Jump to content

Scottish independence and devolution superthread


Happy Hearts

Recommended Posts

Do you really believe she offered no opinion. Really? It was cynical and reeked of Buckingham Palace and the Empire. Quite clever.

 

The Queen has not publicly expressed a political opinion in 62 years on the throne.

 

"Reeking of the Empire"? That is just not serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

What could Scottish people, with or without the help of their elected representatives and institutions be doing about these problems that they are not doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Thats a pity. This discussion has been going on for over 2 years.

 

2 years of the same circular arguments. I'm glad I've joined it so late on.

 

Still, my point stands. Never heard a positive argument for why we're "better together", without using the potential negatives of Independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen has not publicly expressed a political opinion in 62 years on the throne.

 

"Reeking of the Empire"? That is just not serious.

 

We all have our opinions. She did make political opinions about devolution some time back during a Queens speech but hasn't done so again due to the controversy it caused. She has used cynical and pre planned comments many times and yesterdays was just another. I would be dumbfounded if she didn't. She wants to keep whats left of the Empire going for as long as she can. I have nothing against Royalty and if the majority of people want to retain an unelected Queen, fine. Indeed as Scotland will remain in the Commonwealth after Independence she will retain her position in Scotland, her huge swathes of land and property and her titles.

Edited by Independence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What could Scottish people, with or without the help of their elected representatives and institutions be doing about these problems that they are not doing?

 

Independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was certainly offensive enough to Lyndsey Sharp to make her distance herself from it.

 

Lyndsey Sharp may well be thinking of her (Britis) lottery funding first and foremost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Lyndsey Sharp may well be thinking of her (Britis) lottery funding first and foremost?

 

That's what she said was her main concern in an interview at the time. Understandably.

 

Edited by rossthejambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independence.

 

People are that impotent and helpless that living in a prosperous liberal democracy, the 6th biggest economy in the world and their own Parliament can't help them and independence is needed to improve things?

 

That is really a complete lack of faith in Scottish people. Scotland could have been doing many things a lot better for many years that are unrelated to sovereignty.

Edited by Gorgiewave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 years of the same circular arguments. I'm glad I've joined it so late on.

 

Still, my point stands. Never heard a positive argument for why we're "better together", without using the potential negatives of Independence.

 

Two sides of the same coin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what she said was her main concern in an interview at the time. Understandably.

 

Yep, she is just concerned at her income.

 

I wonder if some of the Scottish athletes will try to remain under Team GB, going forward.

 

Anyway, thatis is probably insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

If there were no doubt that Scotland would prosper as an independent nation, what would be the "benefits" of staying as part of the UK.

 

In other words, if Scotland was currently a prosperous independent nation, how would you argue that we'd be better as part of the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have our opinions. She did make political opinions about devolution some time back during a Queens speech but hasn't done so again due to the controversy it caused. She has used cynical and pre planned comments many times and yesterdays was just another. I would be dumbfounded if she didn't. She wants to keep whats left of the Empire going for as long as she can. I have nothing against Royalty and if the majority of people want to retain an unelected Queen, fine. Indeed as Scotland will remain in the Commonwealth after Independence she will retain her position in Scotland, her huge swathes of land and property and her titles.

 

I would respect you more if you said you DO have something against Royalty. Why not admit that, it's hardly a radical view.

Edited by Nookie Bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were no doubt that Scotland would prosper as an independent nation, what would be the "benefits" of staying as part of the UK.

 

In other words, if Scotland was currently a prosperous independent nation, how would you argue that we'd be better as part of the UK?

 

I dunno, we should, like, have a vote about it or something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were no doubt that Scotland would prosper as an independent nation, what would be the "benefits" of staying as part of the UK.

 

In other words, if Scotland was currently a prosperous independent nation, how would you argue that we'd be better as part of the UK?

Impossible to say

 

But people seem keen on the EU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were no doubt that Scotland would prosper as an independent nation, what would be the "benefits" of staying as part of the UK.

 

In other words, if Scotland was currently a prosperous independent nation, how would you argue that we'd be better as part of the UK?

 

It allows Scotland to be protected by a much larger economy.

 

Take the case of Hurricane Katrina. Had Louisiana been an independent country, it would have faced the bill of meeting that disaster alone. But in being part of the United States, it could rely on federal money, i.e., people in Idaho and California helped pay to help Louisiana. Louisiana will do the same when there is a major earthquake in California.

 

It needn't be natural disasters, of course. The cost of decomissioning all of the North Sea oil infrastructure (which will happen one day) will be shared among 5.3 million people in an independent Scotland and by 63 million people if part of the UK. That is, every Scottish person will pay 12 times more.

Edited by Gorgiewave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Impossible to say

 

But people seem keen on the EU

 

So how can anyone claim we'd be "better together" without actually knowing if we'd be... better together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So how can anyone claim we'd be "better together" without actually knowing if we'd be... better together?

I'm confused.

 

The No camp say we are better together now.

 

Sorry if I'm missing your point here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So how can anyone claim we'd be "better together" without actually knowing if we'd be... better together?

 

The no campaign is of the view that we are currently better together. They encourage people to vote no by showing the negative aspects of independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were no doubt that Scotland would prosper as an independent nation, what would be the "benefits" of staying as part of the UK.

 

In other words, if Scotland was currently a prosperous independent nation, how would you argue that we'd be better as part of the UK?

 

These two 'if's make the question redundant I would imagine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

It allows Scotland to be protected by a much larger economy.

 

Take the case of Hurricane Katrina. Had Louisiana been an independent country, it would have faced the bill of meeting that disaster alone. But in being part of the United States, it could rely on federal money, i.e., people in Idaho and California helped pay to help Louisiana. Louisiana will do the same when there is a major earthquake in California.

 

It needn't be natural disasters, of course. The cost of decomissioning all of the North Sea oil infrastructure (which will happen one day) will be shared among 5.3 million people in an independent Scotland and by 63 million people if part of the UK. That is, every Scottish person will pay 12 times more.

 

Thank you. That's the kind of thing I was looking for.

 

These two 'if's make the question redundant I would imagine?

 

Like the majority of the BT campaign points then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5live Drive, Peter Allen was talking to a constitutional lawyer who is No, and saying EU membership not guaranteed, but also said a good lawyer would easily argue the opposite.

 

Then he went to Leslie Riddoch a journalist for a EU Yes constitutional view.

 

He, Allen said he needed both sides view point as he didn't want to be accused of being biased. (Alex Massie is on for NO too)

 

Looks like Nick Robinson has full force if NUJ and BBC behind him.

Edited by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. That's the kind of thing I was looking for.

 

 

Like the majority of the BT campaign points then?

 

I wasn't being snide BH. Simply saying that if we start with the premise that Scotland was a successful and wealthy independent country, no one in their right minds would vote to join the UK. Why would they?

Snag is, we have no idea whether we would be in that position if we were not part of the UK so it's impossible to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any historic examples of when we've been bailed out by England?

 

Yes. In 1707 when Scotland agreed to the union of parliaments after the Darien Scheme effectively bankrupted us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

I wasn't being snide BH. Simply saying that if we start with the premise that Scotland was a successful and wealthy independent country, no one in their right minds would vote to join the UK. Why would they?

Snag is, we have no idea whether we would be in that position if we were not part of the UK so it's impossible to answer.

 

Well that's my point I guess. We wouldn't get into a union if we were happily independent. So we're only better together if we work on the assumption that we'll falter as an independent nation. Which there's no basis for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

Yes. In 1707 when Scotland agreed to the union of parliaments after the Darien Scheme effectively bankrupted us.

 

Any since?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see oil is sitting at $97 a barrel. Considering the snp are using a figure of $150 for their assumptions. It's a big difference.

 

I thought it was $113, according to Ruth Davidson the other night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this has already been posted. Thought this economist on Irish telly was rather good:

 

 

Interesting to hear another outside perspective. His point, to paraphrase, about 'never being a better time' is the one that resonates most. When viewed historically, it is clear that Independence is going to happen, perhaps not this week, but I think people, even politicians at Westminster, recognise that a break is inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the no voters have still not answer my simple question.

 

Who wants the best for scotland and the scottish people? Alex Salmond or David Cameron?

 

I hate nationalism, i believe in equality across all borders, i agree we are all better together. I believe nationalism is short sighted and blatantly racist where we think we are better looking after own people than others. I don't want Devo max, because again why should we be paying 2 lots of MPs, its a massive expense. I want us to be closer to the EU, this notion thats us british/scottish have more rights or are better than people in poland etc is stupid. All i really want is a fairer society for all, there is a very easy way to start making massive inroads into this to to end first across the post voting across the UK. End the 2 party system and force parties to work for the common good. The rise of UKIP across Britain should be a worry for all, how can you support them then argue against a yes vote is baffling. explain how a united europe is any different than a united Kingdom?

 

I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that i want my vote to matter when it comes to the important decisions that we face now and in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super Vlad Why do you put so much emphasis on personalities? Alex Salmond cares most of all about Alex Salmond. I'm sure he quite fancies strutting the world stage as PM.

Edited by tcjambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any historic examples of when we've been bailed out by England?

 

The Union of 1707. Scotland tried to found an empire in the Caribbean and lost 20% of national wealth. Its economy was rescued by having access to English markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super Vlad Why do you put so much emphasis on personalities? Alex Salmond cares most of all about Alex Salmond. I'm sure he quite fancies strutting the world stage as PM.

 

Because the No voters have again and again just attacked him personally, my question was a direct response to GA but he choose not to answer it. I couldn't agree with you more, that all politicians are in it for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Union of 1707. Scotland tried to found an empire in the Caribbean and lost 20% of national wealth. Its economy was rescued by having access to English markets.

 

That was the Darien Scheme. Oddly its main advocate was one William Paterson (a Scot), but a founder of the Bank of England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the no voters have still not answer my simple question.

 

Who wants the best for scotland and the scottish people? Alex Salmond or David Cameron?

 

I hate nationalism, i believe in equality across all borders, i agree we are all better together. I believe nationalism is short sighted and blatantly racist where we think we are better looking after own people than others. I don't want Devo max, because again why should we be paying 2 lots of MPs, its a massive expense. I want us to be closer to the EU, this notion thats us british/scottish have more rights or are better than people in poland etc is stupid. All i really want is a fairer society for all, there is a very easy way to start making massive inroads into this to to end first across the post voting across the UK. End the 2 party system and force parties to work for the common good. The rise of UKIP across Britain should be a worry for all, how can you support them then argue against a yes vote is baffling. explain how a united europe is any different than a united Kingdom?

 

I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that i want my vote to matter when it comes to the important decisions that we face now and in the future.

If you believe that we are better together then why are you voting Yes? If it is the expense issue then you may be in for a shock if decide we need a second chamber.

 

What important matters do you mean when you say the important ones? More than the devolved ones we have now?

 

Why do you think voting Yes will result in a fairer society? It may result in a fairer Scottish society (though I am highly dubious about that) but what about those in the rest of the UK?

 

EDIT: and on your question - I think they both care equally about Scotland. But I am certain that they both value their legacy more than they value the people of Scotland. Salmond has worked his whole life for this. He wants to be the man that gave Scotland her freedom. He does not just want to be another who has tried and failed. Cameron will not want to be the PM that presided over the break up of the UK.

Edited by TheMaganator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The referendum seems to be a convenient thing to blame certain things on, whether that's from the Yes camp or the No camp. It's nigh on impossible for people to get all the facts/information with so many people muddying the waters like this tbh.

 

a good summary of the situation

 

probably why there are so many undecided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leginten - [sorry quote function is not working]. No he's not cancelling the EU referendum but no doubt being a supporter of democracy you would want the British people to have their say. Cameron only wants to repatriate a relatively small number of powers so I don't see him as a parochialist. For the record I would not vote to pull out of the EU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp

What is 'their own cause'? That sounds awfy 'team Scotland' esq.

 

People are lapping it up - I am sorry if you think that sounds patronising.

 

The 'they're telling us we're too stupid', 'they're saying we cant do it' has been a permanent feature of this campaign and even in this thread. Salmond knows this - as does Sturgeon. They play it up at every opportunity.

 

The "too wee, too small" line that Sturgeon in particular is fond of, is a ridiculous strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Union of 1707. Scotland tried to found an empire in the Caribbean and lost 20% of national wealth. Its economy was rescued by having access to English markets.

 

While it is a perfect example it was also over three centuries ago, not necessarily from you but I've heard it used as an example a lot recently of why Scotland shouldn't be independent or as example of how Scots "can't" be trusted to run a country. An event over 300 years ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am lead to believe that if Yes seem likely to win by 7am on Friday that Salmond will need to make a statement to the markets before 8 to prevent capital flight from Scotland when markets open.

 

There needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement to markets about the currency position or the markets will panic. Equally the Treasury, BOE and Number 10 must also have a statement on Scotland's position with the pound to stop this becoming people queuing at banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that we are better together then why are you voting Yes? If it is the expense issue then you may be in for a shock if decide we need a second chamber.

 

 

 

What important matters do you mean when you say the important ones? More than the devolved ones we have now?

 

Why do you think voting Yes will result in a fairer society? It may result in a fairer Scottish society (though I am highly dubious about that) but what about those in the rest of the UK?

 

Simple economics says we are better together, economies of scales, shared resources etc, anyone arguing against it is naive.

I want us to use our wealth to better the lives of people and to spread it more equally.

 

I agree that it will make it fairer here and for a period it will make it unfairer in the rest of the UK, but if we can make it work here then it will act as a beacon of hope to the rest of England to demand a better voting system to reflect the people it govens.

 

The important decisions, is control over our taxes, direct and in direct, the welfare state, the armed forces, immigration and how we deal with europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there is a Yes vote it could be chaos in economy, markets etc. Britain and then Scotland will suffer.

 

but that does not mean Scotland and rUK cannot be successful - just may be a bit poorer for a while. Whether that is 2/3 years or 10/15 years of transition.

 

surprised this possibility hasn't been explored more by Yes ie maybe a bit poorer short term but richer longer term esp as renewable energy takes over - might have helped get over line

 

but lots of risks - believe this will lose Salmond his prize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am lead to believe that if Yes seem likely to win by 7am on Friday that Salmond will need to make a statement to the markets before 8 to prevent capital flight from Scotland when markets open.

 

There needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement to markets about the currency position or the markets will panic. Equally the Treasury, BOE and Number 10 must also have a statement on Scotland's position with the pound to stop this becoming people queuing at banks.

 

You do realise that the markets are jumpy because Westminster has zero plans in places for a Yes vote.

 

Anyway, we have lost over 2000 points in a day and markets have recovered, the stock market was created to make stock brokers money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if in the unlikely event of a Yes votes the markets crash and that adversely impacts the independence pending Scottish economy we will all suffer for goodness knows how long before the SNP utopian state happens and we have a fairer society. That sounds very unattractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are thinking of buying dollars for your holiday, get them by Friday cos if it is a yes vote, they expect the pound to drop like a stone

 

Ps not scaremongering

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...