Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jambos are go!]

Gordon Brown is still political dynamite up here though isn't he?

I honestly can't think of a single thing he's ever said where I'm not drifting into a coma the minute he starts talking. How this man became PM I'll never know.

I wont listen to anything this guy says even if it was relevent. A quick google by me and not via any propaganda machine revealed this

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/teacher-struck-for-hitting-pupils-gts-877263

[jack D and coke]

I wont listen to anything this guy says even if it was relevent. A quick google by me and not via any propaganda machine revealed this

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/teacher-struck-for-hitting-pupils-gts-877263

Bloody hell. Sounds like a nice guy eh...

[jack D and coke]

Boy sounds a fairly nasty bit of work but it doesn't detract from the fact these unionists rock up give some vague reasons why we should stick together then feck off without answering any questions. All very bizarre to me.

[jack D and coke]

Oh and Brown is still an utter clown of a man.

[Boris]

I wont listen to anything this guy says even if it was relevent. A quick google by me and not via any propaganda machine revealed this

 

http://www.dailyreco...pils-gts-877263

 

How convenient!

[pablo]

Approaching 300 pages and nobody has switched sides and the polls have barely moved. Considering this is the single most significant momentous Scottish political event, it isn't half boring as feck.

[Gizmo]

Boy sounds a fairly nasty bit of work but it doesn't detract from the fact these unionists rock up give some vague reasons why we should stick together then feck off without answering any questions. All very bizarre to me.

 

I don't know why they adopted this parachute in and get the feck out approach. Is it arrogance - they really believe they just need to take down to us pesky Scots and we will do as they say? Is it fear - they know that many of the electorate on both sides of the debate are well-informed and don't fancy it?

 

It's not endearing them - they best hope, from their perspective, people are voting NO based on sentiment/feeling British etc because otherwise their approach will simply get people's heckles up and convert more undecideds away from them.

[djf]

Approaching 300 pages and nobody has switched sides and the polls have barely moved. Considering this is the single most significant momentous Scottish political event, it isn't half boring as feck.

 

Incredibly boring. Which is exactly how "No" wanted it. "Yes" have failed abysmally to get a message of inspiration across to the majority. Seem happy enough bumping around in echo-chambers on social media.

[JamboX2]

 

Gordon Brown is still political dynamite up here though isn't he?

I honestly can't think of a single thing he's ever said where I'm not drifting into a coma the minute he starts talking. How this man became PM I'll never know.

 

 

On his day he's a great speaker. Seen him and Eck and they're both good, Different styles mind. All politicians are boring people tbh. The ones who aren't are generally too radical or nutty to be leaders.

 

 

 

He was apparently a top economist. We all saw how that panned out.

 

As is Salmond apparently. He also made some sterling calls pre-banking collapse. Backed the RBS merger. Called for a less rigorous banking regulator. And backed Tory plans of loosening the mortgage market. Seems as though they all loved the banking gravy train.

 

 

 

Incredibly boring. Which is exactly how "No" wanted it. "Yes" have failed abysmally to get a message of inspiration across to the majority. Seem happy enough bumping around in echo-chambers on social media.

 

No wanted to stifle yes. They succeeded. But as a result it's exactly what you described. In effect the great national debate is nothing great at all. Instead of large public debates on TV, like the ones in 1997 and 1992, we've seen the shouting matches on TV, especially STV. It's been a farce and not worth the billing.

[Alba gu Brath]

I wont listen to anything this guy says even if it was relevent. A quick google by me and not via any propaganda machine revealed this

 

http://www.dailyreco...pils-gts-877263

 

I know, yon Labour guy has a bit of a record.

 

I googled the other Labour guy too - the Gordon Brown one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/gordon-brown-iraq-war-was_n_486969.html

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

I don't know why they adopted this parachute in and get the feck out approach. Is it arrogance - they really believe they just need to take down to us pesky Scots and we will do as they say? Is it fear - they know that many of the electorate on both sides of the debate are well-informed and don't fancy it?

 

Sorry to play devils advocate, but is Brown not a pesky Scot? And is Scottish Labour not a Scottish party?

 

It's language like that which makes this whole escapade a slog. Before you slate me, I think he should've answered questions and why he didn't is beyond me. as that too makes this debate poor and bereft

 

It's not endearing them - they best hope, from their perspective, people are voting NO based on sentiment/feeling British etc because otherwise their approach will simply get people's heckles up and convert more undecideds away from them.

 

If that's the case then why when the sterling issue cropped up or the embassy thing or the eu did the polls barely budge? And why is that the momentum yes talks about is barely visible?

 

I caveat, happy to be proved wrong on polling day. But it's not there, and BOTH sides are clutching straws.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

I know, yon Labour guy has a bit of a record.

 

I googled the other Labour guy too - the Gordon Brown one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/gordon-brown-iraq-war-was_n_486969.html

 

Huge difference. One through his own actions was rightly struck off. One by virtue of a vote set in chain a series of events he himself could not control.

 

Then again that's a debate for another day on the direct culpability of state actors and state leaders in international criminal law.

[Vic Vespa]

The US Governemnt would've told him to ram it had they felt it not in their interests to voice, remember in the same conference he said the UK must stay in the EU. Bet call me Dave loved that.

 

Just a hunch, but I believe the US of A would indeed prefer the good old reliable British lapdog on board than an Independent Scotland which perhaps wouldn't always follow blindly into dodgy wars and such. Just a thought ...

[SE16 3LN]

Just a hunch, but I believe the US of A would indeed prefer the good old reliable British lapdog on board than an Independent Scotland which perhaps wouldn't always follow blindly into dodgy wars and such. Just a thought ...

In terms of "wars and such" a yes vote will have no impact on anyone, but Scotland.

[Vic Vespa]

In terms of "wars and such" a yes vote will have no impact on anyone, but Scotland.

 

Suits me fine ....

However perhaps not being able to fire Scottish troops into the front line or house weapons of mass destruction so far from London may have a wee knock on effect in some people's thinking ...

[Alba gu Brath]

Huge difference. One through his own actions was rightly struck off. One by virtue of a vote set in chain a series of events he himself could not control.

 

Then again that's a debate for another day on the direct culpability of state actors and state leaders in international criminal law.

 

 

Serves Brown right. If he hadn't dithered and his actions in raiding the pension pot been so reviled, he might not have been struck off.

[Alba gu Brath]

Talking of Labour. Funny that they have so many SNP agents within their ranks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27737476

 

A Labour MP has said he would vote for Scottish independence if he was able to do so.

His party is part of the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence.

But George Mudie, the Scottish-born MP for Leeds East, has said he would like to see his home nation leave the UK.

In an interview with BBC Radio Leeds, the former government minister said: "If I were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland."

[JamboX2]

 

Talking of Labour. Funny that they have so many SNP agents within their ranks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27737476

 

A Labour MP has said he would vote for Scottish independence if he was able to do so.

His party is part of the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence.

But George Mudie, the Scottish-born MP for Leeds East, has said he would like to see his home nation leave the UK.

In an interview with BBC Radio Leeds, the former government minister said: "If I were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland."

 

Good for him. But I thought he said he'd vote yes... Not for the SNP.

[deesidejambo]

There is apparently no plan B to build the warships anywhere else and debatable whether anywhere else can do it tbh. You can also read about people's opinions that used to work in shipyards that they have in huge decline under WM's watch and perhaps having to move into new markets could benefit. This union ideal works perversely in that people up here are quite happy to watch English shipyards close and people lose their jobs so we can guarantee jobs on the Clyde, that doesn't strike me as very British and I don't believe the Portsmouth workers don't see it that way either, they are angry as what they see jobs for votes. As for the banks there are no Scottish banks anymore anyway and this is another myth that they will fold up their tents and move south IMO. What about everybody's bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, investments etc? They have billions of pounds of business here so have to keep their hand in surely. I read a bit the other day about the so called Scottish banks actually breaking away and becoming Scottish again in the unlikely event of a Yes can't find the link just now.

There is a Plan B. Portsmouth. Its stated MoD policy that all British warships must be built in Britain. They won't change that just to keep the contracts in a foreign country. It will be the opposite.

 

The Banks will move south for sure, for the simple reason that many English customers will not want their money held in their eyes, a foreign Bank with less security than English Banks and more certainty of tax regime. Whether that makes economic sense does not matter - its peoples fear of insecurity that will make them go for what they see as more secure banking of their money in their own country.

[jack D and coke]

There is a Plan B. Portsmouth. Its stated MoD policy that all British warships must be built in Britain. They won't change that just to keep the contracts in a foreign country. It will be the opposite.

 

The Banks will move south for sure, for the simple reason that many English customers will not want their money held in their eyes, a foreign Bank with less security than English Banks and more certainty of tax regime. Whether that makes economic sense does not matter - its peoples fear of insecurity that will make them go for what they see as more secure banking of their money in their own country.

Portsmouth can't build them as yet and see here... https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scottish-independence-bae-systems-admits-no-plan-b-080719458.html

The banks have already moved south, there are no Scottish banks anymore. Even before the crashes they only had the plaques on the wall up here they were for all intents and purposes London based banks.

[Cade]

New EU rules say that all banks must be headquartered in the nation in which they do most of their business......which means every "Scottish" bank will be forced to move to London.

 

This also means that Scotland can tell rUk to bolt if they want us to take on any of their debts.

[JamboX2]

Portsmouth can't build them as yet and see here... https://uk.news.yaho...-080719458.html

The banks have already moved south, there are no Scottish banks anymore. Even before the crashes they only had the plaques on the wall up here they were for all intents and purposes London based banks.

 

By that logic what is a Scottish company? Like it or not the RBS and BOS will remain Scottish banks in the eyes of the people and politicians will want the national prestige of these institutions.

 

And as deeside says, the UK will make ways to build their own ships if Scotland leaves. That doesn't close the door to a wider market, however that market is a tough one to crack as there are more established firms and in the meantime a new owner of the yeards from BAE would be needed.

[jack D and coke]

 

By that logic what is a Scottish company? Like it or not the RBS and BOS will remain Scottish banks in the eyes of the people and politicians will want the national prestige of these institutions.

 

And as deeside says, the UK will make ways to build their own ships if Scotland leaves. That doesn't close the door to a wider market, however that market is a tough one to crack as there are more established firms and in the meantime a new owner of the yeards from BAE would be needed.

A Scottish company is a British company, these banks have Scotland in their name and nothing more. It's a union and they all trade all over these islands just like the Halifax and Northern rock and the Bradford and Bingley etc etc etc. And less than 7% of the "Scottish" banks business was here yet Darling kept up the pretence that we would've had to bail them out entirely and it would've destroyed Scotland's economy when he was talking utter dross and we would nothing of the sort. They were British banks, are British banks and will become rUK banks in the event of Indy, they won't ever be Scottish banks. Like Cade says if we vote Yes these "Scottish" banks will be forced to domicile in England officially when we all know they've been doing it for years now anyway.

[TheMaganator]

New EU rules say that all banks must be headquartered in the nation in which they do most of their business......which means every "Scottish" bank will be forced to move to London.

 

This also means that Scotland can tell rUk to bolt if they want us to take on any of their debts.

Erm, how does that work?

[dobmisterdobster]

As someone who has always voted on policy and not the nature of whether the Scottish nation is in or out of the Union I don't get that. But fair play to you.

 

That is a policy.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dobmisterdobster]

New EU rules say that all banks must be headquartered in the nation in which they do most of their business......which means every "Scottish" bank will be forced to move to London.

 

This also means that Scotland can tell rUk to bolt if they want us to take on any of their debts.

 

BoS and Clydesdale are both subsidiaries of non-Scottish banks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

That is a policy.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sorry what I should've said was, I wouldn't vote for a party on the basis of one overarching policy. So I'd never have voted LibDem for tuition fee reform only, or the SNP for independence solely, or the Labour Party to bring in the 50p rate solely.

 

I make my vote on a balance of the offer being made, not on one policy. I don't understand people who say "I vote SNP for independence and the rest is filler to me", it's like saying I bought the house I own because it had a red door, the fact there's no bathroom doesn't bother me.

[JamboX2]

 

 

A Scottish company is a British company, these banks have Scotland in their name and nothing more. It's a union and they all trade all over these islands just like the Halifax and Northern rock and the Bradford and Bingley etc etc etc. And less than 7% of the "Scottish" banks business was here yet Darling kept up the pretence that we would've had to bail them out entirely and it would've destroyed Scotland's economy when he was talking utter dross and we would nothing of the sort. They were British banks, are British banks and will become rUK banks in the event of Indy, they won't ever be Scottish banks. Like Cade says if we vote Yes these "Scottish" banks will be forced to domicile in England officially when we all know they've been doing it for years now anyway.

 

The Scottish government have spoke of taking control of the Scottish element of these nationalised institutions on independence. So a significant chunk of them is Scottish.

 

Scotland would be liable for Scottish customers in a banking crash. That's not an issue of how many customers though, it's the value of the liabilities they had in Scotland. Look at Anglo-Irish. Ireland bailed it out to the tune of tens of millions of euros. It had foreign debt, but it's domestic liabilities was still more than the national GDP at the time. The same could've been true of Scotland and her banks. It was in Iceland. That is what Darling was getting at. Not that the Scottish Government would've been liable for the American branches.

 

A Scottish government would want these based here. Tax wise you'd make a lot from them and could control the regulation on how they operate from top to bottom here, not just the operation in Scotland (then again banking regulation is to be shared so how far that argument goes is beyond me).

 

Are Clydeblowers a Scottish company? Operate globally. How about First group? Or Rockstar North? All based here, described as Scottish. Operate globally. So why are the banks not? What defines a Scottish company other than residency? Must they operate solely in that jurisdiction? Is BMW therefore not a German company?

 

A lot of nonsense has been talked by both sides in this debate. But all this repudiation of debt because they are rUK banks after !arch 2016 is highest order nonsense. It would be the Scottish governments duty to underwrite the Scottish liability. You could tell them to bolt if you want, but Scottish account holders would find they were no longer underwritten under the bank bailout of 2008/9. That'd be a dreadful decision to take. Repudiating debt also jeprodises any relationship you may have with markets, who lend you money and value your debt. You can kiss a AAA status could by if you repudiate debt quickly. Argentina have repudiated debt in the past, a couple of times, they are t exactly viewed as a secure lender all the time now.

 

Then again I never thought the AAA badge was all that vital, borrowing costs dropped for us and France when we were both moved to AA. Swings and roundabouts....

[TheMaganator]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/10879769/Obamas-words-prove-UKs-worth-on-the-world-stage.html

Cochrane on Obama's intervention.

[AlphonseCapone]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/10879769/Obamas-words-prove-UKs-worth-on-the-world-stage.html

Cochrane on Obama's intervention.

 

Wow, pretty amateur stuff

[Alba gu Brath]

Poor areas vote for Labour yet they stay poor. Politicians are careerists including the SNP.

 

All, apart from Ukip though!

 

[Alba gu Brath]

Wow, pretty amateur stuff

 

I think Cochrane has had a breakdown. Poor piece all in all. I don't get his final paragrafs having a go at BBC Scotland. I heard the same bulletins as him and they reported it the same way as all other outlets. The general consensus from academics and other talking heads seems to be that Obama has been a bit ham-fisted with some suggesting that Cameron put him to it. Probably as getting Putin onside doesn't look so good now.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Incredibly boring. Which is exactly how "No" wanted it. "Yes" have failed abysmally to get a message of inspiration across to the majority. Seem happy enough bumping around in echo-chambers on social media.

 

Actually I think you'll find it's the yes team who will be happiest that the whole thing has become a snorefest. Salmond's biggest fear will be a massive voter turnout. Remember he's only got this referendum with 48% of a 52% total turnout. If the turn-out approaches 70 or 80% he goosed and he knows it. So by setting the date of the vote so far in advance one of his fervent hopes it that apathy will set in for the no vote and turnout will be low.

[djf]

Actually I think you'll find it's the yes team who will be happiest that the whole thing has become a snorefest. Salmond's biggest fear will be a massive voter turnout. Remember he's only got this referendum with 48% of a 52% total turnout. If the turn-out approaches 70 or 80% he goosed and he knows it. So by setting the date of the vote so far in advance one of his fervent hopes it that apathy will set in for the no vote and turnout will be low.

 

Hadn't considered this and you may be right. If it is true though then Salmond absolutely needs his head checking because there is no way turn out won't be exceptional.

[jack D and coke]

 

Actually I think you'll find it's the yes team who will be happiest that the whole thing has become a snorefest. Salmond's biggest fear will be a massive voter turnout. Remember he's only got this referendum with 48% of a 52% total turnout. If the turn-out approaches 70 or 80% he goosed and he knows it. So by setting the date of the vote so far in advance one of his fervent hopes it that apathy will set in for the no vote and turnout will be low.

I'm not sure how your coming to this conclusion myself. How on earth do you know that a big turnout defintely means a No?

[Fly the Saltire]

It benefits the NO Scotland side to make this boring as they hope the masses just notice the headlines in the right wing press and the biased BBC, which is the glue that binds Britain together, without actually trying to find out the facts.

 

However a high polls suits YES Scotland as they have the foot soldiers on the ground speaking to voters and getting folk to register to vote whereas the Poorer Together NO side rely on the media to do their work for them.

 

Meanwhile Labour have recruited 12 regional organisers trying to persuade the more gullible Labour supporters that it is better to have a Tory /UKIP government running our country than a Labour government in Scotland.

[jambos are go!]

 

I'm not sure how your coming to this conclusion myself. How on earth do you know that a big turnout defintely means a No?

Because the Union is valued by a clear Majority of the electorate and the bigger the turnout the more that will be reflected in the referendum result. As Ive said before the No campaign could all go on holiday till September and they would still win easily Edited June 7, 2014 by jambos are go!

[jack D and coke]

Because the Union is valued by a clear Majority of the electorate and the bigger the turnout the more that will be reflected in the referendum result. As Ive said before the No campaign could all go on holiday till September and they would still win easily

Well we'll see mate. I'm fairly sure No will win but where the assumption that a big turnout means No I'm not sure myself. A lot of people don't care about politics full stop and won't care either way IMO. A large turnout could easily see people who were disinterested suddenly vote Yes who knows.

[coconut doug]

The Scottish government have spoke of taking control of the Scottish element of these nationalised institutions on independence. So a significant chunk of them is Scottish.

 

Scotland would be liable for Scottish customers in a banking crash. That's not an issue of how many customers though, it's the value of the liabilities they had in Scotland. Look at Anglo-Irish. Ireland bailed it out to the tune of tens of millions of euros. It had foreign debt, but it's domestic liabilities was still more than the national GDP at the time. The same could've been true of Scotland and her banks. It was in Iceland. That is what Darling was getting at. Not that the Scottish Government would've been liable for the American branches.

 

Scotland is not liable for Scottish customers in a private company. If we were independent we would have to guarantee up to 100,000 Euros for each depositor but nothing more. If we were not the EU we could allow the banks to liquidate. This is what they did in Iceland with no major ill effects and many good effects.

If we had been independent then rUk is where a disproportianate amount of the debt would lie. Scotland would have been able to afford the debt at least as well as rUk. What is more interesting is that RBS appears to be on the brink of an even bigger failure (100billion) exacerbated by the governments handling of the company. Will Scotland be liable for this too?

[JamboGraham]

 

If we were not the EU we could allow the banks to liquidate. This is what they did in Iceland with no major ill effects and many good effects.

 

No major ill effects and many good???

 

 

 

 

[TheMaganator]

Can we trust the campaign posters?

 

Both sides take a bit of flack here

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27503069

 

[jack D and coke]

Can we trust the campaign posters?

 

Both sides take a bit of flack here

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27503069

Well exactly and tbh I've stopped paying much attention to any of them. If anybody truly believes Scotland will instantly become more wealthy or poorer for that matter in the event a Yes then they are a buffoon tbh. The truth as always will be somewhere in the middle. Nobody should really be basing it on ?500 or even ?1400 here or there IMO. If that's all it's worth either way then do everyone a favour and abstain.

[jambo1185]

Andy Murray not happy about Salmonds attempts to use him as a political tool.

 

Didnt like the Wimbledon flag waving last year and reminds ppeople that he's been competing for GB since he was 11.

 

I don't think it confirms his stance (he has said he doesn't want to be involved) but I think it shows an uneasiness about politicians (well, Salmond) trying to latch onto him to boost themselves/their agenda

[JamboX2]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/the-best-of-the-internets-reaction-to-alex-salmon-aplm

 

Bit of fun for a Sunday morning. Wonder what the start up costs of AA Ministry of Silly Walks would be?

[jack D and coke]

Andy Murray not happy about Salmonds attempts to use him as a political tool.

 

Didnt like the Wimbledon flag waving last year and reminds ppeople that he's been competing for GB since he was 11.

 

I don't think it confirms his stance (he has said he doesn't want to be involved) but I think it shows an uneasiness about politicians (well, Salmond) trying to latch onto him to boost themselves/their agenda

Tbh I wouldn't be happy either regardless of my views regardless of what side was using me. I wouldn't want to be held up as poster boy influencing anybody's vote, people should make up their own mind and not be swayed because Andy Murray thinks one way or the other.

 

I'll discuss and argue about the referendum but I haven't ever tried to make someone change their point of view. I've tried to make them think more about it definitely and honestly some people have made me reconsider once or twice too it's what it's supposed to be about. We're all entitled to an opinion and there's not a right or a wrong one really.

[jambos are go!]

On Andrew Marr's show this morning he said to Big Eck that YES supporters had been telling him that they were quite content that they could get to Independence through various stages of devo max. Big Eck did not disagree but said he hoped it could be achieved in September. When asked if he would around for future referendums he said no since the Constitutional issues could only be addressed once in a generation. Given that's usually regarded as 20 to 30 years does that mean that we the kids of today can look forward to a century of this debate. Its on the I player.

[jack D and coke]

On Andrew Marr's show this morning he said to Big Eck that YES supporters had been telling him that they were quite content that they could get to Independence through various stages of devo max. Big Eck did not disagree but said he hoped it could be achieved in September. When asked if he would around for future referendums he said no since the Constitutional issues could only be addressed once in a generation. Given that's usually regarded as 20 to 30 years does that mean that we the kids of today can look forward to a century of this debate. Its on the I player.

He's defintely a gradualist and if you think about it more devo is only delaying the inevitable further down the line. It's all leading to the same place albeit slower.

 

[Greedy_Jambo]

I'll be voting for independence purely to piss other people off.

 

Infact no. It's not just that. I like to take risks and i also like to prove people wrong.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Greedy_Jambo

[JamboX2]

He's defintely a gradualist and if you think about it more devo is only delaying the inevitable further down the line. It's all leading to the same place albeit slower.

 

Not necessarily. Yes he's a gradualist, but devolution doesn't need to be a motorway with no exits. The interdependency issue in the future is a major one in my book. We'll see increasingly strong multi-national political instutions pooling sovereignty as the world becomes globalised. A form of federalism in the UK would be but a part of this wider inconnectivity. If structured right then independence needn't be an inevitability at all.

[Greedy_Jambo]

Not necessarily. Yes he's a gradualist, but devolution doesn't need to be a motorway with no exits. The interdependency issue in the future is a major one in my book. We'll see increasingly strong multi-national political instutions pooling sovereignty as the world becomes globalised. A form of federalism in the UK would be but a part of this wider inconnectivity. If structured right then independence needn't be an inevitability at all.

 

Aye but when peppa pig was on the telly the kids were lapping it up. One party wanted juice , the other was after coco pops but at the end of the days they both got what they wanted and everyone else was pissed off.