Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jambo1185]

[Quoting deleted post]

 

So you would "settle" for "Imperialist Westminster" not "GingTF" and "Southern Tories imposing policies Scotland doesn't want"?

 

Strange to say you are voting yes to achieve something but not really minding if you don't achieve that at all.

Edited June 2, 2014 by JKBMod 1

[TheMaganator]

So you would "settle" for "Imperialist Westminster" not "GingTF" and "Southern Tories imposing policies Scotland doesn't want"?

 

Strange to say you are voting yes to achieve something but not really minding if you don't achieve that at all.

The major problem with posts like his. They make no sense.

'Independence whatever the cost' - even if the cost is great & independence isn't the outcome.

Great stuff.

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

I want a separate Scottish currency. Do I think it will happen? No.

 

The policies I was talking about were Westminster sending young Scots to needless wars etc.

 

Should have been clearer

Edited June 2, 2014 by RepublicOfMidlothian

[2NaFish]

I want a separate Scottish currency. Do I think it will happen? No.

 

The policies I was talking about were Westminster sending young Scots to needless wars etc.

 

Should have been clearer

 

Given that a scottish currency doesnt appear to be an option in, at least, the short term, what do you think of what is actually being proposed?

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

I'm in favour of the proposition. I'm totally against the Union and indeed support the establishment of an English parliament.

 

(Sorry, I'm trying to quote you but for some reason it doesn't work when I click 'quote'?)

[2NaFish]

I'm in favour of the proposition. I'm totally against the Union and indeed support the establishment of an English parliament.

 

(Sorry, I'm trying to quote you but for some reason it doesn't work when I click 'quote'?)

 

You're totally against the union and support a currency union, correct?

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

As regards currency, I am uncertain. Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting it's not true independence if Scotland shares a currency union with the rest of the UK?

[TheMaganator]

I'm in favour of the proposition. I'm totally against the Union and indeed support the establishment of an English parliament.

 

(Sorry, I'm trying to quote you but for some reason it doesn't work when I click 'quote'?)

 

You're against the Union in general - or just Scotland being part of it?

 

You support an English Parliament if we vote No? That sounds a lot like the establishment of a federal model which many would probably support.

 

Blair was the main driver behind going into Iraq. He is Scottish. That doesn't mean that we'd have backed rUK and followed them in had we been independent - but it does show, imo, that we are not incapable of making bad decisions. Gordon Brown made plenty bad choices too - a Scot.

 

I don't buy that we'd have done things differently over the last 15-20 years had we been independent.

 

And wherever you live, either in an independent Scotland, or as part of the UK (or EU) you are going to have policies enforced on you that you don't support. That is democracy and that will not stop if we vote Yes. Edinburgh may vote one way, and Glasgow another and we could end up haveing a labour/tory/snp government that a city or region does not support. That's life.

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

Against the Union in general. Take your point about Edinburgh and Glasgow voting differently, but as Scotland is a nation, it should govern itself. That is my belief.

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

Would most on here be No voters, aye?

[jack D and coke]

JKB has done a couple of polls and Yes has won them both by a fair margin but this thread in general I'd reckon is around 50-50.

[Boris]

And wherever you live, either in an independent Scotland, or as part of the UK (or EU) you are going to have policies enforced on you that you don't support. That is democracy and that will not stop if we vote Yes. Edinburgh may vote one way, and Glasgow another and we could end up haveing a labour/tory/snp government that a city or region does not support. That's life.

 

Yes, however the electoral system allows for a more representative parliament based on the preferences of the voters, rather than the Westminster model allows.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yes, however the electoral system allows for a more representative parliament based on the preferences of the voters, rather than the Westminster model allows.

 

There's an interesting question there. If STV was adopted for Westminster, would it mean that the "lack of democracy" argument would be removed?

[Boris]

There's an interesting question there. If STV was adopted for Westminster, would it mean that the "lack of democracy" argument would be removed?

 

An aspect of it, perhaps.

 

You would still have the "Scotland voted this, but got this instead" argument which can only really be resolved by full and equal federalism, or artehr, Devo max all round with a rump UK parliament looking after Defence, foreign affairs etc etc

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

An aspect of it, perhaps.

 

You would still have the "Scotland voted this, but got this instead" argument which can only really be resolved by full and equal federalism, or artehr, Devo max all round with a rump UK parliament looking after Defence, foreign affairs etc etc

 

You would also have minor parties blamed for propping up Tories and Labour as well.

[2NaFish]

As regards currency, I am uncertain. Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting it's not true independence if Scotland shares a currency union with the rest of the UK?

 

No, i think the term 'true independence' is a waste of time. Independence is a process that has been irrevocably trundling forward for 307 years now. 'True independence' is something unattainable, as such it's a stick used by people opposed to change to create a strawman. If people wish to assess the possible effects of certain propositions then that isnt without merit. To speak of "true independence" is to start off in completely the wrong direction.

 

What i was suggesting, since you ask, is that to be completely against the union but in favour of a currency union is ignore how multi-faceted the 'union' is and can be. You may then say that you're agains the political union and, ostensibly, that's more realistic. But politics is interlinked to myriad forces so even that's not "truly independent".

[RepublicOfMidlothian]

 

 

 

No, i think the term 'true independence' is a waste of time. Independence is a process that has been irrevocably trundling forward for 307 years now. 'True independence' is something unattainable, as such it's a stick used by people opposed to change to create a strawman. If people wish to assess the possible effects of certain propositions then that isnt without merit. To speak of "true independence" is to start off in completely the wrong direction.

 

What i was suggesting, since you ask, is that to be completely against the union but in favour of a currency union is ignore how multi-faceted the 'union' is and can be. You may then say that you're agains the political union and, ostensibly, that's more realistic. But politics is interlinked to myriad forces so even that's not "truly independent".

 

Good post, and I agree with you. If you don't mind me asking, are you a No voter?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So apparently the Tories plan to devolve income tax in the event of a No vote. Look forward to Stormont getting the same for shits and giggles...

[2NaFish]

Good post, and I agree with you. If you don't mind me asking, are you a No voter?

 

I intend to vote yes.

[curriehearts]

Population growth varies by country to country in the EU and is slower in Northern nations than southern ones. Partly due to waves of migration affecting southern ones more.

 

Scotland does punch above her weight, as the UK does generally.

 

You also failed to recognise my point. In an independent Scotland the nation's government will be reliant on winning Glasgow and Strathclyde based seats as the population is based predominantly there. We already see a Glasgow-centric Scotland via BBC Scotland, th new Police Scotland and in terms of where most money is spent on infrastructure and poverty relief and social development spending. In effect Glasgow is our London. It sucks the money of Scotland into it. Yes there's oil in Aberdeen and financial services in Edinburgh generating wealth but Glasgow is still the foremost concern of government, or so it feels. For example since the introduction of Police Scotland the chief of the force, Stephen House, has been pressuring Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils to amend their by-laws on public drinking and the sex trade to be more like the zero tolerance of Glasgow. More money is spent on social deprevation in the Glasgow area than elsewhere, where yes poverty is an issue but poverty is also a huge issue across Scotland's other towns and cities.

 

Personally, the issue of London being a drain would be reflected on Scotland with Glasgow and that is not healthy either. Your issue of of the south east of England electing governments is as bad as Glasgow affecting Scottish politics. Will Aberdeen ever get a government to reflect her needs, or Shetland hers? No, highly unlikely. For me this is the big stumbling block with the accountability/government for Scotland stuff. You'll get a government to suit the largest population area again because no serious thought is being made to affect the regional interests within Scotland now or in a post-Yes nation. Local councils should be given a huge amount more of power and financial powers either way here, it's really the only way everyone will get responsive and accountable government.

 

Not sure how to take specific extracts in quotes to reply to them...so advance warning for a possible fail here....

 

Population growth varies by country to country in the EU and is slower in Northern nations than southern ones. Partly due to waves of migration affecting southern ones more.

 

Good to know but misses my point totally, which is in the context of the UK the economy and huge growth in population in London and the South East over the last 40 to 50 years naturally means that Scotland's voice at the top table has got smaller and smaller as London & SE's has got larger and larger as each decade passes. This is forecast to continue, with 10 year forecasts assuming another 10% in London and the SE and 2% in Scotland. Our being the current 8.xx% of the UK will be 7.xx% in the 2030s and i don't see that as a positive.

 

 

Scotland the nation's government will be reliant on winning Glasgow and Strathclyde based seats

 

Agree. Has the Labour heartland of the West of Scotland been broken forever? I'm not sure it has but the loyalty towards Labour is a lot less, hence why the SNP got to power.

Within Scotland there is a drift in population from West to East (Lothian, Fife, Tayside and Aberdeenshire) and that is forecast to continue over the next 30 years. The WoS will still be the most populated area with their proportionate size compared to the rest of Scotland reducing. The two areas that 'lose' more than WoS are The Borders and Highlands & Islands

 

The issue of London being a drain would be reflected on Scotland with Glasgow and that is not healthy either.

 

Is Londons a drain? If it is a drain it's not for the same reasons as Glasgow.

London is like the elephant in the room - it absorbs investment in capital and jobs as if it is going out of fashion. Had a usual great trip to London a couple of months ago, was in the City and saw more buidling and scaffolding work there in a couple of square miles than I have seen anywhere in the UK in a long long time.

Glasgow comes from a different place where much less money is being spent on tangible revenue generating investment and more on regeneration with the hope of attracting employment. I would love to get Glasgow to the place where we can discuss it being a drain on the rest of Scotland because it is sucking in investment and jobs.

 

Local councils should be given a huge amount more of power and financial powers

 

I probably do agree with that, with the caveat that the control of setting the business taxes remains with the Scottish government as I don't want a race to the bottom as will happen if it is devolved to the Councils.

[Boris]

So apparently the Tories plan to devolve income tax in the event of a No vote. Look forward to Stormont getting the same for shits and giggles...

 

Well, Ruth Davidson has certainly changed her tune! I take it this is another line in the sand?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Well, Ruth Davidson has certainly changed her tune! I take it this is another line in the sand?

A millstone painted in NATO colours, in the sand, perhaps.

[Boris]

A millstone painted in NATO colours, in the sand, perhaps.

 

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

[TheMaganator]

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

 

 

Apologies.

 

In response to the comment about the lovely Ruth and her ?line in the sand? comment ? I was pointing out Salmond & the SNP?s form for u-turnery and changing of positions. Salmond said that Sterling was a ?millstone around the neck of Scotland? and now he is desperate to use Sterling whilst it is controlled by London. Also, the SNP changing their position on being pro-NATO despite years (decades?) of being anti-NATO. Basically changing their tune to what suits their agenda at the time.

[Boris]

 

Apologies.

 

In response to the comment about the lovely Ruth and her ?line in the sand? comment ? I was pointing out Salmond & the SNP?s form for u-turnery and changing of positions. Salmond said that Sterling was a ?millstone around the neck of Scotland? and now he is desperate to use Sterling whilst it is controlled by London. Also, the SNP changing their position on being pro-NATO despite years (decades?) of being anti-NATO. Basically changing their tune to what suits their agenda at the time.

 

Hahaha...well, they are politicians I suppose!

 

I think it's funny though, the Tories attempting to be the champions of the Scottish people!

 

However, as with all the Unionist parties, why has it taken until now to sort out a post-referendum no victory position? The fact the SNP won the Holyrood election with a majority should have had alarm bells ringing, and a Unionist cabal could have created an entirely new constitutional convention with a conclusion to put to the electorate as an alternative to independence. But they haven't.

[TheMaganator]

Hahaha...well, they are politicians I suppose!

 

I think it's funny though, the Tories attempting to be the champions of the Scottish people!

 

However, as with all the Unionist parties, why has it taken until now to sort out a post-referendum no victory position? The fact the SNP won the Holyrood election with a majority should have had alarm bells ringing, and a Unionist cabal could have created an entirely new constitutional convention with a conclusion to put to the electorate as an alternative to independence. But they haven't.

 

Well, yes, the 2011 majority perhaps should have set alarm bells ringing. But the circumstances of the majority cannot be ignored. Only 22% of those eligible to vote voted from the SNP. There have been polls saying that as little as 60/70% of SNP voters support independence.

 

So it is not unreasonable for the Tories and the other Unionist parties to see the 2011 (at the time) as merely a protest vote and that support for independence was not high.

 

They were clearly wrong (as was I ? I never thought we?d see polls with support for Yes in the 40s%) and are now changing their position to reflect the will of the voters.

 

I know we have discussed this before ? and I do not see that as being an issue ? merely responding to what the public wants. I know you would prefer forward thinking politicians who lead from the front but I cannot remember the last time we saw one of those in a position of power in Scotland or the wider UK. Dare I say Farage fits that bill? ?These are our policies, if you like them, great, if not, we?re not changing them?.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Hahaha...well, they are politicians I suppose!

 

I think it's funny though, the Tories attempting to be the champions of the Scottish people!

 

However, as with all the Unionist parties, why has it taken until now to sort out a post-referendum no victory position? The fact the SNP won the Holyrood election with a majority should have had alarm bells ringing, and a Unionist cabal could have created an entirely new constitutional convention with a conclusion to put to the electorate as an alternative to independence. But they haven't.

 

Totally agree with you as per the last point. However, 2 things must be considered:

 

1. The 2011 result took everyone by shock. The Liberal vote walked to the SNP and not Labour as expected. This meant the hung parliament to Labour never marerialised. This lead to a SNP majority and the referendum.

 

2. The Calman Commission was to be a hurdle to knock this debate back, a bad idea to me. It was felt by the Tories especially to be the final mark, Labour (Scottish MSPs by in large) were unhappy with it but bit the bullet to have a united front up to 2011 with the other 2 unionist parties.

 

As a result and the party restructuring that went on with all 3 unionists this has been delayed and stalled. However, it is arguable, and a good one to me, that the white paper was slow in its unveiling,they had had since 2007. The Greens and SSP also disagree with a lot of the white paper, as do Jimmy Reid and RiC. So this argument of a lack of harmony on the no side alone is wrong and misguided.

 

The No parties have essentially called out 3 visions. These will likely be merged together in the post No Conference Carmichael called for a month or two ago, which the SNP have been invited to. I think the no win and outcome is looking less bleak it did a year ago. That the Yes side may find hard to contrast with, without unveiling a whole other batch of SNP policies.

[sarissa]

On 1, I would argue that the Edinburgh Agreement is easily superseded by national interest. Why do you think HM Treasury had to guarantee all of the UK debt stock, which some in the independence side of the debate have taken as an opportunity to shed all debt if Scotland becomes independent without a currency union?

perhaps because they had no option to do anything else in international law:

 

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts

 

Article 38

 

Newly independent State

 

1.When the successor State is a newly independent State, no State debt of the predecessor State

shall pass to the newly independent State, unless an agreement between them provides otherwise in view

of the link between the State debt of the predecessor State connected with its activity in the territory to

which the succession of States relates and the property, rights and interests which pass to the newly

independent State.

 

2.The agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall not infringe the principle of the permanent

sovereignty of every people over its wealth and natural resources, nor shall its implementation endanger

the fundamental economic equilibria of the newly independent State.

 

So the onus is on the rest of the UK to propose an debt servicing arrangement which is a) fair and affordable to an independant Scotland.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

However, it is arguable, and a good one to me, that the white paper was slow in its unveiling,they had had since 2007.

 

What?!

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

What?!

 

Primary aim of the SNP is to achieve independence for Scotland. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I never knew they wanted currency union with the UK until the white paper. I know since 1992 it's been a journey for them from own currency to union on the ? via the ?, but you'd have thought more thought and planning may have been made.

 

They clearly weren't ready in the 2007-11 parliament. They booted it to the long grass even though Scottish Labour opened the door to them to bring a bill back then for their original desired date of 2010. That to me then struck me as the SNP leadership not being in the slightest bit prepared or wanting to go forward with it then. You'd think from that this was always a slow burning issue for them, and one they don't totally think they'd win.

 

There is, to me, an appearance at times of panicky jumping about from Yes, as there is from the other bunch.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

perhaps because they had no option to do anything else in international law:

 

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts

 

Article 38

 

Newly independent State

 

1.When the successor State is a newly independent State, no State debt of the predecessor State

shall pass to the newly independent State, unless an agreement between them provides otherwise in view

of the link between the State debt of the predecessor State connected with its activity in the territory to

which the succession of States relates and the property, rights and interests which pass to the newly

independent State.

 

2.The agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall not infringe the principle of the permanent

sovereignty of every people over its wealth and natural resources, nor shall its implementation endanger

the fundamental economic equilibria of the newly independent State.

 

So the onus is on the rest of the UK to propose an debt servicing arrangement which is a) fair and affordable to an independant Scotland.

Indeed, so I don't see how it breached the Edinburgh Agreement at all.

[JamboX2]

 

perhaps because they had no option to do anything else in international law:

 

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts

 

Article 38

 

Newly independent State

 

1.When the successor State is a newly independent State, no State debt of the predecessor State

shall pass to the newly independent State, unless an agreement between them provides otherwise in view

of the link between the State debt of the predecessor State connected with its activity in the territory to

which the succession of States relates and the property, rights and interests which pass to the newly

independent State.

 

2.The agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall not infringe the principle of the permanent

sovereignty of every people over its wealth and natural resources, nor shall its implementation endanger

the fundamental economic equilibria of the newly independent State.

 

So the onus is on the rest of the UK to propose an debt servicing arrangement which is a) fair and affordable to an independant Scotland.

 

You are only bound to a treaty if you are a signatory to it.

 

The UK is not and so does not have to be bound by your quote. The Vienna Convention as approxinately 20 signatories. Very few are nations with any large scale diplomatic clout.

 

In regards to an agreement on independence it has no binding international legal effect on the UK or, subsequently after 2016 and independence on March 2014, would it Scotland.

Edited June 2, 2014 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

 

Indeed, so I don't see how it breached the Edinburgh Agreement at all.

 

The Edinburgh Agreement is nothing but a Section 32 order. Its parameters and legality is on devolving legal power to run the referendum. The rest as mere political effect.

 

As it is not an international agreement but domestic law we do not read in treaties. And in this case the vienna convention isnt binding on the UK and so is rather pointless to quote.

[Ulysses]

perhaps because they had no option to do anything else in international law:

 

The opening page of that Convention as posted on the UN's legal website says "Not yet in force". What does "Not yet in force" mean?

 

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_3_1983.pdf

 

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/vcssrspad/vcssrspad.html

[JamboX2]

 

 

The opening page of that Convention as posted on the UN's legal website says "Not yet in force". What does "Not yet in force" mean?

 

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_3_1983.pdf

 

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/vcssrspad/vcssrspad.html

 

That not enough nations have ratified it for it to be legal precedent at that level.

[JamboX2]

 

 

The opening page of that Convention as posted on the UN's legal website says "Not yet in force". What does "Not yet in force" mean?

 

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_3_1983.pdf

 

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/vcssrspad/vcssrspad.html

 

That not enough nations have ratified it for it to be legal precedent at that level.

[jambos are go!]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/277620-ipsos-mori-poll-for-stv-shows-gap-between-yes-and-no-closing/

 

Latest Poll on STV

 

Yes 36% No 54% with 100 days to go

 

Take out the shrinking undecided

 

Yes 40% No 60%

[jack D and coke]

It's not closing enough for Yes I don't think. Tbh it does seem sometimes that it hasn't been thought through and some of the policies seem a bit tacked on. Add to the fact the incredibly biased media in favour of the union and it's amazing how well the Yes vote has done. It should've been annihilated but in reality the cracks in this union are laid bare for all to see.

 

In other news it seems labour are about to be out devo'd by the Tories in what must be the biggest beamer they've ever had.

[Alba gu Brath]

It's not closing enough for Yes I don't think. Tbh it does seem sometimes that it hasn't been thought through and some of the policies seem a bit tacked on. Add to the fact the incredibly biased media in favour of the union and it's amazing how well the Yes vote has done. It should've been annihilated but in reality the cracks in this union are laid bare for all to see.

 

In other news it seems labour are about to be out devo'd by the Tories in what must be the biggest beamer they've ever had.

 

Agree.

 

Yes have done incredibly well against a media onslaught that few political parties or issues have to deal with - even Kinnock had his supporters.

 

I still think Yes can do it but the pessimist in me - born after witnessing Albert Kidd at Dens - won't believe it until it's done and dusted. The only factor which I think the polls don't reflect is the vote in the schemes and auld industrial towns. I'd be amazed if more than a tiny percentage of these voters ever engage with YouGov et al. If Yes can get them out to vote, it'll win the day.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Alba gu Brath

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I still think the SNP gradualist element will settle for additional devolution and breaking the 40% threshold. How the fundamentalist wing reacts is a different matter.

[jambos are go!]

It's not closing enough for Yes I don't think. Tbh it does seem sometimes that it hasn't been thought through and some of the policies seem a bit tacked on. Add to the fact the incredibly biased media in favour of the union and it's amazing how well the Yes vote has done. It should've been annihilated but in reality the cracks in this union are laid bare for all to see.

 

In other news it seems labour are about to be out devo'd by the Tories in what must be the biggest beamer they've ever had.

 

The SNP have been in power for 7 years and have subjected us to a 2 year referendum campaign. They have had plenty of time to get 'close enough' but are trying to sell a product the clear majority of Scots don't want. I don't buy into this biased media media arguement. For a start the printed and broadcast media have been suffering 'audience' decline for 10 years. The Sunday Herald is the most biased national newspaper and it supports Yes. All the papers I have read give prominence to YES Supporters. A few weeks ago the SOS was declaring that Scotland was on the brink of Independence. A what about the now defunct NewsNat Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon being let away with outrageous behavior in the Scotland Tonight debates. And above all of this the SNP doorstep and social media armies supposedly crushing the NO campaign What a damp squib that has turned out to be.

Edited June 3, 2014 by jambos are go!

[TheMaganator]

Id be happy enough with a 60/40 split in favour of the Union.

 

I too don't see the media bias but then again when you're convinced something exists you'll find a way to see it in everything.

 

I think the reality & mechanics of a Yes vote haven't been considered by the SNP. They do seem to be making it up as they go along - from the major (currency) to the smallish issues it does seen to being done on the hoof.

 

You'd have thought the White Paper would have been worked on for decades - it's their raison d'etra but it seems it was hastily cobbled together and not thought through.

 

I'm not saying the BT campaign has been good - far from it. But this is all the SNP have ever wanted & I'd expected more.

 

Still a while to go mind you - but Yes have still never polled over 50%.

[Don Draper]

The SNP have been in power for 7 years and have subjected us to a 2 year referendum campaign. They have had plenty of time to get 'close enough' but are trying to sell a product the clear majority of Scots don't want. I don't buy into this biased media media arguement. For a start the printed and broadcast media have been suffering 'audience' decline for 10 years. The Sunday Herald is the most biased national newspaper and it supports Yes. All the papers I have read give prominence to YES Supporters. A few weeks ago the SOS was declaring that Scotland was on the brink of Independence. A what about the now defunct NewsNat Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon being let away with outrageous behavior in the Scotland Tonight debates. And above all of this the SNP doorstep and social media armies supposedly crushing the NO campaign What a damp squib that has turned out to be.

 

I think we've covered this a couple of times, but you really have to be living on a cloud to suggest that the Yes campaign hasn't had to fight against a hugely biased, pro-union media.

 

A wee personal anecdote for you; make of it what you will. My 63-year-old Mum is that rare thing - a Scot who's also a lifelong Tory voter. I've never really been able to work it out, given that she grew up in Muirhouse, but there you go. She's going to vote No (and was always likely to), but she's still followed things pretty closely. We were chatting about the campaign on the phone the other day, and she said that although she was voting No, she's pretty disgusted by how biased the BBC has been throughout. If my old Mum, who has always, for as long as I can remember, put the BBC up on an unjustified pedestal, is coming out with a statement like that, there may be something wrong.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I think we've covered this a couple of times, but you really have to be living on a cloud to suggest that the Yes campaign hasn't had to fight against a hugely biased, pro-union media.

 

A wee personal anecdote for you; make of it what you will. My 63-year-old Mum is that rare thing - a Scot who's also a lifelong Tory voter. I've never really been able to work it out, given that she grew up in Muirhouse, but there you go. She's going to vote No (and was always likely to), but she's still followed things pretty closely. We were chatting about the campaign on the phone the other day, and she said that although she was voting No, she's pretty disgusted by how biased the BBC has been throughout. If my old Mum, who has always, for as long as I can remember, put the BBC up on an unjustified pedestal, is coming out with a statement like that, there may be something wrong.

Scotland is historically small c conservative country. Across all class lines.

 

So your mum isn't a rare breed. There were plenty like her before Thatcher.

 

There'll be plenty more like her in the years to come too.

 

 

[IMA MAROON]

Agree.

 

Yes have done incredibly well against a media onslaught that few political parties or issues have to deal with - even Kinnock had his supporters.

 

I still think Yes can do it but the pessimist in me - born after witnessing Albert Kidd at Dens - won't believe it until it's done and dusted. The only factor which I think the polls don't reflect is the vote in the schemes and auld industrial towns. I'd be amazed if more than a tiny percentage of these voters ever engage with YouGov et al. If Yes can get them out to vote, it'll win the day.

 

Politics is a game for the middle classes, it is not for the schemes.

[jambos are go!]

I think we've covered this a couple of times, but you really have to be living on a cloud to suggest that the Yes campaign hasn't had to fight against a hugely biased, pro-union media.

 

A wee personal anecdote for you; make of it what you will. My 63-year-old Mum is that rare thing - a Scot who's also a lifelong Tory voter. I've never really been able to work it out, given that she grew up in Muirhouse, but there you go. She's going to vote No (and was always likely to), but she's still followed things pretty closely. We were chatting about the campaign on the phone the other day, and she said that although she was voting No, she's pretty disgusted by how biased the BBC has been throughout. If my old Mum, who has always, for as long as I can remember, put the BBC up on an unjustified pedestal, is coming out with a statement like that, there may be something wrong.

A Tory who does not like the BBC is not a rare breed.

 

Did you know that Blair Jenkins, the head of the YES campaign, was Director of Broadcasting at Scottish Television, and Head of News and Current Affairs at both STV and BBC Scotland and was presumably hugely inflluential in these posts

Edited June 3, 2014 by jambos are go!

[Mr Sifter]

Vote Yes.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Primary aim of the SNP is to achieve independence for Scotland.

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I never knew they wanted currency union with the UK until the white paper. I know since 1992 it's been a journey for them from own currency to union on the ? via the ?, but you'd have thought more thought and planning may have been made.

 

They clearly weren't ready in the 2007-11 parliament. They booted it to the long grass even though Scottish Labour opened the door to them to bring a bill back then for their original desired date of 2010. That to me then struck me as the SNP leadership not being in the slightest bit prepared or wanting to go forward with it then. You'd think from that this was always a slow burning issue for them, and one they don't totally think they'd win.

 

There is, to me, an appearance at times of panicky jumping about from Yes, as there is from the other bunch.

 

Why did it take Labour ('the Party of Devolution') till earlier this year to outline their further devolution proposals?

 

My point is that it's pretty desperate (and below yourself) to attack the SNP for taking a while to bring out the White Paper. It's much more worthwhile attacking the White Paper because it's shite.

[Don Draper]

Scotland is historically small c conservative country. Across all class lines.

 

So your mum isn't a rare breed. There were plenty like her before Thatcher.

 

There'll be plenty more like her in the years to come too.

 

My goodness, you're always awfy defensive about the Tories' place in Scottish politics. It's alright to admit you're part of a minority.

 

In fact, why not vote Yes? Reinvigorate the party an' all that...

[TheMaganator]

 

 

My goodness, you're always awfy defensive about the Tories' place in Scottish politics. It's alright to admit you're part of a minority.

 

In fact, why not vote Yes? Reinvigorate the party an' all that...

Yeah, there's truth in that.

 

I just don't like the way the Tories are dismissed as an irrelevance here - worse than that - there's a large element of the Yes mantra that's 'vote Yes to get rid of the Tories'.

 

It stinks IMO & there are times it feels like the referendum is just an expensive gerrymander.