Conservatives might find themselves in a coalition government with UKIP by this time next year.

I don't see why people are concerned with an in out EU referendum. It's a bit of a disgrace that only one party think we should be given the chance to vote on it.

 

If we vote Yes the SNP will pull out the stops to get us into the EU - despite not having asked if the people of Scotland want to be in it. Swap 'London rule' for Brussels?

 

Give us a say.

[Das Root]

When the desire is for things like currency unions, it isn't quite that simple.

 

 

A gazzilion posts have been made since I last ventured onto this thread...but still? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

[Arnold Rothstein]

A gazzilion posts have been made since I last ventured onto this thread...but still? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

 

Why?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

A gazzilion posts have been made since I last ventured onto this thread...but still? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

Even if that is true (which it isn't), that'll take financial decisions away from an independent Scotland.

 

First thing we do as a glorious independent nation? Ask a foreign nation to control our currency.

 

So, DR. Why?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

A gazzilion posts have been made since I last ventured onto this thread...but still? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

Whether they do or not, the point is that it nuances the guy's argument.

 

Anyway, I am away back to laugh at the vermin!

[Das Root]

Even if that is true (which it isn't), that'll take financial decisions away from an independent Scotland.

 

First thing we do as a glorious independent nation? Ask a foreign nation to control our currency.

 

So, DR. Why?

 

 

My preference is our own currency but I take on board it's a process and for the short term a currency zone would work more effectively.

[jambos are go!]

In the Euro Poll of over 1.3 million voters living and working in Scotland NO parties got roughly 62% of the vote and YES parties around 37%.

[IMA MAROON]

In the Euro Poll of over 1.3 million voters living and working in Scotland NO parties got roughly 62% of the vote and YES parties around 37%.

 

But the turnout was only 33.5%

 

The SNP claiming a victory when only 386,193 voted for them shows what a farce it all is.

[smallfaces]

A gazzilion posts have been made since I last ventured onto this thread...but still? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

My preference is our own currency but I take on board it's a process and for the short term a currency zone would work more effectively.

 

So which is it then? A currency union or a currency 'zone'? Long term or short term? Short term is just asking for currency speculators.

 

I'll ask again - why on earth would rUK sign up to any form of temporary currency union? What's in it for rUK? To be supported by the economic powerhouse (remember, no House of Lords, Trident, HS2, foreign wars, posh Tory bankers, Wasteminster/Westmidden etc) that an independent Scotland will be until it's time for us to cut them loose?

[jambos are go!]

But the turnout was only 33.5%

 

The SNP claiming a victory when only 386,193 voted for them shows what a farce it all is.

The turn out is likely to be 40% or so of the turnout in September and is an opinion poll of massive proportions

[Das Root]

 

 

So which is it then? A currency union or a currency 'zone'? Long term or short term? Short term is just asking for currency speculators.

 

I'll ask again - why on earth would rUK sign up to any form of temporary currency union? What's in it for rUK? To be supported by the economic powerhouse (remember, no House of Lords, Trident, HS2, foreign wars, posh Tory bankers, Wasteminster/Westmidden etc) that an independent Scotland will be until it's time for us to cut them loose?

 

 

The first is what will happen, the second is what I prefer. Why not do some research instead of asking for information that must have been posted on this thread numerous times already. Google is a wonderful thing and quite simple to use.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

The first is what will happen, the second is what I prefer. Why not do some research instead of asking for information that must have been posted on this thread numerous times already. Google is a wonderful thing and quite simple to use.

If (and it's a big if IMO) a currency union happens we'll be tied into it for at least a decade.

 

You can't just have a quick currency union whilst we decide what to do. If rUK agrees it'll be medium-long term.

[Das Root]

If (and it's a big if IMO) a currency union happens we'll be tied into it for at least a decade.

 

You can't just have a quick currency union whilst we decide what to do. If rUK agrees it'll be medium-long term.

 

 

In terms of what we are discussing, ten years is short term imo. Agree though, that's the length I would suspect with our own currency launching after that agreement ends.

[smallfaces]

The first is what will happen, the second is what I prefer. Why not do some research instead of asking for information that must have been posted on this thread numerous times already. Google is a wonderful thing and quite simple to use.

In terms of what we are discussing, ten years is short term imo. Agree though, that's the length I would suspect with our own currency launching after that agreement ends.

 

Thank you for your condescending and patronising tone.

 

So, you consider that we will enter a currency union for a period of ten years and then launch our own currency? What will rUK do after lapping up the best option for them? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise

[Das Root]

 

 

Thank you for your condescending and patronising tone.

 

So, you consider that we will enter a currency union for a period of ten years and then launch our own currency? What will rUK do after lapping up the best option for them? rUK will lap up a currency union after Yes triumphs, as it is the best option for them, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise

 

 

 

Yep, cheers.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, cheers.

 

The UK government will not agree to short term currency union. It'd need to be long term and it'd need to be politically fool proof. The commitment to it will need to be long term.

 

You raised google, google the Czech-Slovak currency union. Any hint in the markets of a half way house currency zone will last less than a few months let alone 10 years.

[jambos are go!]

Big Eck going big time on getting and keeping an Independent Scotland into the EU might be another tactical blunder. Maybe he should have a word with Nick Clegg!!

[Don Draper]

In the Euro Poll of over 1.3 million voters living and working in Scotland NO parties got roughly 62% of the vote and YES parties around 37%.

 

And the party most in favour of a Yes vote 'won' the election.

 

See, I can pointlessly twists stats to suit my agenda too.

[jambos are go!]

 

 

 

And the party most in favour of a Yes vote 'won' the election.

 

See, I can pointlessly twists stats to suit my agenda too.

Exactly how does the use of simple arithmetic twist stats?

[Alba gu Brath]

Sad to see Ukip finally getting some kind of recognition here. Not a surprise given the massive publicity campaign by the BBC on their behalf. Some perspective needed though.

 

 

Also:

53.7% of rUK voted either UKIP or Tory.

54.9% of Scotland voted either SNP or Labour.

[ToYouToMe]

Sad to see Ukip finally getting some kind of recognition here. Not a surprise given the massive publicity campaign by the BBC on their behalf. Some perspective needed though.

 

 

Also:

53.7% of rUK voted either UKIP or Tory.

54.9% of Scotland voted either SNP or Labour.

 

Baffles me why Scottish Labour don't back independence. They will never be in power anywhere again imo.

 

SNP will continue to command a third of the vote here. And unless you can win the South East of England you have no chance at Westminster. They won't.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Edited May 26, 2014 by ToYouToMe