The People's Chimp Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) "What would you say to living in one of the world's wealthiest nations?" Yeah sounds great, where do I sign up? Oh right, we already do. Disingenuous at best. So, from the figures in posts above a drop from 6th to 14th. Stuff like this really puts me off Yes. Edited September 10, 2014 by The People's Chimp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Yeah sounds great, where do I sign up? Oh right, we already do. Disingenuous at best. So, from the figures in posts above a drop from 6th to 14th. Stuff like this really puts me off Yes. But we gain full control of that money. And due ti the UK falling 12 places after we leave it shows just how disproportioned our input is to the UK. We have been subsidising the rUK, a nation where we effectively have no vote, for too long. Edited September 10, 2014 by hughesie27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 But we gain full control of that money. And due ti the UK falling 12 places after we leave it shows just how disproportioned our input is to the UK. We have been subsidising the rUK, a nation where we effectively have no vote, for too long. That's a different argument though, one about the way in which the wealth of the UK should be distributed. It's odd that we hear that Yes is about democracy, about sharing wealth and about "fairness" but apparently that doesn't extend beyond Hadrian's wall. As I say, it's disingenuous. We're told that this is about creating a fairer society, and if you are correct and we are "subsidising" rUK, isn't that fair? Aren't we helping create a fairer society across the UK? Fair enough, if you believe we shouldn't share that wealth, and you believe we should bring political control to Edinburgh (entirely, central bank aside) then that is an argument for Yes, but posters asking "What would you say to living in one of the world's wealthiest nations?" when we already do, obscure the argument and mislead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 That's a different argument though, one about the way in which the wealth of the UK should be distributed. It's odd that we hear that Yes is about democracy, about sharing wealth and about "fairness" but apparently that doesn't extend beyond Hadrian's wall. As I say, it's disingenuous. We're told that this is about creating a fairer society, and if you are correct and we are "subsidising" rUK, isn't that fair? Aren't we helping create a fairer society across the UK? Fair enough, if you believe we shouldn't share that wealth, and you believe we should bring political control to Edinburgh (entirely, central bank aside) then that is an argument for Yes, but posters asking "What would you say to living in one of the world's wealthiest nations?" when we already do, obscure the argument and mislead. If I felt we had a say in who runs our country and how that money is distributed then aye it would be fair to subsidise south of the border. That just isn't hkw it works though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Roberto Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Ireland has a treaty opt-out on Schengen. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an opt-out on EMU. Scotland doesn't. Now, if Scotland is given those opt-outs then it is all well and good but realpolitik comes into play here. 1. The regions of Europe which are the currently in the EU and wish for their own independence would have a fast track precedent. Not exactly appealing. 2. The currency union, or lack of it. If Scotland takes its share of debt whilst having no central bank and using the pound, Montenegro will argue that the reason blocking it entering no longer applies. On the other hand, if Scotland reneges on taking its share, the UK could veto membership as all countries have to vote to approve membership. It would be better to ask why Scotland wants in so badly anyway. Firstly, can I thank you for a civilised and reasoned response, I don't agree that these are big problems but I appreciate that debate is about an exchange of views. With regard to opt outs, Ireland and the UK are just 2 examples of opt outs that exist around Europe so it proves that the over - riding aim of Europe is to be inclusive. Scotland is already IN the EU and there exists NO mechanism to exclude any state or existing part of a state within European treaties. I have just attended the EU Cohesion forum in Brussels (it's online if you want to watch) and their focus is on Growth. You don't achieve that by being "difficult" or cutting out a big part of the current EU economy (not even starting on the 25% of renewable potential (low estimate) Pragmatism rules in Europe and that is what, in my view and that of the dozens of Euro regional reps that approached me to wish us luck, will prevail. Many of them believe that the pressure of Scotland being in the EU as an Independent state is the only thing that will make the rUK think again about leaving in 2017 Edited September 10, 2014 by Don Roberto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 "Anger as Salmond plays apartheid card: He likens Scots clamour to vote to South Africa's first election" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2750002/Anger-Salmond-plays-apartheid-card-He-likens-Scots-clamour-vote-South-Africa-s-election.html Now he has a Neldon Mandela complex I laugh but this is pretty outrageous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Roberto Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 "Anger as Salmond plays apartheid card: He likens Scots clamour to vote to South Africa's first election" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2750002/Anger-Salmond-plays-apartheid-card-He-likens-Scots-clamour-vote-South-Africa-s-election.html Now he has a Neldon Mandela complex I laugh but this is pretty outrageous I laughed at "Islamic State wants Scottish Independence" story from BT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 "Anger as Salmond plays apartheid card: He likens Scots clamour to vote to South Africa's first election" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2750002/Anger-Salmond-plays-apartheid-card-He-likens-Scots-clamour-vote-South-Africa-s-election.html Now he has a Neldon Mandela complex I laugh but this is pretty outrageous The guys an ego-maniac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 The guys an ego-maniac It bothers me that the quite a lot of the vocal No support is actually anti-Salmond and not anti-independence. They don't understand that we're not voting for Salmond as our overlord, but he's not really helping the situation by coming out with shit like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Roberto Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 The guys an ego-maniac No UK PM has ever been an ego maniac? It's not about him it's about Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It bothers me that the quite a lot of the vocal No support is actually anti-Salmond and not anti-independence. They don't understand that we're not voting for Salmond as our overlord, but he's not really helping the situation by coming out with shit like that. I don't like him but it's not why I'm voting No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I don't like him but it's not why I'm voting No That wasn't aimed at you Malky, just an observation stemming from the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Walker Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Until now I've deliberately avoided independence 'stuff'. As a kid at school in the 60's I witnessed the rise of SNP, Winnie Ewing and NSOil 'bonanza'. I came across the 'piece' below looking for something else http://www.craigmurr...he-stolen-seas/ I've always figured that that the oil was gone and it was too late to survive independently. Any 'neutral' people out there who can comment on what Murray says...objectively ? Best TW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EIEIO Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Who is going to pay for all these promises, when all the finance jobs (Standard Life, RBS, Lloyds BoS, Tesco) & manufacturing jobs (Selex, Thales, BAE Systems) go south of the border? Its the people on benefits that will suffer the most. Just like Greece. How many finance jobs have been lost since the banking bubble burst ? As we are better together - I assume none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It bothers me that the quite a lot of the vocal No support is actually anti-Salmond and not anti-independence. They don't understand that we're not voting for Salmond as our overlord, but he's not really helping the situation by coming out with shit like that. Does Salmond himself know that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Why would it? Its a report on the effects of independence in Scotland, not rUK. If the report did mention the rUK position would it make any difference to your vote? If not, why mention it. Balance of course. Once you get the balanced viewpoint you're able to determine what's actually good for Scotland rather than what's better for the rUK. If Scotland goes the rUK economy goes down the shitter too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Does Salmond himself know that ? Doesn't appear that he does, does he? He's made this all very much about him. Idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Agreed, the poster made a broader point about foreign policy and not getting involved in conflicts at all (and possibly having it in the constitution). How much does the Afghan campaign cost per month? Was it not something like ?2bn per month until very recently? I'm sure Scotland wouldn't feel the need to flex it's muscles in a global context. (well when i say flex it's muscles i mean in the sense that the UK does it hiding behind the USA's petticoat) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Until now I've deliberately avoided independence 'stuff'. As a kid at school in the 60's I witnessed the rise of SNP, Winnie Ewing and NSOil 'bonanza'. I came across the 'piece' below looking for something else http://www.craigmurr...he-stolen-seas/ I've always figured that that the oil was gone and it was too late to survive independently. Any 'neutral' people out there who can comment on what Murray says...objectively ? Best TW Definite dodgy dealing there However the old border shown due east doesn't make any logical sense either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 This is quite an interesting piece regards the recent market reaction. Could this be true? http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9711-george-osborne-devalues-pound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 This is quite an interesting piece regards the recent market reaction. Could this be true? http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9711-george-osborne-devalues-pound The markets are reacting to uncertainty. Money was flowing into sterling as a safe haven currency, particularly in relation to the Euro. In addition, interest rates looked likely to rise first of the major currencies. Suddenly, "safe haven" UK doesn't look that safe anymore. In truth, the pound has probably been oversold but the markets are taking positions now that there is a potential different outcome than the expected one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It bothers me that the quite a lot of the vocal No support is actually anti-Salmond and not anti-independence. They don't understand that we're not voting for Salmond as our overlord, but he's not really helping the situation by coming out with shit like that. The most common reason I've heard for not wanting independence (having said that I've not spoke to many people outside my work about it) is because they don't want to vote for Salmond/Sturgeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missed98 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 This is quite an interesting piece regards the recent market reaction. Could this be true? http://newsnetscotla...-devalues-pound Interesting indeed. Having also read the comments, i found this little gem as well. https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/509068476603179009\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Until now I've deliberately avoided independence 'stuff'. As a kid at school in the 60's I witnessed the rise of SNP, Winnie Ewing and NSOil 'bonanza'. I came across the 'piece' below looking for something else http://www.craigmurr...he-stolen-seas/ I've always figured that that the oil was gone and it was too late to survive independently. Any 'neutral' people out there who can comment on what Murray says...objectively ? Best TW Have a look at UNCLOS. There is a trusted method for settling any dispute relating to maritime boundaries. There is plenty of oil in many parts of the UK and around the world but the percentage that is economically recoverable is a very small percentage. The oil companies will quote reserves based upon what is recoverable at today's price. They will also have a fair idea of the size of the reservoir. The BP video on the Claire Field, often cited by Yes, is actually a very good example of the difference. The other thing to bear in mind is that the value in the oil belongs to the company licensed to extract it. The tax revenue is actually a small percentage. These figures are published by HMRC. Similarly, England is sitting on 3.25 gigatonnes of coal reserves. Not economical at present but enough to last 200 years. I doubt if any redrawing of boundaries would give an independent Scotland access to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1185 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Balance of course. Once you get the balanced viewpoint you're able to determine what's actually good for Scotland rather than what's better for the rUK. If Scotland goes the rUK economy goes down the shitter too. The report wasn't produced for general dissemination about the debate looking at pros and cons. It was a report by CS for their clients on the impact of independence in Scotland. Its entirely balanced in the sense of it being an unbiased view of the impact of independence. Its interesting you say rUK will "go down the shitter too" - do you agree with CS then that independence will be detrimental to the Scottish economy? Edited September 10, 2014 by jambo1185 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 The most common reason I've heard for not wanting independence (having said that I've not spoke to many people outside my work about it) is because they don't want to vote for Salmond/Sturgeon. It's not just that - if you dig deeper you'll probably find that most just don't like what they're selling. I don't doubt there are some voting No just because they hate Salmond. They're probably evened out by those voting Yes because they don't like the English. It's easy to dismiss those who may say they don't like S&S but if you delve a little deeper you'll likely find they've other reasons - that doesn't mean you'll agree with them. I personally loathe him. That's not why I'm voting No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EIEIO Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'm Yes and think No will win it at about 54/46. Imagine a lot of folk might want to vote Yes but when push comes to shove their short sightedness will rule. I'm yes and think yes will win largely due to people voting for today time ever or for ages. Many people voting this time feel excluded or alienated by successive labour and Tory goverenments that have done little positive for them. For the record I'm not talking fund managers or lawyers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It's not just that - if you dig deeper you'll probably find that most just don't like what they're selling. Could I change that to "Don't know what they're selling". The White Paper is little more than a wish list with no substance, no hint of any plan and no acknowledgement of any risk. The lead characters are, according to polls, only slightly more popular than Cameron and Milliband - there's damnation by faint praise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Someone just said to me. "Vote no and your voting for the Tories" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I don't hate him as that's a very strong emotion. I thoroughly dislike him and his cohort Sturgeon - something fishy about both of them (no pun intended). I do not share their utopian vision of an independent Scotland as I have not been persuaded by their rhetoric! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think I might prefer the Tories to the SNP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It's not just that - if you dig deeper you'll probably find that most just don't like what they're selling. I don't doubt there are some voting No just because they hate Salmond. They're probably evened out by those voting Yes because they don't like the English. It's easy to dismiss those who may say they don't like S&S but if you delve a little deeper you'll likely find they've other reasons - that doesn't mean you'll agree with them. I personally loathe him. That's not why I'm voting No. I don't doubt that either, and I'm not suggesting that tbh, but the primary reason for quite a few people I know for voting no would appear to be that though and all debate goes out the window because of who's running the campaign. It makes me wonder if it wasn't for Salmond the Yes share of the vote would be much greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I want to know what it's going to be like living here after all this has ended... Each side is going to really resent the other - it's not like an election that can be overhauled next time around, this is for keeps...I think it could get pretty spiky over the next couple of years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 If it wasn't Salmond et al and was someone that produced a coherent plan that was worthy of consideration instead of a unsustainable Brigadoon utopian dream then it might even lead to a better debate. There is no doubt the Salmond drive SNP have sought to play the emotional sovereignty card and seem to be carrying some of the people with them. Remember you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBJambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I want to know what it's going to be like living here after all this has ended... Each side is going to really resent the other - it's not like an election that can be overhauled next time around, this is for keeps...I think it could get pretty spiky over the next couple of years... It will do especially when it goes tits up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimus Prime Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Nail on the head from Patrick Harvie re the three amigos. "You would think these fellows would have decided long in advance what their plan of attack was going to be be. To start waving Saltires around at the last minute is, frankly, a wee bit comical." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Walker Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Have a look at UNCLOS. There is a trusted method for settling any dispute relating to maritime boundaries. There is plenty of oil in many parts of the UK and around the world but the percentage that is economically recoverable is a very small percentage. The oil companies will quote reserves based upon what is recoverable at today's price. They will also have a fair idea of the size of the reservoir. The BP video on the Claire Field, often cited by Yes, is actually a very good example of the difference. The other thing to bear in mind is that the value in the oil belongs to the company licensed to extract it. The tax revenue is actually a small percentage. These figures are published by HMRC. Similarly, England is sitting on 3.25 gigatonnes of coal reserves. Not economical at present but enough to last 200 years. I doubt if any redrawing of boundaries would give an independent Scotland access to that. Why are UNCLOS and the oil companies to be 'trusted' rather than just other sources to consider ? Best TW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Standard life making movements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Left Nut Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I want to know what it's going to be like living here after all this has ended... Each side is going to really resent the other - it's not like an election that can be overhauled next time around, this is for keeps...I think it could get pretty spiky over the next couple of years... This is my main concern to be honest. I think it is great that more people are engaging in politics. But like you I feel it is gonna get pretty nasty over the next few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I want to know what it's going to be like living here after all this has ended... Each side is going to really resent the other - it's not like an election that can be overhauled next time around, this is for keeps...I think it could get pretty spiky over the next couple of years... I don't think it will tbh, sure there will be some of the mentalists on either side getting angry and the like but it'll be a minority. Think the majority of people will just get on with their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Standard life making movements. Potentially being the key word. Thing is, i think they will just wait and see. Theres ultimately no point in just jumping ship just after a yes vote. If it goes the way the yes camp believe and we do become the wealthy country as promised then i'd see no reason for these companies to leave and they'd be kicking themselves if they had done so. These businesses dont want us to jump in blind to a yes vote but at the same time they maybe also shouldnt jump ship blind at a yes vote too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBJambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I don't think it will tbh, sure there will be some of the mentalists on either side getting angry and the like but it'll be a minority. Think the majority of people will just get on with their lives. I think it will. When people start losing their jobs if there is a yes vote. People will be pretty pissed off that they lost their jobs on the back of a yes vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Potentially being the key word. Thing is, i think they will just wait and see. Theres ultimately no point in just jumping ship just after a yes vote. If it goes the way the yes camp believe and we do become the wealthy country as promised then i'd see no reason for these companies to leave and they'd be kicking themselves if they had done so. These businesses dont want us to jump in blind to a yes vote but at the same time they maybe also shouldnt jump ship blind at a yes vote too If the shareholders and customers start jumping ship, they might have no option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think it will. When people start losing their jobs if there is a yes vote. People will be pretty pissed off that they lost their jobs on the back of a yes vote. Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Why are UNCLOS and the oil companies to be 'trusted' rather than just other sources to consider ? Best TW It's up to you to decide who you trust - the UN and numerous countries who have used this to settle disputes or an internet blogger. As for the oil companies - I would trust them against a one time "oil economist" and racing pundit who readily conflate "wholesale value" with "tax revenues"and who also quote a 35 year maximum revenue as if it is immediately available. Apart from which, their data is verifiable. But, as I said, you choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) If the shareholders and customers start jumping ship, they might have no option. Its a risk from both sides, of course. Can i ask the no voters. Whatever your reasons are for voting no, if independance is won and few years from now the country is prospering well and we have a higher standard of living than we did as part of the UK. Will you be happy that we did gain independance? Edited September 10, 2014 by Brandt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think it will. When people start losing their jobs if there is a yes vote. People will be pretty pissed off that they lost their jobs on the back of a yes vote. Surely it should be IF people start losing their jobs Call me a cynic but I get the impression some companies are waiting for something like this to use as an excuse to cut jobs/move HQ's to England. And I don't think this mass walkout of companies/job losses is going to be anywhere near as bad as is being made out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Its a risk from both sides, of course. Can i ask the no voters. Whatever your reasons are for voting no, if independance is won and few years from now the country is prospering well and we have a higher standard of living than we did as part of the UK. Will you be happy that we did gain independance? Yes. Can I ask yes voters, if things go the other way will you support another referendum to re-enter the Union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Yes. Can I ask yes voters, if things go the other way will you support another referendum to re-enter the Union? Absolutely not. We make our own bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Yes. Can I ask yes voters, if things go the other way will you support another referendum to re-enter the Union? I'd depart to my country of taxation - Lichtenstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.