Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JamboX2]

 

Here's an interesting piece on the potential for Atlantic oil - http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/11/the-real-state-of-scotlands-oil-and-gas-reserves/

 

Quite why unionists want Scotland to not have the right to spend every penny it earns is beyond me. Justifying it in terms of access to embassies or an admirable but ultimately naive belief in 'solidarity' just doesn't cut it.

 

To me a lot of what nationalists argue is akin to capitalism. More a this is good for me so damn the rest type stuff. Yet they believe in solidarity between scots. What's the difference between solidarity between scots and Scots, English, welsh and Northern Irish? Why is working together as scots better than working together as part of the UK?

 

To me this solidarity and independence is for a socialist nation stuff is contradictory.min that it rejects solidarity beyond the tweed and solway line but accepts it north of the border.

 

Your point is nationalistic not socialist or internationalist to me, your point is that what's earned on Scotland be spent here, which raises questions about intentionalism in an independent nation.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

 

What an absolute load of shite. Unless you mean that the Nats are hopeless and getting schooled

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

To me a lot of what nationalists argue is akin to capitalism. More a this is good for me so damn the rest type stuff. Yet they believe in solidarity between scots. What's the difference between solidarity between scots and Scots, English, welsh and Northern Irish? Why is working together as scots better than working together as part of the UK?

 

To me this solidarity and independence is for a socialist nation stuff is contradictory.min that it rejects solidarity beyond the tweed and solway line but accepts it north of the border.

 

Your point is nationalistic not socialist or internationalist to me, your point is that what's earned on Scotland be spent here, which raises questions about intentionalism in an independent nation.

 

I agree with a lot of this. It's a selfish & insular attitude.

 

Some areas are wealthier than others. That doesn't mean that those who live in the wealthy areas should break away and only look after themselves.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

 

I can foresee so much rancour should No win come September. The most ardent Yes fans will be looking for revenge on any perceived No supporter in any way shape or form.

 

Wot a load of pish if no wins I'll accept its democracy.

[jack D and coke]

 

What an absolute load of shite. Unless you mean that the Nats are hopeless and getting schooled

[modedit]

 

[2NaFish]

I agree with a lot of this. It's a selfish & insular attitude.

 

Some areas are wealthier than others. That doesn't mean that those who live in the wealthy areas should break away and only look after themselves.

 

A google search for 'london own country' has 300million returns.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

A google search for 'london own country' has 300million returns.

Yes, there has been a movement for an independent London for years.

[djf]

Don't agree with the 'workers of the UK unite' argument at all. Currently attempts at socially progressive policies in Scotland are decried nationwide as 'scrounging Scots' and 'subsidy junkies' by the media. Seeing these policies working as part of an independent country could only increase the clamour for them in the areas of England that are most in need of them.

 

If you're arguing from a socialist perspective in good faith then you have to accept that retaining the neoliberal FPTP union is an obstacle to it's implementation, not an advantage.

Edited June 15, 2014 by djf

[JamboX2]

 

Don't agree with the 'workers of the UK unite' argument at all. Currently attempts at socially progressive policies in Scotland are decried nationwide as 'scrounging Scots' and 'subsidy junkies' by the media. Seeing these policies working as part of an independent country could only increase the clamour for them in the areas of England that are most in need of them.

 

If you're arguing from a socialist perspective in good faith then you have to accept that retaining the neoliberal FPTP union is an obstacle to it's implementation, not an advantage.

 

Why would it?

 

Denmark is independent and has universal child care on a sliding scale of contribution based on earnings (poorest make no subsidy the wealthiest make a subsidy to the system). They've had it for years. Why then is the clamour for this in England less so than in Scotland?

 

Part of the reason is because Sure Start exists in England. A political choice made there at the time we opted for no tuition fees in the first Dewar government in 2000 rather than more affordable child care and early start education. Another part of the reason is that the English are their own nation and make decision that suit them on matters solely accountable to them, ie Childcare and health.

 

I don't go in for the independence creates a beacon to England for them to follow. Partly based on that, and partly because the more socialistic Wales has been derided by English MPs for a long time in terms of their Health and social care service and in other areas as well.

 

That's not bad, it's devolution in practice. Different views on how to forward being implemented across the UK to suit the peoples of the UK. Maybe Northern England misses out in this regard. But it's working in a way it was meant to be.

 

Again, to me the union is in need of surgery. Some major, some minor. But certainly it needs reform. However, should we opt for independence it should not become a preachy and smug event of us smearing down at a more capitalistic England (although from some SNP policies on justice and the economy you'd wonder whose going more to the right than the other). Best model of relationships we could have is Scandinavia, despite there being an enforced equality over similar population sizes, I don't see the Norwegian and Danish health ministers making snide remarks about the swedes and their health system which heavily realise on and uses private health providers and charging, or the swedes belittling Finland for moving to a more neoliberal economy then most of the rest of Scandinavia. No they are grown up and lack the perennial chip on the shoulder.

 

Should we chose Yes, then let's not preach to our neighbours. Bury the hatchet and work with them for our common good. If only we could do that now, instead of our parliament and government defending their shortcomings in education, health and any other policies by beginning with "well in England..." It's tiresome.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Wot a load of pish if no wins I'll accept its democracy.

 

Read the post again. Did you think I was referring to folk on here?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

 

[modedit]

 

 

Not at all. I just find it amazing that whenever the yes vote looks like it's struggling, the Nats draw out the unlevel-playing-field card. If they can't argue successfully for independence than that's their fault.

 

[Gizmo]

 

Not at all. I just find it amazing that whenever the yes vote looks like it's struggling, the Nats draw out the unlevel-playing-field card. If they can't argue successfully for independence than that's their fault.

 

It's far from struggling.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/yes-48-no-52-breakthrough-poll-has-yes-at-record-high.24488719

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

 

 

It's far from struggling.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/yes-48-no-52-breakthrough-poll-has-yes-at-record-high.24488719

 

You realise that the herald is a pro-independence paper?

[Patrick Bateman]

It's been an interesting reaction to that article about the extent of Scotland's oil wealth. Previously, unionists have long implied that Scotland couldn't afford to be independent, that there's too much uncertainty and risk, it's the implied 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' argument. Now, once that article blows the 'too poor' stuff out the water, there's some furious back-pedalling to the extent that it's now 'selfish' to want Scotland to make decisions as to how to spend its own wealth. Apparently it's 'selfish' to not want my money pissed away on infrastructure projects that I'll never use and to be governed by governments that have a mandate in Scotland. There's only so much reasoning one can do with this sort of thinking.

[Das Root]

 

You realise that the herald is a pro-independence paper?

Poll's a poll as folk on here say. The Herald didn't do it, they just reported the results.

[Patrick Bateman]

The poll just reinforces what I've been saying consistently throughout this thread; the more informed a voter is, the more likely they are to vote yes. That's why better together want to avoid any sort of meaningful debate and stifle it where possible. The polls have narrowed again, and suddenly a story about big, bad nasty cybernats dominates the news for days, as if this is particular to one side and is a new phenomenon.

 

It's also interesting that unionists are now starting to offer more and more powers. The undecided will start to ask themselves; why have some powers and not all? They aren't drawn into outdated party political beliefs or a naive adherence to dogma. The offer of nominal control over income tax, and then struggle to justify excluding other ones because apparently we owe London more infrastructure, because that's solidarity, apparently.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

Not at all. I just find it amazing that whenever the yes vote looks like it's struggling, the Nats draw out the unlevel-playing-field card. If they can't argue successfully for independence than that's their fault.

The Yes vote has always been up against it. Personally I think the unionist arguments are so weak they look to cry foul constantly. Always looking to make the indy voters look weirdo's, mental and nasty.

[Commander Shepherd]

 

The Yes vote has always been up against it. Personally I think the unionist arguments are so weak they look to cry foul constantly. Always looking to make the indy voters look weirdo's, mental and nasty.

 

I think the yes voters manage to do that themselves. Just ask JK Rowling and Sir Chris Hoy amongst others.

[jack D and coke]

 

I think the yes voters manage to do that themselves. Just ask JK Rowling and Sir Chris Hoy amongst others.

Yeah there's never been any loony unionist said a single bad word about Nicola Sturgeon or Salmond. The stuff written about them is obviously fair game though eh.

[2NaFish]

I think the yes voters manage to do that themselves. Just ask JK Rowling and Sir Chris Hoy amongst others.

 

Phil Neville picked up 100x as much abuse as JK Rowling did. For saying words in a dull voice. That doesnt make it ok to abuse people, but if you're highlighting Rowling's abuse as something indicative of Yes campaigners then you've just proven the point that the characterization of Yes campaigners is worse than their actual actions.

[Gizmo]

You realise that the herald is a pro-independence paper?

 

Ah so the poll doesn't count then? All papers have a viewpoint and the majority are unionist - should we therefor discredit all those other polls too?

 

I think the yes voters manage to do that themselves. Just ask JK Rowling and Sir Chris Hoy amongst others.

 

The absence of anything resembling a proper campaign by Better Together has forced it into the realms of fantasy and this is one of them. In its desperation, it now portrays any criticism of the unionist cause as "vile cybernat abuse".

 

Puts it more eloquently than I could. Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/better-together-mistakes-scottish-independence

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

It's been an interesting reaction to that article about the extent of Scotland's oil wealth. Previously, unionists have long implied that Scotland couldn't afford to be independent, that there's too much uncertainty and risk, it's the implied 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' argument. Now, once that article blows the 'too poor' stuff out the water, there's some furious back-pedalling to the extent that it's now 'selfish' to want Scotland to make decisions as to how to spend its own wealth. Apparently it's 'selfish' to not want my money pissed away on infrastructure projects that I'll never use and to be governed by governments that have a mandate in Scotland. There's only so much reasoning one can do with this sort of thinking.

 

I enjoy reading your posts Bateman. They make you sound like you're the only man on the planet and the entire system of government and expenditure should be centred around your very needs

[TheMaganator]

 

Yeah there's never been any loony unionist said a single bad word about Nicola Sturgeon or Salmond. The stuff written about them is obviously fair game though eh.

Political leaders come in for stick. It's not right but it's always been like that.

 

The problem that the Yes camp have is that there is a substantial odious element to their online presence. They attack those who support the union. Not just politicians but normal folk.It's undeniable. That's not a result of some unionist conspiracy.

 

When you read JK's statement there's nothing wrong it. She just giving her opinion. Yet she got abuse for it. Why?

 

You can try & deflect it with whataboutery but it doesn't change it. It may not bother you, and you may think that those that speak out deserve it - but it's fairly terrible.

 

[JamboX2]

 

It's been an interesting reaction to that article about the extent of Scotland's oil wealth. Previously, unionists have long implied that Scotland couldn't afford to be independent, that there's too much uncertainty and risk, it's the implied 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' argument. Now, once that article blows the 'too poor' stuff out the water, there's some furious back-pedalling to the extent that it's now 'selfish' to want Scotland to make decisions as to how to spend its own wealth. Apparently it's 'selfish' to not want my money pissed away on infrastructure projects that I'll never use and to be governed by governments that have a mandate in Scotland. There's only so much reasoning one can do with this sort of thinking.

 

Again, you ignore solidarity as a principle that people subscribe to. Why is solidarity between scots ok but nor with the wider UK? Equally, why is fiscal redistribution within Scotland ok, but not in the UK when based on need?

 

To me it boils down to "they don't sound like me, liver near me, or vote like me". Which in its purest form is nationalism. If you believe in the concept of being British, and think you are, voting yes becomes an alien concept. If you think you're Scottish and don't feel that British bond then you'll vote yes, that's where this is going to be decided.

 

There's nothing overly selfish about your previous point. However, it isn't socialistic or internationalist to decide that way of thinking is best. It's nationalistic and looking out for your own kind. That's fair enough. But don't dress it up in something it's not.

 

As for your mandate argument the UK government is decided on a UK franchise. Again, if you're in Shetland your vote matters hee haw to the outcome of the national election in Scotland. Does that necessitate independence for Shetland for them to organise their society and spend their money in Shetland only things? On infrastructure projects, there is no hypothecation of tax monies into the Scottish pot. So that money isn't solely Scottish money. A pound in tax from a man in Lincolnshire mig well be being spent on the new forth crossing, as might that of a welsh taxpayer. That's not me making a subsidy argument, it's fact. Money raised in Scotland does not always get spent here as the grant for the Scottish government is made up of the general UK tax take, not solely from Scottish earnings.

 

What's wrong with fiscal redistribution at UK level but right about more money being spent in Glasgow than in Edinburgh or Aberdeen? What is right about people in Shetland never getting the government they want at Holyrood but right about Glasgow deciding the outcome in a majority of Scottish elections?

[jack D and coke]

Political leaders come in for stick. It's not right but it's always been like that.

 

The problem that the Yes camp have is that there is a substantial odious element to their online presence. They attack those who support the union. Not just politicians but normal folk.It's undeniable. That's not a result of some unionist conspiracy.

 

When you read JK's statement there's nothing wrong it. She just giving her opinion. Yet she got abuse for it. Why?

 

You can try & deflect it with whataboutery but it doesn't change it. It may not bother you, and you may think that those that speak out deserve it - but it's fairly terrible.

I've never denied there are odious tubes in the Yes camp but where is the acceptance of the other sides clowns? I'm sure you see allsorts of pretty disgusting stuff written about Salmond, Sturgeon, the Weirs or whoever or I certainly see plenty but it's barely mentioned. The Weirs have copped ten times the flak JK Rowling and even drew a fairly dispicable article from an mp who made then issue a response such was the nastiness of its tone. This is all forgotten though because some people swore on the internet at Rowling and Lally. Nobody has even been able to show a single abusive message to Lally as yet that I'm aware of and tbh I'm starting to wonder if Jim Sillars is onto something when he says the British state is up to something here.

 

I don't think it's acceptable to be abused but I'm of the opinion that people need to grow a set and stop crying foul all the time. The unionist side are like big bairns.

[Commander Shepherd]

Let's not forget Salmond's adviser's comments last week.

 

Stay classy yes camp.

[ToYouToMe]

Political leaders come in for stick. It's not right but it's always been like that.

 

The problem that the Yes camp have is that there is a substantial odious element to their online presence. They attack those who support the union. Not just politicians but normal folk.It's undeniable. That's not a result of some unionist conspiracy.

 

When you read JK's statement there's nothing wrong it. She just giving her opinion. Yet she got abuse for it. Why?

 

You can try & deflect it with whataboutery but it doesn't change it. It may not bother you, and you may think that those that speak out deserve it - but it's fairly terrible.

 

Those "certain Scots" are the problem eh? Wanting England to lose and everything.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Gizmo]

Let's not forget Salmond's adviser's comments last week.

 

Stay classy yes camp.

 

Apart from an inaccurate point (re Lally being related to Pat Lally) perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the problem was?

 

Lally's refusal to accept the apology speaks volumes and..ah sod it the amoral John McTernan in this interview will demonstrate exactly what the NO camp are up to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D2-eS36DG0

 

(from 14:48 unless you particularly enjoy Susan Dalgety failing to answer one direct question put to her)

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Those "certain Scots" are the problem eh?

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Patrick Bateman]

The parameters keep on changing. The typical unionist claim was that Scotland doesn't have the wealth to be a self sustaining nation. It's an abject, outright lie. This lie has been proven, quite comprehensively, so then unionists were forced to threaten Scotland (currency, EU membership, etc) which has also failed because such behaviour harms the rUK too. So now unionists are trying to imply that a Yes vote is unnatural, immoral or wrong in some way. The UK is, as a matter of unquestionable fact, one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. We're expected to put our trust in a system that has existed for three centuries to suddenly change because a relatively small proportion of the population has asked for change. I've said this before; it's a dishonest offer and the electorate isn't buying it. As I say, this continual shifting of arguments and campaign re-launches reflects a degree of panic.

 

As I've said before, the choice is simple; do you want decisions to be made at Westminster, where Scotland has 9% of the seats, pays for the unelected house of lords, pays to store nuclear weapons on its soil and pays for any manner of projects that don't benefit Scotland. Or do we vote to return power to Scotland and take an approach that more accurately reflects Scotland's needs? I realise the unconscious/conscious Scottish cringe may blind some to this, but I'm confident these mental barriers will be lifted. Many have already made the journey, more will follow in the coming months.

[Commander Shepherd]

 

 

Apart from an inaccurate point (re Lally being related to Pat Lally) perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the problem was?

 

Lally's refusal to accept the apology speaks volumes and..ah sod it the amoral John McTernan in this interview will demonstrate exactly what the NO camp are up to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D2-eS36DG0

 

(from 14:48 unless you particularly enjoy Susan Dalgety failing to answer one direct question put to her)

 

The fact you need me to explain the problem with his comments actually speaks volumes for YOU. You clearly are one of those who will defend anything the nationalists and their associates say regardless. So if you think it's sound to write to a national newspaper slamming the mither of a disabled child then you crack on. Again, speaks volumes for YOU.

[jack D and coke]

 

The fact you need me to explain the problem with his comments actually speaks volumes for YOU. You clearly are one of those who will defend anything the nationalists and their associates say regardless. So if you think it's sound to write to a national newspaper slamming the mither of a disabled child then you crack on. Again, speaks volumes for YOU.

Who slammed a mother of a disabled child? Gunn didn't slam her at all. He pointed out the fact that she wasn't a normal everyday mum. Normal everyday mums arent political activists. Nobody is calling her character into question at all. I won't defend anything that I think is out of order and tbh he made an error of judgement certainly but he didn't do anything sly, his name was on the email, he wasn't hiding his identity and attempting to get her abused.

[Patrick Bateman]

Who slammed a mother of a disabled child? Gunn didn't slam her at all. He pointed out the fact that she wasn't a normal everyday mum. Normal everyday mums arent political activists. Nobody is calling her character into question at all. I won't defend anything that I think is out of order and tbh he made an error of judgement certainly but he didn't do anything sly, his name was on the email, he wasn't hiding his identity and attempting to get her abused.

 

This is all misdirection, it's a sideshow; some unionists will go to any lengths to avoid actual debate. The media in this country have been nothing short of embarrassing in their reaction to a couple of anonymous idiots saying nasty things. The scares failed, the love bombing failed, so now they're time wasting. I expect more 'VILE ABUSE' stories to materialise before September and going by Mi5's previous form, don't be surprised at something much darker happening.

[Gizmo]

The fact you need me to explain the problem with his comments actually speaks volumes for YOU. You clearly are one of those who will defend anything the nationalists and their associates say regardless. So if you think it's sound to write to a national newspaper slamming the mither of a disabled child then you crack on. Again, speaks volumes for YOU.

 

I see you mentioned the disabled child to get yourself immediately onto that high horse. Spare me your faux outrage and moral indignation!

 

This is exactly what Gunn wrote:

 

"You are no doubt aware that the 'mother-of-two', who described herself as 'just a normal person' in the Telegraph today is actually a member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet and daughter-in-law of former Labour Lord Provost of Glasgow Pat Lally....."

 

Now apart from getting her family lineage wrong, perhaps you could tell me where the abuse is? And it's standard practice for Gunn, as an advisor, to contact newspapers and journalists. It's part of his remit. Before you comment on him perhaps you should watch the video I posted and contrast his actions with those of John McTernan.

 

Mind you, your rush to claim the moral high ground is a perfect illustration of the approach being taken by the No Thanks campaign - guess you don't need to watch the video after all...

[TheMaganator]

 

You don't believe things could be going on? The British state is under threat here, possibly losing their nuclear arms and more. Im not one for conspiracy theories but it wouldn't surprise me tbh.

The UK wouldn't be losing its nuclear weapons.

 

I wasn't surprised when Sillars came out with all the mi5 nonsense but I didn't expect people on here to take it seriously.

[jack D and coke]

The UK wouldn't be losing its nuclear weapons.

 

I wasn't surprised when Sillars came out with all the mi5 nonsense but I didn't expect people on here to take it seriously.

It could possibly lose them. Where will they put them? I don't think the UK has anywhere else to stick them tbh. Wales? Won't be anywhere in England I wouldn't think.

 

I'm not saying I believe what Sillars has said about MI5 but he mentions a person who was given petrol to douse on a building somewhere in 1979 and the person later turned out to be in special branch. I wouldn't be shocked to discover they will be involved somewhere along the line to try to preserve the British state.

[TheMaganator]

 

It could possibly lose them. Where will they put them? I don't think the UK has anywhere else to stick them tbh. Wales? Won't be anywhere in England I wouldn't think.

 

I'm not saying I believe what Sillars has said about MI5 but he mentions a person who was given petrol to douse on a building somewhere in 1979 and the person later turned out to be in special branch. I wouldn't be shocked to discover they will be involved somewhere along the line to try to preserve the British state.

The Nationalists then were different to what they are now. Don't forget that senior SNP members were locked up during the war for being Nazi sympathisers. They were fiercely republican previously too. Not surprising they attracted Mi5 attention back then.

 

But this is 2014.

 

Anyway, Sturgeon has already ruled out nukes being here (constitutionally enshrined, apparently). They'll either be moved south (not sure where) or remain here with Faslane remaining British territory.

 

Whatever happens - the UK will keep them.

[Alba gu Brath]

Apart from an inaccurate point (re Lally being related to Pat Lally) perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the problem was?

 

Lally's refusal to accept the apology speaks volumes and..ah sod it the amoral John McTernan in this interview will demonstrate exactly what the NO camp are up to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D2-eS36DG0

 

(from 14:48 unless you particularly enjoy Susan Dalgety failing to answer one direct question put to her)

 

Saw bit in the Herald today talking about McTernan's time in Australia where he organised 'Twitter armies' to verbally assault political opponents. Pot, kettle.

 

And to those still linking Gunn's email to Lally's disabled child...

[JKBMod 1]

Members should cease posting off topic comments and links or they will be blocked from posting on the thread.

[DETTY29]

The fact you need me to explain the problem with his comments actually speaks volumes for YOU. You clearly are one of those who will defend anything the nationalists and their associates say regardless. So if you think it's sound to write to a national newspaper slamming the mither of a disabled child then you crack on. Again, speaks volumes for YOU.

I thought the most reprehensible action in this sorry sad affair was Johann Lamont's deplorable performance at FMQ on Thursday.

 

The comment that Clare Lally was notified of Campbell Gunn's apology while at Yorkhill was a new low.

 

Now if she believed that the FM office deliberately contacted her while at Yorkhill for some horrible reason, come out and say it and back up with evidence. But I'm sure that wasn't the case. It was a crass point scoring low point.

 

And this was after about 4 times Lamont mentioned the health of Lally's child.

 

The Presiding Officer should have warned Lamont after the second mention and by the time Yorkhill was mentioned she should have been threatened with suspension from the chamber.

[TheMaganator]

The Presiding Officer is awful.

 

McColm on fine form regarding Gunn, Neil & Prof Thomkins.

 

http://m.scotsman.com/news/euan-mccolm-gunn-must-be-fired-for-snp-integrity-1-3444431

 

Even the Yes voters on here must feel uncomfortable about how the SNP are operating.

[Patrick Bateman]

'Scots to suffer if they vote No' - http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scots-will-suffer-if-the-vote-is-no-experts-on-quebec-warn.24489638

 

Although negative, there's an underlying point here; the no side must outline what'll happen should Scotland reject self-determination. There are too many unanswered questions about what'll happen to our budget, what state assets will be privatised next and so on. The people who just shrug their shoulders and expect everything to continue as normal are being quite naive; it's clear that, regardless of the outcome in September, the UK WILL have to make more cuts, likely under a Tory government in 2015. Again, that's another reason why the no side continually play up the 'uncertainty' aspect of a Yes vote; more misdirection and avoiding substantive debate.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

'Scots to suffer if they vote No' - http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scots-will-suffer-if-the-vote-is-no-experts-on-quebec-warn.24489638

 

Although negative, there's an underlying point here; the no side must outline what'll happen should Scotland reject self-determination. There are too many unanswered questions about what'll happen to our budget, what state assets will be privatised next and so on. The people who just shrug their shoulders and expect everything to continue as normal are being quite naive; it's clear that, regardless of the outcome in September, the UK WILL have to make more cuts, likely under a Tory government in 2015. Again, that's another reason why the no side continually play up the 'uncertainty' aspect of a Yes vote; more misdirection and avoiding substantive debate.

Equally there will be consequences for pro-independence parties if there is a No vote. The Parti Quebecois suffered badly in the polls post 1995. Would the SNP suffer a similar fate?

[Pans Jambo]

The parameters keep on changing. The typical unionist claim was that Scotland doesn't have the wealth to be a self sustaining nation. It's an abject, outright lie. This lie has been proven, quite comprehensively, so then unionists were forced to threaten Scotland (currency, EU membership, etc) which has also failed because such behaviour harms the rUK too. So now unionists are trying to imply that a Yes vote is unnatural, immoral or wrong in some way. The UK is, as a matter of unquestionable fact, one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. We're expected to put our trust in a system that has existed for three centuries to suddenly change because a relatively small proportion of the population has asked for change. I've said this before; it's a dishonest offer and the electorate isn't buying it. As I say, this continual shifting of arguments and campaign re-launches reflects a degree of panic.

 

As I've said before, the choice is simple; do you want decisions to be made at Westminster, where Scotland has 9% of the seats, pays for the unelected house of lords, pays to store nuclear weapons on its soil and pays for any manner of projects that don't benefit Scotland. Or do we vote to return power to Scotland and take an approach that more accurately reflects Scotland's needs? I realise the unconscious/conscious Scottish cringe may blind some to this, but I'm confident these mental barriers will be lifted. Many have already made the journey, more will follow in the coming months.

For me, the part in bold above is the whole debate in a nutshell. PB nailed it there.

 

The rest of the arguments about on-line abuse, Big Eck, EU, Britishness, Nationalism etc. are just a sideshow to deflect from what the real debate is. Decide for ourselves or let the Westminster based politicians largely unelected by Scots decide for us!

 

Done!

Edited June 16, 2014 by Pans Jambo

[Patrick Bateman]

Equally there will be consequences for pro-independence parties if there is a No vote. The Parti Quebecois suffered badly in the polls post 1995. Would the SNP suffer a similar fate?

 

That's true, but that's not really the choice here. It's Yes; full independence and the responsibility that holds, or No; a Tory Government deciding what's on offer, likely till 2020. What happens to the SNP post No doesn't have a material effect on people in Scotland, besides, it's the SNP's responsibility. The decisions of a Westminster Government would have a material effect on people in Scotland, and that should be outlined.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

'Scots to suffer if they vote No' - http://www.heraldsco...c-warn.24489638

 

Although negative, there's an underlying point here; the no side must outline what'll happen should Scotland reject self-determination. There are too many unanswered questions about what'll happen to our budget, what state assets will be privatised next and so on. The people who just shrug their shoulders and expect everything to continue as normal are being quite naive; it's clear that, regardless of the outcome in September, the UK WILL have to make more cuts, likely under a Tory government in 2015. Again, that's another reason why the no side continually play up the 'uncertainty' aspect of a Yes vote; more misdirection and avoiding substantive debate.

 

Why do the no side have to explain anything? The Nats are the ones pushing for change so by definition they have to argue for it, not the other way round. If people vote no, we stay as we are. And quite why Scotland should get a specific explanation about what's to come in terms of cuts and budgets I've no idea. Yorkshire has a bigger population than Scotland but won't have the same privilege.

[Patrick Bateman]

Why do the no side have to explain anything? The Nats are the ones pushing for change so by definition they have to argue for it, not the other way round. If people vote no, we stay as we are. And quite why Scotland should get a specific explanation about what's to come in terms of cuts and budgets I've no idea. Yorkshire has a bigger population than Scotland but won't have the same privilege.

 

1) Because this is a choice between two constitutional states. If the No side refuse to explain what'll happen following a no vote, they can expect to suffer at the ballot box.

2) 'We stay as we are' - No, we don't. Nothing stays at it is, even at the best of times. We've already been promised more powers, of varying degrees. Besides, did we expect to sale of Royal Mail, for example? It wasn't in the state interest, yet it was flogged off at an undervalued price, and the people who benefitted had links to the Tory party.

3) Why *shouldn't* any part of the UK get a honest assessment of what cuts will happen? Don't you believe in transparency?

4) I don't know why you brought Yorkshire into this. Yorkshire is a region of England; Scotland is a nation voting for independence. Two completely different things.

 

What people need to see is the rate of historical flux; Keir Hardie stated the need for a Scottish parliament back in the 1890s. A century later, we had the Constitutional Convention, ten years later, we had a parliament, and little over 10 years after that, we have our independence referendum. All this after talk of the parliament 'killing independence' and there being a 'line in the sand' with Calman - This is only moving one way, despite the fears and smears.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

That's true, but that's not really the choice here. It's Yes; full independence and the responsibility that holds, or No; a Tory Government deciding what's on offer, likely till 2020. What happens to the SNP post No doesn't have a material effect on people in Scotland, besides, it's the SNP's responsibility. The decisions of a Westminster Government would have a material effect on people in Scotland, and that should be outlined.

Absolutely (assuming a Tory win which is hardly a given - I see a Lib/Lab coalition which will cause a volte face amongst the seethe aimed at Clegg).

[Boris]

Absolutely (assuming a Tory win which is hardly a given - I see a Lib/Lab coalition which will cause a volte face amongst the seethe aimed at Clegg).

 

Clegg won't be in Parliament, post 2015 general election!

[TheMaganator]

Clegg won't be in Parliament, post 2015 general election!

Agreed.