UKC

Do the Tories actually want Scottish Independence?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 stevieb 15 Sep 2014
Do the Tories actually want Scottish Independence or are they just psychologically clueless? Every time they open their mouths they try to threaten and bully the Scots into voting no, and every time the yes vote hardens.
Cameron tells them its a one way ticket, Osborne says no currency union in the most aggressive distrespectful manner and expect to browbeat the Scots into agreement.
Surely professional debating specialists with hundreds of consultants honed in public relations couldn't possibly be doing this by accident?

 GrahamD 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

In what way bullied ? as far as I can see they have gone out their way to promise more power to Scotland.

Stating some uncomfortable home truths maybe, but hardly bullying.
OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

Ok, maybe bullying is the wrong word. How about belittling and divisive?
I don't disagree with a lot of what they are saying, it seems obvious that Scotland would not get equal control of a shared currency and there are lots of important questions which are still unanswered. But the way they present this information seems guaranteed to antagonise.
I'm not impressed by Alex Salmond avoiding all the difficult questions but at least his approach makes some electoral sense.
 Bruce Hooker 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

I haven't noticed much bullying either, if anything I find British politicians in favour of maintaining the union have been rather soft and floppy. They seem to allow the secessionists to get away with murder, presenting themselves as the victims of bullying when if anything it's the other way around...

It is about breaking a country up after all, making hundreds of thousand people "foreigners" over night, rebuilding Hadrian's wall (figuratively!) hardly a minor issue and yet it seems that anything beyond mild, tea time discussion is an excuse for accusations of "bullying". They have been allowed to gerrymander the whole vote, set it up so the feat of break-up, an essentially negative conservative return three centuries backwards get the "yes" ticket, allow children with absolutely no-experience of life to take part in this decision, refuse non-resident adults the right to vote... all this they've been allowed to get away with without a whimper of opposition and Salmond & Co still have the nerve moan about "bullying"!

The Scots I've known were made of sterner stuff.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:
> Ok, maybe bullying is the wrong word. How about belittling and divisive?

> I don't disagree with a lot of what they are saying, it seems obvious that Scotland would not get equal control of a shared currency and there are lots of important questions which are still unanswered. But the way they present this information seems guaranteed to antagonise.

>
If they went up North en masse and promised to kiss every bare arse in Scotland some Scots would regard it as patronising , arrogant and divisive. Perhaps the problem lies with them?

In case you hadn't noticed the Tories have done their level best to stay out of the debate as much as their status as the major party of government allows, in the knowledge that their mere existence sends large parts of the Scottish nation into paroxysms of anger requiring the painting of faces with woad and wild waving of claymores.
Post edited at 18:36
 Fraser 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

You view a situation through the prism of your personal bias.
OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think they have been soft and floppy. I think there has been a lot of passive aggression - you don't have a chance by yourself, you can't come back, if you're leaving then you can't use the pound.

I know the Tories tried to stay in the background, but when they have entered the fray they have appeared arrogant, playing up to their image.

I would personally prefer a No vote, but I think that the Westminster parties have either been inept or they have been playing to their own galleries rather than to the Scottish people.
OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Fraser:

Yes, I'm sure I do, as everyone does. But a political party with legions of advisers should be presenting themselves to look best through Scottish eyes. I don't think they have done so.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

> I don't think they have been soft and floppy. I think there has been a lot of passive aggression - you don't have a chance by yourself, you can't come back, if you're leaving then you can't use the pound.

Nonsense. They have never said "you don't have a chance by yourself". They have said we would all, including Scotland, be 'better together. As for saying "you can't come back" well, you can't, and it would be utterly irresponsible for the government of the UK not to make that clear.
 Timmd 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
Rather than pointing out the benefits of the union they do seem to have been rather more negative than that, in saying what might/could/would go wrong.

I can see why it's coming across as a 'You'll regret it, and won't manage to go it alone' kind of message to some.

Another tack might have been to enhance the positives of the union a little bit more than they have, I think...
Post edited at 19:14
 Timmd 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

> Yes, I'm sure I do, as everyone does. But a political party with legions of advisers should be presenting themselves to look best through Scottish eyes. I don't think they have done so.

I agree, I'm not a resident of Scotland wanting to vote Yes.
 GrahamD 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

Most of what you ascribe to the Tories is actually (remarkably !) a cross party concensus. Gordon Brown isn't exactly a renowned Tory. Or English for that matter.
 Timmd 15 Sep 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
That needn't change how accurate his point of view on the 'No' message from Westminster is though.

In lots of ways it's been badly managed I think. From talking about just the negative reasons to not leave, to a last minute scramble to give enough sweeteners to Scotland in the hope that enough people vote No,

I think it's been really haphazard.
Post edited at 19:37
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Nonsense. They have never said "you don't have a chance by yourself". They have said we would all, including Scotland, be 'better together. As for saying "you can't come back" well, you can't, and it would be utterly irresponsible for the government of the UK not to make that clear.

Actually, sadly, I can imagine a scenario in which they might come grovelling back in c. 40 years time - but let's hope not. Let's hope that a) they don't split, but b) if they do split, it's a success.
In reply to Postmanpat:

c) It's obviously going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, whatever. Fills me with depression, but it seems there are loads of people who get turned on by this kind of (largely unnecessary, idealistic) political turmoil. Have to confess, not my scene.
OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
To borrow Fraser's phrase, I think you are as guilty as I am of seeing the world through the prism of your personal bias.
The Tory / better together statements may seem to you like sound, no-nonsense statements, but the polls would indicate that this is not how they are being perceived by wavering Scottish voters.

David Cameron made a speech in edinburgh in 2012 which was measured, balanced and reasonable. Since then he and the No campaigners have been dragged into a bunfight and i think they have often got the tone wrong.
Post edited at 19:44
In reply to Postmanpat:

d) If any of their bureaucracy impinges on my own life I'll have no part of it, and will turn my attention elsewhere. If they have stuck two fingers up at us, why on earth should we go the extra mile to help them? My emotional energy will then turn to helping the Welsh in preference (where I went to University) and spent many happy times climbing for 40 years.
 Robert Durran 15 Sep 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> In what way bullied ? as far as I can see they have gone out their way to promise more power to Scotland.

> Stating some uncomfortable home truths maybe, but hardly bullying.

Absolutely. I'm no fan of Cameron in general, but given the real possibility of the country being irrevocabnly f***** up under his watch by that vacuous demagogic windbag Salmond with his empty promises* and refusal to answer any serious question put to him, I think he has no choice as Prime Minister of the UK to say it as it really is. I just hope enough waverers can set aside party allegiances for long enough to be steered clear of the Yes madness and save the Union on Thursday.

*And, by the way, Salmond has absolutely no right to be making any promises at all about what he arrogantly seems to think will be his personal fiefdom of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. The referendum is about independence FFS, not any one party's policies, his included; the time to hear the policies of all parties would be, God forbid, in the first Scottish general election after independence.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:
> To borrow Fraser's phrase, I think you are as guilty as I am of seeing the world through the prism of your personal bias.

> The Tory / better together statements may seem to you like sound, no-nonsense statements, but the polls would indicate that this is not how they are being perceived by wavering Scottish voters.

>
That's exactly my point. I am aware how many Scottish see it and that is because the have been conditioned by years of political propaganda to hear it that way. To any objective outsider today's speech would sound like an honest and deeply felt plea to stay and to understand the finality of leaving. Not only has he clearly said "I love my country more than i love my party" but has demonstrated it by supporting a union which currently is not in the best interests of his party.

"If you don't like me – I won't be here forever. If you don't like this government – it won't last forever. But if you leave the UK – that will be forever."

"It is my duty to be clear about the likely consequences of a yes vote. Independence would not be a trial separation. It would be a painful divorce."

"As you reach your final decision, please don't let anyone tell you that you can't be a proud Scot and a proud Brit … So please, from all of us: vote to stick together. Vote to stay. Vote to save our United Kingdom."
Post edited at 20:00
 Robert Durran 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> "If you don't like me, I won't be here forever. If you don't like this government, it won't last forever. But if you leave the UK, that will be forever."

> "It is my duty to be clear about the likely consequences of a yes vote. Independence would not be a trial separation. It would be a painful divorce."

> "As you reach your final decision, please don't let anyone tell you that you can't be a proud Scot and a proud Brit … So please, from all of us: vote to stick together. Vote to stay. Vote to save our United Kingdom."

Brilliant speech. Plain facts passionately spoken.
Post edited at 20:06
 Bruce Hooker 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

> I would personally prefer a No vote, but I think that the Westminster parties have either been inept or they have been playing to their own galleries rather than to the Scottish people.

What would be their interest in that, it's only people actually living in Scotland who have the vote? Unless they really did, as you suggest, want the secessionists to win. But beyond all economic and political reasons I think, even if it's only a supposition, that for a Tory leader to go down in history as the man who lost 1/3 of Britain's land mass would be unimaginable!
Lusk 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But 99% of it is only good for red socked hill walkers.
I'm with Gordon's points c & d., and I can only see disaster (for me amongst many others) if it's Yes.
 pec 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> ....... Let's hope that a) they don't split, but b) if they do split, it's a success. >

But not too successful

 elsewhere 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> conditioned by years of political propaganda

Stupid rubbish.

The problem for Cameron is that he's trying to restore one nation conservatism before Thursday.
Post edited at 21:19
 alastairmac 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:
Let's not forget that Cameron created his own crisis by insisting that there should be no home rule or devo max option of the table. Had he put a properly thought through offer of home rule on the table which had a degree of consensus I don't think he would have led us all to this point. To see him pleading today was pitiful. Perhaps if he wasn't running one of the most inept, out of touch and vindictive governments anybody can remember, one or two of us in Scotland might have listened. And the No campaign has not only used threats and lies. It's what the whole campaign is based on. They have made it clear that if the Scottish people vote yes , instead of respecting their sovereign will and working with us...... they will make sure it is a "messy divorce" . No co operation. No support and a perverse refusal to come to sensible currency sharing arrangements. If the Scottish people vote yes let's hope that common sense prevails and we all sit down and figure out how to work as independent equals but still neighbours , friends and partners.
Post edited at 21:30
 off-duty 15 Sep 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Stupid rubbish.

> The problem for Cameron is that he's trying to restore one nation conservatism before Thursday.

How on earth do you translate this :-
"If you don't like me, I won't be here forever. If you don't like this government, it won't last forever. But if you leave the UK, that will be forever."

As "one nation conservatism" ?
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to elsewhere:
> Stupid rubbish.

Which is what one expect the preconditioned to say.

> The problem for Cameron is that he's trying to restore one nation conservatism before Thursday.

Can you explain what he has said or done in the past few weeks to suggest that. I don't see any changes in political or economic policy, simply a highlighting of the possibilities of further devolution which have stuff all to do with one nation conservatism.
Post edited at 21:35
 Bruce Hooker 15 Sep 2014
In reply to alastairmac:

> friends and partners.

In the circumstances and after months of anti-English campaigning I think that is asking a little too much!
 elsewhere 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Which is what one expect the preconditioned to say.

What proportion of the voters do you estimate are victims of propoganda?

> Can you explain what he has said or done in the past few weeks to suggest that. I don't see any changes in political or economic policy, simply a highlighting of the possibilities of further devolution which have stuff all to do with one nation conservatism.

Cameron rejected devo max 2 years ago and has left it far too late to be a credible convert. He hasn't spent the last 2 years 'detoxing his brand' with some one nation conservatism.
 RomTheBear 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Nonsense. They have never said "you don't have a chance by yourself". They have said we would all, including Scotland, be 'better together.

Well let's be honest there was quite a lot of "You're shit, you need us, you won't get anything, and nobody is going to take you". Maybe it was not the intended message but it really came across this way for most of 2014 until 2 weeks ago when the rhetoric started to change.

The whole BT campaign was entirely based on pointing out the risks (which is fine), but they blew them out of proportion (scaremongering) and failed to address the obvious need for more devolution, as well as they failed to discuss potential constitutional change for the whole of the UK.

The Yes being now almost neck and neck with the No, given that the NO had the backing of almost all of the press, the full weight of the establishment against them, the advantage of the status-quo, a huge initial lead, and almost twice the campaign budget, is proof that the NO campaign has been a total an utter disaster.

HOWEVER in the past week the Yes campaign has started to become very ugly indeed, and that could put off many, many people, very quickly.

I am glad the vote is in three days, because this is starting to turn sour.
Post edited at 22:13
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> What proportion of the voters do you estimate are victims of propoganda?

How many do you think crap on about English Tory toffs?

> Cameron rejected devo max 2 years ago and has left it far too late to be a credible convert. He hasn't spent the last 2 years 'detoxing his brand' with some one nation conservatism.

I don't think you understand the term "one nation conservatism". He did the detoxing pre 2010
 alastairmac 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Nothing about the yes campaign is Anti English. What I have seen is an inspiring movement for democracy that is agnostic in terms of race, religion and class. Whatever the outcome on Thursday I hope it sets a precedent for change in England as well as Scotland. And it marks the start of the end for charlatans like Cameron that defend privilege at any cost. If it is a yes vote I believe strongly that Scotland and England will continue to work and trade together as equals and friends. It doesn't have to be acrimonious.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well let's be honest there was quite a lot of "You're shit, you need us, you won't get anything, and nobody is going to take you". Maybe it was not the intended message but it really came across this way for most of 2014 until 2 weeks ago when the rhetoric started to change.

No. There was a very badly orchestrated overly negative campaign but nobody said Scotland was shit.
 alastairmac 15 Sep 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:
I think the general message was "if you leave I'll cut you off without a penny, none of our friends will speak to you and you'll end up living in a skip and eating out of the bins"
 elsewhere 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I don't think you understand the term "one nation conservatism". He did the detoxing pre 2010

That's a very good point but it didn't really work in Scotland, they only got 1 mp.
 RomTheBear 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> No. There was a very badly orchestrated overly negative campaign but nobody said Scotland was shit.

Yes they did, you should see the Better Together leaflets, they are full of things like "UK spends more money per head in Scotland than in the rest of the UK". When people read this they feel as if they are being accused of being worthless and subsidised, even if it might not be the intended message, it comes across as "you're not as good as the rest of us".

And then they read the Yes campaign leaflet where they learn that in fact Scotland is not subsidised and more than pull its own weight.

Not difficult to see which argument is more attractive.
Post edited at 22:26
In reply to stevieb:

> Do the Tories actually want Scottish Independence or are they just psychologically clueless?

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Hanlon's Razor.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to elsewhere:
> That's a very good point but it didn't really work in Scotland, they only got 1 mp.

No, but with regards to the better together campaign it was left as far as possible to a) Labour and b) Scottish Labour personalities.
It obviously suits the Yes campaign to exaggerate the role of anyone else. They need a boogie man (or woman)
Post edited at 22:29
 Jon Wylie 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Which is what one expect the preconditioned to say.

These "preconditioned" you are talking about. The polls seem to suggest roughly 50% of people living in Scotland are voting yes. Can you elaborate on what percentage of these people are "preconditioned"?

I hope your not suggesting a sense of gullibility in the Scottish people or perhaps even a lack
Of intelligence simply because they might not agree with you?


> In the circumstances and after months of anti-English campaigning I think that is asking a little too much!


In reply to Bruce Hooker: You really do live in a funny world. There has been very little "Anti-English" campaigning. It's not the English people we are fed up with, it's the ruling elite in Westminster.

 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:
> These "preconditioned" you are talking about. The polls seem to suggest roughly 50% of people living in Scotland are voting yes. Can you elaborate on what percentage of these people are "preconditioned"?

I've already been asked this. See my reply above.

>

> Of intelligence simply because they might not agree with you?

No, a deeply instilled prejudice. Most people have them.do you think the Irish are unintelligent or gullible.
Post edited at 22:45
 Babika 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Fultonius:

well we're all fed up with the "ruling elite" but hopefully a return to the ballot box in May 2015 will sort that out.
 Jon Wylie 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I've already been asked this. See my reply above.

Your reply to the other poster was a question not an answer. Never mind at least
I can say I tried..

> No, a deeply instilled prejudice. Most people have them.

But I thought you were "ambivalent" and above all that..?

In reply to Babika: Unfortunately there are no credible alternatives. Well, except fr the one on Thursday
 Jon Wylie 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:



> No, a deeply instilled prejudice. Most people have them.do you think the Irish are unintelligent or gullible.

What have the Irish got to do with this????eh?

 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:

> Your reply to the other poster was a question not an answer. Never mind at least

> I can say I tried..

Well so did I. If you give the answer to my question you'll probably be on the way to answering yours.

> But I thought you were "ambivalent" and above all that..?

I am.
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:
> What have the Irish got to do with this????eh?

I think we can all agree They suffer from deep sectarianism based on prejudice so they represent a test case over whether this implies gullibility or lack of intelligence.
Post edited at 22:53
Gone for good 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

Yawn yawn yawn, you are simply trotting out the Salmond Sturgeon rhetoric of bullying scaremongering bully boy tactics etc. Grow a pair and make a decision. It doesn't matter a shit what anyone else says. Engage your brain, put it into some kind of forward motion and make a decision. Any reasonable balanced notion would understand that both the Yes and No campaigns are sprouting large amounts of shite! Its up to you to decide!!!!
 Chris the Tall 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

> Do the Tories actually want Scottish Independence or are they just psychologically clueless?

What worries me most about Scotch independence is that the Tories will find it easier to get a majority at the next election. We could well see UK leaving the EU and an independent Scotland trying to get in.
 Jon Wylie 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well so did I. If you give the answer to my question you'll probably be on the way to answering yours.

Irish people are people like anyone else, I have no idea what your on about.Its clear your trying to dodge the point here. I'll try again..You see You've suggested that people in Scotland are "preconditioned". Can you explain what you mean more precisely please?








 Jon Wylie 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think we can all agree They suffer from deep sectarianism based on prejudice so they represent a test case over whether this implies gullibility or lack of intelligence.

I think I'll let that answer speak for itself. End of this debate for me. Night folks
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:

> I think I'll let that answer speak for itself. End of this debate for me. Night folks

Exactly, so if they are not unintelligent and gullible why would one think that Scots are? Makes no sense.
Perhaps you don't think sectarianism is a form of prejudice?
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:

> Irish people are people like anyone else, I have no idea what your on about.Its clear your trying to dodge the point here. I'll try again..You see You've suggested that people in Scotland are "preconditioned". Can you explain what you mean more precisely please?

Sheesh you're slow sometimes. It was suggested that I thought that because some Scots were prejudiced/preconditioned I was implying that they were unintelligent or gullible.

I don't. If I did I would have to think Northern Irish were genetically unintelligent or gullible, which obviously they are not.

Geddit?...
Gone for good 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Babika:

> well we're all fed up with the "ruling elite" but hopefully a return to the ballot box in May 2015 will sort that out.

Dream on.....
 Postmanpat 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Jon Wylie:

> Irish people are people like anyone else, I have no idea what your on about.Its clear your trying to dodge the point here. I'll try again..You see You've suggested that people in Scotland are "preconditioned". Can you explain what you mean more precisely please?

Yes, they've grown up in a political, social, cultural and educational environment over the past thirty years where the wrenching changes, notably the decline of employment in heavy industry, (which resulted largely from uncontrollable global changes) are based on the UK government, specifically the "English Tory" government of the 1980s. If that is the general understanding it will be what most people will accept just as, for example, most people in the West in the 1960s believed that the Soviet union was the main cause of the cold war.



OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Gone for good:

You need to learn to read better.
I'm no fan of Salmond, which is why I'm questioning how Britain's most senior politicians have run an inept campaign which is easily portrayed by Salmond as negative, divisive and disrespectful.
OP stevieb 15 Sep 2014
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, I think there is also a risk of a race to the bottom on corporation tax / some sales taxes as we battle over UK company HQs.
Gone for good 15 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

I think you will find my reading skills are more than adequate for the rubbish spouted on here.
This is no longer a political decision but one for the hears and minds of those people living in Scotland. Salmond has had an easy run up to now, lets see how he fares in the event of a Yes vote. There will be a backlash no mistake, and in my opinion he can only combat that by stirring hatred and vitriol and any other adjective you can think of. Effective independance campaigner maybe, master politician or leader of a nation definitely not!
 off-duty 16 Sep 2014
In reply to alastairmac:

It does seem a bit of a bizarre argument:

The Tories/"establishment" are nasty vindictive and spiteful, running a negative campaign and threatening to take all the toys.

However if Scotland becomes independence you believe/hope they will be all sweetness and light and a lovely amicable settlement will be made, whereupon a Scottish utopia can be borne etc etc....

(It sounds almost reminiscent of a whitepaper I'm sure I've seen...;- )

You can't have it both ways. If you genuinely believe in the evil of Westminster, then you better accept that the cost of Independence will be high.

 Banned User 77 16 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:
I think the no currency union is just common sense..

Thats protecting the rUK's economy.. protecting our market.. there's another 50 million people they need to think about..

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/15/independent-scotland-not-us...

So there is widespread support in England and Wales for their stance.
Post edited at 01:19
 Morgan Woods 16 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:
> Osborne says no currency union in the most aggressive distrespectful manner



I know.....by using facts and stuff!
Post edited at 04:31
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> I think the no currency union is just common sense..

It's not really, Mark Carney set out his conditions fit a currency union and they are sensible.
It would amount to a devomax for Scotland not really independence though, but this is what people want in fact...

But to categorically refuse a CU when it's obvious it could be a viable solution for everybody maybe is not the best move.

I also do share Salmond's argument that if we can't share the currency then we are not morally and legally responsible for the debt.
 Bruce Hooker 16 Sep 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I also do share Salmond's argument that if we can't share the currency then we are not morally and legally responsible for the debt.

Putting yourself on the same level as Salmond... that's an admission!
In reply to RomTheBear:

There was a poll in the guardian yesterday which showed that the majority of the English and Welsh do not want a CU with iScotland. Just like the leaders of the three main parties and the Governor of the BoE.

It is not going to happen. it is not bullying, it is plain common sense.
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Putting yourself on the same level as Salmond... that's an admission!

Sharing one argument doesn't mean I always agree with the guy...
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> There was a poll in the guardian yesterday which showed that the majority of the English and Welsh do not want a CU with iScotland. Just like the leaders of the three main parties and the Governor of the BoE.

Wrong, the governor of the BoE actually set out, what would be, for him, the terms of a CU.
He never said it wouldn't happen, he said if you want one here are my conditions.
And the conditions look like sir form of devomax.

> It is not going to happen. it is not bullying, it is plain common sense.

I think the only one that showed common sense and independent thinking in this is Mark Carney.
I think (and many commenters in the international press are saying the same) that it would happen but only if Scotland signs a fairly constraining stability pact as well as share financial regulations.
In reply to RomTheBear:

MC has said the BoE will implement whatever the governments would put in place (i.e no CU) and also said it is incompatible with sovereignty.

Yesterday Alan Greenspan said " There is no conceivable, credible way that the BoE is going to sit there as the lender of last resort to a new Scotland"

The rUK electorate do not want it and it would probably be political suicide to allow it. The smart money knows that the utopian economics sold by the SNP are a fantasy and the rUK agreeing to back stop that would be a bad sign to show the rest of the world (from a financial perspective)

Appropriately named Robert Bruce, ex World Bank president also said yesterday "I strongly suspect this will not work out well for the Scots"
cragtaff 16 Sep 2014
In reply to stevieb:

Of course the Tory party want an independent Scotland! With the loss of about 40+ non-tory seats in the House of Commons the chances of Labour ever forming a majority government in the remaining UK is almost nil!
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Well I wouldn't be so sure. Do you think the UK government could reasonably increase its debt by 10% from one day to the next when the trade deficit would explode due to the loss of North Sea Oil revenues ?

I think the most likely is that some kind of deal would be found. Maybe it wouldn't be called currency union to not piss off the electorate, and indeed, it would probably mean restricted sovereignty.

That's my opinion of the most likely outcome, there is no way to say what would in fact happen, of course.

Re Alan Greenspan, does anybody still listen to this guy ?
Post edited at 10:45
In reply to RomTheBear:

OK, I think I will stick with my opinion.

One of us will be proved correct should Yes succeed. Until then lets move on.

So a whistleblower has just leaked a paper on the £400m shortfall in Scottish NHS funding and sweeping cuts will be needed to break even. Predictably, AS has dismissed it as complete nonsense, totally made up and mythical, and mentions funding nuclear weapons in his response.
 Morgan Woods 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:


> In case you hadn't noticed the Tories have done their level best to stay out of the debate as much as their status as the major party of government allows, in the knowledge that their mere existence sends large parts of the Scottish nation into paroxysms of anger requiring the painting of faces with woad and wild waving of claymores.

That is gold!
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


> So a whistleblower has just leaked a paper on the £400m shortfall in Scottish NHS funding and sweeping cuts will be needed to break even. Predictably, AS has dismissed it as complete nonsense, totally made up and mythical, and mentions funding nuclear weapons in his response.

Lol I am struggling to see how this is news, the SNP themselves have been arguing that they can't protect the same level of funding indefinitely for the NHS, if anything it confirms their point.
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:


> In case you hadn't noticed the Tories have done their level best to stay out of the debate as much as their status as the major party of government allows, in the knowledge that their mere existence sends large parts of the Scottish nation into paroxysms of anger requiring the painting of faces with woad and wild waving of claymores.

Brilliant lol.
In reply to RomTheBear: Yeah, a £400m shortfall in funding is not really news. Especially when a potential iScotland will lose the economy of scale to cope with it. Probably why AS has been trying to keep it a secret
In reply to stevieb:

I certainly agree tha the Tories handling of the Independence issue has been arrogant and 'cack handed' -- talk about shooting oneself in both feet - then giving the gun to your opponents and expecting them to do the same -- Yeah Right!

For a variety of reasons (not the least of which is from the 'Unionist' part of the party name) they do not want Scotand to go independent - however there are probably a fairly large number of Tories (particularly the Eurosceptic ones) who don't give a shit as long as they can remain in power in Westminster and realise their dream of an In - Out EU referendum.

 Bruce Hooker 16 Sep 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

> Of course the Tory party want an independent Scotland! With the loss of about 40+ non-tory seats in the House of Commons the chances of Labour ever forming a majority government in the remaining UK is almost nil!

This has been covered several times, if you look at past elections there are none IIRC where the loss of the Scottish seats would have prevented a Labour win.
 Siward 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


> So a whistleblower has just leaked a paper on the £400m shortfall in Scottish NHS funding and sweeping cuts will be needed to break even. Predictably, AS has dismissed it as complete nonsense, totally made up and mythical, and mentions funding nuclear weapons in his response.

Typical of his response to so many awkward questions. Beats me how anybody can take him seriously, or is he just tapping into a narrow and quite ugly nationalist sentiment that oughtn't to have a place in 2014...
 FactorXXX 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This has been covered several times, if you look at past elections there are none IIRC where the loss of the Scottish seats would have prevented a Labour win.

In the last General Election, if you removed the Scottish vote, then there would have been a Conservative majority and therefore no need for a coalition.
 RomTheBear 16 Sep 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:
> In the last General Election, if you removed the Scottish vote, then there would have been a Conservative majority and therefore no need for a coalition.

I am wondering, if we get more devolution and Scottish MP are prevented to vote on Devolved matters (as an answer to the urgent West Lothian Question), in a situation where Scottish MPs would be enough to swing the majority one way or another, would it mean that technically there would be a different majority depending on whether the policy area is devolved ?
Post edited at 13:56
 Bruce Hooker 16 Sep 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

True but I'm pretty sure Labour has never won with a margin lower than the number of Scottish seats, which is what the point was. Several posts have gone through it in detail. You might be able to find them using the search button. The tories would be advantaged a bit but generally swings with the British system are quite pronounced.

Generally when the set up changes so do the political parties so that they always head towards a balanced system with alternating governments. If Scotland became independent I wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives, with whatever name, growing again as the SNP would dwindles and the voters have to go somewhere... would all of them go back to Labour? Once whoever was in power found themselves imposing austerity measures and grovelling before the IMF as so many small countries have who can say how things would pan out?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'm no history expert, but one of the Yes campaign's approaches that strikes a chord with the Scottish elecorate is the perception that since the end of WW2 in most general elections no matter how the Scots vote they have little influence on the outcome at Westminster. Scotland rarely gets the government of the 'hue' that the majority of Scots vote for -- and the feeling of marginalisation rankles. More than anything else, it's perception that when the Tories are in power Scotland is largely ignored, yet when Labour gets in, the Scots MP's are rarely more than 'lobby fodder' - even when the PM of the day happens to be a Scot!

Whilst I sincerely wish the Scots to remain part of this great united Island nation - I can understand their sense of frustration and wish to control their own affairs.

If they do decide to go, I fear for the future prospects of England's northern counties when the country is governed by an even more Londoncentric parliament.

I suppose it's too much to hope that there will be a 'cold war' style development of the border region - like happened in West Germany and South Korea - to show them 'over on the other side' what they are missing out on!

Post edited at 14:40
 Simon4 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
> I'm no history expert, but one of the Yes campaign's approaches that strikes a chord with the Scottish elecorate is the perception that since the end of WW2 in most general elections no matter how the Scots vote they have little influence on the outcome at Westminster.

Which makes their strident claims (denied persistently, but with varying degrees of emphasis by EUcrats), Scotland will automatically be an EU member and will NOT have to use the Euro odder.

While the UK as going through mass soul-searching and prepared to make very substantial concessions to the Scots, the EU will be utterly indifferent, contemptuous and probably hostile toward a new, disruptive, tiny and largely powerless province, not least because several EU members have secession issues and do not want to encourage their own minorities/regions.

They will go from one union where they have been highly regarded and highly influential, to another (if they are accepted), where they will be viewed, if at all, as a tiny, trivial, impudent annoyance. In general I don't have strong feelings about Scottish independence (I would rather they stay, but feel that they have to want to do so), but have wee Eck and his frantic cohorts never heard the phrase "out of the frying pan into the fire"?

Independence makes some sort of sense, if that is what the Scots want. "Independence" while retaining (as they hope), the pound, the queen and EU membership just seems perverse. The worst of all worlds.
Post edited at 15:29
 neilh 16 Sep 2014
In reply to Lord of Starkness:

"lobby fodder"..no. For example Gordon Brown wiped off £900m of housing debt that Glasgow had on its books. hardly " lobby fodder".
In reply to Simon4:

> Independence makes some sort of sense, if that is what the Scots want. "Independence" while retaining (as they hope), the pound, the queen and EU membership just seems perverse. The worst of all worlds.

The Queen, just possibly (if Scotland wishes to be some kind of 'dominion' of the UK, which I rather doubt). The other two are surely pipe dreams. Of course, they could apply of EU membership, but already EU not sounding v keen on the concept.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...