Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[indianajones]

 

 

 

And rightly so

 

There is no appetite whatsoever from the top brass of the Armed Forces for an independent Scotland.

 

Our forces are one thing every person in the UK can be proud of

 

Proud of yes.

 

But is a large army really needed for an independent Scotland? We will not be going to war unless it is 100% necessary.

 

War is shit. Nuclear submarines are shit. I'd be happy with a tiny defence force. Probably means the least to me and many others voting yes.

[DETTY29]

That's total BS.

A no vote will deliver nothing more than vague promises of a timetable which will run out of parliamentary time. That's fact.

So a no vote does not deliver devo max.

A couple of weeks ago on 5Live Jo Swinson laughed off suggestions from the audience that Scotland should be allowed to retain it's revenues including a portion oil to support the additional devo max powers costs.

Edited September 13, 2014 by DETTY29

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So what guarantee is there we will get a currency union? Don't see what is in it for the rUK.

 

Yes suggest that it will mean transaction cross for the businesses in both rUK and Scotland but that would hurt Scotland a lot more than it would the UK since 70% of our exports go to rUK while only a fraction of rUK's come to Scotland. Also by not agreeing to a CU, rUK will get themselves the tax from the 5 banks who will move their registered offices. They could easily compensate the rUK businesses for their transaction costs from the revenue that brings in if they needed to.

There won't be a currency union, unless Scotland is prepared to surrender fiscal policy control.

[Thunderstruck]

 

John Lewis sells milk?

 

Waitrose.

[Neil Jung]

Alex Salmond's legacy, whatever the outcome, will be splitting Scotland down the middle. Half the country will be disappointed and I wouldn't expect that disappointment to disappear quickly.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Thanks for that, very interesting. That's the strange thing about British politics, it does throw up unpredictable situations and solutions. By this time next week, rUK could be in the midst of a constitutional crisis, Boris Johnson could be put forward as the new leader of the Tory party, and the Queen could be asking him to form a government, all before he's even won his Uxbridge seat. Implausible, yes, but not legally impossible. Or, is it?

 

Highly unlikely. Tory rules for the leadership mean you need to be a sitting MP.

 

The constitution is poltically based. Not meaning at a whim to whoever, that's wrong. But it's an evolutionary issue. At Douglas-Homes time there was no rule that the Tory leader had to be an MP. Now there is. So you can only be Leader if an MP and in effect PM if a MP.

 

From 2004 - 2007 Alex Salmond was SNP leader as an MP. He had no right to sit and debate in Holyrood. His deputy, Sturgeon, therefore led the party in the Holyrood chamber. Had Salmond not won his seat in 2007 for Holyrood, he would have been inelligible for First Minister. This would mean, as leading party officer in Holyrood, Sturgeon would have become FM. Salmond still leader of the SNP. But not FM.

 

A total hypothetical on the last as but it shows the system at play is now to say you need to be a sitting member of the chamber you are in to lead the nation.

 

However, it should be noted the way Salmond led the SNP prior to 2007, ie outside Holyropd but gunning for it's top job, is not unusual in Europe. Thornig-Schmidt of Denmark was an MEP before election to the Folkstag in Denmark as leader of the Social democrats. I think also the leader of the social democrats in Sweden was also a councillor and party leader for years before getting a seat in a by election.

[hughesie27]

Alex Salmond's legacy, whatever the outcome, will be splitting Scotland down the middle. Half the country will be disappointed and I wouldn't expect that disappointment to disappear quickly.

You say that as if it is a negative.

 

Making people think about their autonomy and questioning the status quo, regardless of their vote, is a great thing.

 

To refuse that is to neglect our scrutiny of the powers that be.

[IMA MAROON]

Speaker of the then English House of Commons.....

 

http://punditwire.co...atchd-scotland/

 

Will the gloves come off again if the vote is yes. Will there be another embargo.

 

We needed the English then as we need them now.

[Neil Jung]

 

 

You say that as if it is a negative.

 

Making people think about their autonomy and questioning the status quo, regardless of their vote, is a great thing.

 

To refuse that is to neglect our scrutiny of the powers that be.

It's healthy to discuss and consider however Scotland will be more divided than ever post the 18th. That, I'm afraid, is a fact.

[jambogaza]

I wonder if all labour mps/msps are comfortable with the corporate world's gun to head tactics. Value bases must be all over the place.

[JamboX2]

 

 

You say that as if it is a negative.

 

Making people think about their autonomy and questioning the status quo, regardless of their vote, is a great thing.

 

To refuse that is to neglect our scrutiny of the powers that be.

 

But power being transferred to Scotland does not equate to your last point on better scrutiny of that power being exercised. The SNP have gotten away with murder on the powers being exercised without the democratic consent of the parliament on the police force ignoring local by-laws and arming officers on patrol. Power we have, where scrutiny has evaporated. It does not suggest that the Holyrood parliament is really proving itself to be scrutinising the power being exercised by the ministers of the Scottish government to the benefit of Scots anymore so than MPs at Westminster. I'd actually argue it's lesser as a lot of the scandals into child abuse and police abuse in England have been acted upon by backbenchers or raised by them. Power in Scotland is controlled by a smaller and more tightly closed elite than England. You could say we are failing to hold this top echelon on Scotland's ruling elite to as tight a level of scrutiny as it should actually be.

 

I agree with your central point. That thinking about this whole issue is liberating. The worrying thing as NJ says is that it's split the nation too much. The animosity you hear and I've seen first hand is worrying. How can the left in Scotland hope to work together after this split? How can the SNP effectively work with the Trade Unions or the British Government after stoking up this us and them attitude on a constitutional issue? How will Holyrood drop the bitterness inside the chamber around this issue after the outcome to work for Scotland? Will people lose trust with certain businesses and corporations for their views? And will certain academics be stigmatised by how there voted?

 

Arguably all has the seeds sown by some of the fringe crap you hear and see. That division isn't healthy. I can see and hear the debates in Holyrood if No wins now. A lot of blame game politics from the SNP on the others and a breakdown in cross party politics.

 

Alex Salmond's legacy, whatever the outcome, will be splitting Scotland down the middle. Half the country will be disappointed and I wouldn't expect that disappointment to disappear quickly.

 

I agree. I think Yes will take No harder than No would Yes. I also think you might see some civil disobedience if No won narrowly. Or at the least protests against some bogey man put up by Yes Scotland and the SNP for why they lost.

 

 

A couple of weeks ago on 5Live Jo Swinson laughed off suggestions from the audience that Scotland should be allowed to retain it's revenues including a portion oil to support the additional devo max powers costs.

 

The Jo Swinson who went on to say she wanted all income related tax devolved, the crown estates, the transport levies, all property taxation AND for Scotland to be given what it raises in corporation taxes in whole after collection by HMRC under a UK wide rate of tax?

 

Aye, she's no interested in devolving tax powers to Scotland.

[JamboX2]

 

I wonder if all labour mps/msps are comfortable with the corporate world's gun to head tactics. Value bases must be all over the place.

 

Think they're happy that the TUC, unite, unison, gmb and many other unions who also make up the neutral STUC are standing with them though.

[Ulysses]

It's healthy to discuss and consider however Scotland will be more divided than ever post the 18th. That, I'm afraid, is a fact.

 

I think this is right, and it's a pity because it didn't need to be that way, IMO.

[EIEIO]

I wonder if all labour mps/msps are comfortable with the corporate world's gun to head tactics. Value bases must be all over the place.

A growing number of their voters are unhappy about it, latest guardian poll had 42 percent of labour supporters intending to vote yes. As for their MSPs and MPs most , not all, are more interested in self preservation.

[Gabriel]

 

 

 

I think this is right, and it's a pity because it didn't need to be that way, IMO.

 

I think a wee peek into Scotland's history will show that this country has been more divided, and more brutally so, than it will be come Friday next. I appreciate that folk are ardent in their desires but the hyperbole is unnecessary.

[JamboX2]

 

 

It's healthy to discuss and consider however Scotland will be more divided than ever post the 18th. That, I'm afraid, is a fact.

 

 

I think this is right, and it's a pity because it didn't need to be that way, IMO.

 

Sums up my opinions.

 

Scotland will be a tough nut to govern and to discuss politics in either way this vote goes. Reckon Labour will be treated like they did the Tories after 1997 by the SNP and it's allies. Same goes for No unions and businesses. Hope to hell the likes of Harvie can talk consensus and agreement into Scotland after this, he's been open minded and consensual a lot of the time throughout this. Sadly we've lost Margo who, I reckon, would've been a good one to bring it back from a brink in tone as a debate.

[Neil Jung]

 

 

 

 

 

Sums up my opinions.

 

Scotland will be a tough nut to govern and to discuss politics in either way this vote goes. Reckon Labour will be treated like they did the Tories after 1997 by the SNP and it's allies. Same goes for No unions and businesses. Hope to hell the likes of Harvie can talk consensus and agreement into Scotland after this, he's been open minded and consensual a lot of the time throughout this. Sadly we've lost Margo who, I reckon, would've been a good one to bring it back from a brink in tone as a debate.

If it's a yes outcome we'll still have a country where half the population wants to be British. That's where we are now unfortunately.

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

A growing number of their voters are unhappy about it, latest guardian poll had 42 percent of labour supporters intending to vote yes. As for their MSPs and MPs most , not all, are more interested in self preservation.

 

As I read that, a percentage of those who voted labour in 2011 intend to vote Yes. In actual numbers (not percentages), that is significantly lower than the percentage of those who voted SNP who intend to vote No.

 

If it is a No vote, you will see defections from SNP long before the 2016 election. You might even see the SNP majority eroded away in a short period of time.

[nanananananana-angus]

 

 

 

I agree. I think Yes will take No harder than No would Yes. I also think you might see some civil disobedience if No won narrowly. Or at the least protests against some bogey man put up by Yes Scotland and the SNP for why they lost.

 

It isn't 700,000 Yes voters who are saying they'll up sticks if the vote goes against them though.Unless that's bluster of course.

 

 

[TheMaganator]

[JamboX2]

 

 

Could say the same for all the yes voters I read online saying "I'm goi if no wins as Scotland will be a busted flush."

 

We had yes voters on a thread about the Scotland national side saying why bother with it if No wins?

 

There's bampots on both sides being petulant.

 

My point was to me it would be harder for yes voters to get so close and lose and as a result may result in them being more outwardly angry with the situation than no voters, who have been less outgoing, but have been equally more resigned to it happening than the other way about.

[AyrJambo]

Will the gloves come off again if the vote is yes. Will there be another embargo.

 

We needed the English then as we need them now.

 

Not sure they'd get away with the same approach now. Besides the social union, families friends etc on both sides will still be in place

It's my view that all the sound and fury we are seeing now is an attempt to frighten people into a No vote since the real players, UK, banks, big business have a nice cosy arrangement and they don't want to have to adjust.

 

You'd think the sky was about to fall in in the event of a Yes vote! I'm just waiting on Better Together claiming that we wouldn't be able to use the English language next!

 

Think someone posted earlier along the lines of it's a very simple choice....

 

Do you want to run your own affairs or do you want someone else to run them for you?

The rest is just details and the details will be worked out

[JamboX2]

Here's one on why UKIP Tory coalitions is the equivalent of Scotland being an international pariah with border controls at Gretna for the Yes Side.

 

Polling and reality and electoral systems and misunderstanding how British parliamentarianism works has fostered this crap for too long:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/yes-scotland-resorts-fearmongering-warning-tory-ukip-coalition

[missed98]

Apologies if already posted, however, further to my comment earlier on regarding journalistic bias, this happens. Watch them in order

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2-sXKdEKps

 

 

 

Whether Robinson liked Salmond's answer or not, he did answer BOTH questions quite comprehensively.

Edited September 13, 2014 by missed98

[Rudolf's Mate]

These polls which are carried out to gauge opinion. Maybe more No people should have indicated Yes which might have made Westminster sit up earlier!

 

Before anyone tells me that's ridiculous. That's why I'm not involved in politics

[nanananananana-angus]

Could say the same for all the yes voters I read online saying "I'm goi if no wins as Scotland will be a busted flush."

 

We had yes voters on a thread about the Scotland national side saying why bother with it if No wins?

 

There's bampots on both sides being petulant.

 

My point was to me it would be harder for yes voters to get so close and lose and as a result may result in them being more outwardly angry with the situation than no voters, who have been less outgoing, but have been equally more resigned to it happening than the other way about.

 

Have Yes voters been canvassed as to their intentions post No? Genuine question.

The reason I mentioned the 700k is because it's been put out there on a few occasions,so someone seems to have gone to the trouble of asking.

 

I reckon the vast majority of Yes voters will go back to the lives they have known as part of the UK and will say 'ach well, next time then'.

[CMc]

The Orange order have decended upon Tollcross before their march. Ironically chose the only Celtic Bar in the area for their meeting point. Must be largely spit they're drinking.

[hughesie27]

Here's one on why UKIP Tory coalitions is the equivalent of Scotland being an international pariah with border controls at Gretna for the Yes Side.

 

Polling and reality and electoral systems and misunderstanding how British parliamentarianism works has fostered this crap for too long:

 

http://www.newstates...-ukip-coalition

 

An article based on one single opinion poll 8 months before the general election. Who is to say UKIPs popularity doesn't continue to rise at a significant pace as it has done over the last 3 years? The article presents its info as fact that a coalition between the Tories and UKIP is impossible. But it's not scaremongering.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

An article based on one single opinion poll 8 months before the general election. Who is to say UKIPs popularity doesn't continue to rise at a significant pace as it has done over the last 3 years? The article presents its info as fact that a coalition between the Tories and UKIP is impossible. But it's not scaremongering.

 

UKIP will be the major winners of a Yes vote. They will play on any English backlash.

[Gabriel]

An article based on one single opinion poll 8 months before the general election. Who is to say UKIPs popularity doesn't continue to rise at a significant pace as it has done over the last 3 years? The article presents its info as fact that a coalition between the Tories and UKIP is impossible. But it's not scaremongering.

 

Good point. Many in the media and, consequently, public have grossly underestimated the rise of UKIP, rather in the way they underestimated the 'Yes' campaign. They see UKIP as a one man show who has no substantial policies but comes across as amusingly affable and can debate rather well; remind you of anyone?

 

Unlike the three mainstream parties who are haemorrhaging members, though, UKIP has been increasing its membership base from the bottom and growing from the grass roots.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

An article based on one single opinion poll 8 months before the general election. Who is to say UKIPs popularity doesn't continue to rise at a significant pace as it has done over the last 3 years? The article presents its info as fact that a coalition between the Tories and UKIP is impossible. But it's not scaremongering.

 

UKIP would need a Tory collapse of a like when the Liberals collapsed during the 1920s to give Labour an opening at power to get into a coalition. Bearing in mind by the 1925 election the labour movement had around 80+ seats! more than the Lib Dems have had ever.

 

It's just not easy to get at this under the Westminster system. As polls stand Labour would be the biggest party under a hung parliament. UKIP on like 5 or so seats. No where near enough to be a viable partner for anyone.

 

It's scaremongering. No factual basis for it to be a UKIP-Tory government. For a long long time.

[AyrJambo]

 

Not unknown for Deutsche Bank and Landau in particular to be economical with the truth!!..............

 

https://www.foodwatch.org/en/what-we-do/news/deutsche-bank-and-allianz-warned-by-own-research-departments-of-grave-consequences/

[Hasselhoff]

The guy snp constantly quote as saying oil will continue to flow beyond 2050 has said he has been misquoted

 

Prof Alex Kemp wrote a letter to a paper saying there will be no bonanza and that sir Ian wood's estimate of 15-16bn is accurate

 

Salmond and co had better find themselves another person to quote.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

 

The guy snp constantly quote as saying oil will continue to flow beyond 2050 has said he has been misquoted

 

Prof Alex Kemp wrote a letter to a paper saying there will be no bonanza and that sir Ian wood's estimate of 15-16bn is accurate

 

Salmond and co had better find themselves another person to quote.

Rubbish. Wood said only 2 years ago himself, oil would see us all through our lifetime. Oil is harder to get out, that is absolutely true, but is still there in masses. Certainly new technology is needed, but many companies are planning on being around for many many years to come. If you feel happy throwing all of that away, for me it sums up the lack of knowledge of the no campaign.

 

Instead of trying to worry us they should be selling us a vision, but they can't, all they can sell you is austerity and support for England's gaping budget deficit ex-Scotland

[westbow]

It's healthy to discuss and consider however Scotland will be more divided than ever post the 18th. That, I'm afraid, is a fact.

Meh, in the unlikely event of a yes vote I would be in the "if you can't beat them join them" camp. As would the vast majority.

The Yes camp is a bit of an unholy alliance of SNP and Labour voters which will last as long as the 18th. More pressing will be the General Election afterwards. Farage to split the tory vote, labour to benefit and thus more devolution.

Edited September 13, 2014 by westbow

[Nookie Bear]

 

 

 

Proud of yes.

 

But is a large army really needed for an independent Scotland? We will not be going to war unless it is 100% necessary.

 

War is shit. Nuclear submarines are shit. I'd be happy with a tiny defence force. Probably means the least to me and many others voting yes.

 

 

Spot on but Salmond is caught between that approach and Scotland's proud military past (as part of the UK armed forces) which people are keen to preserve.

[Nookie Bear]

 

 

It's healthy to discuss and consider however Scotland will be more divided than ever post the 18th. That, I'm afraid, is a fact.

 

Hardly unified now then, is it? Better to be divided along political rather than religious lines though.

[michael_bolton]

I saw a poster above claim that a No vote would deliver Devo Max. It will not.

 

From a House of Lords' report on further powers for Scotland.

 

"45. Whereas both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have recognised that independence is a Scottish question, ?devolution max? is not. Proper constitutional process requires that negotiations involving all parts of the United Kingdom precede any referendum on an agreed scheme of ?devolution max.?

 

Gordon Brown and the No campaign are offering further devolution when they can't constitutionally deliver it. They'll just say anything to deliver a No vote.

[Mikey1874]

 

 

Good point. Many in the media and, consequently, public have grossly underestimated the rise of UKIP, rather in the way they underestimated the 'Yes' campaign. They see UKIP as a one man show who has no substantial policies but comes across as amusingly affable and can debate rather well; remind you of anyone?

 

Unlike the three mainstream parties who are haemorrhaging members, though, UKIP has been increasing its membership base from the bottom and growing from the grass roots.

 

people in Scotland underestimating and disrespecting the number of UKIP voters in Scotland - got a good vote at Euro elections

[ToadKiller Dog]

Expected to be an influx of single English women moving to Scotland if it's a yes

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-men-are-better-lovers-and-more-romantic-than-their-english-counterparts-new-survey-reveals-9727551.html

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I find it incredibly sad that people are offered the opportunity to control their own destiny but are afraid to take the opportunity to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

 

Becoming cliched but that oil is overrated eh. I find it embarrassing to accept an allowance, and a poor one too, from Westminster, to be lied to year upon year, to accept their taxes that are unjust, to accept their WMD, to send the Black Watch in first in Iraq, to even be in Iraq, wasting my tax when hospitals are in dire need of MAXIMUM funding.

 

Others don't, you can vote as you please, but respect those who are fed up, and that's at least the other half, not a mad loony faction

 

You do know that the SNP did not spend all of the Barnett consequentials for health on health, don't you?

[Hasselhoff]

 

 

You do know that the SNP did not spend all of the Barnett consequentials for health on health, don't you?

 

John Swinney got asked about that by Ruth Davidson on "any questions" on bbc radio 4 last night and his only response was that all of the consequential Barnett money went into the NHS.

 

 

[Yoda]

So what guarantee is there we will get a currency union? Don't see what is in it for the rUK.

 

Yes suggest that it will mean transaction cross for the businesses in both rUK and Scotland but that would hurt Scotland a lot more than it would the UK since 70% of our exports go to rUK while only a fraction of rUK's come to Scotland. Also by not agreeing to a CU, rUK will get themselves the tax from the 5 banks who will move their registered offices. They could easily compensate the rUK businesses for their transaction costs from the revenue that brings in if they needed to.

So what guarantee is there we will get a currency union? Don't see what is in it for the rUK.

 

Yes suggest that it will mean transaction cross for the businesses in both rUK and Scotland but that would hurt Scotland a lot more than it would the UK since 70% of our exports go to rUK while only a fraction of rUK's come to Scotland. Also by not agreeing to a CU, rUK will get themselves the tax from the 5 banks who will move their registered offices. They could easily compensate the rUK businesses for their transaction costs from the revenue that brings in if they needed to.

So what guarantee is there we will get a currency union? Don't see what is in it for the rUK.

 

Yes suggest that it will mean transaction cross for the businesses in both rUK and Scotland but that would hurt Scotland a lot more than it would the UK since 70% of our exports go to rUK while only a fraction of rUK's come to Scotland. Also by not agreeing to a CU, rUK will get themselves the tax from the 5 banks who will move their registered offices. They could easily compensate the rUK businesses for their transaction costs from the revenue that brings in if they needed to.

 

Spot on.

 

We'll be competing with rUK for jobs and business, so there's no way they'll do anything to help us out. Quite the opposite.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Do the Union supporters really have to stoop this low .

Lamont attacked Salmonds lack of Children months back in a speech now the gutter press running this . Very cheap indeed .

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754216/Childless-SNP-chiefs-no-feel-UK-family-Leaders-Scottish-National-Party-want-break-Union-not-understand-families-claimed.html

[Ulysses]

 

 

I think a wee peek into Scotland's history will show that this country has been more divided, and more brutally so, than it will be come Friday next. I appreciate that folk are ardent in their desires but the hyperbole is unnecessary.

 

Some political leaders are nation builders. Others just want to win. Given the strategic and tactical choices that were available, I think it's clear that the First Minister belongs to the latter group. It's regrettable, because it may mean his legacy will be one of division rather than independence - even if he wins.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Some political leaders are nation builders. Others just want to win. Given the strategic and tactical choices that were available, I think it's clear that the First Minister belongs to the latter group. It's regrettable, because it may mean his legacy will be one of division rather than independence - even if he wins.

 

Would you regard De Valera as a nation builder?

[westbow]

Do the Union supporters really have to stoop this low .

Lamont attacked Salmonds lack of Children months back in a speech now the gutter press running this . Very cheap indeed .

 

 

http://www.dailymail...es-claimed.html

Yeah, no need. Despair about politics sometimes.

[Stuart Lyon]

Toadkiller Dog what about the SNP guy who resigned yesterday over his tweet re Gordon Brown's daughter who died?

[Ulysses]

 

Would you regard De Valera as a nation builder?

 

No. He built (or tried to build) a political and administrative system for and around his own supporters.

[Stuart Lyon]

ITV tweet says they understand Rupert Murdoch has land in Scotland!

itvnews

ITV News understands that Rupert Murdoch has landed in Scotland, days ahead of the referendum http://t.co/lFiE4JYmUR

13/09/2014 14:42

Edited September 13, 2014 by Stuart Lyon