This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Neither asking nor answering reasonable questions, both unwilling to let either develop a point, rather more hectoring than debating - and a weak chair with no authority.
Frankly the typical UKC debate appears rather superior.
In Punch and Judy terms however - big improvement from Salmond from the frist debate, more like what I expected first time around with Darling looking earnest but not a great politician in the modern sense.
Frankly the typical UKC debate appears rather superior.
In Punch and Judy terms however - big improvement from Salmond from the frist debate, more like what I expected first time around with Darling looking earnest but not a great politician in the modern sense.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Agreed, the chair was terrible. Let the debate degenerate into a rabble. Curiously, it was suppose to be a Yes v. No debate but Darling was telling us all he was a Labour politician.
Better from Salmond, couldn't have been any worse.
Agreed, the chair was terrible. Let the debate degenerate into a rabble. Curiously, it was suppose to be a Yes v. No debate but Darling was telling us all he was a Labour politician.
Better from Salmond, couldn't have been any worse.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Disagree. I think UKC comes out pretty badly on all fronts and I must bear some responsibility for that.
What puzzles me is why people are expecting a mature, engaging discussion when we conduct our politics through the same yah-boo, shouty forum that is Westminster.
I don't think there was a clear winner. Does there even have to be?
Disagree. I think UKC comes out pretty badly on all fronts and I must bear some responsibility for that.
What puzzles me is why people are expecting a mature, engaging discussion when we conduct our politics through the same yah-boo, shouty forum that is Westminster.
I don't think there was a clear winner. Does there even have to be?
In reply to Saor Alba:
No need for a clear winner at all, and there are clearly strengths and weakness's to both positions, but if the point was to engage and explain then it was a signal failure.
Plus I do think the general tenor of debate is better on here - more time for reflection, some points lost in the ether, but at least people usually try to answer questions.
No need for a clear winner at all, and there are clearly strengths and weakness's to both positions, but if the point was to engage and explain then it was a signal failure.
Plus I do think the general tenor of debate is better on here - more time for reflection, some points lost in the ether, but at least people usually try to answer questions.
In reply to macmuseeuw:
indeed, Darling trying to 'cross examine' Salmond was a dreadful waste of time.
Curiously, it was suppose to be a Yes v. No debate but Darling was telling us all he was a Labour politician.
he did occasionally report what the SNP govt had done - something Darling did not pick up on with as much effect as Salmond did to Darling.
> Agreed, the chair was terrible. Let the debate degenerate into a rabble.
indeed, Darling trying to 'cross examine' Salmond was a dreadful waste of time.
Curiously, it was suppose to be a Yes v. No debate but Darling was telling us all he was a Labour politician.
> Better from Salmond, couldn't have been any worse.
he did occasionally report what the SNP govt had done - something Darling did not pick up on with as much effect as Salmond did to Darling.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Agree to a point but how many people can be bothered to argue it out these days? Anyway, that's another subject.
I am off to Oban, Mull and Islay.
Agree to a point but how many people can be bothered to argue it out these days? Anyway, that's another subject.
I am off to Oban, Mull and Islay.
In reply to Saor Alba:
True, some degree of debate lassitude has set in - send champagne at once.
Jammy sod, I'm off to work.
True, some degree of debate lassitude has set in - send champagne at once.
> I am off to Oban, Mull and Islay.
Jammy sod, I'm off to work.
Post edited at 22:37
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Utterly dire the bit I saw. Two men shouting with a third looking confused
Utterly dire the bit I saw. Two men shouting with a third looking confused
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Yes and no. Drive to Oban, meeting, stay over. Ferry to Mull, meetings, stay over. Ferry to Oban, drive to Kennacraig, ferry to Islay, meetings, stay over. Ferry to Kennacraig, drive to Inverness....try and bring all the stuff together in a tangible plan that takes account of multiple interests and objectives....challenging.
Yes and no. Drive to Oban, meeting, stay over. Ferry to Mull, meetings, stay over. Ferry to Oban, drive to Kennacraig, ferry to Islay, meetings, stay over. Ferry to Kennacraig, drive to Inverness....try and bring all the stuff together in a tangible plan that takes account of multiple interests and objectives....challenging.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Just finished watching it on catch up.
Salmond didn't waste the opportunities like he did in the first debate.
I thought the support appeared much more partisan or certainly vociferous on the "yes" side - which in turn appeared to buoy him up and dishearten Darling.
I thought that Darling over-emphasised the "no plan B" - as important as it might be , it doesn't make for a winning debate to focus too heavily on one area.
Similarly by accusing Salmond of scaremongering he was diving head first into being hit by an "easy" comparison with the Yes campaign's previous criticism of the No lobby. (However ill-fitting that comparison might be).
Salmond also managed to come across much better when repeating Darlings message that post voting everyone will work together for a better Scotland.
Still at least Salmond ended by invoking "Rise and be a nation again" in case anyone had forgotten the raw nationalism that underpins his campaign.
I'd say on the audience reaction and quality of debate, Salmond was a winner.
When it comes the substance I'll await a more protracted dissection.
Just finished watching it on catch up.
Salmond didn't waste the opportunities like he did in the first debate.
I thought the support appeared much more partisan or certainly vociferous on the "yes" side - which in turn appeared to buoy him up and dishearten Darling.
I thought that Darling over-emphasised the "no plan B" - as important as it might be , it doesn't make for a winning debate to focus too heavily on one area.
Similarly by accusing Salmond of scaremongering he was diving head first into being hit by an "easy" comparison with the Yes campaign's previous criticism of the No lobby. (However ill-fitting that comparison might be).
Salmond also managed to come across much better when repeating Darlings message that post voting everyone will work together for a better Scotland.
Still at least Salmond ended by invoking "Rise and be a nation again" in case anyone had forgotten the raw nationalism that underpins his campaign.
I'd say on the audience reaction and quality of debate, Salmond was a winner.
When it comes the substance I'll await a more protracted dissection.
In reply to off-duty:
poor scraps to pick over I fear
> When it comes the substance I'll await a more protracted dissection.
poor scraps to pick over I fear
In reply to Saor Alba:
I've already rewatched it. If he didn't feel that invoking Flower of Scotland would assist his point, why on earth would he use the words? It was very good debating.
- Edited to add-
Though a deplorable call to the worst of the pro-Independence campaign.
> Look again, he said it wasn't about rising etc.
I've already rewatched it. If he didn't feel that invoking Flower of Scotland would assist his point, why on earth would he use the words? It was very good debating.
- Edited to add-
Though a deplorable call to the worst of the pro-Independence campaign.
Post edited at 22:56
In reply to off-duty:
From the 2/3rds I heard, the applause sounded louder for Salmond but it seems generally the Yes partisans are more enthusiastic, indeed is anyone really a No partisan?
I thought the content was a bit dire, I think it really seems on so many things they just don't know - in either way, they just don't want anyone to think that. The EU question for instance; its a unique situation, I don't think anyone really knows what will happen, but Salmond talked about Sweden, which joined the EU under a very different legal and political situation 20 years ago, not Croatia that has just joined and is committed by its accession agreement to join the Euro.
From the 2/3rds I heard, the applause sounded louder for Salmond but it seems generally the Yes partisans are more enthusiastic, indeed is anyone really a No partisan?
I thought the content was a bit dire, I think it really seems on so many things they just don't know - in either way, they just don't want anyone to think that. The EU question for instance; its a unique situation, I don't think anyone really knows what will happen, but Salmond talked about Sweden, which joined the EU under a very different legal and political situation 20 years ago, not Croatia that has just joined and is committed by its accession agreement to join the Euro.
In reply to TobyA:
thats the nub of the problem for any reasoned debate - no clarity from either side - Darling in a very difficult position having no clear policy to support, Salmond knowing that its all up for negotiation and he cannot really give straight answers other than the disasterous "dont know.
thats the nub of the problem for any reasoned debate - no clarity from either side - Darling in a very difficult position having no clear policy to support, Salmond knowing that its all up for negotiation and he cannot really give straight answers other than the disasterous "dont know.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Quality passive aggressive there.
Surely its for Salmond to demonstrate the new better politics?
> What puzzles me is why people are expecting a mature, engaging discussion when we conduct our politics through the same yah-boo, shouty forum that is Westminster.
Quality passive aggressive there.
Surely its for Salmond to demonstrate the new better politics?
In reply to dissonance:
was that not what he was doing?
TBF he was good at Westminster in Westminster, and for a TV audience used to that approach actually being straight could have been a political disaster.
> Quality passive aggressive there.
> Surely its for Salmond to demonstrate the new better politics?
was that not what he was doing?
TBF he was good at Westminster in Westminster, and for a TV audience used to that approach actually being straight could have been a political disaster.
In reply to off-duty:
To be fair, the audience selection was apparently exactly the same as the first debate, it was carefully selected to avoid bias and unfair advantage .
If Darling got a good response the first time, then that was due to his superior debating skills ( or Salmond's failings)
It can only be fair to say the same for this second debate, if so, Salmond's debating skills surpassed Darling's in this instance
( Rather than either audience was a skewed 'partisan' audience)
> I thought the support appeared much more partisan or certainly vociferous on the "yes" side - which in turn appeared to buoy him up and dishearten Darling.
To be fair, the audience selection was apparently exactly the same as the first debate, it was carefully selected to avoid bias and unfair advantage .
If Darling got a good response the first time, then that was due to his superior debating skills ( or Salmond's failings)
It can only be fair to say the same for this second debate, if so, Salmond's debating skills surpassed Darling's in this instance
( Rather than either audience was a skewed 'partisan' audience)
Post edited at 23:44
In reply to Jim C:
Hence why I said they were either more partisan or more vociferous.
Either way they were certainly louder.
> To be fair, the audience selection was apparently exactly the same as the first debate, it was carefully selected to avoid bias and unfair advantage .
> If Darling got a good response the first time, then that was due to his superior debating skills ( or Salmond's failings)
> It can only be fair to say the same for this second debate, if so, Salmond's debating skills surpassed Darling's in this instance
> ( Rather than either audience was 'partisan' )
Hence why I said they were either more partisan or more vociferous.
Either way they were certainly louder.
In reply to off-duty:
But if the exit polls say that Salmond won the debate , would that not possibly infer that some of the undecideds were perhaps agreeing with and supporting more of Salmond's views, rather than just attributing the more vociferous support to noisier Yes supporters?
I am no fan of Salmond, but if he has done well , he should get the credit, rather than assuming that Yes supporters are more vociferous/ louder than No supporters.
> Hence why I said they were either more partisan or more vociferous.
> Either way they were certainly louder.
But if the exit polls say that Salmond won the debate , would that not possibly infer that some of the undecideds were perhaps agreeing with and supporting more of Salmond's views, rather than just attributing the more vociferous support to noisier Yes supporters?
I am no fan of Salmond, but if he has done well , he should get the credit, rather than assuming that Yes supporters are more vociferous/ louder than No supporters.
In reply to Jim C:
I'll repost :-
I'd say on the audience reaction and quality of debate, Salmond was a winner.
When it comes the substance I'll await a more protracted dissection
I will be interested to see the exit polls. I imagine they will show a win for Salmond.
> But if the exit polls say that Salmond won the debate , would that not possibly infer that some of the undecideds were perhaps agreeing with and supporting more of Salmond's views, rather than just attributing the more vociferous support to noisier Yes supporters?
> I am no fan of Salmond, but if he has done well , he should get the credit, rather than assuming that Yes supporters are more vociferous/ louder than No supporters.
I'll repost :-
I'd say on the audience reaction and quality of debate, Salmond was a winner.
When it comes the substance I'll await a more protracted dissection
I will be interested to see the exit polls. I imagine they will show a win for Salmond.
In reply to Jim C:
Viewed from the remove of an independent Ireland I have been amazed at the constant fixation at monetary issues. Its a matter of the heart---pure and simple. Scotland will not implode if it goes it alone yet neither will it be less of a country if it stays in the club. My two pence worth is don't vote out of fear. Be strong, whichever side you believe in.
Viewed from the remove of an independent Ireland I have been amazed at the constant fixation at monetary issues. Its a matter of the heart---pure and simple. Scotland will not implode if it goes it alone yet neither will it be less of a country if it stays in the club. My two pence worth is don't vote out of fear. Be strong, whichever side you believe in.
In reply to Jim C:
And what did you think about the debate Jim, as official UKC undecided? Any of your questions answered?
And what did you think about the debate Jim, as official UKC undecided? Any of your questions answered?
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Considering a Darling was an advocate by training,it should not have been a waste of time.
Darling is trained to lay out the weaknesses in the other's argument, as well as being an experienced politician. He should be one up on Salmond.
Darling should therefore have had the upper hand in this regard.
( Unless of course he was a poor advocate)
> indeed, Darling trying to 'cross examine' Salmond was a dreadful waste of time.
Considering a Darling was an advocate by training,it should not have been a waste of time.
Darling is trained to lay out the weaknesses in the other's argument, as well as being an experienced politician. He should be one up on Salmond.
Darling should therefore have had the upper hand in this regard.
( Unless of course he was a poor advocate)
In reply to goatee:
its striking that isnt it - the big arguments dont get trotted out much, its all nitty gritty, most of which is impossible to answer.
its striking that isnt it - the big arguments dont get trotted out much, its all nitty gritty, most of which is impossible to answer.
In reply to Jim C:
But in a court of Law Salmond's behaviour would not have been tolerated by the judge during cross examination - Advocacy skills only of any use when playing by those rules.
edit - or Darlings at times either
But in a court of Law Salmond's behaviour would not have been tolerated by the judge during cross examination - Advocacy skills only of any use when playing by those rules.
edit - or Darlings at times either
Post edited at 00:09
In reply to Jim C:
And as if by magic:-
The snap ICM poll following the second Salmond-v-Darling debate shows a convincing win for Alex Salmond. 26% think Darling won the debate, 65% think Salmond did, 9% didn’t know
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/scotland
I can't actually work out the figures for yes/no votes - apart from it looks like 4-5 points in it.
And as if by magic:-
The snap ICM poll following the second Salmond-v-Darling debate shows a convincing win for Alex Salmond. 26% think Darling won the debate, 65% think Salmond did, 9% didn’t know
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/scotland
I can't actually work out the figures for yes/no votes - apart from it looks like 4-5 points in it.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I never watched any of the last debate,
(I read press comments on it, but of course, I have to also take into account that the press , at least , is largely pro union, and I might not be getting an entirely balanced view
I have as yet only watched bits and bobs of this latest one, I am therefore not at all in a good position to judge the quality , or value of these debates.
I will watch them back, in time, but I am not expecting them to be particularly useful in themselves. Hopefully the next few weeks they may just flush out some more information from more reputable sources.
I never watched any of the last debate,
(I read press comments on it, but of course, I have to also take into account that the press , at least , is largely pro union, and I might not be getting an entirely balanced view
I have as yet only watched bits and bobs of this latest one, I am therefore not at all in a good position to judge the quality , or value of these debates.
I will watch them back, in time, but I am not expecting them to be particularly useful in themselves. Hopefully the next few weeks they may just flush out some more information from more reputable sources.
In reply to Le Chevalier Mal Fet:
Are you Glenn Campbell? Since they seemed to have decided to mostly skip it as well.
> Missed it. Getting pissed instead.
Are you Glenn Campbell? Since they seemed to have decided to mostly skip it as well.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I was suprised when Salmond made the point on currency about nobody can stop Scotland using the pound. Are there still people out there that didn't realise this? He celebrated AD admitting that it was true like he just scored the winner for Hearts. I was perplexed. I really thought the debate was further ahead than that. Should have been on CBBC
I was suprised when Salmond made the point on currency about nobody can stop Scotland using the pound. Are there still people out there that didn't realise this? He celebrated AD admitting that it was true like he just scored the winner for Hearts. I was perplexed. I really thought the debate was further ahead than that. Should have been on CBBC
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I only saw snippets of the programme last night, but recorded the full thing so will try and watch it tonight. From what I saw, the level of debate hadn't moved on from the first encounter and it seemed to be much more shouty and argumentative. The bits I caught actually seemed to suggest that Darling had more fans in the audience, but it seems from reporting today that this wan't the case. Interesting that the snap poll afterweards displayed no change in the intended voting.
All a bit of a waste of time then?
I only saw snippets of the programme last night, but recorded the full thing so will try and watch it tonight. From what I saw, the level of debate hadn't moved on from the first encounter and it seemed to be much more shouty and argumentative. The bits I caught actually seemed to suggest that Darling had more fans in the audience, but it seems from reporting today that this wan't the case. Interesting that the snap poll afterweards displayed no change in the intended voting.
All a bit of a waste of time then?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It stops transmitting at 7pm, and don't even think of moving In the Night Garden as we're just into that bit where the Tombliboos ride the Ninky Nonk and it stops in a lovely part of the garden in The Tombliboo's Busy Ninky Nonk Day.
It stops transmitting at 7pm, and don't even think of moving In the Night Garden as we're just into that bit where the Tombliboos ride the Ninky Nonk and it stops in a lovely part of the garden in The Tombliboo's Busy Ninky Nonk Day.
In reply to felt:
Have you seen the Wottingers yet? They're very rare but every now and then there's an episode with both the Wottingers and the Pontipines.
> It stops transmitting at 7pm, and don't even think of moving In the Night Garden as we're just into that bit where the Tombliboos ride the Ninky Nonk and it stops in a lovely part of the garden in The Tombliboo's Busy Ninky Nonk Day.
Have you seen the Wottingers yet? They're very rare but every now and then there's an episode with both the Wottingers and the Pontipines.
In reply to zebidee:
Honestly, the Wottingers don't even appear in "In the Night Garden Live". Very disappointed. I wanted to wave to the Wottingers.
Honestly, the Wottingers don't even appear in "In the Night Garden Live". Very disappointed. I wanted to wave to the Wottingers.
In reply to zebidee:
I'm there in my bush hat and long green shorts with my binoculars in one hand and notebook in the other, primed for their appearance.
I'm there in my bush hat and long green shorts with my binoculars in one hand and notebook in the other, primed for their appearance.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
There do seem to be quite a few people (from a scientific study (aka scan through newspaper site comments)) who dont understand the difference between using the pound and having a currency union.
> I was suprised when Salmond made the point on currency about nobody can stop Scotland using the pound. Are there still people out there that didn't realise this?
There do seem to be quite a few people (from a scientific study (aka scan through newspaper site comments)) who dont understand the difference between using the pound and having a currency union.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I turned it off. It sounded like two neighbours over the garden fence squabbling over which apples they are going to pick off my tree.
E
I turned it off. It sounded like two neighbours over the garden fence squabbling over which apples they are going to pick off my tree.
E
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Yeah I was a surprised how much he made of that and the audience reaction. Sterlingisation (or the Panama option as Darling kept saying.... bit insulting to Panama) isn't a great idea for Scotland.
Thought Darling should have pointed out that currency union just isn't Scotland's decision, just as Scottish independence isn't up to the rUK.
> I was suprised when Salmond made the point on currency about nobody can stop Scotland using the pound. Are there still people out there that didn't realise this? He celebrated AD admitting that it was true like he just scored the winner for Hearts.
Yeah I was a surprised how much he made of that and the audience reaction. Sterlingisation (or the Panama option as Darling kept saying.... bit insulting to Panama) isn't a great idea for Scotland.
Thought Darling should have pointed out that currency union just isn't Scotland's decision, just as Scottish independence isn't up to the rUK.
Post edited at 09:56
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I went to Kosovo shortly after the war and you needed to take Deutschmarks as that was the currency. It seemed to work on a basic level but needing to carry around wads of cash didn't make anything feel very stable. It seems an odd model for any side to suggest in the debate!
In reply to Enty:
From this and your FB post, it seems you're starting to take this personally. They are OUR apples of course, not just YOUR apples.
> Sterlingisation (or the Panama option as Darling kept saying.... bit insulting to Panama) isn't a great idea for Scotland.
I went to Kosovo shortly after the war and you needed to take Deutschmarks as that was the currency. It seemed to work on a basic level but needing to carry around wads of cash didn't make anything feel very stable. It seems an odd model for any side to suggest in the debate!
In reply to Enty:
From this and your FB post, it seems you're starting to take this personally. They are OUR apples of course, not just YOUR apples.
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, even the rotten apples and ones which aren't so sweet.
E
>
> In reply to Enty:
> From this and your FB post, it seems you're starting to take this personally. They are OUR apples of course, not just YOUR apples.
Yes, even the rotten apples and ones which aren't so sweet.
E
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Not so much a case of Salmond winning this round as Darling throwing his advantage away.
The SNP have been taking some PR lessons with the way that Salmond deliberately moved from behind the lectern when addressing questions from the floor. Salmond had also been well briefed knowing that the currency question would be raised again was at his slippery best.
Where Darling lost a lot of ground was in labouring the Currency issue, and he missed a lot of opportunities to question Salmond on simple matters that will affect almost everyone.
Taxation -- If Scotland is completely reliant on raising its own revenue through taxation, what will be the proportion raised through direct and indirect taxation. Will there be a different rate of VAT to the rest of the UK - and if so, what will be done to prevent cross border smuggling -- assuming that the borders are 'open' as in the case of Ulster and the ROI. How will it affect businesses on both sides of the border?
Defence -- Salmond stated that in the event of the UK submarine fleet / Trident leaving Faslane, that it would become the centre of operations for the Scottish Defence forces. Totally the wrong place for anything other than a Maintenance base - bearing in mind that the majority of Fisheries and North Sea installation protection duties are off the East and North coasts. Scotland currently has no Navy or Air Force capabilities of its own - how long will it take to develop a capability - and at what cost? I can't imagine Westminster just 'giving' Ships and Aircraft to an independent Scotland ( although there may be a few in mothballs that they may be glad to get 'off the books').
On a more mundane level, what about vehicle registration and taxation. Would there be different rates of Vehicle tax compared to the rest of the UK - and how would that affect the motor trade on both sides of the border. Would there be different standards for the likes of MOT tests and other regulations. My daughter and her partner moved from Ontario to British Columbia in Canada and had to jump through proverbial hoops to get their Ontario vehicle re-registered in BC.
Another area totally ignored by the No campaign was the potential that governments of all hues have for monumental cock ups when implementing new IT and administration regimes within the civil service. There is the potential for an administrative nightmare in dismantling the UK - and all of us on both sides of the border will have to bear the costs.
What saddens me about the way the independence debate is progressing is the attitude is that whilst the Scots may feel that they are best placed to rule themselves, the SNP leadership seems to have little regard for the consequences that the dissolution of the Union will have for the rest of the UK ( where there are probably more people of Scots descent than in the whole of Scotland and who have no right to vote in the referendum).
A third area is the relationship with Europe. Membership of the EU is not a given - bearing in mind that a Scottish application could be vetoed by Spain and Belgium where they have semi autonomous regions that are also seeking independence.
I worry that succesful Yes campaign will lead to a lot of bitterness between the rest of the UK and the Scots when the real cost is known. I also worry for the Scots, that if things go 'tits up' in future there will be no way back.
From a personal point of view I would favour the one option that is not being offered and that is a federal UK along the lines of the German model.
Not so much a case of Salmond winning this round as Darling throwing his advantage away.
The SNP have been taking some PR lessons with the way that Salmond deliberately moved from behind the lectern when addressing questions from the floor. Salmond had also been well briefed knowing that the currency question would be raised again was at his slippery best.
Where Darling lost a lot of ground was in labouring the Currency issue, and he missed a lot of opportunities to question Salmond on simple matters that will affect almost everyone.
Taxation -- If Scotland is completely reliant on raising its own revenue through taxation, what will be the proportion raised through direct and indirect taxation. Will there be a different rate of VAT to the rest of the UK - and if so, what will be done to prevent cross border smuggling -- assuming that the borders are 'open' as in the case of Ulster and the ROI. How will it affect businesses on both sides of the border?
Defence -- Salmond stated that in the event of the UK submarine fleet / Trident leaving Faslane, that it would become the centre of operations for the Scottish Defence forces. Totally the wrong place for anything other than a Maintenance base - bearing in mind that the majority of Fisheries and North Sea installation protection duties are off the East and North coasts. Scotland currently has no Navy or Air Force capabilities of its own - how long will it take to develop a capability - and at what cost? I can't imagine Westminster just 'giving' Ships and Aircraft to an independent Scotland ( although there may be a few in mothballs that they may be glad to get 'off the books').
On a more mundane level, what about vehicle registration and taxation. Would there be different rates of Vehicle tax compared to the rest of the UK - and how would that affect the motor trade on both sides of the border. Would there be different standards for the likes of MOT tests and other regulations. My daughter and her partner moved from Ontario to British Columbia in Canada and had to jump through proverbial hoops to get their Ontario vehicle re-registered in BC.
Another area totally ignored by the No campaign was the potential that governments of all hues have for monumental cock ups when implementing new IT and administration regimes within the civil service. There is the potential for an administrative nightmare in dismantling the UK - and all of us on both sides of the border will have to bear the costs.
What saddens me about the way the independence debate is progressing is the attitude is that whilst the Scots may feel that they are best placed to rule themselves, the SNP leadership seems to have little regard for the consequences that the dissolution of the Union will have for the rest of the UK ( where there are probably more people of Scots descent than in the whole of Scotland and who have no right to vote in the referendum).
A third area is the relationship with Europe. Membership of the EU is not a given - bearing in mind that a Scottish application could be vetoed by Spain and Belgium where they have semi autonomous regions that are also seeking independence.
I worry that succesful Yes campaign will lead to a lot of bitterness between the rest of the UK and the Scots when the real cost is known. I also worry for the Scots, that if things go 'tits up' in future there will be no way back.
From a personal point of view I would favour the one option that is not being offered and that is a federal UK along the lines of the German model.
In reply to TobyA:
It seems obvious to me they could issue the Scottish pound as it's own currency, peg it to sterling and have their own central bank, giving them the option to later peg to the Euro.
It's a fundamental of independence, I can't understand why it isn't plan A never mind plan B.
> I went to Kosovo shortly after the war and you needed to take Deutschmarks as that was the currency. It seemed to work on a basic level but needing to carry around wads of cash didn't make anything feel very stable. It seems an odd model for any side to suggest in the debate!
It seems obvious to me they could issue the Scottish pound as it's own currency, peg it to sterling and have their own central bank, giving them the option to later peg to the Euro.
It's a fundamental of independence, I can't understand why it isn't plan A never mind plan B.
In reply to dissonance:
If you remember right at the start of the 'Sterling zone proposal', AS appeared on TV and said 'if George Osborne denies us [iS] CU then he will be imposing massive transaction costs on rUK businesses' - he ended up by calling it the 'George Tax'. After which there was lots of noise from the Yes camp most or all of which conflated keeping the pound with CU
> There do seem to be quite a few people (from a scientific study (aka scan through newspaper site comments)) who dont understand the difference between using the pound and having a currency union.
If you remember right at the start of the 'Sterling zone proposal', AS appeared on TV and said 'if George Osborne denies us [iS] CU then he will be imposing massive transaction costs on rUK businesses' - he ended up by calling it the 'George Tax'. After which there was lots of noise from the Yes camp most or all of which conflated keeping the pound with CU
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
I think this completely misses the point of independence. Of course governments are rubbish at procurement. You just have to look at the £400 million+ cost of the Scottish Parliament building as an example. But independence isn't about that. It is about being able to make your own cockups rather than have them inflicted on you by someone else.
As an Englishman, I am slowly coming round to the idea of Scottish independence. I certainly get it. Not sure if it is the best way forward, but I do get it.
> Another area totally ignored by the No campaign was the potential that governments of all hues have for monumental cock ups when implementing new IT and administration regimes within the civil service.
I think this completely misses the point of independence. Of course governments are rubbish at procurement. You just have to look at the £400 million+ cost of the Scottish Parliament building as an example. But independence isn't about that. It is about being able to make your own cockups rather than have them inflicted on you by someone else.
As an Englishman, I am slowly coming round to the idea of Scottish independence. I certainly get it. Not sure if it is the best way forward, but I do get it.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
A Federal approach is one that works in other countries too. I agree that Darling's approach was pretty one-dimensional - and for a seasoned politician he looked ill at ease. Mind you, I'd prefer that to the swaggering walk into the audience (so to speak) used by Salmond - straight off the PR-man's tick-list (its a wonder he didn't have his jacket off and roll up his sleeves like Dave does)
A Federal approach is one that works in other countries too. I agree that Darling's approach was pretty one-dimensional - and for a seasoned politician he looked ill at ease. Mind you, I'd prefer that to the swaggering walk into the audience (so to speak) used by Salmond - straight off the PR-man's tick-list (its a wonder he didn't have his jacket off and roll up his sleeves like Dave does)
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
On this point, one could say that the costly option is to stay within the UK:
NHS IT system: 10bn written off
eborder: 224m in damages to be paid to Raytheon.
Universal credit: half a billion pound written off.
BBC digital initiative: 100m written off
....
More money was lost in f*cked up IT projects than all the painful welfare cuts ever saved...
Anyway I agree with your last point... It is so obvious that a federal approach is the best option for all parties. Problem is this is not a popular idea in Westminster.
> Another area totally ignored by the No campaign was the potential that governments of all hues have for monumental cock ups when implementing new IT and administration regimes within the civil service. There is the potential for an administrative nightmare in dismantling the UK - and all of us on both sides of the border will have to bear the costs.
On this point, one could say that the costly option is to stay within the UK:
NHS IT system: 10bn written off
eborder: 224m in damages to be paid to Raytheon.
Universal credit: half a billion pound written off.
BBC digital initiative: 100m written off
....
More money was lost in f*cked up IT projects than all the painful welfare cuts ever saved...
Anyway I agree with your last point... It is so obvious that a federal approach is the best option for all parties. Problem is this is not a popular idea in Westminster.
Post edited at 11:19
In reply to Greenbanks:
Perhaps, but 70% clearly disagree with you.
> Mind you, I'd prefer that to the swaggering walk into the audience (so to speak) used by Salmond - straight off the PR-man's tick-list (its a wonder he didn't have his jacket off and roll up his sleeves like Dave does)
Perhaps, but 70% clearly disagree with you.
In reply to Greenbanks:
That was so contrived it was embarrassing. I was wondering if Darling was going to try it himself and they would gradually get nearer and nearer to the audience until one of them was sitting on somebodies lap. That would have been good
> (In reply to Lord of Starkness)
>
Mind you, I'd prefer that to the swaggering walk into the audience (so to speak) used by Salmond - straight off the PR-man's tick-list (its a wonder he didn't have his jacket off and roll up his sleeves like Dave does)>
That was so contrived it was embarrassing. I was wondering if Darling was going to try it himself and they would gradually get nearer and nearer to the audience until one of them was sitting on somebodies lap. That would have been good
In reply to RomTheBear:
Assuming that Govt. (of whichever flavour) IT cockups are inevitable, then I guess the question is do you want the costs to be absorbed by 63 million people or 5 million. Unless you genuinely believe that Scotland-only projects will be quoted at over ten times cheaper than UK projects.
> On this point, one could say that the costly option is to stay within the UK:
> NHS IT system: 10bn written off
> eborder: 224m in damages to be paid to Raytheon.
> Universal credit: half a billion pound written off.
> BBC digital initiative: 100m written off
> ....
> More money was lost in f*cked up IT projects than all the painful welfare cuts ever saved...
Assuming that Govt. (of whichever flavour) IT cockups are inevitable, then I guess the question is do you want the costs to be absorbed by 63 million people or 5 million. Unless you genuinely believe that Scotland-only projects will be quoted at over ten times cheaper than UK projects.
In reply to RomTheBear:
Whilst the waste you point out is a poor effort by government, I'd like to bet that other governments are just as bad, and the scottish government would excel in the same manner as the UK government (Edinburgh trams ring any bells?)
Whilst the waste you point out is a poor effort by government, I'd like to bet that other governments are just as bad, and the scottish government would excel in the same manner as the UK government (Edinburgh trams ring any bells?)
In reply to ByEek:
Or if he had not done the walk, it might even have been higher maybe 90%, it might well have played against him, we will never know. I guess he will settle for 70% and assume that it did work (unless there is a specific body language poll that says otherwise)
Was it not the case on Nixon and Kennedy televised debate that the TV audience had a different winner from the radio audience?
They both heard the same things, but the images of Nixon being pale and sweating, and Kennedy being tanned and cool looking swayed the TV audience.
I wonder if they will have had a different result if they polled radio only listeners on Darling V Salmond debate.
> (In reply to Greenbanks)
>
> [...]
>
> Perhaps, but 70% clearly disagree with you.
>
> [...]
>
> Perhaps, but 70% clearly disagree with you.
Or if he had not done the walk, it might even have been higher maybe 90%, it might well have played against him, we will never know. I guess he will settle for 70% and assume that it did work (unless there is a specific body language poll that says otherwise)
Was it not the case on Nixon and Kennedy televised debate that the TV audience had a different winner from the radio audience?
They both heard the same things, but the images of Nixon being pale and sweating, and Kennedy being tanned and cool looking swayed the TV audience.
I wonder if they will have had a different result if they polled radio only listeners on Darling V Salmond debate.
Post edited at 12:14
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
That's exactly what I was thinking too. Mind you, I got the impression that AS was totally winding up AD to such an extent that I thought the latter might just fling his hands in the air, stamp his feet and shout "Oh just shut up - SHUT UP!"
The other verbal 'tick' whch really grated was Salmond starting every single sentence with "Alistair,..." A few times might have been "acceptably" or understandably condescending, but continuously through both debates really made me cringe. It always makes the speaker sound like a photocopier salesman, trying to ingratiate, or a weak school-teacher trying to control.
> That was so contrived it was embarrassing. I was wondering if Darling was going to try it himself...
That's exactly what I was thinking too. Mind you, I got the impression that AS was totally winding up AD to such an extent that I thought the latter might just fling his hands in the air, stamp his feet and shout "Oh just shut up - SHUT UP!"
The other verbal 'tick' whch really grated was Salmond starting every single sentence with "Alistair,..." A few times might have been "acceptably" or understandably condescending, but continuously through both debates really made me cringe. It always makes the speaker sound like a photocopier salesman, trying to ingratiate, or a weak school-teacher trying to control.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
A third area is the relationship with Europe. Membership of the EU is not a given - bearing in mind that a Scottish application could be vetoed by Spain and Belgium where they have semi autonomous regions that are also seeking independence.
You are assuming of course that an independent scotlasnd would have to apply for membership. I think the legal situation is far from clear, as we hasve not had a fully paid up MS splitting up before. ALl other applications have come from NON-EU MS.
Scotlands law is mostly alligned already as much as it has to be with EU law. We have had mutterings from teh EU president on what Spain may do, but I thought it was the Spanish who spoke for the Spanish.
I am sure the Eurocrats are dreading a yes vote.
A third area is the relationship with Europe. Membership of the EU is not a given - bearing in mind that a Scottish application could be vetoed by Spain and Belgium where they have semi autonomous regions that are also seeking independence.
You are assuming of course that an independent scotlasnd would have to apply for membership. I think the legal situation is far from clear, as we hasve not had a fully paid up MS splitting up before. ALl other applications have come from NON-EU MS.
Scotlands law is mostly alligned already as much as it has to be with EU law. We have had mutterings from teh EU president on what Spain may do, but I thought it was the Spanish who spoke for the Spanish.
I am sure the Eurocrats are dreading a yes vote.
In reply to ByEek:
Funny you say that,on a recent trip the length of the Outer Hebridies (and Skye) , I met a lot of 'incomers', mostly English, and I would say more of them, that expressed a firm view to me, we pro Scottish independence.
(this is not of course representitive on ANY basis of scientific polling)
The only born and bred 'local' that I asked (they are hard to find in some places) was a 92 year old chap in Harris, and he was most certainly pro-union.
(However, I was invited into his home, and I did see a lot of royal family ephemera there, and I think that although he could well have been persuaded by the better together arguments, he may well have had a religious reason for his view
Again, a tiny sample, I'm not saying all born and bred locals on the islands are pro-union, despite the fact that there was plenty of large Yes placards in gardens all the way up the Hebridies, I have no idea if they are 'local's or otherwise)
There was also a business owner (from Manchester) who was very keen on the independence idea, and had posters flags etc displayed showing his support, and spoke strongly for it.)
Is there nyone on here lives up there and thinks they can us give a clearer (les skewed) view of the feelings of people from the islands?
> (In reply to Lord of Starkness)
> As an Englishman, I am slowly coming round to the idea of Scottish independence. I certainly get it. Not sure if it is the best way forward, but I do get it.
> As an Englishman, I am slowly coming round to the idea of Scottish independence. I certainly get it. Not sure if it is the best way forward, but I do get it.
Funny you say that,on a recent trip the length of the Outer Hebridies (and Skye) , I met a lot of 'incomers', mostly English, and I would say more of them, that expressed a firm view to me, we pro Scottish independence.
(this is not of course representitive on ANY basis of scientific polling)
The only born and bred 'local' that I asked (they are hard to find in some places) was a 92 year old chap in Harris, and he was most certainly pro-union.
(However, I was invited into his home, and I did see a lot of royal family ephemera there, and I think that although he could well have been persuaded by the better together arguments, he may well have had a religious reason for his view
Again, a tiny sample, I'm not saying all born and bred locals on the islands are pro-union, despite the fact that there was plenty of large Yes placards in gardens all the way up the Hebridies, I have no idea if they are 'local's or otherwise)
There was also a business owner (from Manchester) who was very keen on the independence idea, and had posters flags etc displayed showing his support, and spoke strongly for it.)
Is there nyone on here lives up there and thinks they can us give a clearer (les skewed) view of the feelings of people from the islands?
In reply to Jim C:
Interesting point. Darling does look the grey autocrat and those eyebrows are just plain freaky. On appearance only, I would want to go to the party hosted by Salmond for sure.
> I wonder if they will have had a different result if they polled radio only listeners on Darling V Salmond debate.
Interesting point. Darling does look the grey autocrat and those eyebrows are just plain freaky. On appearance only, I would want to go to the party hosted by Salmond for sure.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
That's why I didn't watch.
Why make my blood boil when I know it would and I know it wasn't compulsory.
That's why I didn't watch.
Why make my blood boil when I know it would and I know it wasn't compulsory.
In reply to Dr.S at work: I wonder at what point the new film about Trump and his golf course (A Dangerous Game) will raise its head?
I am surprised that the Better Together campaign has not made more of it really.
I am surprised that the Better Together campaign has not made more of it really.
In reply to Jim C:
The one family member of mine from Harris is a firm No, FWTW - mind you she lives in Paris so has no say
The one family member of mine from Harris is a firm No, FWTW - mind you she lives in Paris so has no say
In reply to RomTheBear:
All the money that's been wasted in the past is 'money down the drain', and history to be learend from. Despite the Scots' reputation for monetary canniness I've little faith that Scottish politician will be any more astute than their westminster counterparts - particularly when over the years so many senior treasury figures have been Scots!
Why should post independent Scotland have to endure the inevitable results of its own IT procurement cock ups - particularly when in the majority of cases integrated UK wide systems exist? Talk about re-inventing the wheel FFS. The costs of 'decoupling' will be felt more keenly by the Scots than by the rest of the UK.
> On this point, one could say that the costly option is to stay within the UK:
> More money was lost in f*cked up IT projects than all the painful welfare cuts ever saved...
All the money that's been wasted in the past is 'money down the drain', and history to be learend from. Despite the Scots' reputation for monetary canniness I've little faith that Scottish politician will be any more astute than their westminster counterparts - particularly when over the years so many senior treasury figures have been Scots!
Why should post independent Scotland have to endure the inevitable results of its own IT procurement cock ups - particularly when in the majority of cases integrated UK wide systems exist? Talk about re-inventing the wheel FFS. The costs of 'decoupling' will be felt more keenly by the Scots than by the rest of the UK.
In reply to Fraser:
> That's exactly what I was thinking too. Mind you, I got the impression that AS was totally winding up AD to such an extent that I thought the latter might just fling his hands in the air, stamp his feet and shout "Oh just shut up - SHUT UP!"
I was hoping that Darling would flip out and chin Salmond - it would have improved the level of debate no end In reply to Lord of Starkness:
I think it was pointed out by some experts that half of UK IT contracts up for renewal, therefore the same investment will be required of Scottish taxpayers regardless of the referendum outcome.
> All the money that's been wasted in the past is 'money down the drain', and history to be learend from. Despite the Scots' reputation for monetary canniness I've little faith that Scottish politician will be any more astute than their westminster counterparts - particularly when over the years so many senior treasury figures have been Scots!
> Why should post independent Scotland have to endure the inevitable results of its own IT procurement cock ups - particularly when in the majority of cases integrated UK wide systems exist? Talk about re-inventing the wheel FFS. The costs of 'decoupling' will be felt more keenly by the Scots than by the rest of the UK.
I think it was pointed out by some experts that half of UK IT contracts up for renewal, therefore the same investment will be required of Scottish taxpayers regardless of the referendum outcome.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
True no one can stop Scotland from using GBP any more than the US can stop some TPLC using the USD as its official currency. However not being in control of your currency causes some problems:
1) When you, as a country, issue all your debt in a currency you don't control then you will be perceived by investors as much more "risky" and will have to pay a premium of (all other things being equal) 2%-3% on your debt in times of crisis (when you can least afford it).
2) When the economies of the country that "owns" the currency and the country that is "just using it" are not closely matched the actions of the central bank can cause too much inflation in your country or send the economy into recession.
3) If you control the currency you have a central bank that can "rescue" banks in case of a "bank run". If Scotland uses the pound without a currency union it is unlikely that Bank of England will rescue a Scottish bank that gets into trouble. At the moment deposits of up to GBP 100 000 are protected by the UK government (and the government can rely on the central bank to provide sufficient liquidity). However Scottish government will be in a more precarious position in case of a financial crisis if it needed to cover deposits because it couldn't rely on Bank of England to provide liquidity.
Admittedly I don't expect the 2nd point being a big issue for Scotland (how much does Scotland figure in considerations of Bank of England at the moment anyway?). But the 1st point is real and expensive issue. The 3rd point is potentially (in case of another crisis) a major issue. Though of course neither are a reason to prevent Scotland from being independent and using the pound without a currency union with rUK. Also, it is hardly worse in many regards than using the euro (and better in some).
Of historical interest may be that when Czechoslovakia split up the countries agreed to a currency union for a transitional period (of a year or two) after which time Slovakia officially started using its own currency. Now Slovakia is on the Euro and Czech Rep. still has its own currency.
Anyway, I'll be voting no, not because of the currency (that's an issue that can be sorted out) but because I still see more potential in _United_ Kingdom than independent Scotland. Besides, as an immigrant, I feel more British and European. I think that to feel Scottish I would have to have been born in Scotland.
> I was suprised when Salmond made the point on currency about nobody can stop Scotland using the pound. Are there still people out there that didn't realise this?
True no one can stop Scotland from using GBP any more than the US can stop some TPLC using the USD as its official currency. However not being in control of your currency causes some problems:
1) When you, as a country, issue all your debt in a currency you don't control then you will be perceived by investors as much more "risky" and will have to pay a premium of (all other things being equal) 2%-3% on your debt in times of crisis (when you can least afford it).
2) When the economies of the country that "owns" the currency and the country that is "just using it" are not closely matched the actions of the central bank can cause too much inflation in your country or send the economy into recession.
3) If you control the currency you have a central bank that can "rescue" banks in case of a "bank run". If Scotland uses the pound without a currency union it is unlikely that Bank of England will rescue a Scottish bank that gets into trouble. At the moment deposits of up to GBP 100 000 are protected by the UK government (and the government can rely on the central bank to provide sufficient liquidity). However Scottish government will be in a more precarious position in case of a financial crisis if it needed to cover deposits because it couldn't rely on Bank of England to provide liquidity.
Admittedly I don't expect the 2nd point being a big issue for Scotland (how much does Scotland figure in considerations of Bank of England at the moment anyway?). But the 1st point is real and expensive issue. The 3rd point is potentially (in case of another crisis) a major issue. Though of course neither are a reason to prevent Scotland from being independent and using the pound without a currency union with rUK. Also, it is hardly worse in many regards than using the euro (and better in some).
Of historical interest may be that when Czechoslovakia split up the countries agreed to a currency union for a transitional period (of a year or two) after which time Slovakia officially started using its own currency. Now Slovakia is on the Euro and Czech Rep. still has its own currency.
Anyway, I'll be voting no, not because of the currency (that's an issue that can be sorted out) but because I still see more potential in _United_ Kingdom than independent Scotland. Besides, as an immigrant, I feel more British and European. I think that to feel Scottish I would have to have been born in Scotland.
In reply to RomTheBear:
That seems to be assuming it is a setup from scratch job as opposed to a renewal/takeover of existing infrastructure.
> I think it was pointed out by some experts that half of UK IT contracts up for renewal, therefore the same investment will be required of Scottish taxpayers regardless of the referendum outcome.
That seems to be assuming it is a setup from scratch job as opposed to a renewal/takeover of existing infrastructure.
In reply to kipper12:
An interesting point - the assumption has always been that Scotland would go through the same accession process as other applicants, though I wonder if you could make the (legal) case that the new Scottish country inherited its EU membership through the UK.
What is ridiculous is that the SNP have not conclusively said one way or the other what the situation will be - it would seem to be such an obvious question to get firm answers on from the EC and lawyers (or perhaps they have and didn't like the answer).
> You are assuming of course that an independent scotlasnd would have to apply for membership. I think the legal situation is far from clear, as we hasve not had a fully paid up MS splitting up before. ALl other applications have come from NON-EU MS.
An interesting point - the assumption has always been that Scotland would go through the same accession process as other applicants, though I wonder if you could make the (legal) case that the new Scottish country inherited its EU membership through the UK.
What is ridiculous is that the SNP have not conclusively said one way or the other what the situation will be - it would seem to be such an obvious question to get firm answers on from the EC and lawyers (or perhaps they have and didn't like the answer).
In reply to MJH:
The SNP can get a legal opinion, but it's just that an opinion. Similiarly the Commission can give an opinion, but I imagine EU law is silent on the issue. Even if the Commission had an opinion, to let it be known could be seen as interference in a local UK matter, in advance of the referendum itself.
After the result, the Commission will have to give a view, I think it would end up in court as either Scotland would not like it or maybe Spain wouldn't like it. The courts have ultimate authority to interpret the law. I couldn't see the UK taking in to court as it would be seen as sour grapes.
The SNP can get a legal opinion, but it's just that an opinion. Similiarly the Commission can give an opinion, but I imagine EU law is silent on the issue. Even if the Commission had an opinion, to let it be known could be seen as interference in a local UK matter, in advance of the referendum itself.
After the result, the Commission will have to give a view, I think it would end up in court as either Scotland would not like it or maybe Spain wouldn't like it. The courts have ultimate authority to interpret the law. I couldn't see the UK taking in to court as it would be seen as sour grapes.
In reply to kipper12:
The Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the Treaties making up the EU. From that perspective it would have been useful for voters to have heard an opinion from the Commission (and on behalf of the SNP) regardless of whether it was the final word - if the Yes and No campaigns had asked for that opinion then they could hardly say it was interference, though I accept that both sides would probably have been too scared of the answer!
FWIW I think the EU Treaties are clear - Scotland would have to apply for membership. In terms of accession conditions they would have no problems (as they should already comply with EU law). Where it gets tricky is things like the Euro (and would Scotland benefit from things like the rebate scheme that Thatcher negotiated?) and whether any Member States (Spain etc) would object. On the latter my guess is they would make a lot of noise but would accept Scotland.
What I don't know is whether there is such a thing in "international" law about treaties which would allow Scotland to inherit membership on exactly the same terms as the UK has. A bit like currency options, surely the Yes campaign should have found out definitive answers?
I accept your point that legal opinions are just that and that ultimately case law triumphs, but that is the Yes (and No) campaigns problem.
I think that more than anything is what frustrates me is that the voters are being asked to take so much information on trust / vague guesses.
The Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the Treaties making up the EU. From that perspective it would have been useful for voters to have heard an opinion from the Commission (and on behalf of the SNP) regardless of whether it was the final word - if the Yes and No campaigns had asked for that opinion then they could hardly say it was interference, though I accept that both sides would probably have been too scared of the answer!
FWIW I think the EU Treaties are clear - Scotland would have to apply for membership. In terms of accession conditions they would have no problems (as they should already comply with EU law). Where it gets tricky is things like the Euro (and would Scotland benefit from things like the rebate scheme that Thatcher negotiated?) and whether any Member States (Spain etc) would object. On the latter my guess is they would make a lot of noise but would accept Scotland.
What I don't know is whether there is such a thing in "international" law about treaties which would allow Scotland to inherit membership on exactly the same terms as the UK has. A bit like currency options, surely the Yes campaign should have found out definitive answers?
I accept your point that legal opinions are just that and that ultimately case law triumphs, but that is the Yes (and No) campaigns problem.
I think that more than anything is what frustrates me is that the voters are being asked to take so much information on trust / vague guesses.
In reply to kipper12:
Many seem to think Spain would oppose Scotland joining the EU... In fact chances are this would be politically suicidal for any Spanish government.
> After the result, the Commission will have to give a view, I think it would end up in court as either Scotland would not like it or maybe Spain wouldn't like it. The courts have ultimate authority to interpret the law. I couldn't see the UK taking in to court as it would be seen as sour grapes.
Many seem to think Spain would oppose Scotland joining the EU... In fact chances are this would be politically suicidal for any Spanish government.
Post edited at 19:18
In reply to MJH:
Only Westminster could have asked that question, but I agree that would have been useful information ( that Westminster deliberately denied the voters)
Where it gets tricky is things like the Euro (and would Scotland benefit from things like the rebate scheme that Thatcher negotiated?)
I think you will find that Thatchers ministers, in their memoirs, rubbish the myth that Thatcher negotiated the rebate.
Rather she was a total liability in the negotiations and she was sidelined by them so a deal could be done, and she then took the credit( undeserved)
A bit like the selling of council houses that Thatcher was actually against, ( source Andrew Neil)
as it would:-
'" not benefit our people"
But I agree that the rebate exists, and it would have to be re- negotiated for Scotland if possible, but it is not in reality Thatcher's rebate .
> The Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the Treaties making up the EU. From that perspective it would have been useful for voters to have heard an opinion from the Commission (and on behalf of the SNP) regardless of whether it was the final word - if the Yes and No campaigns had asked for that opinion....
Only Westminster could have asked that question, but I agree that would have been useful information ( that Westminster deliberately denied the voters)
Where it gets tricky is things like the Euro (and would Scotland benefit from things like the rebate scheme that Thatcher negotiated?)
I think you will find that Thatchers ministers, in their memoirs, rubbish the myth that Thatcher negotiated the rebate.
Rather she was a total liability in the negotiations and she was sidelined by them so a deal could be done, and she then took the credit( undeserved)
A bit like the selling of council houses that Thatcher was actually against, ( source Andrew Neil)
as it would:-
'" not benefit our people"
But I agree that the rebate exists, and it would have to be re- negotiated for Scotland if possible, but it is not in reality Thatcher's rebate .
Post edited at 21:21
In reply to dsiska:
Anyway, I'll be voting no, ......Besides, as an immigrant, I feel more British and European. I think that to feel Scottish I would have to have been born in Scotland.
Just interested, I have a friend at work in your position who is adamant that he will not vote at all as he was not born in Scotland, and did not feel Scottish so he feels why should he influence the direction of the country of Scotland.
You take a different view, and you say you will vote despite not feeling Scottish, and coming from the same position as he does. ( He is Polish)
If then Scotland votes Yes( against your wishes) would you then feel you would want to move to the rUK, or to The EU?
( my own boss says he would move if there was a yes vote, and he was born in Scotland)
Anyway, I'll be voting no, ......Besides, as an immigrant, I feel more British and European. I think that to feel Scottish I would have to have been born in Scotland.
Just interested, I have a friend at work in your position who is adamant that he will not vote at all as he was not born in Scotland, and did not feel Scottish so he feels why should he influence the direction of the country of Scotland.
You take a different view, and you say you will vote despite not feeling Scottish, and coming from the same position as he does. ( He is Polish)
If then Scotland votes Yes( against your wishes) would you then feel you would want to move to the rUK, or to The EU?
( my own boss says he would move if there was a yes vote, and he was born in Scotland)
Post edited at 22:14
In reply to Jim C:
Is that really true? SNP MEPs genuinely could not have raised this with the EU parliament or commission?
> Only Westminster could have asked that question, [...]
Is that really true? SNP MEPs genuinely could not have raised this with the EU parliament or commission?
In reply to Fraser:
The bits I caught actually seemed to suggest that Darling had more fans in the audience, but it seems from reporting today that this wan't the case.
Just to be clear.
The audience was chosen to be balanced, so to have more fans Darling would then have won over more from the group of undecideds during the debate.
(He - or AS- would not have been allowed ' more fans in the audience' from the outset.)
The bits I caught actually seemed to suggest that Darling had more fans in the audience, but it seems from reporting today that this wan't the case.
Just to be clear.
The audience was chosen to be balanced, so to have more fans Darling would then have won over more from the group of undecideds during the debate.
(He - or AS- would not have been allowed ' more fans in the audience' from the outset.)
In reply to 999thAndy:
Perfectly true, only a member state can ask the question. The UK government refused to ask despite being pressed to do so. :-
"Scottish independence: UK ministers not seeking advice on Scotland in EU
The statement follows confirmation from the commission that it would offer its opinion if asked to by a member state...
The Scottish Labour Party has now urged UK ministers to ask the EC what its view would be
However, the UK confirmed to the BBC that it did not intend to make such a request before the referendum on Scottish independence, scheduled to take place in the autumn of 2014.
A spokesman for the UK government said: "The UK government does not obtain its legal advice from the European Commission."
So unfair to blame the Yes camp for that particular lack of clarity
> Is that really true? SNP MEPs genuinely could not have raised this with the EU parliament or commission?
Perfectly true, only a member state can ask the question. The UK government refused to ask despite being pressed to do so. :-
"Scottish independence: UK ministers not seeking advice on Scotland in EU
The statement follows confirmation from the commission that it would offer its opinion if asked to by a member state...
The Scottish Labour Party has now urged UK ministers to ask the EC what its view would be
However, the UK confirmed to the BBC that it did not intend to make such a request before the referendum on Scottish independence, scheduled to take place in the autumn of 2014.
A spokesman for the UK government said: "The UK government does not obtain its legal advice from the European Commission."
So unfair to blame the Yes camp for that particular lack of clarity
Post edited at 22:38
In reply to goatee:
It should be.. Ideally but young families will want to know what their future hold..
> Viewed from the remove of an independent Ireland I have been amazed at the constant fixation at monetary issues. Its a matter of the heart---pure and simple. Scotland will not implode if it goes it alone yet neither will it be less of a country if it stays in the club. My two pence worth is don't vote out of fear. Be strong, whichever side you believe in.
It should be.. Ideally but young families will want to know what their future hold..
In reply to IainRUK:
I get exactly what goatee us saying here Iain.
( helped by our meeting for a bit of climbing in Ireland last year)
I will weigh and consider his words when I go into the booth
( as an Irishman to a Scotsman
There is one thing certain about the vote (either way,) that is , all sorts of future uncertainty is assured.
No one can offer any certainty of prosperity, as part of the union, or otherwise.
> It should be.. Ideally but young families will want to know what their future hold..
I get exactly what goatee us saying here Iain.
( helped by our meeting for a bit of climbing in Ireland last year)
I will weigh and consider his words when I go into the booth
( as an Irishman to a Scotsman
There is one thing certain about the vote (either way,) that is , all sorts of future uncertainty is assured.
No one can offer any certainty of prosperity, as part of the union, or otherwise.
Post edited at 00:24
In reply to Jim C:
I also understand your friend's position. But I lived in Scotland for years and I will not move regardless of the vote. I vote based on what I think is best for me and Scotland.
In the case of a YES vote I will absolutely hope that Scotland gets the best possible deal when separating from rUK and carries on being the best country in the world (for me anyway).
I've lived through the separation of Czechoslovakia and that was OK so I have no fear in case of a Yes vote. Besides it's possible I am wrong and independence is indeed the best for Scotland anyway.
I also understand your friend's position. But I lived in Scotland for years and I will not move regardless of the vote. I vote based on what I think is best for me and Scotland.
In the case of a YES vote I will absolutely hope that Scotland gets the best possible deal when separating from rUK and carries on being the best country in the world (for me anyway).
I've lived through the separation of Czechoslovakia and that was OK so I have no fear in case of a Yes vote. Besides it's possible I am wrong and independence is indeed the best for Scotland anyway.
In reply to Jim C:
Sorry, but that just is not true! Any EU citizen can ask the Commission's opinion on any matter (how useful the answer will be is another matter!).
> Only Westminster could have asked that question
Sorry, but that just is not true! Any EU citizen can ask the Commission's opinion on any matter (how useful the answer will be is another matter!).
In reply to MJH:
Widely reported that only countries can ask for a formal opinion
e.g.
"The commission has said it can only comment specifically on Scottish independence if the UK government asks it to do so and details a precise scenario"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21601242
Widely reported that only countries can ask for a formal opinion
e.g.
"The commission has said it can only comment specifically on Scottish independence if the UK government asks it to do so and details a precise scenario"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21601242
In reply to 999thAndy:
I suppose in a way MEP represent the member state, but the ruling seems to be that Westminster Government (as the Member State) are the only ones able to ask the EU for their view on this.(not individual MEP's
I can only go on what has been reported, and it seems quite clear, no one is disputing that Westmister COULD ask the question and get an answer,they have even accepted this is the case , but they choose not to do so.
(Westmisnter apparently see that as 'pre-negotiating' an independence deal, and they will not do that even if it would give the clarity the undecideds who are demanding this clarity of the Yes camp (who are relient on the UK Government to give that clarity)
I suppose in a way MEP represent the member state, but the ruling seems to be that Westminster Government (as the Member State) are the only ones able to ask the EU for their view on this.(not individual MEP's
I can only go on what has been reported, and it seems quite clear, no one is disputing that Westmister COULD ask the question and get an answer,they have even accepted this is the case , but they choose not to do so.
(Westmisnter apparently see that as 'pre-negotiating' an independence deal, and they will not do that even if it would give the clarity the undecideds who are demanding this clarity of the Yes camp (who are relient on the UK Government to give that clarity)
In reply to MJH:
Show us the evidence for that.
I have posted quotes from the Government saying the opposite, where is your evidence to the contrary ?
Why then did the Scottish Labour Party urge UK ministers to ask the EC what its view would be, if they could have done it themselves, that does not make sense.
Oops , I did not see Doug's post (thanks Doug)
Show us the evidence for that.
I have posted quotes from the Government saying the opposite, where is your evidence to the contrary ?
Why then did the Scottish Labour Party urge UK ministers to ask the EC what its view would be, if they could have done it themselves, that does not make sense.
Oops , I did not see Doug's post (thanks Doug)
Post edited at 12:48
In reply to Jim C:
My understanding from what I've read is along the same lines, except that Westminster doesn't know which questions to ask. As you said, they have to ask a 'precise' question, which would need to be more detailed than 'Scotland has voted for independence but would like to stay on, can it?'. It would need to detail, for instance, what the currency arrangements are going to be, what approach will be taken to tax, VAT and a whole host of other boxes which members have to tick. So, as I understand it, the lack of clarity from the SNP about their approach to certain things have precluded this. However, almost every time a Euro spokesman has veered towards venturing an opinion, they have fairly consistently cast doubt on the ability of the EU to reach agreement on Scotland within the 18 month timescale that the SNP have for separation, which seems pretty consistent with the speed the EU generally moves at.
I don't think there is any doubt on any side that the EU would wish Scotland to remain, or indeed that the rUK would support Scotland in this. But equally, the need for countries with their own areas seeking secession (such as Spain & Belgium) to be seen to extract concessions; plus the probable desire from new joiners to see Scotland treated in the same way as they were; would all see Scotland come under pressure to sign up to Schengen, agree to join the Euro at some future date, apply VAT more universally than it currently is (eg on books, children's clothes) etc. Which of these would apply would only become clear as the negotiations progressed, and if bound by an 18 month deadline, the concessions required could increase.
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
>
> I can only go on what has been reported, and it seems quite clear, no one is disputing that Westmister COULD ask the question and get an answer,they have even accepted this is the case , but they choose not to do so.
>
> I can only go on what has been reported, and it seems quite clear, no one is disputing that Westmister COULD ask the question and get an answer,they have even accepted this is the case , but they choose not to do so.
>
My understanding from what I've read is along the same lines, except that Westminster doesn't know which questions to ask. As you said, they have to ask a 'precise' question, which would need to be more detailed than 'Scotland has voted for independence but would like to stay on, can it?'. It would need to detail, for instance, what the currency arrangements are going to be, what approach will be taken to tax, VAT and a whole host of other boxes which members have to tick. So, as I understand it, the lack of clarity from the SNP about their approach to certain things have precluded this. However, almost every time a Euro spokesman has veered towards venturing an opinion, they have fairly consistently cast doubt on the ability of the EU to reach agreement on Scotland within the 18 month timescale that the SNP have for separation, which seems pretty consistent with the speed the EU generally moves at.
I don't think there is any doubt on any side that the EU would wish Scotland to remain, or indeed that the rUK would support Scotland in this. But equally, the need for countries with their own areas seeking secession (such as Spain & Belgium) to be seen to extract concessions; plus the probable desire from new joiners to see Scotland treated in the same way as they were; would all see Scotland come under pressure to sign up to Schengen, agree to join the Euro at some future date, apply VAT more universally than it currently is (eg on books, children's clothes) etc. Which of these would apply would only become clear as the negotiations progressed, and if bound by an 18 month deadline, the concessions required could increase.
In reply to Jim C:
The EU won't really want to deal with it unless they have to, like the UK government. It's fair enough that the uncertainty is used to put hesitant voters off.
> I can only go on what has been reported, and it seems quite clear, no one is disputing that Westmister COULD ask the question and get an answer,they have even accepted this is the case , but they choose not to do so.
> (Westmisnter apparently see that as 'pre-negotiating' an independence deal, and they will not do that even if it would give the clarity the undecideds who are demanding this clarity of the Yes camp (who are relient on the UK Government to give that clarity)
The EU won't really want to deal with it unless they have to, like the UK government. It's fair enough that the uncertainty is used to put hesitant voters off.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
If that's the worse of our politics, we should be thankful.
youtube.com/watch?v=2kGURd9omlQ&
If that's the worse of our politics, we should be thankful.
youtube.com/watch?v=2kGURd9omlQ&
In reply to mav:
Surely the SNP MEPs could ask "what are the requirements for Scotland to remain in the EU after independence"?
Surely the SNP MEPs could ask "what are the requirements for Scotland to remain in the EU after independence"?
In reply to 999thAndy:
There's not much point, the EU is hardly going to say iScotland is a special case, any formal EU view would be a bland "iScotland would be welcome to apply to join the EU and would be treated the same as any other applicant country". However, there are lots of unofficial opinions coming out http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland/eu-experts-cast-doubt-on-sn...
> Surely the SNP MEPs could ask "what are the requirements for Scotland to remain in the EU after independence"?
There's not much point, the EU is hardly going to say iScotland is a special case, any formal EU view would be a bland "iScotland would be welcome to apply to join the EU and would be treated the same as any other applicant country". However, there are lots of unofficial opinions coming out http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland/eu-experts-cast-doubt-on-sn...
In reply to Sir Chasm:
How do you know what the commission's reply would be? Until someone asks the question of the commission no-one will know.
How do you know what the commission's reply would be? Until someone asks the question of the commission no-one will know.
In reply to 999thAndy:
The head of the commission has clearly said that iScotland can join the EU http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland/eu-experts-cast-doubt-on-sn...
> How do you know what the commission's reply would be? Until someone asks the question of the commission no-one will know.
The head of the commission has clearly said that iScotland can join the EU http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland/eu-experts-cast-doubt-on-sn...
In reply to 999thAndy: Sorry, wrong link http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
Perhaps Junckers could give his view too, but time is tight now.
Perhaps Junckers could give his view too, but time is tight now.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi1OXJn4Vw&feature=youtu.be
This is pretty disgusting.. no doubt you see it from both sides but the anger's horrific, very threatening.
All this the No don't make promises.. they can't.. Darling is not part of the Government.. the Government will probably be different come the decision.. its not about what then side can offer.. Darling can not offer anything..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi1OXJn4Vw&feature=youtu.be
This is pretty disgusting.. no doubt you see it from both sides but the anger's horrific, very threatening.
All this the No don't make promises.. they can't.. Darling is not part of the Government.. the Government will probably be different come the decision.. its not about what then side can offer.. Darling can not offer anything..
In reply to IainRUK:
I had not realised how convoluted a post Yes vote negotiations would be until somebody suggested with the timing of the UK general election the UK govt could well change mid negotiation, and if labour are the next UK govt they could well lose their majority when actual independence was declared, just a year after. Sing elected!
I had not realised how convoluted a post Yes vote negotiations would be until somebody suggested with the timing of the UK general election the UK govt could well change mid negotiation, and if labour are the next UK govt they could well lose their majority when actual independence was declared, just a year after. Sing elected!
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Must say that the 'Yes' mobbing approach is not doing Scotland - let alone 'Yes' - any favours at all. As any good politician should, AS is not being drawn...pretty much the line of all the other players too. Hope it doesnt get to be viral, as it would discredit a fascinating contest
Must say that the 'Yes' mobbing approach is not doing Scotland - let alone 'Yes' - any favours at all. As any good politician should, AS is not being drawn...pretty much the line of all the other players too. Hope it doesnt get to be viral, as it would discredit a fascinating contest
In reply to Greenbanks:
I agree that abusing others of a different opinion, does no one ,any good, thankfully, in general the thousands of town hall meetings etc have gone off with very little problems.
Salmond gets a fair bit of unending bad press and verbal abuse too, but although I personally don't like him, I have to say he has taken it pretty well without making a big issue about it.
(As you say there is bad behaviour on both sides. )
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/i-was-so-stunned-yes-campaigner...
> Must say that the 'Yes' mobbing approach is not doing Scotland - let alone 'Yes' - any favours at all. As any good politician should, AS is not being drawn...pretty much the line of all the other players too. Hope it doesnt get to be viral, as it would discredit a fascinating contest
I agree that abusing others of a different opinion, does no one ,any good, thankfully, in general the thousands of town hall meetings etc have gone off with very little problems.
Salmond gets a fair bit of unending bad press and verbal abuse too, but although I personally don't like him, I have to say he has taken it pretty well without making a big issue about it.
(As you say there is bad behaviour on both sides. )
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/i-was-so-stunned-yes-campaigner...
Post edited at 22:14
In reply to Jim C:
For sure.. what I don't like is this 'you traitor'.. accusation.. which was heard in the you tube link.. I think thats why the NO is generally quieter on Facebook especially.. people are almost ashamed to say NO..
But both leaders should stamp it out..
I looked at both camps FB pages today and both were full of misinformation.. pretty disgusting state of affairs..
Thats where I saw the 'the No have made no promises' argument.. its just ludicrous. They can only say why the Union is good.
TBF to Darling, he's actually shown some rare political integrity by not promising the world.. not saying we will do X we will do Y, typical in election campaigns, as he knows he has no mandate for such promises….
At times I think the moderators on those page should actually point out such things..
Its like each side excuses such behaviour because the other side is at it.. I know its been claimed this is Westminster Childish behaviour but the YES side aren't acting any better..
For sure.. what I don't like is this 'you traitor'.. accusation.. which was heard in the you tube link.. I think thats why the NO is generally quieter on Facebook especially.. people are almost ashamed to say NO..
But both leaders should stamp it out..
I looked at both camps FB pages today and both were full of misinformation.. pretty disgusting state of affairs..
Thats where I saw the 'the No have made no promises' argument.. its just ludicrous. They can only say why the Union is good.
TBF to Darling, he's actually shown some rare political integrity by not promising the world.. not saying we will do X we will do Y, typical in election campaigns, as he knows he has no mandate for such promises….
At times I think the moderators on those page should actually point out such things..
Its like each side excuses such behaviour because the other side is at it.. I know its been claimed this is Westminster Childish behaviour but the YES side aren't acting any better..
In reply to IainRUK:
I have been 'lobbied' by a restaurant business owner in Mallaig who was quite happy to tell every customer in his premises that he was a No, voter, and he did not appear to worry about anyone abusing him, or taking their trade elsewhere, or being perceived as a 'traitor'. Which of course he is not.
Which sides' 'pig in a poke' would you like to vote for ?
I believe the 'bad behaviour' has been publicly decried by the Scottish Minister presumably on behalf of the Yes camp. I assume ( without checking) that bad behaviour from the No camp will also have been similarly rejected by them too. )
Either way, as I said below, such behaviour , and it is quite small when you are aware of the huge amount of debate that is going on) only favours the other side of the argument.
I was in an affluent area of Glasgow today, and there was both No and Yes camps stalls in the town centre, I saw people getting information from both without any problems, no shouting or heckling at all. ( I politely accepted leaflets from both)
(Criminal acts, from either side, will hopefully be prosecuted .)
> For sure.. what I don't like is this 'you traitor'.. accusation.. which was heard in the you tube link.. I think thats why the NO is generally quieter on Facebook especially.. people are almost ashamed to say NO.
My daughter's are not afraid to say No.One of my 3 daughter's is yes, one No , and the other is undecided)I have been 'lobbied' by a restaurant business owner in Mallaig who was quite happy to tell every customer in his premises that he was a No, voter, and he did not appear to worry about anyone abusing him, or taking their trade elsewhere, or being perceived as a 'traitor'. Which of course he is not.
> But both leaders should stamp it out..
Agreed ( if it is indeed in their control to do so ) I'm sure they will, as it hinders their argument. > I looked at both camps FB pages today and both were full of misinformation.. pretty disgusting state of affairs..
I don't look at politics on Facebook ( I just use it talk to my relations down under) but I'm sure you are right. > Thats where I saw the 'the No have made no promises' argument.. its just ludicrous. They can only say why the Union is good.
The pro union parties HAVE promised more powers for a no vote, but it is rather unclear what is exactly on offer, and it is not consistent across the parties, and ultimately , like the Yes camp's view of the future, not in any way guaranteed. Which sides' 'pig in a poke' would you like to vote for ?
> Its like each side excuses such behaviour because the other side is at it.. I know its been claimed this is Westminster Childish behaviour but the YES side aren't acting any better.
I believe the 'bad behaviour' has been publicly decried by the Scottish Minister presumably on behalf of the Yes camp. I assume ( without checking) that bad behaviour from the No camp will also have been similarly rejected by them too. )
Either way, as I said below, such behaviour , and it is quite small when you are aware of the huge amount of debate that is going on) only favours the other side of the argument.
I was in an affluent area of Glasgow today, and there was both No and Yes camps stalls in the town centre, I saw people getting information from both without any problems, no shouting or heckling at all. ( I politely accepted leaflets from both)
(Criminal acts, from either side, will hopefully be prosecuted .)
In reply to Jim C:
More powers is fine.. That's been consistently happening for the last 20 years...
More powers is fine.. That's been consistently happening for the last 20 years...
In reply to IainRUK:
It is not fine , Iain, for my friend who is a passionate No voter, and desperately wants the Scottish parliament abolished, and sees a strong No vote as a mandate to do so.
However, that is not the main issue, for me , it is the lack of clarity of what more powers we would be voting for?
They are all very vague, may not have any real teeth ( a sop) and not even be in any way guaranteed after the vote. I would like something better than that.
The devil is in the detail:-
" were Holyrood to use the income tax powers the (Scotland) Bill grants to cut rates with the aim of stimulating growth= the UK -- as opposed to the Scottish government --would enjoy the greater benefit of any consequent increase in economic activity.
This is because the UK Exchequer would continue to collect tax at the full rate while the Scottish government would only collect it at its reduced rate,
Another problem is that the Scottish budget would be determined by a UK Treasury forecast of how much revenue any given rate of income tax would generate in one year.
This forecast could well be inaccurate, yet the only way any shortfall could be covered would be for the Scottish Parliament to have borrowing powers which far outstrip those that the Bill provides."
So we would need specific guaranteed powers to be able to even use the ones we have to our benefit.
But what of the Scottish Parliament's continued existence, is that going to be guaranteed?
it is apparently in the gift of Westminster , as my fiercely pro-union friend is at pains to assert.
Given a strong No vote- it's continuance is not necessary in his view.
Far less being giving more powers , he thinks the Scottish Parliament should thereby be abolished.
I have been unable to confirm or deny that this is possible, I'm not sure if that IS indeed the case or not?
Please enlighten me (IF you know for sure)
> More powers is fine.. That's been consistently happening for the last 20 years...
It is not fine , Iain, for my friend who is a passionate No voter, and desperately wants the Scottish parliament abolished, and sees a strong No vote as a mandate to do so.
However, that is not the main issue, for me , it is the lack of clarity of what more powers we would be voting for?
They are all very vague, may not have any real teeth ( a sop) and not even be in any way guaranteed after the vote. I would like something better than that.
The devil is in the detail:-
" were Holyrood to use the income tax powers the (Scotland) Bill grants to cut rates with the aim of stimulating growth= the UK -- as opposed to the Scottish government --would enjoy the greater benefit of any consequent increase in economic activity.
This is because the UK Exchequer would continue to collect tax at the full rate while the Scottish government would only collect it at its reduced rate,
Another problem is that the Scottish budget would be determined by a UK Treasury forecast of how much revenue any given rate of income tax would generate in one year.
This forecast could well be inaccurate, yet the only way any shortfall could be covered would be for the Scottish Parliament to have borrowing powers which far outstrip those that the Bill provides."
So we would need specific guaranteed powers to be able to even use the ones we have to our benefit.
But what of the Scottish Parliament's continued existence, is that going to be guaranteed?
it is apparently in the gift of Westminster , as my fiercely pro-union friend is at pains to assert.
Given a strong No vote- it's continuance is not necessary in his view.
Far less being giving more powers , he thinks the Scottish Parliament should thereby be abolished.
I have been unable to confirm or deny that this is possible, I'm not sure if that IS indeed the case or not?
Please enlighten me (IF you know for sure)
In reply to Jim C:
We'll it is fine.. The debate is Independence.. Yes or no...
Afterwards, if no, work out what those more powers are.. Darling CANNOT under even the minutest legitimacy offer promises on what those powers will be...
I can't see how a strong NO means in any way that the scottish parliament needs abolishing.. As I said many many times devolution is a separate argument.. But many will vote no in favour of more devolution...
Your way we should have
No and abolish the parliament
No and the same
No but devo max
Independence..
It would be a mess with independence actually getting the most votes but the nos being cumulatively greater...
It's why a simple yes no on independence was the right call..
We'll it is fine.. The debate is Independence.. Yes or no...
Afterwards, if no, work out what those more powers are.. Darling CANNOT under even the minutest legitimacy offer promises on what those powers will be...
I can't see how a strong NO means in any way that the scottish parliament needs abolishing.. As I said many many times devolution is a separate argument.. But many will vote no in favour of more devolution...
Your way we should have
No and abolish the parliament
No and the same
No but devo max
Independence..
It would be a mess with independence actually getting the most votes but the nos being cumulatively greater...
It's why a simple yes no on independence was the right call..
Post edited at 18:36
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I live in Stirling so I have been empowered to vote in this referendum. I was born in England and now live in Scotland but would insist that I am British at heart.
There is no doubt that Scotland as a region has been badly served by British governments in Westminster and my preferred option for this would be Federation but that is not an option - neither is Devo-max so we are left with Yes or No.
My best option for an outcome is that there is a close win for the No vote that forces a strong re-negotiation of the devolved powers but steps back from the brink of seperation. I really feel that in the long term continuation of the Union with more powers will serve Scotland better than Independence. I trust neither Alex Salmond nor David Cameron to deliver the best outcome for Scotland - thats why they have to engage in a New Union.
I live in Stirling so I have been empowered to vote in this referendum. I was born in England and now live in Scotland but would insist that I am British at heart.
There is no doubt that Scotland as a region has been badly served by British governments in Westminster and my preferred option for this would be Federation but that is not an option - neither is Devo-max so we are left with Yes or No.
My best option for an outcome is that there is a close win for the No vote that forces a strong re-negotiation of the devolved powers but steps back from the brink of seperation. I really feel that in the long term continuation of the Union with more powers will serve Scotland better than Independence. I trust neither Alex Salmond nor David Cameron to deliver the best outcome for Scotland - thats why they have to engage in a New Union.
In reply to IainRUK:
That is what it was supposed to be . In fact David Cameron said that the ONLY way Scotland can have more powers was to vote for Independence ( whilst rejecting the Devo Max question)
He may think we are stupid, with short memories, but that is not the case.
However, he has done a complete U turn, and now offers more powers in return for a No vote.
So it is NOT any longer independence yes or no, very far from it.
We now need to know what these new powers are ( exactly) They have moved the goalposts, not anyone else.
This is what he said in January 2012, when he wanted to stop the Devo Max question, totally inconsistent with his promises of New powers now. ..
"UK Prime Minister David Cameron has flatly ruled out any extension to tax raising powers for Scotland beyond the proposals contained in the Scotland Bill which is currently going through the Westminster Parliament.
The Prime Minister also refuses to consider devolving any part of the benefits system.. the Conservative Prime Minister has described additional powers for the Scottish Parliament as "inconsistent" with remaining a part of the United Kingdom.
If Scots desire greater control over their own affairs, they will have no option but to choose independence.
The UK government believes that a single UK tax and benefits system is the "heart" of the UK, and will not countenance devolving any of these powers to Holyrood."
Methinks he speaks with forked tongue , I don't trust his word, I want it guaranteed, as you can see, his word means nothing.
> We'll it is fine.. The debate is Independence.. Yes or no...
That is what it was supposed to be . In fact David Cameron said that the ONLY way Scotland can have more powers was to vote for Independence ( whilst rejecting the Devo Max question)
He may think we are stupid, with short memories, but that is not the case.
However, he has done a complete U turn, and now offers more powers in return for a No vote.
So it is NOT any longer independence yes or no, very far from it.
We now need to know what these new powers are ( exactly) They have moved the goalposts, not anyone else.
This is what he said in January 2012, when he wanted to stop the Devo Max question, totally inconsistent with his promises of New powers now. ..
"UK Prime Minister David Cameron has flatly ruled out any extension to tax raising powers for Scotland beyond the proposals contained in the Scotland Bill which is currently going through the Westminster Parliament.
The Prime Minister also refuses to consider devolving any part of the benefits system.. the Conservative Prime Minister has described additional powers for the Scottish Parliament as "inconsistent" with remaining a part of the United Kingdom.
If Scots desire greater control over their own affairs, they will have no option but to choose independence.
The UK government believes that a single UK tax and benefits system is the "heart" of the UK, and will not countenance devolving any of these powers to Holyrood."
Methinks he speaks with forked tongue , I don't trust his word, I want it guaranteed, as you can see, his word means nothing.
In reply to Jim C:
There is no guarantee.. do you have any idea how politics works? Its short terms.. once that term is over things can and do change..
There is no guarantee.. do you have any idea how politics works? Its short terms.. once that term is over things can and do change..
In reply to Jim C:
"We now need to know what these new powers are ( exactly) They have moved the goalposts, not anyone else. "
Hold on?
Salmond doesn't have to explain EXACTLY how the currency will work, nor how the EU situation will be resolved, but the NO have to explain EXACTLY how further devolution will happen??
"We now need to know what these new powers are ( exactly) They have moved the goalposts, not anyone else. "
Hold on?
Salmond doesn't have to explain EXACTLY how the currency will work, nor how the EU situation will be resolved, but the NO have to explain EXACTLY how further devolution will happen??
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
The federal model is nice but for it to work we need MASSIVE restructuring of England especially.. probably even 2-3 federal regions in Scotland, 1-2 in Wales.. 1 NI.. then 6-10 in England..
Unless that happens you just end up with english dominance, which means SE dominance..
that the rest of england also complain about…
The federal model is nice but for it to work we need MASSIVE restructuring of England especially.. probably even 2-3 federal regions in Scotland, 1-2 in Wales.. 1 NI.. then 6-10 in England..
Unless that happens you just end up with english dominance, which means SE dominance..
that the rest of england also complain about…
In reply to IainRUK:
As I said, before which 'pig in a poke' do you want. Salmond's , Cameron's, Milliband's.
And , do you have any condemnation on Cameron's u turn on new powers ?
( that should have been comment, but on reflection condemnation, seems apt)
> "We now need to know what these new powers are ( exactly) They have moved the goalposts, not anyone else. "
> Hold on?
> Salmond doesn't have to explain EXACTLY how the currency will work, nor how the EU situation will be resolved, but the NO have to explain EXACTLY how further devolution will happen??
As I said, before which 'pig in a poke' do you want. Salmond's , Cameron's, Milliband's.
And , do you have any condemnation on Cameron's u turn on new powers ?
( that should have been comment, but on reflection condemnation, seems apt)
Post edited at 20:52
In reply to IainRUK:
Sorry Iain just noticed, that I did not respond fully to your question.
The difference is, that Salmond does not know, the answers to those questions as they are matters for negotiation.
Extra powers, on the other hand, are completely in the gift of the other parties , so each and everyone of them CAN tell us precisely what powers we would have if we voted No, and their party got into power.
They just choose not to.
> Hold on?
> Salmond doesn't have to explain EXACTLY how the currency will work, nor how the EU situation will be resolved, but the NO have to explain EXACTLY how further devolution will happen??
Sorry Iain just noticed, that I did not respond fully to your question.
The difference is, that Salmond does not know, the answers to those questions as they are matters for negotiation.
Extra powers, on the other hand, are completely in the gift of the other parties , so each and everyone of them CAN tell us precisely what powers we would have if we voted No, and their party got into power.
They just choose not to.
Post edited at 22:17
In reply to Jim C:
I didn't think he had said no to new powers. I just took that as no vote on that..
Certainly the pattern has been continual devolution for the last 20 years.. its not unreasonable to expect that to continue within reason...
I didn't think he had said no to new powers. I just took that as no vote on that..
Certainly the pattern has been continual devolution for the last 20 years.. its not unreasonable to expect that to continue within reason...
In reply to Jim C:
No.. why should labour commit now.. they are not in power?
These are things to decide if they get in.. you would then turn the independence debate int election campaigning bringing party politics into it, it would totally side track the independence debate.. All Cameron has said is we'll have a single tax system with the Tories, not unreasonable nor uncommon.. both all parties plan further devolution.. look at the history of what has gone on..
Salmond does not know.. neither does Darling.. Darling just knows all parties favour further devolution.. not on what aspect and how much..
> Sorry Iain just noticed, that I did not respond fully to your question.
> The difference is, that Salmond does not know, the answers to those questions, as they are matters for negotiation.
> Extra powers, on the other hand, are completely in the gift of the current parties , so each and everyone of them CAN tell us precisely what powers we would have if we voted No, and their party got into power.
No.. why should labour commit now.. they are not in power?
These are things to decide if they get in.. you would then turn the independence debate int election campaigning bringing party politics into it, it would totally side track the independence debate.. All Cameron has said is we'll have a single tax system with the Tories, not unreasonable nor uncommon.. both all parties plan further devolution.. look at the history of what has gone on..
Salmond does not know.. neither does Darling.. Darling just knows all parties favour further devolution.. not on what aspect and how much..
Post edited at 22:08
In reply to Jim C:
Aren't they explained here?
http://www.brodies.com/blog/public-law/constitutional/scotland-constitution...
In fact this is a better page to start with : -
http://www.brodies.com/blog/public-law/scotlands-constitutional-future-prop...
> Sory Iain just noticed, that I did not respond fully to your question.
> The difference is, that Salmond does not know, the answers to those questions, as they are matters for negotiation.
> Extra powers, on the other hand, are completely in the gift of the current parties , so each and everyone of them CAN tell us precisely what powers we would have if we voted No, and their party got into power.
> They just choose not to.
Aren't they explained here?
http://www.brodies.com/blog/public-law/constitutional/scotland-constitution...
In fact this is a better page to start with : -
http://www.brodies.com/blog/public-law/scotlands-constitutional-future-prop...
Post edited at 22:16
In reply to off-duty:
"The starting point would of course be a “no” vote on 18 September, following which we could expect a debate on what further powers should be devolved."
We could expect a debate!
Anything more concrete ?
"The starting point would of course be a “no” vote on 18 September, following which we could expect a debate on what further powers should be devolved."
We could expect a debate!
Anything more concrete ?
In reply to IainRUK:
So you " took it " wrong.
Wooppy do .
What was I concerned about. If you had just said that before , everything would have been cleared up .
I can't argue with that comprehensive and conclusive response, you win.
> I didn't think he had said no to new powers. I just took that as no vote on that..
I think you will find he did. So you " took it " wrong.
> Certainly the pattern has been continual devolution for the last 20 years.. its not unreasonable to expect that to continue within reason...
Wooppy do .
What was I concerned about. If you had just said that before , everything would have been cleared up .
I can't argue with that comprehensive and conclusive response, you win.
In reply to Jim C:
Given that whatever more was to be devolved to Scotland would appear to involve passing of legislation in the UK, and thus debate and negotiation between all UK parties as well as no doubt negotiation between the Scottish govt at the time and the UK Govt, then I think expecting concrete "set in stone" proposals is "a bit" optimistic.
As can be seen from the various links and the subsequent posts all 3 parties have slightly different flavours of increased powers centred on the Campbell II report.
http://scotlibdems.org.uk/news/2014/03/rennie-and-campbell-publish-campbell...
I see that it also includes proposals for the "entrenchment of the Scottish parliament."
What is obvious is that the 3 major UK parties appear committed to increasing Scottish powers in a post No Vote Scotland.
It appears that the consequences of a No vote at worst for Scotland would be a maintenance of the status quo, but with a strong likelihood of further powers in some form or another.
That has to be set against the consequences of a Yes vote - for which your guess is as good as mine.
> "The starting point would of course be a “no” vote on 18 September, following which we could expect a debate on what further powers should be devolved."
> We could expect a debate!
> Anything more concrete ?
Given that whatever more was to be devolved to Scotland would appear to involve passing of legislation in the UK, and thus debate and negotiation between all UK parties as well as no doubt negotiation between the Scottish govt at the time and the UK Govt, then I think expecting concrete "set in stone" proposals is "a bit" optimistic.
As can be seen from the various links and the subsequent posts all 3 parties have slightly different flavours of increased powers centred on the Campbell II report.
http://scotlibdems.org.uk/news/2014/03/rennie-and-campbell-publish-campbell...
I see that it also includes proposals for the "entrenchment of the Scottish parliament."
What is obvious is that the 3 major UK parties appear committed to increasing Scottish powers in a post No Vote Scotland.
It appears that the consequences of a No vote at worst for Scotland would be a maintenance of the status quo, but with a strong likelihood of further powers in some form or another.
That has to be set against the consequences of a Yes vote - for which your guess is as good as mine.
In reply to Jim C:
Thank you..
Another well thought out response Jim..
Quite clearly there has been continual progressive devolution, look at the ruddy great parliament building.. look at any time line of devolution of powers.. to suggest there was little likelihood of that continuing is just ignorant.
Off Duty.. I wouldn't bother.. Salmond doesn't have to give firm outlines of how his plans will work, despite him being the actual man in power, yet Darling, with no power.. is meant to offer firm suggestions..
Even Cameron as leader can't really as there will be a general election very soon..
Thank you..
Another well thought out response Jim..
Quite clearly there has been continual progressive devolution, look at the ruddy great parliament building.. look at any time line of devolution of powers.. to suggest there was little likelihood of that continuing is just ignorant.
Off Duty.. I wouldn't bother.. Salmond doesn't have to give firm outlines of how his plans will work, despite him being the actual man in power, yet Darling, with no power.. is meant to offer firm suggestions..
Even Cameron as leader can't really as there will be a general election very soon..
Post edited at 22:41
In reply to off-duty:
Indeed it says:-
" It recommends a meeting of political parties and civic society within thirty days of a ‘no’ vote to seek consensus on further devolution. Manifestos for the 2015 general election would then set out proposals for further powers, to form part of the 2015 Queen’s speech."
The words I see are:-
'recommends' ; 'seek consensus' and 'proposals'"
In short no better than the Yes camp's 'pig in a poke ' proposals.
You seem to see this as something that is in some way binding.
Forgive me for being distrustful, but once the Scottish people have voted No , what exactly will be the imperative that pushes any of these parties to pay any attention at all to new powers for Scotland?
Honour amongst gentlemen ?
The Scottish problem will have disappeared, all they have to get round is some easily ignored political promises, nothing at all guaranteed, not even in a manifesto.
( not that that manifesto promises are not easily discarded anyway)
As soon as Scotland vote No, the Westminster Establishment will give a sigh of relief, a wry, or even smug smile , and then they will be 100% focused on the next election, EU referendum and other really important stuff.
And you know it .
> As can be seen from the various links and the subsequent posts all 3 parties have slightly different flavours of increased powers centred on the Campbell II report.
Indeed it says:-
" It recommends a meeting of political parties and civic society within thirty days of a ‘no’ vote to seek consensus on further devolution. Manifestos for the 2015 general election would then set out proposals for further powers, to form part of the 2015 Queen’s speech."
The words I see are:-
'recommends' ; 'seek consensus' and 'proposals'"
In short no better than the Yes camp's 'pig in a poke ' proposals.
You seem to see this as something that is in some way binding.
Forgive me for being distrustful, but once the Scottish people have voted No , what exactly will be the imperative that pushes any of these parties to pay any attention at all to new powers for Scotland?
Honour amongst gentlemen ?
The Scottish problem will have disappeared, all they have to get round is some easily ignored political promises, nothing at all guaranteed, not even in a manifesto.
( not that that manifesto promises are not easily discarded anyway)
As soon as Scotland vote No, the Westminster Establishment will give a sigh of relief, a wry, or even smug smile , and then they will be 100% focused on the next election, EU referendum and other really important stuff.
And you know it .
In reply to Jim C:
You seem to ignore the fact that after the last vote there was continual devolution..
> Indeed it says:-
> " It recommends a meeting of political parties and civic society within thirty days of a ‘no’ vote to seek consensus on further devolution. Manifestos for the 2015 general election would then set out proposals for further powers, to form part of the 2015 Queen’s speech."
> The words I see are:-
> 'recommends' ; 'seek consensus' and 'proposals'"
> In short no better than the Yes camp's 'pig in a poke ' proposals.
> You seem to see this as something that is in some way binding.
> Forgive me for being distrustful, but once the Scottish people have voted No , what exactly will be the imperative that pushes any of these parties to pay any attention at all to new powers for Scotland?
> Honour amongst gentlemen ?
> The Scottish problem will have disappeared, all they have to get round is some easily ignored political promises, nothing at all guaranteed, not even in a manifesto.
> ( not that that manifesto promises are not easily discarded anyway)
> As soon as Scotland vote No, the Westminster Establishment will give a sigh of relief, a wry, or even smug smile , and then they will be 100% focused on the next election, EU referendum and other really important stuff.
> And you know it .
You seem to ignore the fact that after the last vote there was continual devolution..
In reply to Jim C:
I can't see how it can be anything more solid, given the legislative requirements, and the chance of a general election prior to actual independence.
Given that all 3 parties have put their proposals on the table, and it is now one of the planks of the No campaign, it would appear political suicide - certainly to any No vote MSP's, but nothing in life can ever be guaranteed.
It is also possible that following a Yes vote none of the promises by the Yes campaign are kept - in a deliberate manner (rather than simply being unable to keep them!)
Sorry, but I disagree, though there will undoubtedly be relief in the case of a No vote.
I think the comment is a bit uncalled for - even Darling and Salmond have pledged to work together for Scotland regardless of the referendum result. I think that it entirely to be expected that all MSP's will be looking to gain the maximum advantages for Scotland post referendum.
Regardless- even if your worst fears are realised and Scotland gets nothing more, then the No vote is at worst a continuation of the status quo, with the Yes vote being a leap of faith (and the irreversible break-up of the UK).
> Indeed it says:-
> " It recommends a meeting of political parties and civic society within thirty days of a ‘no’ vote to seek consensus on further devolution. Manifestos for the 2015 general election would then set out proposals for further powers, to form part of the 2015 Queen’s speech."
> The words I see are:-
> 'recommends' ; 'seek consensus' and 'proposals'"
> In short no better than the Yes camp's 'pig in a poke ' proposals.
> You seem to see this as something that is in some way binding.
I can't see how it can be anything more solid, given the legislative requirements, and the chance of a general election prior to actual independence.
Given that all 3 parties have put their proposals on the table, and it is now one of the planks of the No campaign, it would appear political suicide - certainly to any No vote MSP's, but nothing in life can ever be guaranteed.
It is also possible that following a Yes vote none of the promises by the Yes campaign are kept - in a deliberate manner (rather than simply being unable to keep them!)
> Forgive me for being distrustful, but once the Scottish people have voted No , what exactly will be the imperative that pushes any of these parties to pay any attention at all to new powers for Scotland?
> Honour amongst gentlemen ?
> The Scottish problem will have disappeared, all they have to get round is some easily ignored political promises, nothing at all guaranteed, not even in a manifesto.
> ( not that that manifesto promises are not easily discarded anyway)
> As soon as Scotland vote No, the Westminster Establishment will give a sigh of relief, a wry, or even smug smile , and then they will be 100% focused on the next election, EU referendum and other really important stuff.
> And you know it .
Sorry, but I disagree, though there will undoubtedly be relief in the case of a No vote.
I think the comment is a bit uncalled for - even Darling and Salmond have pledged to work together for Scotland regardless of the referendum result. I think that it entirely to be expected that all MSP's will be looking to gain the maximum advantages for Scotland post referendum.
Regardless- even if your worst fears are realised and Scotland gets nothing more, then the No vote is at worst a continuation of the status quo, with the Yes vote being a leap of faith (and the irreversible break-up of the UK).
In reply to off-duty:
You have more faith in politicians than the legal profession do ( and they are not exactly a trustworthy bunch themselves, often going into politics for that reason )
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=1685
I quote
"More powers, possibly, substantial powers, not a chance."
Cameron's avoiding of a specific question on more powers the Ballot paper was a cynical ploy, it was not done for no reason, and that reason was to avoid giving legitimacy to any offers of new powers that, despite being ruled out, they always knew they would offer, then run from.
So you may say my fears are groundless, but they are not just my fears.
You have more faith in politicians than the legal profession do ( and they are not exactly a trustworthy bunch themselves, often going into politics for that reason )
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=1685
I quote
"More powers, possibly, substantial powers, not a chance."
Cameron's avoiding of a specific question on more powers the Ballot paper was a cynical ploy, it was not done for no reason, and that reason was to avoid giving legitimacy to any offers of new powers that, despite being ruled out, they always knew they would offer, then run from.
So you may say my fears are groundless, but they are not just my fears.
In reply to Jim C:
I am certainly less impressed by that piece - which is very much an opinion piece with a clear agenda. The blog I linked to appears to be a fairly comprehensive review of all aspects of constitutional reform that "might" happen - even highlighting as you have pointed out, the uncertainties and delays.
Without wanting to dissect the minutiae of it - even the author suggests more powers will be devolved.
It seems to me fairly obvious that if you want Scotland to control everything - you vote for Independence.
If you want Scotland to stay as part of the UK then it simply wouldn't make sense for the Scottish parliament to have every tax raising power, but these proposals clearly offer something better than the status quo.
The Yes campaign response appears to be scaremongering - "It won't happen because we don't trust Westminster" which is an argument substantially weaker than the arguments put forward by the No campaign against various aspects of the White paper which have generally been backed up by some form of economic analysis (agree or disagree with the numbers) and ironically all dismissed as scaremongering.
Hopefully you have at least seen that the proposals have been publishe(and in reasonably concrete terms considering all uncertainties of the process) which was your initial issue and why I posted the link.
I am certainly less impressed by that piece - which is very much an opinion piece with a clear agenda. The blog I linked to appears to be a fairly comprehensive review of all aspects of constitutional reform that "might" happen - even highlighting as you have pointed out, the uncertainties and delays.
Without wanting to dissect the minutiae of it - even the author suggests more powers will be devolved.
It seems to me fairly obvious that if you want Scotland to control everything - you vote for Independence.
If you want Scotland to stay as part of the UK then it simply wouldn't make sense for the Scottish parliament to have every tax raising power, but these proposals clearly offer something better than the status quo.
The Yes campaign response appears to be scaremongering - "It won't happen because we don't trust Westminster" which is an argument substantially weaker than the arguments put forward by the No campaign against various aspects of the White paper which have generally been backed up by some form of economic analysis (agree or disagree with the numbers) and ironically all dismissed as scaremongering.
Hopefully you have at least seen that the proposals have been publishe(and in reasonably concrete terms considering all uncertainties of the process) which was your initial issue and why I posted the link.
In reply to Jim C:
I see Chris Townsend is going to vote Yes. I was surprised but happy to hear this: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com
That coupled with Cameron McNeish and the chair of the John Muir Trust is quite a big endorsement.
I see Chris Townsend is going to vote Yes. I was surprised but happy to hear this: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com
That coupled with Cameron McNeish and the chair of the John Muir Trust is quite a big endorsement.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...